[sanford]

After having done too much research on this, I've discovered there's only one real problem with the iPhone.

Forget lack of video recording -- the videos on camera-phones are awful anyway and still photos aren't much better; until Canon or Nikon makes a camera-phone, it probably won't get much better; they're for fun, not for art or keepsakes.

Forget no to-do lists. It's a minor shortcoming, and it can be added later via software update.

Forget lack of video-out and lots of storage memory, as most people who have substantial digital movie and music collections, and want to play the movies on TVs, will also own a video iPod. And those who don't won't care.

Forget limited Bluetooth functionality, as the main reason people want Bluetooth is not for sync'ing or file transfer, but for wireless headsets. And that you get.

Forget no IM. Lots of people use IM on a phone, but it's not a pleasant experience. You have SMS which is suitable for the kind of short text exchanges bearable to sit through.

Forget 2G (Edge). You'd still want to be on Wi-Fi if you could even if you had 3G.

Forget no songs as ringtones. Face, it most of us have set songs as ringtones on our mobiles; it gets old if not outright annoying and eventually you just want it to ring with some pleasant tone that sounds more or less like a phone ringing.

The iPhone as a mobile Internet device for consumers -- consumers being people who want mobile Web and e-mail, but don't have the special requirements of corporate customers -- is, from what I've seen, near perfect. The interface is simple but robust. It's also very intuitive. They've left out a lot of features that people tend not to use due to complications and tightly integrated the sort of things people do want to use -- like e-mail that actually looks like e-mail rather than some sort of Enigma-encoded message circa WWII.

The problem, and it's huge, is AT&T. Forgetting a bunch of rhetoric about spying corporate behemoths with no concept of privacy rights -- a lot of this rhetoric I might subscribe to, but it's not the deal-breaker -- and all the other more philosophical complaints, it's a service issue:

AT&T's customer service is Byzantine and poor.

Their Edge network is a third or half as fast as other Edge networks in operations.

Their newly consolidated first-party tower coverage is probably the broadest available, but since they won't lease tower time from other carriers, they're overall coverage is the worst. If you don't live, work and travel in an area with heavy first-party tower coverage, you may not be able to use your iPhone at all. You might have great coverage at work but be unable to get calls in or out at home, or vice versa. It's not that I expect them to fix this by putting up towers everywhere, but to make the concession of leasing time from other carriers as needed to handle calls.

Most mobile carriers have very basic credit requirements. They want to see that you have a tendency to pay your bills, even late, rather than quit paying them altogether, so that the money they lost practically giving away a phone to you they'll get back over a one or two year contract. If you don't meet that standard, they'll want a deposit, usually they amount of the contract buy-out so they're phone subsidy is covered and they at least break even on you when you just stop paying. This is at most $200. AT&T uses very strict credit requirements. And I have secondhand experience with this with people who have very good credit -- I'm talking people I know well enough they've shown me their credit reports -- can get at least a couple of low-rate credit cards with reasonably high limits, home loans and car loans, all with no problem, and AT&T has declined them credit for contracts. They do this in order to collect deposit money on people who they are all but certain will pay out the terms of their contract, but they can collect interest on the deposit money as another source of revenue. You'd expect the deposit to be about the cost of the contract buy-out which is roughly the same as the phone subsidy, or a couple hundred dollars. AT&T regularly asks for $500, and I've heard as much as $1,500, although this would probably be for people with recent bankruptcies or defaults who have not reestablished a consistent payment history. This is insane, especially when you consider they are paying no iPhone subsidy at all. AT&T also has a history, if you're a few days late on your bill just once, of refusing to restore your service until the bill is paid and a $500 deposit submitted. I mean come on, people forget bill sometimes. I forgot to pay my T-Mobile bill one month -- my wife was having a baby the week the bill was due -- and about ten days passed, so they called and left me a voicemail saying I hadn't paid my bill. Of course I called them immediately and said I'd jump online and immediately pay the bill. The agent told me she just wanted to make sure I was aware and that it would be fine to just pay the balance for both months at the next due date, but to be sure and have it paid by no more then ten days *after* the next due date, or they would suspend service within 24 hours until I'd brought those two bills current. Granted, I had a long history of consistent payment with them, but they acted like they just didn't care if I was a couple months late, so long as they'd gotten hold of me and I'd acknowledged I needed to pay it. Now that's the kind of customer service you want.

I'm meticulous about my credit, but a big part of that is I'm simply good at remembering when bills are due and getting them paid. Some people don't remember as well and although they're good credit customers who pay their debts, they have some black marks on their credit. Or they had some unavoidable life events that cause some problems in the past. It's unfair, it's gouging, to expect these people to pay a deposit equal to the cost of the iPhone -- which they aren't subsidizing -- and almost three times the cost of the contract buy-out to then have the right to pay at least $60 a months for 24 months. This has nothing to do with AT&T securing future payment. It has everything to do with their investment of your deposit money to create an alternative revenue stream that has *nothing* to do with the service they provide. This is a company that when they offered cable service on a non-contract basis used to require a strict credit check.

Finally, even though there is no subsidy, you must secure a two-year contract with AT&T to activate any features of your iPhone. There's no consideration in this for you, as all they are doing is providing a monthly service for which you are paying by the month without AT&T subsidizing any of the device's cost -- I use the term "consideration" in the common rather than legal sense; I have no idea how it would stand up in court, but it would be interesting to see it tested as Apple will sell you an iPhone for cash without signing a contract and then for AT&T to refuse to allow you to use features of the phone they don't involve them without paying them, I'm not sure how strictly legal it is for AT&T to prevent use of your own property. There are various laws about preventing access to or use of one's personal property. The worst part is that if you discover AT&T is not for you, your local coverage is too poor, or you have customer service issues with AT&T they don't resolve to your satisfaction, you have no recourse. Your only option is to pay the $175 contract cancellation fee and then toss your iPhone in the trash, as reselling after activation will probably be near impossible, and once you completely fulfill the terms of the contract by paying the required cancellation fee, AT&T will lock the phone back up so that you can't use any of it's features at all. You are not only paying by the month for AT&T service, but you are paying Apple at least $500 for a phone for which AT&T has all rights of ownership. I mean, would you buy a Mac if they required you to sign a contract with an Internet provider at time of purchase, and if chose to legally cancel the Internet service, you'd not only lose Internet features but you couldn't use a word processor or *any* software on that Mac?

I love the iPhone. I really want one. But there's got to be a limit to the extent of totalitarian control we'll give a company over us in a capitalist economy. The whole idea here is competition, and at least if you become unhappy with AT&T you should be allowed to use your other iPhone features without carrier service. I'd strongly urge everyone who wants an iPhone but hasn't bought one yet to consider how much you're willing to give up in autonomy to "own" one. I'm a loyal Apple customer, and I realize that selling little bits of your company's soul to various demons is part of doing business in a capitalist economy, but I think Apple has just sold to much of themselves this time.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Short response: The iPhone is not for everyone. If you don't like AT&T and you don't like the "autonomy" you have to "give up", then don't get an iPhone. It's pretty simple really.

[scaught]

^^ Do you feel better about your decision now or do you still want one?

[starman]

EDGE was upgraded this week.

[sanford]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Short response: The iPhone is not for everyone. If you don't like AT&T and you don't like the "autonomy" you have to "give up", then don't get an iPhone. It's pretty simple really.

Just so it's clear, my original post was a thoughtful one, not sour grapes. I already had my credit checked for an iPhone plan and I can have whichever I want, no problem, no deposit.

My real issue, the serious point, is having no recourse against the service provider if there's a problem. You have a choice about paying a deposit if required; you have choice about accepting one of the higher-priced pay-as-you go plans, which AT&T is offering as final option so anyone can get an iPhone even if they can't get a contract. But if you go in, you lose your right to choice for two years, as if you could just pay the cancellation fee and continue to use the other features of the iPhone, you can live with that -- lots of phones are tied to carriers for phone service; there's nothing unusual about that. It's the re-locking *all* the features that bothers me. It's an invitation to vendor abuse. You're trapped in the service or you have a $500 paperweight. You're entirely reliant on the carrier "doing the right thing" rather than having accountability to the customer. I get the locking of the original purchase. What I don't get it is the re-locking of *all* features if you give them a fair shake and they don't meet reasonable expectations.

[sanford]

Originally Posted by scaught 

^^ Do you feel better about your decision now or do you still want one?

What, are you crazy? Of course I still want one. I wish they were sold out indefinitely -- but they have them in stock at my local Apple Store. I wish they wouldn't approve a contract for me -- but I can pick any plan I wish. Or I wish the coverage in my area was horrible -- I checked and our house is in the best coverage area in the whole region. These would all save me the stupid ethical decision. I will grant you that sometimes in the sea of ethical questions we face it's easy to blow up the trivial ones when in the long run all you're doing is putting unnecessary pressure on yourself for the sake of other people over something you can't do anything about for them while adopting some sort of pseudo-monastic morality. I mean, they may be gouging some customers over an *iPhone*, not refusing them life-saving healthcare. It is perhaps a matter of picking your battles, and I've picked a silly one, but then I wonder if I'm just justifying running out today and buying a couple for my wife and I.

The worst of it, as far as organization and such, I'm by nature extremely orderly, and then also will go out of my way to make sure I have time to enjoy music, etc. For my wife it would be revolutionary on both fronts.

[kent m]

I agree with sanford. It's the AT&T end of the deal that's going to keep me waiting for a while to see what develops with the iPhone. I think it's a shame that AT&T was the chosen provider.

[MindFad]

Your post is that little voice in the back of my head still about iPhone. I love it. I think it's great, and would love to have one, but all of my friends who have Cingular/AT&T have had something negative to say about customer service, dropped calls, coverage.... I'm on T-Mobile and haven't had a single issue in almost three years. I've missed my due date twice in three years (by only two-three days; it happens!) and it wasn't a problem. I think they did tack a small late fee on there, but hey, I screwed. So I'm weary about AT&T, but I love freakin' iPhone.

[sanford]

Originally Posted by MindFad 

Your post is that little voice in the back of my head still about iPhone. I love it. I think it's great, and would love to have one, but all of my friends who have Cingular/AT&T have had something negative to say about customer service, dropped calls, coverage.... I'm on T-Mobile and haven't had a single issue in almost three years. I've missed my due date twice in three years (by only two-three days; it happens!) and it wasn't a problem. I think they did tack a small late fee on there, but hey, I screwed. So I'm weary about AT&T, but I love freakin' iPhone.

Yeah, MindFad. If they had gone with T-Mobile I'd be typing this post on an iPhone right now -- or not, because I never would have started this thread. I probably would have even lined up for one last night, even though it is apparently not necessary as stock is going to be limited but available on a daily basis. I love my T-Mobile service and I love the iPhone -- even the things I thought were "missing" I've sort of realized are the same sorts of things that are "missing" on the iPod; in other words, niche features that complicate rather than improve the user experience. And since I'm still on my contract rate with with T-Mobile right now but under no contract obligation, I'd give AT&T a try if I knew that if it just didn't work and I went back to T-Mobile, I'd at least be able to use the non-phone features of the iPhone for a few years, until I'd likely be moving along to something new, anyway.

Making it even worse is that I don't even like mobile phones -- or even phones in general -- but the iPhone, the phone part is not the whole gig, but just a part of an incredibly well-designed, fully integrated mobile device.

We're taking the kids to my Dad's for lunch today and he lives about a mile from an Apple Store with iPhones in stock. I even already have AT&T's credit pre-approval code! Lord, give me strength.

[starman]

I've had Cingular for years and never had one issue. Sour grapes.

[Star-Fire]

Yeah I have to chime in, I had AT&T a long time ago when it was just AT&T, made the change to cingular and now still have it with an iPhone and I have to say I've never really had a problem.

[::maroma::]

I have to say that I somewhat agree. Choosing one carrier was a bummer (but Apple's arguments are fairly solid). Choosing AT&T was not my favorite choice, but then again I've never used AT&T before. Personally (and this is purely a personal decision), I'm willing to give them a chance. Even after reading all of the bad things about them (and I don't have any reason to doubt those things), I'm willing to give them a chance to upgrade their service both on a network level and a customer level.

My view is, maybe this deal with Apple has forced them to revamp some of the major hickups they had in the past. I'm going to go into this with an open mind. I'm also going to allow some hickups in the beginning, in order to get the kinks out. But most of all, I'm going to enjoy my iPhone as much as possible. Even if AT&T gives me headaches. And in all fairness, every carrier I've had (about 3 different ones) have given me headaches in one way or another.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Like MANY others, I've had AT&T for awhile now and have not had any problems - phone service or customer service.

Then again, there are always people who have one bad experience and think that a company is bad all around. For every person who has had a bad experience with AT&T, there are likely 100 that are perfectly happy with the service.

Another thing to keep in mind: Apple is not the first cell phone maker to go with an exclusive carrier at launch. Although AT&T's exclusivity is longer than most, this is not unprecedented in this business.

Yet another thing to consider: Even Verizon, T-Mobile, AllTel, etc. have poor service in some areas - no cell carrier is perfect or has complete coverage of every nook and cranny of the United States. I've done quite a bit of traveling and have always had AT&T service where I go.

Anyway, no one is forcing anyone to buy an iPhone, that's the bottom line. If you don't like the features, price, AT&T service, etc. - don't buy one. There are plenty of people waiting in the wings to buy the iPhone that you don't.

Personally, I think most (not all) people complaining about AT&T service is more about "sour grapes" because, for whatever reason, they live somewhere where AT&T service is not that great.

[dawho9]

I'm new to AT&T. The wife and I are coming from Qwest, where if you look up bad service in the dictionary there is a logo of Qwest next to it. She got a new phone months ago and I was waiting out with Qwest until the iPhone came.

So last night, I try to transfer the number in iTunes and also upgrade an individual to family plan. It said I had to call. So I did. The person on the phone told me to login with an individual account and they would merge the two individual into one family. So I did. But then I had to wait for 24 hours per iTunes. The bad thing was, our corporate e-mail system is offline all weekend for a major upgrade. I don't have access to my e-mail to get the confirmation number. The person from AT&T person told me it would take about 30 minutes to get an update and he would call me back with that update, since I couldn't see my e-mail.

Leery of hanging up the phone I did. 29 minutes later a phone call from AT&T. Although a new person, she knew exactly what was going on. She told me because I was transferring my number from another carrier that I had to wait for that other carrier to release my number to complete the activation. She then told me if I wanted I could forgo the transfer of my phone number and just get a new one. She said another department handled that and tried to connect me. Again, they were busy and instead of having me sit on hold for hours, she would have a manager call me.

10 minutes later, another phone call. He let me know that they could cancel the number transfer but they had put a "note" (whatever that means) in my file and instead of the 48 hours it would have taken it would be done by 11:00 AM the next day. Satisfied with that and being 9:30 PM, went to go watch the last episode of Studio 60 on TIVO and call it day.

Woke up at 5:30 like a kid on x-mas day. Walked out to my computer and hoping and praying I picked the iPhone off the dock and docked it again. This time - activation was complete. Phone was up and working this morning.

About three hours later got a phone call from that same manager, not on duty anymore, just wanted to follow-up with me because my phone was done on their end. I let them know that I had tried it out and it worked.

I can say without a doubt this was by far the best customer experience I had ever received by a phone company is my many years of life.

Thank you AT&T. For every bad story there is a good story and it all balances out. I think its important to note the good stories because you rarely hear about them.

dw9

[vln2]

Originally Posted by dawho9 

Thank you AT&T. For every bad story there is a good story and it all balances out. I think its important to note the good stories because you rarely hear about them.

dw9

Glad to hear about good experience.
I hope AT&T will not be an issue for me.
I had to have 2 video iPods replaced within first 2 months and I do not want to go through that experience with Apple again. They came up with a great product in iPhone, they need to support it at the same level. I had a little issue yesterday because I had a shared plan already setup on my wife’s phone and when I called AT&T not being able to complete activation in iTunes they made me drive back to the store to fix it. Yet they took care of the issue and I was a happy man afterwards.

I hate to bring this up but Edge has to go – this is number one upgrade. It is unbearable on iPhone. WiFi works great but with Edge I will be basically paying $20/mo to be able to download emails anywhere, nothing more.
I drove by 3G coverage area today and my wife’s new Nokia N75 perked up unbelievably. It was terribly slow on Edge and all of the sudden it was flying on 3G. Some serious engineering will have to go at Apple into fitting large enough battery with the most efficient 3G circuits. Apple is already getting ready to release 3G for Europe. I hope lessons from that will go into next generation iPhone in US and I will just sell mine on ebay to get 3G version. It will be worth it. My area will have 3G in 6 moths.

[::maroma::]

I used the EDGE network today, and while it was definitely slow, I can live with it. I don't do too much accessing of the web on the road, or away from a WiFi spot, so its not a huge issue for me. But I can definitely see where for others this would be a deal breaker. But its pretty much assured that the next version of the iPhone will be 3G.

[alex_kac]

I just did a bandwidth test on my wife's iPhone and it got 164Kbps

[dawho9]

Where did you go to do the bandwidth test? I would love to try it also. Also, where you at?

dw9

[edit]
OK, I went to: http://www.dslreports.com/mspeed and tested. Got 146 for speed. This is in Crystal, MN - just northwest of Mpls.

[sanford]

Originally Posted by alex_kac 

I just did a bandwidth test on my wife's iPhone and it got 164Kbps

That's fast enough for me for off-Wi-Fi Internet access. That's not all that far off the effective speed I get on my Palm LifeDrive over Wi-Fi on a 7 Mbps cable connection. I'm not downloading 42 MB full-resolution RAW photo files or anything.

Okay, here's the update on my current experience with AT&T thus far, as it's only fair to report my actual experience versus what I expected. (I did not go buy an iPhone; it started pouring rain, the kids were exhausted, the 8 GBs were out-of-stock so I wouldn't have even had the option today, and no one really felt like stopping by the Apple Store at the end of the day.)

I called in to have AT&T pre-authorize my credit for an iPhone contract so I didn't waste time trying to get one without knowing my options. The phone rep was very courteous, took my information, sent it to a credit analyst, said it would take about 5 minutes. It took about thirty seconds to come back approved. He asked why I was even interested in back-up plans and I said I'm paranoid about my credit -- which is probably why my credit is fine. I would say my credit is about average, based on income, debt load, mortgage, etc., but I've read quite a bit on the Web about people having good credit being declined credit for iPhone contracts and being offered more expensive, lower value non-contract plans or massive $500+ deposits only. I would expect that these people self-describing having "good credit" either aren't being practical about their situation, may have about 15 credit cards that are all paid on time and have reasonable balances but having the ability to put yourself $70,000 in card debt overnight if you wish makes creditors nervous, or they have specifically defaulted on a contract or have a bad payment record with either Cingular or an AT&T company in the fairly recent past. Even if your credit is otherwise smashing, if you have a poor record with the one company in question, they're not going to give you more credit until at least a few years has passed. So, despite the horror stories, I would expect anyone with passable credit to be approved for an iPhone contract.

Anyway, the AT&T rep was quite helpful, did not know which one if either of a couple of numbers the analyst reports back would fill the pre-authorization bill in iTunes, but gave me both numbers, anyway, just to save me a second credit check if he possibly could. (If the numbers don't work I'll have to re-run the AT&T credit approval via iTunes, just being aware in advance that it will be approved. FYI, the reason he tried to save me the extra check is that having two approved credit checks from the same creditor within a few days or weeks is not that big a deal, but having a couple of those, then a couple of credit card applications a week or two later, and then say I went within a few weeks and had a new car financed, that's a lot of recent credit requests, makes creditors nervous that you might be "credit bingeing" and I might be offered a higher interest rate for the car loan because of perceived risk.)

We also checked via my ZIP code and I'm in the best AT&T coverage area in our whole region. No problem there.

The agent was also friendly, conversational and very helpful. So I would count this as an excellent experience, one in which AT&T is trying to win new customers, not shove egregious plans and fees and rigamarole down your throat just because they have an exclusive deal on the hottest product on the market right now. It is possible that their iPhone exclusivity has focused a lot of unfair negative publicity on the company at the moment only because they are sort of in the hot seat right now as far as carrier service and coverage.

At any rate, after giving it some thought, knowing I'll have my choice of the best value plans available through AT&T, I expect to wait anywhere from a couple weeks to a couple months before buying our iPhones, to make sure no severe problems with the device itself surface under mass use and no extreme issues come up with AT&T's service on the iPhone. It's $1,000 for the two phones -- in the end, I'll probably do 4 GB models because I still have and will keep my 30 GB video iPod, and likely buy a new dedicated iPod when they come out, too -- and while I bought the Apple TV on impulse knowing it might turn up a brick -- it's actually been great -- that was $700 less than the iPhone investment and at least wouldn't be completely useless if there were service problems; that $700 is for me about the line that pushes me to wait and consider perhaps a couple months more.

But the important point is that my initial interaction with AT&T was not what I've been lead to expect at all. They seem even enthusiastic about their customer service and support, without being so over-the-top it's an obvious ploy. In fact, I've talked to about five Apple Store employees about the iPhone and AT&T was more helpful about iPhone questions than all but two of Apple's people.

[himself]

Originally Posted by dawho9 

...Also, where you at?

We're talkin bout AT&T, not Boost Mobile.

[sanford]

Originally Posted by dawho9 

Where did you go to do the bandwidth test? I would love to try it also. Also, where you at?

dw9

[edit]
OK, I went to: http://www.dslreports.com/mspeed and tested. Got 146 for speed. This is in Crystal, MN - just northwest of Mpls.

Okay, I was a little giant ways off about the LifeDrive on Wi-Fi. It's about 700 kbps with 802.11b on an 802.11g access point in mixed mode, medium signal strength, at the above test site. Still 150 kbps is fine for e-mail and workable for some Web sites. Also, there's nothing stopping you from hitting mobile versions of Web sites with the iPhone when you're on EDGE without Wi-Fi available.

I'd be interested to see some iPhone tests on Wi-Fi for download speeds.

[himself]

I've been with Cingulat&t for three years, and apart from some minor coverage issues in some of the more remote areas I may frequent outside of the city, I haven't had a problem with them. Their customer service has been great to me -- they offered to waive the fee they charge to upgrade my phone when I was having problems on the network due to a fried sim.

However, I agree whole-heartedly with sanford about the complete and absolute lock-in of the phone. If the iPhone doesn't have an at&t sim in it, I have no problem with it not being able to make phone calls. But why lock out wifi, iPod features, movie playback, or any other feature that doesn't rely on at&t's network? That makes no sense to me. I almost pulled the trigger on buying one today (it is so hard to resist once you play with one), but there are still unanswered questions like these that give me pause. I would like to think that when I upgrade from my iPhone in the next couple of years I could still use it's other features, like I do with other old phones when I retire them. But this is just a waste.

[sanford]

Originally Posted by himself 

If the iPhone doesn't have an at&t sim in it, I have no problem with it not being able to make phone calls. But why lock out wifi, iPod features, movie playback, or any other feature that doesn't rely on at&t's network? That makes no sense to me. I almost pulled the trigger on buying one today (it is so hard to resist once you play with one), but there are still unanswered questions like these that give me pause. I would like to think that when I upgrade from my iPhone in the next couple of years I could still use it's other features, like I do with other old phones when I retire them. But this is just a waste.

You and me both on pulling the trigger on buying one -- in my case, two -- today. That's why I went so far as to get everything for the contract pre-authorized, as I knew I'd be right by that Apple Store. But flooding rains and tired kids aside, we at least in large part didn't stop on the way home because I know I want one, and once my wife got hold of one... Well, we wouldn't have left the store without two of them.

I think I was wrong about AT&T service issues, believing the horror stories that were unique or hyperbole rather than looking at the carrier as a whole. But the last thing I just can't get over, the thing that's making me reconsider at length, is that even if I serve out my two-year contract, buy an iPhone 2.0 or 3.0 and I'm so happy with AT&T I'll even sign another contract if that's required for current customers, that two-year old, still perfectly serviceable video iPod, calendar and mobile Internet device will be nothing but a paperweight. It would be a perfect hand-me-down for one of my kids to watch videos and listen to music, and browse the web, check e-mail, etc., via a Wi-Fi connection, but unless I want to maintain an iPhone plan on it via the mobile phone carrier, it becomes a tiny, pretty brick. Obviously these things depreciate rapidly and having paid $500 for it, I couldn't sell it in two years and get much return on it; but that's where in a family you can maintain some value on fairly expensive things like this. My kids get my old Macs, which usually aren't all that old and are in good or great condition. Imagine if my Mac just quit working when I bought a new one.

You're right: it doesn't make reasonable sense. I can get AT&T not wanting people to buy these things as service-less iPods in the first place so that after all the money they've thrown into modifying their network to meet iPhone requirements and then marketing the thing, everyone buys it as an iPod with no phone service and they don't make a cent. What I can't fathom is that when you move on, even to a new iPhone model still on AT&T service, is how the original becomes useless. The idea of "disposable" devices is not entirely wild, but $500 is too much to spend for something that you could still find good use for when you move on, if they'd only let you.

Why don't they just charge $10 more a month for the service plans and lease me the phone? That would make more sense in terms of a device that "expires". We spent a pretty hefty $600 on a Sony PS3, and whenever if ever the PS4 is released we won't be able to play PS4 games without buying a new console, and our PS3 won't be worth much on the open market, but it will still play PS1, PS2, PS3 games and Blu-ray movies. It will still have use and value to us in some fashion without having to pay Sony any sort of fee to keep using it.

[Brit Ben]

I just tried the mspeed link above in Texas...
Got an astounding 328kbit/s

0.172s latency
25.461s d/l time against the 1MB file.

....
Ok, so it's fast enough for me

[mduell]

Agreed, AT&T is the real problem with the iPhone:

The first comes from the University Village AT&T store at
4626 25th Ave NE, Seattle, WA (Phone 206-729-7184). When buying the iPhone yesterday, the store said all customers must by two accessories with an iPhone, but the accessories could be returned, opened, without a restocking fee. Add to that the fact that the salesman didn't even know a charger was included and tried to upsell a different charger to the reader.

The second, at the Hawthorne California AT&T Store at 5249 W. Rosecrans in Hawthorne California (Phone 310-725-9902), the store manager said customers were required to buy a "bundle" of accessories. The bundle, written up with magic marker on an unofficial sign, listed the 4GB bundle at $650 and the 8GB bundle at $750. The manager told the customer that they couldn't buy the phones without the bundle and that they could leave the store if they didn't want it. When asked if he could return the items, they said yes, but only tomorrow (today).

The third store, at Pike Street in Seattle, forced people to buy $60 worth of accessories (a case and car charger), and if you didn't, you'd get a voucher and the iPhone would be mailed to you some time next week. The reader eventually went to the Apple Store nearby, and eventually his friend (who stayed at the AT&T store) told him they stopped pushing the accessories.

[sanford]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Agreed, AT&T is the real problem with the iPhone:

The first comes from the University Village AT&T store at
4626 25th Ave NE, Seattle, WA (Phone 206-729-7184). When buying the iPhone yesterday, the store said all customers must by two accessories with an iPhone, but the accessories could be returned, opened, without a restocking fee. Add to that the fact that the salesman didn't even know a charger was included and tried to upsell a different charger to the reader.

The second, at the Hawthorne California AT&T Store at 5249 W. Rosecrans in Hawthorne California (Phone 310-725-9902), the store manager said customers were required to buy a "bundle" of accessories. The bundle, written up with magic marker on an unofficial sign, listed the 4GB bundle at $650 and the 8GB bundle at $750. The manager told the customer that they couldn't buy the phones without the bundle and that they could leave the store if they didn't want it. When asked if he could return the items, they said yes, but only tomorrow (today).

The third store, at Pike Street in Seattle, forced people to buy $60 worth of accessories (a case and car charger), and if you didn't, you'd get a voucher and the iPhone would be mailed to you some time next week. The reader eventually went to the Apple Store nearby, and eventually his friend (who stayed at the AT&T store) told him they stopped pushing the accessories.

Well, there you go. Those stores are company operated. I don't think I want to tie the entire use of all functions, only one of which is mobile phone/data service, of a multi-function device to a two-year contract with a company with a profiteering lack of ethics of that order. I know these are isolated incidents, but they reflect a corporate atmosphere in which people expect to get away with this behavior, in fact likely expect to be praised for this behavior. Looks like I got the right vibe on this in the first place -- the bit about keeping all the features of the iPhone locked up unless you have and consistently maintain active service with AT&T really gave me a bad feeling about the whole deal.

I'll wait for an iPod or iPod-like device that incorporates some of the iPhone features without the phone and the associated lock-down, and otherwise stick with my T-Mobile service, with which I've never had a problem beyond some weak coverage until they expanded tower installations near my house. Too bad, though: the iPhone itself is outstanding; Apple should have done something like a six month exclusive with AT&T to get things rolling and then expanded opportunity to other carriers. I'm afraid Apple let AT&T get the better of them in their enthusiasm to get the iPhone on the market with the features they designed into it.

For a rampant bunch of capitalists, we sure are afraid of a bit of free-market competition.

p.s. Didn't we spend tens of millions or perhaps more back in the 1970s breaking up that monopoly, just to have them recollect their little bits and put themselves back in the same totalitarian position?

[kent m]

FYI, this is closer to my experiences wit hAT&T:

"Going through the steps, I’m told that I can’t use my current AT&T number because it’s a “business account.” (I think all that means is that the name MacSlash is on the bill.) It’s got a regular consumer plan, and I don’t get any special “business” treatment from them.
Instead of activating the phone, I’m directed to this cluster**** FAQ at AT&T’s website. It is the most god-awful, horribly written, techno-jumbled business speak I’ve ever read anywhere in my entire life.

[...] The representative who transferred me to the “business management” number said that hold times might be a little longer than 10 minutes, but because of the volume of calls, they weren’t allowed to give out the actual number to the number I was being transferred to. Now that’s customer service.

What annoys me most of all is that Apple apparently gave in to AT&T’s demands to completely break the iPhone unless it’s activated, so here I am left with a $600 911 Dialer to play with until AT&T removes it’s head from the ass and figures out how to let customers activate their phones.

Update: 2:30 AM. After 2 1/2 hours on hold, I finally talked to a woman who informed me that there was pretty much nothing that could be done tonight and I should call back during regular business hours. Awesome. I’m going to bed. The iBrick will be there in the morning, I guess and I can start all over again with AT&T."

Originally Posted by dawho9 

I'm new to AT&T. The wife and I are coming from Qwest, where if you look up bad service in the dictionary there is a logo of Qwest next to it. She got a new phone months ago and I was waiting out with Qwest until the iPhone came.

So last night, I try to transfer the number in iTunes and also upgrade an individual to family plan. It said I had to call. So I did. The person on the phone told me to login with an individual account and they would merge the two individual into one family. So I did. But then I had to wait for 24 hours per iTunes. The bad thing was, our corporate e-mail system is offline all weekend for a major upgrade. I don't have access to my e-mail to get the confirmation number. The person from AT&T person told me it would take about 30 minutes to get an update and he would call me back with that update, since I couldn't see my e-mail.

Leery of hanging up the phone I did. 29 minutes later a phone call from AT&T. Although a new person, she knew exactly what was going on. She told me because I was transferring my number from another carrier that I had to wait for that other carrier to release my number to complete the activation. She then told me if I wanted I could forgo the transfer of my phone number and just get a new one. She said another department handled that and tried to connect me. Again, they were busy and instead of having me sit on hold for hours, she would have a manager call me.

10 minutes later, another phone call. He let me know that they could cancel the number transfer but they had put a "note" (whatever that means) in my file and instead of the 48 hours it would have taken it would be done by 11:00 AM the next day. Satisfied with that and being 9:30 PM, went to go watch the last episode of Studio 60 on TIVO and call it day.

Woke up at 5:30 like a kid on x-mas day. Walked out to my computer and hoping and praying I picked the iPhone off the dock and docked it again. This time - activation was complete. Phone was up and working this morning.

About three hours later got a phone call from that same manager, not on duty anymore, just wanted to follow-up with me because my phone was done on their end. I let them know that I had tried it out and it worked.

I can say without a doubt this was by far the best customer experience I had ever received by a phone company is my many years of life.

Thank you AT&T. For every bad story there is a good story and it all balances out. I think its important to note the good stories because you rarely hear about them.

dw9

[icruise]

Originally Posted by sanford 

that two-year old, still perfectly serviceable video iPod, calendar and mobile Internet device will be nothing but a paperweight. It would be a perfect hand-me-down for one of my kids to watch videos and listen to music, and browse the web, check e-mail, etc., via a Wi-Fi connection, but unless I want to maintain an iPhone plan on it via the mobile phone carrier, it becomes a tiny, pretty brick.

Just so nobody is misled by this, let me restate what I said in another thread. Once activated, you can take out the SIM and still use all of the features of the iPhone (iPod, maps, internet and mail over wifi, etc) with the obvious exception of the phone features. There's no need to maintain an iPhone plan with an older device just to use it as an iPod with internet access.

[sanford]

Originally Posted by kent m 

FYI, this is closer to my experiences wit hAT&T:

"Going through the steps, I’m told that I can’t use my current AT&T number because it’s a “business account.” (I think all that means is that the name MacSlash is on the bill.) It’s got a regular consumer plan, and I don’t get any special “business” treatment from them.
Instead of activating the phone, I’m directed to this cluster**** FAQ at AT&T’s website. It is the most god-awful, horribly written, techno-jumbled business speak I’ve ever read anywhere in my entire life.

[...] The representative who transferred me to the “business management” number said that hold times might be a little longer than 10 minutes, but because of the volume of calls, they weren’t allowed to give out the actual number to the number I was being transferred to. Now that’s customer service.

What annoys me most of all is that Apple apparently gave in to AT&T’s demands to completely break the iPhone unless it’s activated, so here I am left with a $600 911 Dialer to play with until AT&T removes it’s head from the ass and figures out how to let customers activate their phones.

Update: 2:30 AM. After 2 1/2 hours on hold, I finally talked to a woman who informed me that there was pretty much nothing that could be done tonight and I should call back during regular business hours. Awesome. I’m going to bed. The iBrick will be there in the morning, I guess and I can start all over again with AT&T."

Despite the fact I got incorrect information about AT&T re-locking phones after service cancellation -- by the way, it was AT&T that told me this; obviously trying to convey you had to activate it to use it, they didn't understand my question about terminating service -- this points out the issues with a single carrier for the iPhone. If you don't like how you're being treated, you've paid full price for the iPhone and can't do anything about taking your business elsewhere.

Unfortunately, you can't blame AT&T's demands 100% for this. I read, though it could be incorrect, Apple negotiated some percentage of service plan revenue be paid to them by AT&T. So then AT&T demands the whole device be locked without activation and Apple is in no position to say no, because they want some financial concessions from AT&T. It's obvious the best thing for the consumer would have been to make an iPhone that worked with any SIM card for any carrier, and let the carrier decide to support iPhone and/or the special features like Visual Voicemail if they wished. Because of the design of AT&T's SIM cards, this actually would have left them out in the cold as unlike other carriers with interchangeable SIM cards, AT&T's are unique. But as is it is Apple wins, AT&T wins, some satisfied customers win, but the only real losers are customers, too.

I'd like to know how many of you are anti-DRM, especially anti-proprietary-DRM, but you have no problem with this iPhone activation and exclusive carrier arrangement? (Hilariously, the kings and queens of anti-DRM propaganda and smacking iTunes around for FairPlay DRM, the bloggers at boingboing.net, have devoted much space gushing about the iPhone. The DRM locks placed on iTunes, the Apple TV and the iPod -- which all have easy non-DRM alternatives for full use -- are nothing compared to the kind of upside down iPhone lock-down arrangement via AT&T. But boingboing, they love it. I do not think I have had a better laugh in months. This proves that almost everyone, including the most self-righteous, will sell their entire life philosophy down the river if the toy dangled in front of them is shiny enough. How can one continue to consider what one believes is thoughtful commentary on DRM and fair-use rights in general from boingboing when without blinking they will flip over for a much, much worse restriction of user's rights?)

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Just so nobody is misled by this, let me restate what I said in another thread. Once activated, you can take out the SIM and still use all of the features of the iPhone (iPod, maps, internet and mail over wifi, etc) with the obvious exception of the phone features. There's no need to maintain an iPhone plan with an older device just to use it as an iPod with internet access.

Excellent news. Thanks!

[sanford]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Excellent news. Thanks!

Originally Posted by icruise 

Just so nobody is misled by this, let me restate what I said in another thread. Once activated, you can take out the SIM and still use all of the features of the iPhone (iPod, maps, internet and mail over wifi, etc) with the obvious exception of the phone features. There's no need to maintain an iPhone plan with an older device just to use it as an iPod with internet access.

Hmm. This is actually kind of interesting. Most non-phone features of mobiles won't work without a SIM card installed, but they will work if that SIM card is not activated. So what, exactly, is locking the iPhone features. Is it shipped in a state where the OS is waiting for the all-clear, i.e. activation, from the SIM card to unlock the iPhone. Or does it check the SIM card on power up and if it's not activated, it won't work. So this says nothing about trying to use the iPhone prior to activation without a SIM card installed. Wonder if you pull the SIM card prior to activation the iPhone will work. Assuming it's the SIM card reporting to the iPhone that it's not activated that keeps the phone locked, it would. Seems too simple. But sometimes things are more simple than you'd think. Also depends on how committed to keeping the phone locked without activation Apple really is. You'd think a bit, if they are truly making revenue off service contracts.

This does mean, of course, if you're willing to pay slightly over $700 for a 4GB non-phone iPhone, you can buy one without service. Buy it, activate on a contract, pay the activation fee, pay the $175 contract cancellation fee, pull the SIM card. But I think most people who will even consider buying an iPhone want the phone. For some reason people love mobile phones.

[chabig]

I thought the problem with the iPhone was that it won't run Photoshop!

[icruise]

I assume that there's some sort of activation flag that must be tripped for the phone to go out of the "waiting for activation" mode and into the "normal use" mode. So I doubt that the iPhone will work even without the SIM before activation, although I haven't tried it and have no way to do so now.

Anyway, we know that you don't like the fact that the iPhone is locked to AT&T, but it's hardly the first phone to be locked. And while you can get upset about paying "full price" while also having it locked and requiring a 2-year contract, I don't think that's an accurate way of looking at the situation. If Apple designed the iPhone to be a product that you just bought straight out, I think it's very likely that it would cost quite a bit more. Remember, there's 2.5 years of R&D involved in the iPhone, and we're talking about a company that has very comfortable margins on almost all of its hardware. So in reality, I think the price of the iPhone is in fact being subsidized somewhere along the line.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by icruise 

I assume that there's some sort of activation flag that must be tripped for the phone to go out of the "waiting for activation" mode and into the "normal use" mode. So I doubt that the iPhone will work even without the SIM before activation, although I haven't tried it and have no way to do so now.

Anyway, we know that you don't like the fact that the iPhone is locked to AT&T, but it's hardly the first phone to be locked. And while you can get upset about paying "full price" while also having it locked and requiring a 2-year contract, I don't think that's an accurate way of looking at the situation. If Apple designed the iPhone to be a product that you just bought straight out, I think it's very likely that it would cost quite a bit more. Remember, there's 2.5 years of R&D involved in the iPhone, and we're talking about a company that has very comfortable margins on almost all of its hardware. So in reality, I think the price of the iPhone is in fact being subsidized somewhere along the line.

Estimates put the cost of parts for the iPhone at $220 for the 8gb model, and $200 for the 4. I highly doubt the other 3-400 bucks are taken up by the R&D. This phone is almost certainly not subsidized at all (AT&T has even said as much), and I do agree that a 2 year agreement is shady for a phone when you get no discount. Because for years mobile companies have blamed contracts on phone subsidies - now what are they going to blame?

[icruise]

The fact of the matter is that we have no idea of the costs involved. The actual cost of the components is only a very small part of the puzzle. While they had the basis for the iPhone's OS in OS X, they had to completely rework it for a touch-based mobile phone. They had to take employees from working on Leopard and assign them to the iPhone. AT&T, for their part, has been upgrading and changing their network just for the iPhone. In other words, Apple may be subsidizing it in the sense that they are charging less than they might like to, because they know that they'll get back part of their investment in the form of a percentage of people's cellular charges.

[sanford]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Excellent news. Thanks!

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Estimates put the cost of parts for the iPhone at $220 for the 8gb model, and $200 for the 4. I highly doubt the other 3-400 bucks are taken up by the R&D. This phone is almost certainly not subsidized at all (AT&T has even said as much), and I do agree that a 2 year agreement is shady for a phone when you get no discount. Because for years mobile companies have blamed contracts on phone subsidies - now what are they going to blame?

Thank you. Somebody talks sense. You'd think I'd desecrated a medieval cathedral for criticizing the iPhone. I actually like the iPhone, at least what it represents in interface design and innovation; I don't like the restrictive way in which it's sold *at full price without subsidy*. Most carrier-provided phones are locked, really, but the iPhone is certainly the first phone locked by the phone's manufacturer while they sell it at full retail without discount or other considertaion for signing a contract. It is indeed a shady, monopolizing business tactic.

As for icruise insisting it would otherwise cost "a lot more", the fact is $600 is about tops anyone will pay retail for a phone, even with the extra features. Nokia has sold some exceptions, but they sell to very well-heeled niche markets as exclusive novelty items; they don't move large numbers of units; they did not build their phone business on these models. If Apple tried to sell the iPhone for "a lot more", say $1,000, it would be unsalable in its target market.

Jokell seems to get it. Icruise, what I don't understand is that why you can't just say you really wanted an iPhone but admit they broke your arm to get one. A while back I bought a PlayStation 3 because I was dying to play "Resistance: Fall of Man" -- I'm way too old go all shaky over a games console without being humiliated, believe me; the console is still 4 - 6 months out from having a decent, consistent games library with regular, good new releases. I paid $600 to play "Resistance", to own a PS3 because I was enamored with it, even though it was a definite wait-until-it's-better-supported sort of purchase. And I readily admit they broke my arm to get it.

[sanford]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Excellent news. Thanks!

Originally Posted by icruise 

The fact of the matter is that we have no idea of the costs involved. The actual cost of the components is only a very small part of the puzzle. While they had the basis for the iPhone's OS in OS X, they had to completely rework it for a touch-based mobile phone. They had to take employees from working on Leopard and assign them to the iPhone. AT&T, for their part, has been upgrading and changing their network just for the iPhone. In other words, Apple may be subsidizing it in the sense that they are charging less than they might like to, because they know that they'll get back part of their investment in the form of a percentage of people's cellular charges.

But all these things are things Apple and AT&T had to do to sell a phone and decent service at a price acceptable to the target market. At $1,000, they couldn't have sold it, not even with subsidy as the market would expect it to be no more than $500 or $600 with a subsidy on top of that. So this is what they had to do and it is no ethical reason to make you sign a contract in consideration of *nothing* so that you to make it up to them. If you can't sell a product at an acceptable price to your target market, you trim it down or your scrub it. You don't twist your customers arms behind their backs with veiled schemes to get more money out of them.

This is the first Apple product I've seen since the return of Steve Jobs to the company that I would consider to have deceptive components of its marketing and sales. And that bothers me.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by sanford 

As for icruise insisting it would otherwise cost "a lot more", the fact is $600 is about tops anyone will pay retail for a phone, even with the extra features. Nokia has sold some exceptions, but they sell to very well-heeled niche markets as exclusive novelty items; they don't move large numbers of units; they did not build their phone business on these models. If Apple tried to sell the iPhone for "a lot more", say $1,000, it would be unsalable in its target market.

You're right. Apple couldn't hope to sell the iPhone at a higher price point. And that's precisely why they didn't do it that way. That's what led to the current situation. Assuming I'm right about the costs involved in engineering this thing, the current situation may have been the only way Apple could have hoped to get it on the market at a reasonable price. Or everyone involved could just be trying to milk the product for everything they can get. That's a possibility. But it's not the only one.

Jokell seems to get it. Icruise, what I don't understand is that why you can't just say you really wanted an iPhone but admit they broke your arm to get one.

I was already an AT&T customer, paying a similar amount to what I'm paying now. How did they "break my arm" again?

[starman]

If you don't want it, don't buy it. I for one am happy with it, and a former Cingular customer. Did AT&T run over your dog or something?

[cSurfr]

I agree with Starman completely. I've been a Cingy customer for almost 5 years now and I haven't had any problems with them at all. My only complaint about the iphone is that the alerts for sms and email aren't loud enough. . .

[Ryanhdd]

Sanford I could not agree with you more. Apple should have thought a little harder about this AT&T deal. The way this is going its just not the MAC way. I would like to see an 80gig Iphone. Thats one thing i dont like. I mean yes i do have a 30g video ipod but if I could only have one device to move around with me everyday. it would be a lot better. Thats just my 2 cents. I do like what you have to say. it just makes sense.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Apple DID think about the AT&T deal - they shopped the iPhone around. Verizon has already said they turned them down. The fact is, AT&T was willing to concede to APPLE'S terms, not the other way around.

I also agree with starman on a couple of points. 1) If you don't like the phone or the AT&T service, DO NOT BUY ONE. It's pretty simple really. 2) I've been a Cingular/AT&T customer for over a year and have never had a dropped call and get service everywhere I go. I really don't understand why people have such a big issue with AT&T. They are no worse than any other mobile carrier and in a lot of ways are much better than most.

A couple of other points. 2-year contracts are not unusual in this industry so this is a nit-picky complaint. Having a phone be exclusive to a carrier at launch is not unusual either.

[sanford]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Excellent news. Thanks!

Originally Posted by Ryanhdd 

Sanford I could not agree with you more. Apple should have thought a little harder about this AT&T deal. The way this is going its just not the MAC way. I would like to see an 80gig Iphone. Thats one thing i dont like. I mean yes i do have a 30g video ipod but if I could only have one device to move around with me everyday. it would be a lot better. Thats just my 2 cents. I do like what you have to say. it just makes sense.

Thanks, Ryan. Ryan has rather succinctly made the point I've been trying to make to the above laundry list of iPhone strategy defenders: It's not what I've come to expect from Apple and I've exclusively used Macs since 1986. Even if you are a current, satisfied AT&T customer you've had to either sign a new two-year contract or extend your existing contract -- although you are probably the least put out by the arrangement. All this without any consideration to the customer. All the behind the scenes cost balance that icruise mentions is a valid business reason for trying to find a way to increase revenue without increasing retail price; but it's not the customer's problem. If Apple can't sell it at an approachable price point to their target market, that's their problem, not the customer's, and it's up to them to solve it without charging that $1,000 or more -- laughable if they put a price tag on it for that amount -- through the back door.

It is, as Ryan put it, just not Apple, not the kind of business ethics with which I like to play. It's been years since you've been compelled to run only the Mac OS on your Mac, and back then they gave it away for free with Macs, with free upgrades. Now Macs still come with the OS, and a whole suite of applications, and if you so choose you can put one of two competing operating systems on it -- one of them free -- instead of Apple's OS. It's your choice. The iPod and Apple TV: sure, iTunes Store products, at least still most of them, are locked to Apple devices or software, but they are sold at huge discount over in-store retail CDs and even substantial discount over online discounters -- there is consideration for the concession. Yet still you're not committed to the iTunes Store to stock your iPod with media. It's your choice. Both devices work with Windows PCs or Macs. It's your choice. Apple doesn't use software activation keys or tie their OS products to your particular computer configuration -- yet people still buy the OS updates in droves rather than pirate the software. If you buy their OS you can get rid of one Mac and use the OS on your other Mac. It's your choice.

The iPhone: it's not your choice of phone service carriers; it does a dozen things other than make and receive phone calls, but it's not even your choice to use it to do those things without phone service, without *two-years* of phone service. It's almost like the Wi-Fi Internet, the interface, the video iPod features, they're all just bait to hook you into activating a two-year contract: where the real money is.

If Apple sold you a PowerBook that wouldn't work unless you bought a two-year subscription to .mac, you'd all go bananas. I could make the same argument that .mac adds value and Apple has to cover the cost of operating .mac some way, so they force more subscribers with longer commitments when they sell new Macs. You'd still go bananas. If Apple made iTunes, the iPod and the Apple TV so they would only play media purchased from the iTunes Store, you'd all go completely coconuts. You'd never buy another iPod. And Apple has had to repeatedly cut the price of full-featured and "mini" iPods to remain competitive because their target market sees competing products that seem to do the same thing for a lot less money. They've had to cut their margins on the iPod, yet it's okay they don't have to do this with the iPhone to keep in line with acceptable ethics?

When Microsoft announced that music bought from various online music stores in Microsoft's own Plays For Sure DRM format wouldn't play on the Zune, that you'd have to *buy again* all that music, everyone here tore Microsoft apart as being unethical profiteering monsters.

What's so special about the iPhone you'll give Apple a pass on this one?

[vln2]

Originally Posted by Ryanhdd 

Sanford I could not agree with you more. Apple should have thought a little harder about this AT&T deal. The way this is going its just not the MAC way. I would like to see an 80gig Iphone. Thats one thing i dont like. I mean yes i do have a 30g video ipod but if I could only have one device to move around with me everyday. it would be a lot better. Thats just my 2 cents. I do like what you have to say. it just makes sense.

I definitely would not like to carry a phone based on a hard drive. They fail more often then flash drives and I would not like to take a risk of loosing important data to store more songs and pictures. When flash drives come with larger capacity Apple can put them in new iPhones.
I have 2 video iPods; one sits in my car the other on the alarm clock radio and I take it on a boat going out. This suits me just fine.

[sanford]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Apple DID think about the AT&T deal - they shopped the iPhone around. Verizon has already said they turned them down. The fact is, AT&T was willing to concede to APPLE'S terms, not the other way around.

I also agree with starman on a couple of points. 1) If you don't like the phone or the AT&T service, DO NOT BUY ONE. It's pretty simple really. 2) I've been a Cingular/AT&T customer for over a year and have never had a dropped call and get service everywhere I go. I really don't understand why people have such a big issue with AT&T. They are no worse than any other mobile carrier and in a lot of ways are much better than most.

A couple of other points. 2-year contracts are not unusual in this industry so this is a nit-picky complaint. Having a phone be exclusive to a carrier at launch is not unusual either.

Oh I hardly hold Apple blameless. I think they went to T-Mobile before AT&T, too. Phone exclusivity, that isn't unusual at all. But two-year contracts without a big break on the retail price, yeah, that's a little weird. Locking *all* the features of a multi-function device for which you paid full retail price unless you sign a two-year service contract, yeah, that's a little weird.

I think people are just becoming accustomed to this garbage. Not so long ago they were few contracts on anything that didn't involve a loan at interest or a long-term deal between businesses. Consumers paid by the month for monthly services and cancelled the service if they were unhappy with it. Buy a landline phone, you can still use the address book and the clock and the voice memos or whatever else on it without a landline. Get a landline and you don't have to sign a contract for it. Come to think of it, there did used to be some phone company a long time ago, like back in the 1970s, they did own the phones and the lines and put you through all kinds of grief to have a landline phone. The US government called them an egregious monopoly and broke them up. But I can't remember their name. Oh, yeah, it was... AT&T.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Apple DID think about the AT&T deal - they shopped the iPhone around. Verizon has already said they turned them down. The fact is, AT&T was willing to concede to APPLE'S terms, not the other way around.

Apple's terms were a portion of the monthly bill. Rumor is AT&T was the one who pushed the contract.

[starman]

For God's sake, you make it sound like this is the first time a phone's been tied to a carrier.

[Ryanhdd]

Originally Posted by sanford 

Come to think of it, there did used to be some phone company a long time ago, like back in the 1970s, they did own the phones and the lines and put you through all kinds of grief to have a landline phone. The US government called them an egregious monopoly and broke them up. But I can't remember their name. Oh, yeah, it was... AT&T.

So true.... You are the man. Money give me your money. I want a boat no make that a state.

[sanford]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Excellent news. Thanks!

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Apple's terms were a portion of the monthly bill. Rumor is AT&T was the one who pushed the contract.

I expect that's accurate or something similar. I don't know why Apple selling a device at retail prices through their own retail outlets felt they were entitled to a portion of the carrier's service charges. I mean, it cost them to make the phone, not carry the service. It's part of this new-ish business model of which I'm not too fond: it's not a product you buy and own and use, it's a revenue stream that requires consistent financial commitment. From a pure business standpoint, it's lovely. You don't make money from it once, you keep making money on it for years. At any rate, their terms left the door open for AT&T to make demands less than advantageous for the consumer, which AT&T -- and lots of companies -- are wont to do. (AT&T and the recollection of all its little parts into one company is another story in and of itself, one I think will be significant in a few years.)

Bottom line: I think Apple should have offered the iPhone with the features they could afford to put into a phone priced to sell to their target market. If the phone carrier required exclusivity for technical reasons -- Visual Voicemail comes to mind -- then this concession I can better understand. But paying full price for the phone without carrier or Apple subsidy, the customer should be free to activate the phone, or not, while still using the device's non-phone features.

For starman, it is *not* the exclusivity to a single carrier that bothers me. True, it would be nice to have a competitive selection of carriers, but a good case has been made that there were technical reasons that required Apple ally themselves with carriers who would support the special phone features. If only one carrier opted to support the iPhone, that's unfortunate for the customer, but it's the way it went. So exclusivity per se is not my issue. It's the expectation of a contract with consideration only for the carrier, not the customer, as without a discount on the phone equipment or the carrier service -- you know, they could have done that, offered the iPhone plans at significant discount for a year in exchange for a two-year contract -- there is no consideration for the customer in signing an extended contract for monthly service. And as our law sees it, a contract without equal consideration for both parties is not a valid contract. (As I've mentioned before, I doubt this will be tested in court, and if it is there are several gray areas AT&T could use to present the appearance of consideration for the contracted customer.)

[starman]

Apple doesn't discount their hardware. They never did before, why should they change now?