Re: [Fed-Talk] Re: iPhone DVT Team Jailbreaks iPhone 3G
Re: [Fed-Talk] Re: iPhone DVT Team Jailbreaks iPhone 3G
- Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] Re: iPhone DVT Team Jailbreaks iPhone 3G
- From: Dave Schroeder <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:34:26 -0500
On Jul 17, 2008, at 3:24 PM, Boyd Fletcher wrote:
right now vendors like Apple frequently cut details with mobile phone
providers that lock a phone to only that vendor. though this sounds
nice to
consumer because the the cost of the phone is subsidized its really
not very
good:
1) the customer still ends up paying the cost of the phone because
the per
month costs are higher and the contract is long term (2+ years).
note that
with iPhone 3G AT&T dropped the phone price but up the per monthly
cost is
higher.
...but that wasn't to offset the costs, as is often claimed. It's just
that the iPhone 3G plan pricing is now the same as ALL other AT&T
smartphones for 3G data and SMS pricing, whereas before, the AT&T
iPhone plans (known as iPlan) were the exception to the rule.
2) with CDMA this is not as important but with GSM phones, locked
phones are
a big deal since the GSM phones can be used worldwide. It is far far
cheaper
if traveling aboard to use a local mobile provider by buying a new
local SIM
card. with a locked phone you can do that. This was a big and public
problem
in the early days of the iphone last year when several people ended
up with
$3,000-5,000 cell bills because of data service usage while traveling
abroad.
Of course, that still happens when someone gets a SIM from an
international provider, and finds that they either have no data
service, or don't have unlimited data, and end up getting the
equivalent of a $2000 bill instead of a $4000 one. ;-) The iPhone
depends on at least some data use, even if the individual isn't
consciously using data. Because of the iPhone's unique features (and
not just visual voicemail, but the need to always-on data), there are
a number of compelling reasons to have it married with contracts which
are known quantities.
So if Congress creates a new law mandating that mobile providers
provide a
option for an unlocked phone then the consumer can choose either a
subsidized plan or not. Several European countries have done this
successfully.
For the record, I do think it would be nice if Apple sold an unlocked
iPhone 3G in every market at an unsubsidized price. But I also wager
that Apple feels that there are serious strategic disadvantages to do
that at present, or else they would be doing it. In the case of the
iPhone, these are big disadvantages, most of which revolve around data
use and the iPhone's dependence on unlimited or near-unlimited (or
very carefully advertised) data plans. When Apple gets enough clout in
the mobile phone marketplace, it wouldn't surprise me to see Apple
force the move toward the carriers more toward simply providing
service and bandwidth instead of all the exclusive garbage they have
now.
boyd
On 7/17/08 3:20 PM, "carlos" <email@hidden> wrote:
Now you lost me. How can legislation to limit what a person that
pays for a
phone can do with it increases consumer choice? You mean it
encourages OEM
to provide more higher priced choices since the consumer has no
other choice
right? Subsidized prizes normally include a contract an legislation
is not
needed to have that choice. Did I miss something?
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:46:21 -0400
From: "Fletcher, Boyd C. CIV US USJFCOM JFL J9935"
<email@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] iPhone DVT Team Jailbreaks iPhone 3G
To: "Dave Schroeder" <email@hidden>
Cc: email@hidden, "Andy Kim, U.S. Senate"
<email@hidden>
Message-ID: <C4A50BBE.8EBE%email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
your email and some others gave the impression that unlocking was
just to
screw apple/at&t and I disagreed with that.
I know unlocking is legal, however Congress should make the it
illegal to
provide phones that can not be unlocked. in a ideal situation the
vendor
could sell a locked phone at a subsidized price and an unlocked
phone at a
different price. Currently with the iphone you have no choice in
the US.
However you will in some parts of Europe so I suspect the market for
officially unlocked w/o contract phones from europe is going to be
significant which is probably good news for eBay.
The current approach of selling iphones is draconian and is not in
the best
interest of consumers. Consumers should have a choice.
boyd
On 7/17/08 12:21 PM, "Dave Schroeder" <email@hidden> wrote:
You disagree with what? The fact that I said the iPhone 3G can and
will be unlocked, and people can knock themselves out?
What I had a problem with was people buying the previous iPhones
under
a pricing and sales structure that assumed they would be activated
with an AT&T contract, when AT&T estimates that at the end, nearly
half (!) of US iPhones sold were never activated on AT&T. We can
argue
rights and legalese all day, but the previous phone also
"required" an
AT&T contract.
The practice of selling phones tied to a carrier for support of
specific features and functionality, and using a contract subsidy
to
offset the costs of the hardware, is a very common one. In
jurisdictions that currently require the phone to be sold without a
contract and/or unlocked, the hardware is selling for nearly US
$1000.
(Then we can argue how much a company should be allowed to profit
all
day long...)
Apple's desire to ensure that iPhone sales, features, and
functionality provide a good user experience (initial launch issues
notwithstanding) may outweigh individual concerns to have unlocked
phones and use local SIMs internationally. Until then, it is not
illegal to unlock handsets; nor is any vendor obligated to
provide the
capability.
- Dave
On Jul 17, 2008, at 10:03 AM, Boyd Fletcher wrote:
I disagree. The ability to unlock the phone will be very useful
for
people
who travel worldwide. AT&T costs outside the US are extremely
high -
several
dollars per min in many locations. If you can unlock the phone,
then
you can
use a different SIM (like prepaid SIMs) in those countries.
I've always thought that was a primary benefit of being able to
unlock the
phone.
The lack of a formal ability to unlock the iPhone is the primary
reason I
will never buy one. Hopefully, Congress will outlaw the
practice of
binding
a phone to a cell phone vendor. Many countries in Europe already
have laws
in place that require phones to be sold unlocked (though the
phone
cost
maybe higher if you want this capability).
boyd
On 7/17/08 10:05 AM, "Dave Schroeder" <email@hidden> wrote:
On Jul 17, 2008, at 8:46 AM, Timothy J Miller wrote:
On Jul 16, 2008, at 12:10 PM, Dave Schroeder wrote:
This DOES NOT mean that the phone is unlocked. This is
hardware
related, and, frankly, the 3G hardware probably will be
unlocked as
well.
Incorrect tense:
http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/5876
Now, a *software* SIM unlock--that's still days away. :)
Unlocks that require hardware don't really count for most. ;-)
But yes: the iPhone 3G, like every other GSM handset, will be
unlocked.
However, now it matters much less since every iPhone 3G
leaving a
store will either have:
1. A full contract, or
2. An unsubsidized price (which, yes, is more than even the old
iPhone
pricing).
This means that both Apple and the carrier don't get screwed,
so
people who still think they're somehow "pulling one over" on
Apple by
unlocking the iPhone 3G can knock themselves out.
- Dave
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>>>>
l
This email sent to email@hidden
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Fed-talk mailing list
email@hidden
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/fed-talk
End of Fed-talk Digest, Vol 5, Issue 214
****************************************
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden