radire

Apple sold 1.4 million iPhones in the U.S., some 250,000 are being
used outside of AT&T - the only network with which the iPhone
functions without having to be unlocked!

http://ibricking.com/

Woody

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 06:23:22 -0800 (PST), (c) The OS/2 Guy (c) wrote:

> On Nov 23, 12:06 am, Ian Robinson <j...@canicula.invalid> wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 01:29:37 +0000, c) The OS/2 Guy (c) wrote
>> (in article
>> <dce94fc9-4b34-4bf3-844b-2ed2c29db...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> Next we have the loss of SMStexting. Ok,so you don't text and who
>>> cares because you can rely on the browser function to get you to an
>>> online texting service.
>>
>> Why would you lose SMS messaging on an unlocked iPhone?

> You don't lose SMS messaging but you might as well. It is entirely
> dependent upon your unauthorized service provider's data service.

Huh? So you know of some network provider that doesn't provide SMS? I
personally have never met heard of one in europe.

> Apple/Service Provider deal includes the provision of OS X server-side
> implementations as well as required Edge enhancements by the Service
> Provider.

Well, I wouldn't call it an enhancement, but yes, it requires edge at the
moment (which is available from other providers).

> What you end up with on an unlocked iPhone is a hit or miss
> feature that is harder to implement. What the hackers will suggest is
> to avoid the iPhone's SMS messaging feature and use the many free
> online text messaging services.

I have never heard that suggested, especially as they are hard to find,
unlike SMS services.

> Again, these too entirely dependent
> on the quality of the unauthorized service provider's data service.
> And those unauthorized SP's know this by either raising the cost of
> their data plans or lowering the number of text messages that can be
> sent or offering it as unlimited on a system that is so hampered or
> unreliable that it requires more work on the part of the customer to
> get that message through to their intended target.

I really cant understand where you are using a phone if you have ever heard
of these restrictions.

> In the short run the unlocked iPhone seems appealing.

Indeed, I could get a phone service that was more reliable and many times
cheaper without having to be stuck in an expensive 18 month contract.

> In the long run
> it results in higher fees for less service and features.

Not in the UK it wouldn't.

> if you've never known good service and had access to all the iPhone's
> fine features then you don't know or understand what it is you are
> missing. You just know that the [hacked] iPhone you own doesn't seem
> worth it.

The iPhone has a nice interface - it is a bit light on features and the
only thing you would lose on a different provider is visual voicemail, the
loss of which would depend on how much you use voicemail.

> Which is why Apple suggests the purchase of an iTouch if you want the
> iPod and Video features and can live with a second flip phone for your
> phone/messaging needs.

What is a 'flip phone' - I have a capable phone, but it has no flipping?

--
Woody

(c) The OS/2 Guy (c)

On Nov 23, 6:41 am, radire <ontis...@tenup.com> wrote:
> Apple sold 1.4 million iPhones in the U.S., some 250,000 are being
> used outside of AT&T - the only network with which the iPhone
> functions without having to be unlocked!
>
> http://ibricking.com/

The 250,000 is an estimate, nothing more. AT&T doesn't agree with the
figure. They say of they have activated accounts for 1.25 million
leaving 150,000 that are not activated. Now I suppose you're going to
say that those 150,000 iPhone users who signed up with AT&T just to
activate their iPhones have pulled out their SIMs and gone to another
provider (and they may well have) - but that doesn't release them from
the monthly contracted fees they agreed to pay when they signed on
with AT&T. (Unless they bought their way out of their AT&T contracts
- and if that's the case then they are paying just as much if not more
for lesser service through another provider - so what's the point?
Just to be able to say you're using a hacked iPhone on Verizon's
network?

I live in a downtown metropolitan city, home of the iPhone, where
iPhones are every where and yet I've never seen nor had any iPhone
owner acknowledge they were using a hacked iPhone. Where are these
250,000 hiding?

Dr. Tim Martin, The OS/2 Guy
Visit The OS/2 Guy Blog Today
http://www.os2guy.com

(c) The OS/2 Guy (c)

On Nov 23, 6:44 am, Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 06:23:22 -0800 (PST), (c) The OS/2 Guy (c) wrote:
>
> > On Nov 23, 12:06 am, Ian Robinson <j...@canicula.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 01:29:37 +0000, c) The OS/2 Guy (c) wrote
> >> (in article
> >> <dce94fc9-4b34-4bf3-844b-2ed2c29db...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
>
> >>> Next we have the loss of SMStexting. Ok,so you don't text and who
> >>> cares because you can rely on the browser function to get you to an
> >>> online texting service.
>
> >> Why would you lose SMS messaging on an unlocked iPhone?
> > You don't lose SMS messaging but you might as well. It is entirely
> > dependent upon your unauthorized service provider's data service.
>
> Huh? So you know of some network provider that doesn't provide SMS? I
> personally have never met heard of one in europe.

I know of no other network provider that provides SMS messaging
enhanced and improved through the use of Apple's OS X server side
software features. Sprint, Verizon, Metro - none of them have that
nor do any of them offer enhanced Edge speeds and reliability. Have
the same message sent to you from a hacked iPhone and a non-hacked
iPhone and see which one arrives first and which one is more apt to
fail to arrive altogether. When you go through the iTunes/AT&T
activiation process, AT&T sends you a welcome SMS message within
seconds of your iPhone's activation. Sprint, Verizon, Metro messages
never arrive that fast and are often hours later. But still, they do
have and offer SMS messaging and the hacked iPhone user has no choice
but to accept the second-rate service.

>
> > Apple/Service Provider deal includes the provision of OS X server-side
> > implementations as well as required Edge enhancements by the Service
> > Provider.
>
> Well, I wouldn't call it an enhancement, but yes, it requires edge at the
> moment (which is available from other providers).

Edge is available from other providers but it is a very slow Edge
compared to At&T's enhanced Edge service. Again, it is a second-rate
Edge service when compared to AT&T's. Compare T-Mobile's Edge service
to Verizon's and they are about the same but neither service reaches
the speed and reliability of AT&T's.

Hey, I'm not a big AT&T supporter and I was not happy that Apple chose
to go with AT&T but I also know that T-Mobile, Verison, Sprint and
Metro all said no to the iPhone and the Apple requirement of upgrading
their equipment and giving Apple a share of the pie. AT&T took the
chance and without them, we'd have no iPhone today (to speak of).

>
> > What you end up with on an unlocked iPhone is a hit or miss
> > feature that is harder to implement. What the hackers will suggest is
> > to avoid the iPhone's SMS messaging feature and use the many free
> > online text messaging services.
>
> I have never heard that suggested, especially as they are hard to find,
> unlike SMS services.

There are two that come to mind, off hand, they are ChinSMS and WeSMS
- and there are several others.

>
> > Again, these too entirely dependent
> > on the quality of the unauthorized service provider's data service.
> > And those unauthorized SP's know this by either raising the cost of
> > their data plans or lowering the number of text messages that can be
> > sent or offering it as unlimited on a system that is so hampered or
> > unreliable that it requires more work on the part of the customer to
> > get that message through to their intended target.
>
> I really cant understand where you are using a phone if you have ever heard
> of these restrictions.
>
> > In the short run the unlocked iPhone seems appealing.
>
> Indeed, I could get a phone service that was more reliable and many times
> cheaper without having to be stuck in an expensive 18 month contract.

This is true, you can get a cheap phone service but reliability is in
the eye of the beholder and unbiased reports by a vendor's customer
base. Never believe a cell phone company's claims of having the least
dropped calls because all services are spotty to begin with, they have
to be because of the nature of the beast. Verizon's claim of "Can you
hear me now?" has pretty much backfired because customers say "No, I
cannot hear you and where did you go?" Sprint doesn't even bother to
taut their reliability and T-Mobile is infamous for losing customer
calls - unless you are living next to a T-Mobile brick and mortar
store.

What I know is this: I do a lot of calling throughout the day with a
great many people who use different providers. I'm getting good at
identifying the cell phone carrier. If a person is using it a T-
Mobile service you can forget talking with them as they drive a car
because connections are so poor or dropped so often you want them to
pull over and finish the conversation. Sprint tends to have solid
connections if you are in an area well covered by Sprint. If not,
calls often don't go through. Verizon "Can you hear..." is more often
then not, dead air. AT&T is pretty reliable unless your caller walks
down into his basement or is situated behind thick brick and mortar
walls. And AT&T's rollover plan is a great way to get more out of
your service contract because you don't lose minutes you would with
other cell phone services. And if you call another AT&T subscriber
your minutes are free - which is one of the main reasons why I pony up
the monthly iPhone/AT&T fees for my five employees. We often hold
hour-long conference calls and there is never the worry of "have we
been on too long?"

>
> > In the long run
> > it results in higher fees for less service and features.
>
> Not in the UK it wouldn't.

The problem in the UK is not an Apple or iPhone fault - it is the
fault of the UK citizenry who have allowed cell phone providers to get
away with highway robbery. When surveys are taken in the UK about
buying an iPhone the biggest complaint comes down to the cost of the
service, not the cost of the iPhone itself. And the reason for that
is the iPhone and the iTouch are priced the same - you just get more
with the iPhone but to get that "more" you have to agree to a highway
robbery phone service contract. Thus, it is understandable why a UK
citizen would want to use the iPhone even if it was hacked - at least
they will be able to make one or two calls or send one or two messages
even check the quick status on an eBay auction using the browser. The
iPhone makes all that possible but it is the UK cell phone provider
who is choking the citizen for more money. What many want Apple to do
is drop the price of the iPhone so they can afford the cell phone
service and that's unreasonable because they are asking Apple to
subsidize the British cell phone industry just so citizens can use the
iPhone. Apple is a business and not in business to subsidize cell
phone companies. Those using a hacked iPhone in the UK will always be
second-class iPhone users and that's the fault of their own
government.
>
> > if you've never known good service and had access to all the iPhone's
> > fine features then you don't know or understand what it is you are
> > missing. You just know that the [hacked] iPhone you own doesn't seem
> > worth it.
>
> The iPhone has a nice interface - it is a bit light on features and the
> only thing you would lose on a different provider is visual voicemail, the
> loss of which would depend on how much you use voicemail.

LOL! To some that's like saying the loss would depend on how much you
use the brakes on your car. Hell, if you can hang your foot out the
door and stop the car that way then you don't need brakes at all but
there are the resulting consequences. You don't just lose selective
voice mail. You lose future authorized programs - programs you will
have to rely on to get from third party 12-year old hackers who are
more than likely going to cause you more harm with their errant
programs then you ever wanted. There is the loss of never "moving up"
to wireless Bluetooth stereo sound and phone service; to having
"Alex" (the most amazing syntsized voice included in leopard) to read
you your email, RSS news, weather, stock quotes, etc.; to having the
ability to video record an event as it happens and send it off
immediately to your own web page, YouTube or your grandmother; to
having the ability of voice activation to auto-dial your grandma or
the police if needed. And these are just the tip of the iceberg of
features that will eventually come to the iPhone and hacked iPhone
users won't get them. Ahh... but they can be assured of buying Tetris
and Solitare for a premium from a third party hacker who says "I
promise it won't harm your iPhone and if it crashes or freezes just
reset it..."

And when you get tired of it all and believe you can take your T-
Mobile sim carded iPhone and try to sign back on to iTunes and get
those authorized features your going to find your iPhone turns into a
paperweight.

>
> > Which is why Apple suggests the purchase of an iTouch if you want the
> > iPod and Video features and can live with a second flip phone for your
> > phone/messaging needs.
>
> What is a 'flip phone' - I have a capable phone, but it has no flipping?

In order to get your signature on a contract many cell phone companies
will offer a free cell phone or a low-cost cell phone. These phones
are almost always featureless, barely work properly and are basically
good for "emergencies" and not serious cell phoning but they got you
signed to that contract. So if you want a better cell phone they will
be happy to sell it to you for $99 or $199 or $299 and you say you
want internet access? Toss in another $80 a month... :-)
>
> --
> Woody

Dr. Tim Martin, The OS/2 Guy
Visit The OS/2 Guy Blog Today
http://www.os2guy.com

Ian Robinson

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:52:34 +0000, c) The OS/2 Guy (c) wrote
(in article
<be8b5741-8bd7-4711-8d83-1d9056394d1a@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):

> I live in a downtown metropolitan city, home of the iPhone, where
> iPhones are every where and yet I've never seen nor had any iPhone
> owner acknowledge they were using a hacked iPhone. Where are these
> 250,000 hiding?

There are at least 4 in the office I work in. Imported from the USA via
ebay etc.

There are 2 unlocked UK iPhones that I know off. Mine and a colleague
about 2 desks over.

There may be more unlocked and locked UK ones I don't know about. It's
a 600 person open plan office.

The unlocked ones have all the same functionality I have, except Visual
Voicemail.

Ian
--
Ian Robinson, Belfast, UK
<http://www.canicula.com/wp/>

Ian Robinson

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:59:10 +0000, c) The OS/2 Guy (c) wrote
(in article
<56238b96-ede1-4e6b-b566-14b6da7465b2@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>):

> And these are just the tip of the iceberg of
> features that will eventually come to the iPhone and hacked iPhone
> users won't get them.

But surely when (if?) these new features arrive then those who have
been using their iPhones on their existing mobile carriers can decide
to switch to a contract with the "official" carrier in their territory
then.

I know the people in my office who have unlocked iPhones have done it
because we have a corporate mobile phone deal with a UK carrier (not
O2) and the company pays for their calls and data.

I wanted visual voicemail which is why I went the official route with
O2.

Ian
--
Ian Robinson, Belfast, UK
<http://www.canicula.com/wp/>

Ian Robinson

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:59:10 +0000, c) The OS/2 Guy (c) wrote
(in article
<56238b96-ede1-4e6b-b566-14b6da7465b2@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>):

> In order to get your signature on a contract many cell phone companies
> will offer a free cell phone or a low-cost cell phone. These phones
> are almost always featureless, barely work properly and are basically
> good for "emergencies" and not serious cell phoning but they got you
> signed to that contract. So if you want a better cell phone they will
> be happy to sell it to you for $99 or $199 or $299 and you say you
> want internet access? Toss in another $80 a month... :-)

This is not necessarily true in the Uk market. See:

< http://shop.vodafone.co.uk/index.cfm?go=paymonthly.home>

Or any of the other UK mobile carriers web pages. Lots of very capable
phone there. Not with as nice an interface as the iPhone though. Which
is partly why I bought one.

Ian
--
Ian Robinson, Belfast, UK
<http://www.canicula.com/wp/>

Ian Robinson

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:59:52 +0000, Ian Robinson wrote
(in article <0001HW.C36CD3A8000BE3CDB01AD9AF@news.gradwell.net >):

> The unlocked ones have all the same functionality I have, except Visual
> Voicemail.

I've just confirmed this with a quick txt to someone with an unlocked
iPhone here in the UK. Everything except visual voicemail works on his
iPhone with a standard Vodafone SIMM card installed. He gets Edge
connectivity, GPRS, WiFi, YouTube, etc.

Work pays his phone bill. If I didn't get a lot of voice messages
(phone off when I'm in planes, meetings etc.) get an unlocked one and
let work pay my bill as well.

Ian
--
Ian Robinson, Belfast, UK
<http://www.canicula.com/wp/>

Woody

(c) The OS/2 Guy (c) <os2guy@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 23, 6:44 am, Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 06:23:22 -0800 (PST), (c) The OS/2 Guy (c) wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 23, 12:06 am, Ian Robinson <j...@canicula.invalid> wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 01:29:37 +0000, c) The OS/2 Guy (c) wrote
> > >> (in article
> > >> <dce94fc9-4b34-4bf3-844b-2ed2c29db...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
> >
> > >>> Next we have the loss of SMStexting. Ok,so you don't text and who
> > >>> cares because you can rely on the browser function to get you to an
> > >>> online texting service.
> >
> > >> Why would you lose SMS messaging on an unlocked iPhone?
> > > You don't lose SMS messaging but you might as well. It is entirely
> > > dependent upon your unauthorized service provider's data service.
> >
> > Huh? So you know of some network provider that doesn't provide SMS? I
> > personally have never met heard of one in europe.
>
> I know of no other network provider that provides SMS messaging
> enhanced and improved through the use of Apple's OS X server side
> software features.

What is that then? An sms is an sms.

> Sprint, Verizon, Metro - none of them have that
> nor do any of them offer enhanced Edge speeds and reliability.

Here many people have edge, but noone uses them as 3G is very common and
available in more places.

> the same message sent to you from a hacked iPhone and a non-hacked
> iPhone and see which one arrives first and which one is more apt to
> fail to arrive altogether.

In 10 years of having a mobile phone I have never had an SMS fail to get
to me, or one of mine fail to get through. 31st December 1999 at 23:55 I
remember was a bit tricky actually sending one, but never had one fail
after that point.
They are also in general fairly instant, so it would be hard pressed to
see how an iPhone could better that, unless you are saying a hacked
iPhone wouldn't work as well as a £10 pay-as-you-go phone.


> When you go through the iTunes/AT&T
> activiation process, AT&T sends you a welcome SMS message within
> seconds of your iPhone's activation. Sprint, Verizon, Metro messages
> never arrive that fast and are often hours later. But still, they do
> have and offer SMS messaging and the hacked iPhone user has no choice
> but to accept the second-rate service.

ok - so what you are really saying here is not that the iPhone is good,
but that every other network operator in the states is useless? Because
here the only options you have is that you have network coverage or you
don't. Phone calls or providers are all much of a muchness, the only
thing is different is what upgrades they give you, how much free stuff
they give you and if they mess up your bills.

> > > Apple/Service Provider deal includes the provision of OS X server-side
> > > implementations as well as required Edge enhancements by the Service
> > > Provider.
> >
> > Well, I wouldn't call it an enhancement, but yes, it requires edge at the
> > moment (which is available from other providers).
>
> Edge is available from other providers but it is a very slow Edge
> compared to At&T's enhanced Edge service. Again, it is a second-rate
> Edge service when compared to AT&T's. Compare T-Mobile's Edge service
> to Verizon's and they are about the same but neither service reaches
> the speed and reliability of AT&T's.

Again I am talking about the UK. Edge is slower than what I am used to,
so the best most reliable edge is still slower than I am used to.

> > > What you end up with on an unlocked iPhone is a hit or miss
> > > feature that is harder to implement. What the hackers will suggest is
> > > to avoid the iPhone's SMS messaging feature and use the many free
> > > online text messaging services.
> >
> > I have never heard that suggested, especially as they are hard to find,
> > unlike SMS services.
>
> There are two that come to mind, off hand, they are ChinSMS and WeSMS
> - and there are several others.

OK, well I have never used them as the phone is free and easily
available.

> > > In the short run the unlocked iPhone seems appealing.
> >
> > Indeed, I could get a phone service that was more reliable and many times
> > cheaper without having to be stuck in an expensive 18 month contract.
>
> This is true, you can get a cheap phone service but reliability is in
> the eye of the beholder and unbiased reports by a vendor's customer
> base.

no, reliability is a figure which can be established objectively

> Never believe a cell phone company's claims of having the least
> dropped calls because all services are spotty to begin with, they have
> to be because of the nature of the beast.

No wireless company here makes claims about least dropped calls as it
really isn't a problem here, so they are probably all the same.

I make about 500 minutes of calls a months, and one call was dropped
about 4 months ago. It really is a non-issue here.

> What I know is this: I do a lot of calling throughout the day with a
> great many people who use different providers. I'm getting good at
> identifying the cell phone carrier.

ok, here you would have no way of telling. They are all the same.


> And if you call another AT&T subscriber
> your minutes are free - which is one of the main reasons why I pony up
> the monthly iPhone/AT&T fees for my five employees. We often hold
> hour-long conference calls and there is never the worry of "have we
> been on too long?"

I never worry anyway as I have so many minutes on my plan - certainly
more than I would want to be on the phone for!

> > > In the long run
> > > it results in higher fees for less service and features.
> >
> > Not in the UK it wouldn't.
>
> The problem in the UK is not an Apple or iPhone fault - it is the
> fault of the UK citizenry who have allowed cell phone providers to get
> away with highway robbery.

Well, no, it is partly apples fault. It has nothing to do with phone
providers, who just give their phones to the network providers, who
generally provide them free on contract.

> When surveys are taken in the UK about
> buying an iPhone the biggest complaint comes down to the cost of the
> service, not the cost of the iPhone itself.

Indeed. It is very expensive for what you get compared to what we are
used to. So is that not apples fault?

> And the reason for that
> is the iPhone and the iTouch are priced the same - you just get more
> with the iPhone but to get that "more" you have to agree to a highway
> robbery phone service contract.

Indeed.

> Thus, it is understandable why a UK
> citizen would want to use the iPhone even if it was hacked - at least
> they will be able to make one or two calls or send one or two messages
> even check the quick status on an eBay auction using the browser.

Well, not really. The reason I would want a hacked one is so I could
make hours of phone calls and lots of messages without having to pay so
much for it.

> The
> iPhone makes all that possible but it is the UK cell phone provider
> who is choking the citizen for more money.

Ahh - I am guessing you mean the network provider (O2) then?

> What many want Apple to do
> is drop the price of the iPhone so they can afford the cell phone
> service and that's unreasonable because they are asking Apple to
> subsidize the British cell phone industry just so citizens can use the
> iPhone.

You have a strange view on the British mobile phone industry. It is
fiercly competitive.
I would love an iPhone, I spent ages playing with one and I have no
problem paying the price of the phone, but i am not prepared to pay
$50/month for less service than I am currently getting with a network
provider that is not as good in my area.

Apple has moved in with an American centric phone model and seem
suprised that it doesn't work here, were we are used to better services
cheaper.

> Apple is a business and not in business to subsidize cell
> phone companies. Those using a hacked iPhone in the UK will always be
> second-class iPhone users and that's the fault of their own
> government.

Government? What do the government have to do with cell phones? Now you
seem to be away with the faeries.

> > > if you've never known good service and had access to all the iPhone's
> > > fine features then you don't know or understand what it is you are
> > > missing. You just know that the [hacked] iPhone you own doesn't seem
> > > worth it.
> >
> > The iPhone has a nice interface - it is a bit light on features and the
> > only thing you would lose on a different provider is visual voicemail, the
> > loss of which would depend on how much you use voicemail.
>
> LOL! To some that's like saying the loss would depend on how much you
> use the brakes on your car.

No, everyone needs the brakes on a car. I personally don't need visual
voicemail

> You don't just lose selective
> voice mail. You lose future authorized programs

Ahh - you lose the promise that something may come along later? That is
a big loss!

> - programs you will
> have to rely on to get from third party 12-year old hackers who are
> more than likely going to cause you more harm with their errant
> programs then you ever wanted.

Why do you have to have other programs? When you buy a product you buy
it as it is today, not on the promise that tommorow it will be much
better.

> There is the loss of never "moving up"
> to wireless Bluetooth stereo sound and phone service;

Like the nokia N95 or soemthing you mean? You can get those if you want
them - they are a lot cheaper here.
But why do you want a stereo phone service? :-)

> to having
> "Alex" (the most amazing syntsized voice included in leopard) to read
> you your email, RSS news, weather, stock quotes, etc.;

Wow - that would be handy if you completely forgot how to read or were
blinded, but could remember how to access it.

> to having the
> ability to video record an event as it happens and send it off
> immediately to your own web page, YouTube or your grandmother;

Well, yes, like you can do on pretty well every other phone, except they
tend to have better cameras.

>to
> having the ability of voice activation to auto-dial your grandma or
> the police if needed.

Again, like almost every other phone made this century.

> And these are just the tip of the iceberg of
> features that will eventually come to the iPhone and hacked iPhone
> users won't get them. Ahh... but they can be assured of buying Tetris
> and Solitare for a premium from a third party hacker who says "I
> promise it won't harm your iPhone and if it crashes or freezes just
> reset it..."

So what you are saying is that if you pay the enormous iPhone contract,
one day it will have the features that most phone users take for granted
already?
You have a very convincing argument there!

> > > Which is why Apple suggests the purchase of an iTouch if you want the
> > > iPod and Video features and can live with a second flip phone for your
> > > phone/messaging needs.
> >
> > What is a 'flip phone' - I have a capable phone, but it has no flipping?
>
> In order to get your signature on a contract many cell phone companies
> will offer a free cell phone or a low-cost cell phone. These phones
> are almost always featureless, barely work properly and are basically
> good for "emergencies" and not serious cell phoning but they got you
> signed to that contract. So if you want a better cell phone they will
> be happy to sell it to you for $99 or $199 or $299 and you say you
> want internet access? Toss in another $80 a month... :-)

Huh? Well, this is about europe and that is not how we do things. We get
phones for free or next to free that are far from featurless, such as
the N series nokias.
I have a nokia N73, on a 12 month contract and works very well for
'serious cell phoning' and not serious stuff too and costs me £25 (just
slightly over $50) less a month than the top iPhone plan for 150 minutes
more of time.
Data-wise I get more than I ever used (free), an hour of free video
calling, practically unlimited skype calls, 1500 sms messages, 250 mms
messages, uncrippled bluetooth and java applications.

If the states is as bad as you imply, I can see why the iPhone has only
managed to sell 26,000 in its first few weeks (the estimate was
100,000).





--
Woody

www.alienrat.com

Woody

(c) The OS/2 Guy (c) <os2guy@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 23, 11:52 am, use...@alienrat.co.uk (Woody) wrote:
>
> > If the states is as bad as you imply, I can see why the iPhone has only
> > managed to sell 26,000 in its first few weeks (the estimate was
> > 100,000).
>
> Your points are well taken Woody and I do not know the European cell
> phone market.
>
> Many of your facts are a bit off - the iPhone holds a 27% share of the
> cell phone market in the U.S. today and should surpass 30% by year's
> end.


Wow - that is pretty major. Did you not have phones over there before?
A quick scout around the web says yes you did.

> It came out July 1st and the cell phone industry did everything
> they could to downplay the importance of such a product. To achieve
> nearly 30% within four short months is a spectacular accomplishment.

It is spectacular. In fact more than spectacular, completely
unbelievable.

So apple predict that they will sell 4.5 million iPhones by the end of
the year. So with your figures of a 27% share of the US market, that
means you are saying that the entire sales of mobile phones in the US is
4.5 x 6/12 months x 100/27%, or 33 million phones a year?

That really is low, as it is below the amount of phones that are sold in
the UK in a year, and your population is 5 times the population here.

Do you have a reference for these figures, as the figures apple are
quoting are 1.8% of the US cellphone market, and it seems odd that apple
would play down their figures that much.


> No other company, including Motorola or Nokia, has been able to pull
> off that feat and steal away 30% of the cell phone customer base.

Well, motorola do have 31% of the US phone base (it is their largest
market). Nokia have 11% of the US market, it is their third biggest
market after india and china.

> The cell phone marketplace in the U.S. was nearly
> impenetrable before the iPhone but with one little product Apple
> changed the face of the American phone industry.

I am sure they have made an impact. However, the market here is a lot
more developed, but they are using the same techniques from the american
market, which don't work as well here.

> And even tho' many of those features coming for the iPhone are already
> available on cell phones, there is no cell phone with an ability to
> play and download music, films and videos all with the touch of a
> finger on a mini-computer with full Internet browser and email
> capability that I'm aware of.

Most of the top phones from sony-ericsonn, nokia, LG can do this.

I am not saying that the user interface isn't great, I am saying that
the features already existed, and one of the problems all companies have
is that people don't do it much (the average sales from iTunes are
something like 2 songs per iPod).

> Unlike so many who want it all now, Apple knows to provide those
> features in a half-assed way would make their product less valued and
> would not endear their 1.4 million customer base.

Wasn't it 30% earlier?

> If you've seen one
> Razr then you've seen them all but the iPhone will keep on giving,
> again and again.

Once you have seen one razr you have seen about the worst example of a
user interface known to man. Well, apart from the other motorolla ones.

> It is the hacker who is harming the iPhone and making
> it less valuable and more vulnerable.

In what way?

> That has frustrated the loyal
> iPhone customer base, all of whom are heavily invested iPhone
> customers and they want Apple to secure the iPhone and to seek
> criminal penalties and civil judgments against those who insist on
> harming the product (and their investments) and to brick those hacked
> iPhones that are placing the iPhone community at risk.

I have never heard of anyone wanting that. Where are you coming from?
How does what someone else does with their technology affect you? I they
go and pay money for a device it is theirs. if they want to hack it and
stick whatever they want on, good luck to them - it is theirs, not
yours.

I have a hacked iPod. It is nothing to do with apple, it is my iPod, not
theirs.

> That may sound harsh but it is the reality of the situation.

It doesn't sound harsh, it sounds completely retarded!

> Many hackers believe it
> is Apple against them but it is a customer base of over one million
> iPhone owners who are not happy with them (and if that were not true
> then there would be one million hacked iPhones. There aren't, there
> are only 1.5 to 2.5 thousand that are not activated through their
> authorized providers.).

Just because someone didn't hack their iPhone, doesn't mean they hate
everyone that did! They just chose not to, as they were ok with what
they got.

> If Apple can do all of the above within a four month marketing window
> then we have a lot to look forward to over the next eight months.

I think they do have to bring it up to feature parity with other phones
before they are going to make much of a dent outside the US, but more
importantly in the UK, they need to realise that there is a limited
market for people who will pay that much for that little talktime and
messages and that all the time kids cant bluetooth their happy slapping
videos to eachother, it isn't going to be a big hit!


btw - I was refering to the UK market, where O2 have sold 26,500 (O2
being the prime supplier), where the prediction was 100,000

--
Woody

www.alienrat.com