iPhone 4 Super Thread: iOS 4.2 Released. Find my iPhone now free

[TorqueDog]

If any of you have upgraded to OS 4.2.1, you've probably noticed that AirPrint is rather 'neutered' from what it was originally made out to be. This is due to a lame agreement with HP that incorporates HP's ePrint software. Bollocks, I say.


Well, here's a workaround: http://jaxov.com/2010/11/how-to-enab...ce-on-windows/

Follow the above tutorial on the Windows PC that hosts the printers. Ta-da! Tested it this morning, worked like a charm. Even opened a small information box on my iPhone that told me that my printer was running low on ink. Pretty slick.

[Roast Beef]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm not 100% sure, but I do believe HSPA handles data and voice at the same time. At least on the Telus network.

I have an iPhone 3GS on Telus. I have no problems with using data while making a call.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by KTrain

This is finally going to test the iOS/Android/Windows market in the States. Being tethered to AT&T didn't really allow the iPhone a fair shake at other customers who didn't want to switch carriers or hated AT&T. Their numbers were obviously still great but I think this opens them up to a hell of a lot more people.

i think Apple was a little too late with this though. if they had expanded outside of AT&T a year ago their numbers would have exploded, but now Android has largely caught up and surpassed the iPhone in terms of power and capability. as already mentioned it's just getting WiFi hotspots, which Android has had for a long time

i never understood Apple's decision to make their phone an AT&T exclusive in the first place, AT&T must have paid them a hell of a lot of money

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Roast Beef

I have an iPhone 3GS on Telus. I have no problems with using data while making a call.

i have a Desire Z on Bell's network which i assume is the same as Telus, and no problems with data on a call here either

[FanIn80]

So HSPA doesn't have the issue, while CDMA does. From the sounds of it, Verizon customers are already used to it.

[QuadCityImages]

The day the robots died? Hardly... The day that Apple retakes the market share lead for a few months, sure.

As far as the limitations of CDMA, I'd say there have been about 5 times in the last 14 months that I've had my Droid that I was actually like "Dang, I want to check something online but I'm on a call." That may just be my personal situation, but how many times do you guys put someone on speakerphone or something while you check something online? It seems like an unusual situation. Also if you're somewhere with wifi, you can use voice and data at the same time. In the US, those limitations are more than outweighed by Verizon's (currently?) better network.

I just hope all their network capacity boasts are true when millions of AT&T folks start switching over...

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

i never understood Apple's decision to make their phone an AT&T exclusive in the first place

They did it in exchange for the ability to change the entire industry. Whether anyone uses an iPhone or not, every cell phone user on the planet has benefited from the changes that have stemmed from this "incomprehensible" business decision.

We could always go back to paying $25/mb for Blackberry data and browsing the internet on our WAP-enabled phones with the little scrollballs.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm not 100% sure, but I do believe HSPA handles data and voice at the same time. At least on the Telus network.

I'm 100% sure - I actually had to email a photo of a network patch panel to myself from my phone, and started sending the email as a call came in. While on the call, I heard the whoosh sound it makes when a sent item leaves your outbox, and a few seconds later the email was in my laptop inbox.

So it definitely does data and voice at the same time on the Telus network.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

They did it in exchange for the ability to change the entire industry. Whether anyone uses an iPhone or not, every cell phone user on the planet has benefited from the changes that have stemmed from this "incomprehensible" business decision.

We could always go back to paying $25/mb for Blackberry data and browsing the internet on our WAP-enabled phones with the little scrollballs.

How did being on AT&T exclusively allow them to do this? Wouldn't the market have changed to mimic a popular design whether they had an exclusive contract with a carrier or not?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

They did it in exchange for the ability to change the entire industry. Whether anyone uses an iPhone or not, every cell phone user on the planet has benefited from the changes that have stemmed from this "incomprehensible" business decision.

We could always go back to paying $25/mb for Blackberry data and browsing the internet on our WAP-enabled phones with the little scrollballs.

Well, that is one way to spin it. Another way is that is was just more lucrative. iPhone was new and untested, this gave Apple strong control over a new product release. Pretty smart but I doubt it was all a plan for the benefit of the planet.

Cingular (who was purchased by AT&T) was the one who agreed to Apple's demands. Verizon was offered first crack but refused the terms:

Among other things, Apple wanted a percentage of the monthly cellphone fees, say over how and where iPhones could be sold and control of the relationship with iPhone customers, said Jim Gerace, a Verizon Wireless vice president. "We said no. We have nothing bad to say about the Apple iPhone. We just couldn't reach a deal that was mutually beneficial."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...tm?POE=TECISVA

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Sliver

How did being on AT&T exclusively allow them to do this? Wouldn't the market have changed to mimic a popular design whether they had an exclusive contract with a carrier or not?

Exclusivity was granted in exchange for Apple maintaining 100% control over their inventory, software, updates, marketing, and prices.

That's what changed everything.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by Sliver

How did being on AT&T exclusively allow them to do this? Wouldn't the market have changed to mimic a popular design whether they had an exclusive contract with a carrier or not?

I could be totally wrong, so somebody with more knowledge can correct me if I am. My understanding is that Verizon turned down the iPhone at first in part because Apple (being Apple) wanted too much control and it was an untested device. When Apple eventually found a carrier (Cingular, who would buy up AT&T wireless) that would make a deal with them, part of the trade off for the control was exclusivity.

Found some specifics from http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/0...y-of-mobiles/:

Apple wanted a cut of Verizon’s monthly service fees, veto power over how and where iPhones could be sold, and control of the customer service relationship for iPhone users. Why did Cingular agree to terms Verizon rejected? As the largest GSM provider in the US, Cingular desperately needed a fancy phone to lure in new subscribers.

As much as everybody rages over the control Apple has over their products, it's possibly the #1 factor in their success.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Well, that is one way to spin it. Another way is that is was just more lucrative. iPhone was new and untested, this gave Apple strong control over a new product release. Pretty smart but I doubt it was all a plan for the benefit of the planet.

Cingular (who was purchased by AT&T) was the one who agreed to Apple's demands. Verizon was offered first crack but refused the terms:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...tm?POE=TECISVA

I didn't say that it was altruistic. I just said that they offered exclusivity in exchange for 100% control, and that we've all (everyone) benefited from it ever since.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I didn't say that it was altruistic. I just said that they offered exclusivity in exchange for 100% control, and that we've all (everyone) benefited from it ever since.

I don't think it's fair to say that control is what made phones better. Apple made a killer phone and the competitve respone that followed is what has brought smart phones up to the next level.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I don't think it's fair to say that control is what made phones better. Apple made a killer phone and the competitve respone that followed is what has brought smart phones up to the next level.

But what makes Apple's phone killer? My argument would be that many of the features that cause people to connect with the iPhone is Apple's high level of involvement. How many times do you hear of somebody dropping their phone and cracking the screen only to have somebody at Apple replace it? Those are the types of things that build brand loyalty.

I'm not saying I'm right ... It's of course just a guess. We can't really roll back the clock and see if the iPhone would have been as big a success with Verizon digging their fingers in it.

[photon]

What made the iPhone a market killer was the interface, the phone's OS. Nothing else at the time came close. Remember we were comparing iOS to Windows Mobile and Symbian and BlackBerry with terrible interfaces and horrible browsers, or sad attempts by manufacturers to skin said OSes.

It also did change the industry because previously getting into a carrier's "deck" to get apps or games or whatever into their phones was a HUGE effort, I know, I got stuff onto Sprint and saw the kind of hoops you had to go through to even have a sniff of Verizon's deck.

While the iPhone was a closed system, rather than having to deal with the carrier to try and get a game or an app on their deck, you just had to submit it to the app store, and you were done. That broke the whole industry open when it was a runaway success.

Carriers were deathly afraid of being just service providers to provide a connection to your device, they wanted an iron grip on every bit of content that made it onto the phone because then they could try and drag you away from a different carrier on something other than just the price of voice and data. The iPhone/App Store completely changed that.

Kind of a perfect storm of a UI that was light years beyond anything else and a complete change in the carrier's stance.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Russic

But what makes Apple's phone killer? My argument would be that many of the features that cause people to connect with the iPhone is Apple's high level of involvement. How many times do you hear of somebody dropping their phone and cracking the screen only to have somebody at Apple replace it? Those are the types of things that build brand loyalty.

I'm not saying I'm right ... It's of course just a guess. We can't really roll back the clock and see if the iPhone would have been as big a success with Verizon digging their fingers in it.

That control is a double edged sword - yes they can control the experience but what if their experience isn't the one you wish to have?

Where I think they really helped themselves is their app store. They created a way for developers to distribute their applications and a way for users to easily find applications. And while many of their guidelines and the application of some of their rules are somewhat arbitrary, it is the model of content distribution that has positioned them so well.

Same thing with the original iPod. They created a product very similar to what had already existed, but they created a way for people to get new content.

So by creating the ecosystem they are able to control the experience. The products, while excellent, have been matched or even surpassed by others. But no one else has been able to match the control of the entire experience (and Microsoft has tried) and that is where Apple dominates.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Russic

But what makes Apple's phone killer? My argument would be that many of the features that cause people to connect with the iPhone is Apple's high level of involvement. How many times do you hear of somebody dropping their phone and cracking the screen only to have somebody at Apple replace it? Those are the types of things that build brand loyalty.

I'm not saying I'm right ... It's of course just a guess. We can't really roll back the clock and see if the iPhone would have been as big a success with Verizon digging their fingers in it.

Maybe. I know you are more in the know on Apple stuff.

I do think right out of the box the iPhone is totally awesome, especially if we're comparing it to the other leading edge stuff at the time like the BB Pearl lol. Apple could never have anything to do with the phone again after you first buy it and I still think it would be fantastic and miles ahead of the competition. But like you say, there is no real way to know for sure. Guess it's probably a combination of both.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I don't think it's fair to say that control is what made phones better. Apple made a killer phone and the competitve respone that followed is what has brought smart phones up to the next level.

You're talking about phones. I'm talking about the industry, and in particular, the practices of the carriers.

[Flames0910]

Originally Posted by Sliver

How did being on AT&T exclusively allow them to do this? Wouldn't the market have changed to mimic a popular design whether they had an exclusive contract with a carrier or not?

Having an invested partner from the start was huge for Apple. It's easy to look back now and say that it was a mistake, but i think we underestimate how much AT&T played into getting the iPhone out the door (properly tested, subsidized and well-supported)

The cellphone market is so big, even Apple would have had trouble going at it alone. The others would have just walled them out and made it incredibly difficult + expensive to get an iPhone plan, ensuring a flop. You can'tjust shake up a multi-billion dollar industry on a whim. It takes an incredible amount of resources and relationships to pull off.