Why Apple And Google Failed to Revolutionize Telecom Two Tiny Little Companies Known as AT&T, Verizon Wednesday Jan 11 2012 09:51 EDT Tipped by FFH5  While the title is troll bait (especially coming from an Apple brand fanatic), blogger-turned-VC MG Siegler makes a few good points in a post over at his blog about how Google has failed in delivering their original Android vision when it comes to truly open platforms. Most of his tirade touches on things we've discussed over the years, like how Google's original plan to use the Nexus to completely revolutionize the wireless industry flopped, or how in order to protect billions they'd be getting from their Verizon partnership they were willing to completely sell their network neutrality principles down the river. As you might expect from one of the industry's two largest Apple brand advocates, Siegler insists that this means that Apple has done a much better job at being "open" than Google ever did: quote:
Apple, for all the shit they get for being “closed” and “evil”, has actually done far more to wrestle control back from the carriers and put it into the hands of consumers. Google set off to help in this goal, then stabbed us all in the back and went the complete other way, to the side of the carriers. And because they smiled the entire time they were doing it and fed us this “open” bullshit, we thanked them for it. We’re still thanking them for it!
To get it out of the way: yes, both companies completely revolutionized the phone itself. However, revolutionizing the barely-competitive, lumbering, protectionist telecom sector is another matter entirely. Siegler floats over and past Apple's own failures in this regard. While Apple may have revolutionized phone design, Steve Jobs' original vision of a carrier-less future culminated in an a multi-year exclusive deal with one of the most anti-consumer, closed carriers in the industry (AT&T). For all of Apple's good intentions, the network side of their product (for many) culminated with a total inability to actually make phone calls. While Apple did fight AT&T on some issues, they oddly replaced AT&T's walled garden vision with a morally-schizophrenic closed application store of their own. Meanwhile with their record on secrecy, Apple really can't talk about being "open" on any level. The fact is that Apple and Google made constant concessions in their principles because AT&T and Verizon are absurdly powerful. These are protectionist, cuthroat giants -- who for generations have spent more time and effort protecting legacy business models (like landline) using armies of lobbyists and every dirty anti-competitive trick in the book -- than they have on innovation. Both Apple and Google could only hammer their heads against such empires for so long before making major concessions -- if they wanted to make money in wireless. That doesn't excuse either company for bone-headed decision making, but it does at least lend context to why Google quickly sold consumer interests down the river. Fighting AT&T and Verizon is not a profitable venture, and if you're going to work long enough with such companies, you're going to be impacted by protectionist "telco think." That said, this street runs both ways, and we've seen both AT&T and Verizon make small and subtle shifts toward open devices and networks, even if they've done so begrudgingly. Apple and Google failing to completely revolutionize such a dominated market in just a few years is not surprising. However, the fact that both have at least managed to make a dent through competition and innovation (quality evolution in smartphone GUIs, disruptive products like iMessage or Google Voice) is still something worth appreciating. Singling out one or the other exclusively for their failures in this regard usually reeks of fanboyism, and is like screaming at your cat for failing to put out a house fire. |
 | |
GVI mostly agree with the article, however if there is at least one glimpse of hope it is google voice
It's already partially set me free of cell operators contracts | |
|  | | |
Re: GVI'm just hopping from pre-paid to pre-paid. If they make me mad, on to the next one. | |
| | | |
to boredsysadm
You can bet the Bell Sisters are hard at work trying to damage Google Voice in every way possible on Capitol Hill. | |
| | | |
to boredsysadm
No, it was a lousy semi-delusional rant by someone who wants Apple to be something that they are not.
The author can make no valid claim that apple has wrestled anything back from the carriers until ATT iphones can be unlocked for free (without exploit), and users have the options of hiding ATT's advertising logo at the top of their screens. Not even a case can hide an iphones carrier branding. Branding that he somehow thinks apple was able to avoid. But in my opinion is WORSE.
Oh crap I forgot what carrier I was on. Oh, here it is, practically burnscreened into the top left corner of my display.
The main issue with this article, and it's the predominant issue that ALL ifans have is that they completely ignore Apples mountains of issues and focus on some irritability of the competition making them out to be much bigger than they are.
The real truth is that he hates android because it's better and more successful than his iphone and while there were times in the past he could arguably make a valid claim that the iphone was the best device, it's simply not the case in today's market. Secretly he's pissed at apple because the 4s was lackluster and a disappointment. | |
| | | 93388818 (banned)It's cool, I'm takin it back
join:2000-03-14
Dallas, TX |
93388818 (banned)
Member
2012-Jan-11 4:26 pm
Re: GVsaid by delusion ftl :...until ATT iphones can be unlocked for free (without exploit)... Why should a carrier help you unlock a product they paid 7/8ths of? If users want an unlocked iPhone, there's nothing stopping them from buying one. » www.expansys-usa.com/mob ··· 3233|iOS | |
| | | | | |
delusion ftl
Anon
2012-Jan-11 5:46 pm
Re: GVI never said they should. Only that they all do, with the exception of the iphone.
The point was (that you seemed to miss) the article author said Apple had pushed back against the carriers, yet does not offer unlocks for ATT iphones.
Google doesn't lock any of their nexus phones, even the ones carrier subsidized. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
1 recommendation |
pnh102
Premium Member
2012-Jan-11 9:55 am
Incorrect HeadlineCompletely and totally disagree here. What Apple and later Google did was actually make existing Smartphone technology useful to the average person. Prior to the iPhone, all we had was Windows Mobile, Blackberry and a few other options that were geared exclusively towards business users. Most average joes had little use for these offerings.
Also don't forget that the mainstreaming of Smartphones forced carriers to improve network speeds and coverage (remember when EDGE was fast?). While the caps that have come into pay do indeed majorly suck, it isn't right to completely dismiss the radical changes that have taken place in the past 5 years due to Apple and Google doing what they did.
As for open development, most people simply don't care enough about it to complain about it. For the small number of people who do, both the iPhone and Android phones "offer" it via jailbreaking or rooting. | |
| |
1 recommendation |
Re: Incorrect HeadlineI pretty much agree with your analysis. Check out this article, it's ridiculously Apple-biased but if you can get past that, it's a pretty good recounting of the history of smartphones, and reminds us of exactly what you are saying, that before the iPhone (and then Android, which came well after iOS, which people forget), things were pretty bleak. You are right on when you say most people don't care about "open" ecosystems anywhere near enough to register on their consumer preference list. I'd go further and say that to most consumers, the Apple "closed" ecosystem is a big plus for them in buying decisions. | |
| | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2012-Jan-11 11:00 am
Re: Incorrect HeadlineOMG... the Palm... totally forgot about that one... the horror! | |
| | | |
2 recommendations |
Re: Incorrect Headlinesaid by pnh102:OMG... the Palm... totally forgot about that one... the horror!
you made me LOL. Exactly correct. I was a big Palm guy (and don't say "that's what she said"  ), I probably owned 5 of them from the original Palm Pilot all the way to a Palm TX. But I saw the future and it didn't look good. Then on impulse I bought an iPod Touch (2nd gen, 8GB) refurb on sale at woot.com, thinking if I didn't like it I could just sell it for about what I bought it for. I got it, tried it out, and was blown away by it as compared to the Palm TX. I didn't expect that. I mean, it was the real Internet, not just some dumbed down version. Then, I had a problem with it, so I brought it to the Apple Store, and was blown away by that excellent customer experience as well. I was, like, wow this is really no contest. Apple wins. So now my family of 5 all have iPhones, I had an iPad but gave it to my daughter who loves it (I'm going to get one of the new ones that come out in March or so), and I'll probably get a MacBook Air when the new ones come out. The iPod Touch is truly a gateway drug. | |
| | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2012-Jan-11 2:27 pm
Re: Incorrect HeadlineAnother thing I forgot to mention in this stroll down memory lane... the old Windows Mobile OS had all the open development that anyone could ask for. It did not help them much in the end. | |
| | | | | |  Michail
Premium Member
join:2000-08-02
Boynton Beach, FL |
Michail
Premium Member
2012-Jan-11 3:07 pm
Re: Incorrect Headlinesaid by pnh102:Another thing I forgot to mention in this stroll down memory lane... the old Windows Mobile OS had all the open development that anyone could ask for. It did not help them much in the end.
It still is a rather developer friendly platform. Sadly, they were late to the game with Windows 7 mobile. Apple, microsoft and google are now locked in a battle of multi-device interoperability (cars, TVs PC, phones, etc). In the end I think it will be the app writers creating cross platform/cross device apps that win out. For instance, I find dropbox and services like flicker far more useful than Photo Stream. | |
| | | | | | | |
to pnh102
Yep. It's all about number of potential customers for your app, and whether they are willing to pay actual dollars, when you choose your platforms development priority. Win Mobi just never had that clout.
I've seen reports that the average Android app makes anywhere from 1/10 to 1/3 the dollars compared to the average iPhone app for the developer. | |
|
| | | |
to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas:and then Android, which came well after iOS, which people forget
You might want to clarify something that article doesn't touch base on. The Android OS was in development (and was readily accessible by those that wanted to embrace it) long before Google ever bought Android Inc. A good analogy of the 2 OSes is 'Betamax' vs 'VHS'. Both were in development around the same timeframe, and long before they were released. Both meant to solve a perceived demand that consumers had.. Apple was just the first developer to get their first commercially available product to market. While fans on both sides of the fence (I own both types of devices) will hope for the utter demise of the other, as we saw with the same 'Betamax' vs 'VHS'... release date of commercial product makes no difference in the long run, and the killing off of a rival product does nothing to really help push industry. I hope for both OS's to continue to flourish... now if we can just get past the bickering and finger pointing over 'patents'. | |
| | | | | |
Re: Incorrect HeadlineIf you insist upon using the VHS vs Betamax analogy, you need to understand that Sony still made a CRAPLOAD of money off the Beta format in a commercial capacity. And probably made more money off industrial strength VTRs and cameras than they would have trying to sell $2 videocassettes and players to consumers.
Sure, they lost on the consumer front. And laughed all the way to the bank. | |
| | | | | | |
Re: Incorrect HeadlineI'm not saying they didn't... in fact their Beta to VHS converters were patented pretty heavily and for the longest time, you couldn't even buy one that wasn't Sony. What they didn't make in licensing the format, they made by being the sole monopoly of the tools to do the conversion  (BTW, I was one of those in the 'BetaMax is better' boat | |
|
| | | | |
to Shad0wlore
Good clarification. I should be more precise - I was really talking about significant market presence of Android vs iOS, not specific OS development activity. | |
|
| | |
to pnh102
I pretty much agree with your statement.
But also add that Apple and Google are not established utilities that became competitive companies. ATT/Bell/Verizon et al, had their pockets lined with government since early on and that gave them the edge with regulations.
Google got to take away the phone companies "phone book" monopoly of ad revenue and databases with its search engine. Wonder what taste that left in telcos mouth.
Apple and Google took a chunk of revenue from the hardware end (Mainly look how motorola sank with cellphones). Ironic Google's Android now runs on Moto phones (Google is compared to MS with licensing droid OS). Remember how Motorola was "the" phone to have (Razor ironic name).
Apple and Google took too long to pad government and lobby for their own needs. Google missed out on spectrum (see how Verizon and Comcast could have colluded to make sure that spectrum never got to anyone like Apple or Google...imagine the turmoil in the telecom/media industry). Now that 700-900mhz spectrum will be for LTE to get data "everywhere" that DSL isn't and FiOS too much to run. (again,
We are still retarded (controlled?) by our telecoms (talk is not cheaper, just more fluff), and there is no "standard", limited options of carriers and features, still dead spots, contracts, restricted travel ...nothing universal (that mandatory data plans came early because they feared what was coming...and wanted to profit...).
I've always said, 'he who controls communications, is a meglomaniac!' ... | |
| | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2012-Jan-11 2:24 pm
Re: Incorrect HeadlineI'm not sure Google or Apple would want to be wireless providers, even if there are rumblings within either company to do so. It is just too much physical investment to start from the ground up... then there's ongoing support costs and other issues that are not germane to their core businesses.
But just imagine if Google and Apple did join forces to form a separate company that did wireless exclusively... that would be something to see. | |
|
|  djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Reno, NV
1 recommendation |
to pnh102
Very well said.
I think to the average consumer, things aren't so bad with AT&T and Verizon. The most common complaints are coverage issues, and Google/Apple has nothing to do with that. The benefit of sticking with the carrier's offerings is heavily subsidized hardware.
I do think people will eventually tire of paying a separate data plan for every new device they buy. Tethering fees are wrong. If I've purchased a 2GB data plan, I should be able to use it however I see fit. It shouldn't matter whether I'm reading email on my laptop or my phone. This is equivalent to your DSL/cable ISP charging you 2x the price if you connect service to a wifi router. I seem to recall Comcast trying to prohibit wifi in the early days of broadband, and it went over like a lead brick.
Caps suck, but it only reinforces my opinion about tethering. Now they've specified what a reasonable amount of use is, and carriers are protected against secondary devices consuming more than their fair share. | |
| | | |
circy to pnh102
Anon
2012-Jan-12 4:32 pm
to pnh102
Oh, spoken like an apple lover. Do you have any idea all the red tape it takes to be a small developer and get your app on apple? Android by Google is much more open ,and I'm sorry if our society is not smart enough to use Droids. It's like saying well if there not smart enough lets not educate them lets just put them on welfare, provide housing and let them reproduce like rats. correct me if I'm wrong but is that not part of the problem with American education systems compared to ex. Europe? | |
| | |
1 recommendation |
Re: Incorrect HeadlineI guess that was directed at me not pnh102. First off I am not a smartphone app developer so no I don't know the process. That said, my comments would be:
(a) A giant boatload of small developers are in fact creating iOS apps and selling them. So it can't be all that bad to go through the Apple process. In fact, the articles I've read about the developers indicate that they prefer iOS because of its market penetration and the willingness of iOS customers to pay for apps, much more so than Android where there is more of an expectation of free (as in beer).
(b) The whole "openness" debate between iOS and Android is meaningful to only a small group of people. Consumers really don't care, they just want a solid choice of reasonably priced apps that work and are safe, and that are easy to install and use. Android is taking a hit on the safety part.
(c) I am not a "lover" of anything, I am an observer of reality as expressed by market and business dynamics and conditions. To call people who prefer iOS to Android "stupid" and then compare them to welfare rats indicates a strong bias on your part that will inevitably warp your view of reality. | |
|
| |
JasonOD
Anon
2012-Jan-11 9:55 am
Oh please.......Apple & high end google android handset makers are the ones extorting the carriers (how much does Sprint owe Apple over the next two years again?). And these phones are popular only because of the massive handset subsidies by the carriers, which of course raises the cost for everyone.
And what have the US leading carriers done? Well VZ is only the world leader in LTE deployments, with AT&T now deploying LTE in high gear. | |
| | | |
cableties
Premium Member
2012-Jan-11 11:01 am
Re: Oh please.......said by JasonOD :...
And what have the US leading carriers done? Well VZ is only the world leader in LTE deployments, with AT&T now deploying LTE in high gear.
ROFL! Verizon...World Leader in LTE? GTFO! Citation please. Oh, an anonymous posting. From Comcast no less... | |
| | 25139889 (banned)
join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH |
to JasonOD
and the LTE technology is still 3.5 and NOT true 4G | |
|
| |
So then, what's the answer?I'm no fan of Verizon and AT&T, but short of building your own mobile network, how do you deliver these "disruptive services" to the consumer in any sort of mass scale? | |
| | 25139889 (banned)
join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH
1 recommendation |
25139889 (banned)
Member
2012-Jan-11 11:10 am
Re: So then, what's the answer?Google doesn't have to build their own network. They can become an MVNO and design their own phones for use on Sprint or Cellco's Network. They could also buy up a company and go that route- but we all know Google doesn't want to do that because then they have to provide customer service. | |
| | |  firephotoTruth and reality matters
Premium Member
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA |
firephoto
Premium Member
2012-Jan-11 12:12 pm
Re: So then, what's the answer?Google still needs the carriers and will always till there is more of an open or free wifi network in most areas. This is mostly why you see such a fight over new wifi bands and tech because that is direct competition to carrier wireless. It's also why you'll see more landline phone areas be neglected so they can be monopolized by LTE or similar services since those networks got a gov't approved meter attached so it makes piggybacking wifi pointless. | |
| | | | 25139889 (banned)
join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH |
25139889 (banned)
Member
2012-Jan-12 2:24 pm
Re: So then, what's the answer?sad part is Google doesn't need that. They can do full VoIP on a network and only make customers pay for data. They can use voice and SMS for everything. | |
|
| |
jxdxbx
Anon
2012-Jan-11 10:10 am
carrier control vs. the alternativesThe only non-crapware Android phones you can get are the Nexus line. The carriers heavily promote garbagey Android phones filled with their own crapware and OEM-specific "skins" that make phones slow and un-upgradable.
What you can say about Apple is this: they kept control. iPhones never have a carrier logo crudding up their exterior, never have carrier crapware, and there are no divergent interests between the OS maker and the hardware maker like in Android.
So Apple's control is troubling, sure. But if they didn't have control someone else would just take it. | |
| |  jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA
1 recommendation |
jmn1207
Premium Member
2012-Jan-11 10:35 am
Re: carrier control vs. the alternativesSome might argue that the granddaddy of all bloatware is iTunes. Where are your choices? Can it be removed? | |
| | |
•••••••••••••••• | | | |
to jxdxbx
Um, you can change the skins and get rid of the crapware on most Android phones, even less popular ones. Most of the companies making phones are now making it easier to root their phones so you can get rid of the "crap" that's already on there, so I would have to disagree with you at this point... | |
| | Michail
Premium Member
join:2000-08-02
Boynton Beach, FL |
to jxdxbx
said by jxdxbx :... But if they didn't have control someone else would just take it.
Well put and that control wouldn't be in the hands of innovators and designers. | |
|
| |
disruptive products like iMessage ??How iMessage disruptive ??
There were tons of chat clients before it.
Even BBM is probably more disruptive | |
| |
••• |
1 recommendation |
Interesting and article really points out a mindset/biasI think Karl's been very open in this article about his mindset and bias which I actually appreciate. Too often he hides it, or perhaps more accurately assumes its obvious correctness so doesn't state it.
Looks like Karl's vision for the wireless world is similar to his vision for the wired world: the carriers/ISPs should be taken out and shot because they are holding back progress. They should be relegated to dumb pipes via regulation and the Googles and Apples of the world should be the content and device masters. Also everything should be completely open and interchangeable across carrier dumb pipes. And the only reason this obviously superior model has not come to pass is because the carriers and ISPs are bribing the government via lobbying and donations. Apple and Google both tried to fix the broken model and failed so it can't be done by anyone but the government.
I think reality is somewhat more complex.
The first thing I'd say is it's really oversimplifying to lump Apple and Google together as common partners in the noble fight against the evil carriers. If anything, they are fighting with each other rather than with the carriers. And they followed very different paths with the carriers. Apple maybe had a vision under Jobs to rage against the machine and build their own network, but they are not stupid, and figured out this would probably sink their company if they made that huge a move. So they built a great phone and played the carriers off against each other and walked away with the lions' share of the profits off the iPhone, and also (and this is HUGE) forced the carriers to accept the iPhone AS IT IS, managed by Apple's ecosystem, not the carriers' ecosystems. Google, on the other hand, decided to attack at the OS level by building Android and giving it away, which has basically had the effect of allowing smartphone vendors to compete with Apple's iPhone and iPad. But Google makes very little profit. And as has been noted the Nexus flopped HARD, which was Google's other pathetic attempt to "revolutionize the industry". Sometimes I wonder about Google, they just don't seem to make good business decisions outside of their core search franchise.
Second, I don't think it's obvious that the USA model of competing carriers/ISPs is dramatically worse than the Europe model of government control. That's a longer discussion. | |
|  Mike
Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA ·Verizon FiOS
|
Mike
Mod
2012-Jan-11 11:14 am
Race to the BottomWhy does ever carrier in the US suck horribly? ROI. That's why. If everyone works together to provide garbage service, that's more money for everyone. Infrastructure, quality and pride cost money... screw that. Here are some sample test results with ATT on my iPhone 4. The highest I have ever seen was 1mb down and like 600 up at like 4am. | |
| |
••• |  DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey |
Do the capitalist thingDo the capitalist thing and ban carrier subsidized phones, force inter-carrier capability LTE , UMTS, and sim cards. Capitalist want competition not fascism or total market control . | |
| |
1 recommendation |
Re: Do the capitalist thingWhat needs to be done is this:
1) Government step in and make it so that network owners can't also provide service. (so make them become two separate entities)
2) Make it so any service provider can use the networks to offer service. (be it data, voice, etc...)
Doing this would also encourage the new network owners to upgrade and improve their wireless networks. As it stands now, they don't really benefit sinking money into infrastructure since it conflicts with shareholder profits. | |
| | | | |
Re: Do the capitalist thingThe problem is that the government already stepped in, a la FCC wireless spectrum auctions, which creates "real" estate in the air. Now they jack up the prices of auctions, and your cell phone bill contains an imputed tax in the form of a "property tax".
After the government grants the license, no way they will go back and say you have to play nice. That would only allow 3rd party competition and lower prices, which of course the government is at odds w/ that because of the taxes they can make from spectrum, not to mention lobbyists who represent those guys, not us.
Back in the early days there were many carriers that owned A/B blocks, but now that the industry has consolidated only the big boys are able to afford LTE bands, and the next generation is a mess because there are like 35-40 LTE bands that will sprout up (WW). Eventually chipmakers will have tuners for all of these, but in the mean time it will be fractured and a mess. With the 2G networks, at least voice is still portable, but data is a problem.
When they go to VoLTE it will get worse, not better.
You can see the pressure that VZW is getting to spin off legacy--they cannot maintain the capex/opex infrastructure costs of legacy and wireless which inherently competes w/ itself (over time).
In my neighborhood I have:
4G Verizon (when it works)
HSPA+ AT&T
Sprint
Tmobile
FIOS
TWC
Dish
DirecTV
DSL Providers
T- providers
LOS WiFI
Add all that up, and we are talking incredible waste and cost. This is one model where auctions/franchises dont work. This should be a public utility, with competition.... | |
|
 Noah VailOh God please no.
Premium Member
join:2004-12-10
SouthAmerica |
Noah Vail
Premium Member
2012-Jan-11 11:52 am
I want to troll. Can I Apple bash here?'cause it's special and unique every time I do.
• I'll give Apple credit for the iTunes store. They effected a change in the music industry that matters.
• I don't see where Apple wrestled any control away from carriers. By entering into exclusive agreements they did quite the opposite.
• Apple took the idea of the small-app environment that existed for Windows Mobile 5/6 and corralled it into their App Store. More exploitation than innovation, in my opinion.
• Google took the middle ground between Apple's shiny dictatorship and Microsoft's Hydra-headed management system.
It allowed some innovation to flow from the company and no Beloved Leader reaped all the credit.
• Google tried and failed to meaningfully support consumer liberty.
Apple abhors consumer liberty.
Microsoft would spend $1bil developing a product called Consumer Liberty and then abandon it following a failed rollout with no marketing.
NV | |
| | |
Bugger
Anon
2012-Jan-11 11:53 am
Troll Baits EverywhereWhile Apple may have revolutionized phone design, Steve Jobs' original vision of a carrier-less future culminated in an a multi-year exclusive deal with one of the most anti-consumer, closed carriers in the industry (AT&T). How exactly is AT&T one of the most closed carriers in the industry? Considering that they are using GSM/UMTS that allows to use a phone of my choice and to roam world-wide, considering that their SIM chips are not PIN-protected and considering that I've been using the wap.cingular.net APN to tether my phone for over a decade now how is any of that considered closed? | |
| |
••• | Michail
Premium Member
join:2000-08-02
Boynton Beach, FL |
Michail
Premium Member
2012-Jan-11 12:48 pm
They should be thankfulI mostly love products and services offered by Apple, google and Microsoft. For not really much expense at all I get a big return from those companies.
It's AT&T riding on these companies innovations that's making a fortune off of me. AT&T and Verizon should be thankful for the data demand they create. | |
| 93388818 (banned)It's cool, I'm takin it back
join:2000-03-14
Dallas, TX |
93388818 (banned)
Member
2012-Jan-11 1:01 pm
The European Market exists todayin the US. You just have to get off your cheap ass and go get it. Pick your provider, buy your handset at places like this: » www.expansys-usa.com/mob ··· -phones/What's that? Ohhh, you want the carrier to pay 4/5ths of your phone hardware cost? | |
| | | |
Re: The European Market exists todaysaid by 93388818:in the US. You just have to get off your cheap ass and go get it.
Pick your provider, buy your handset at places like this: »www.expansys-usa.com/mob ··· -phones/
What's that? Ohhh, you want the carrier to pay 4/5ths of your phone hardware cost?
Okay smart guy. Buy your own phone. Now what's your monthly fee? Oh you *still* have to pay the subsidized price? Oh you *still* have to pay for a data plan? Oh that phone is incompatible with most other networks? Well whadya know! | |
| | | 93388818 (banned)It's cool, I'm takin it back
join:2000-03-14
Dallas, TX |
93388818 (banned)
Member
2012-Jan-12 7:59 am
Re: The European Market exists todayI did! I bought the Google Nexus One, unsubsidized, directly from Google. $650. I put my AT&T SIM in it, and was off to the races. I wasn't tied to a 12 or 24 month contract. If I had been unhappy with their service, I could've stopped at any time. I also could've dropped a TMO SIM in it, and used their 2G networks.
Whether you buy the phone outright, or use their subsidized plan, the monthly rate is the monthly rate. | |
|
 ctceo
Premium Member
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN |
ctceo
Premium Member
2012-Jan-11 3:59 pm
See BelowEffectively MaBell (and the ministry of communications to some degree) & Microsoft (and a few hundred other subservient corporations) lobbies paid enough for it to NOT happen. | |
|
| |
|
|
), I probably owned 5 of them from the original Palm Pilot all the way to a Palm TX. But I saw the future and it didn't look good. Then on impulse I bought an iPod Touch (2nd gen, 8GB) refurb on sale at woot.com, thinking if I didn't like it I could just sell it for about what I bought it for. I got it, tried it out, and was blown away by it as compared to the Palm TX. I didn't expect that. I mean, it was the real Internet, not just some dumbed down version.
·
