StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The most crippled part of all is ringtones. Many phones can play MP3's, but require you to purchase the same songs as ringtones to use them as such.

Mobius wrote:

Bounty wrote:

If you don't want to be bothered by bullshit from carriers, buy your own handset that does not have everything disabled. It'll cost you more initially, but all you need is a sim card change when you switch operators.

The sort of bullshit the US carriers seem to be getting away with judging by posts in this thread would see them assraped in court here.

Indeed. In certain parts of Europe, this practice was deemed illegal because it forces people to enter into more than one transaction (the phone and the plan while only the phone is advertised). Maybe the same can be done in the US?

wait does that mean no iPhone for us in Belgium?

If you don't want to be bothered by bullshit from carriers, buy your own handset that does not have everything disabled. It'll cost you more initially, but all you need is a sim card change when you switch operators.

something which is basically impossible in France (unless you are talking about very high-end phone)

That just means your telecommunications market requires a brutal overhaul and strict legislation with massive penalties for anti-competitive practices so that the carriers get assfucked if they try customer lock-in.

The sort of crippled shit people are talking about in this thread is flat-out illegal here. Telecoms companies can still lock customers in with binding contracts for a limited time if they want a subsidized phone (meaning that the customer is obligated to remain with that carrier for 24 months). After that, the customer can change operators as he pleases and the only thing that changes is the SIM card. They even get to keep their old cell phone number. If the customer wants out sooner, he can do that, but tough shit, he will still have to pay the monthly fees until the contract expires. Trying to get out of that will get him assfucked in court. The system works beautifully and it's one of the most competitive and customer friendly telecoms markets in Europe.

Edi

Telecoms companies can still lock customers in with binding contracts for a limited time if they want a subsidized phone (meaning that the customer is obligated to remain with that carrier for 24 months). After that, the customer can change operators as he pleases and the only thing that changes is the SIM card. They even get to keep their old cell phone number.

We've got a similar system here - operators sell phones but they're not locked; the best they can do is push for a combo package that includes the phone and a plan, but even then there's nothing stopping you from ripping out the SIM and using a different phone. Electronics chains just sell blank phones, you stop by an operator for a SIM.

I don't see how you can do this otherwise with any semblance of fairness.

Praxis wrote:The most crippled part of all is ringtones. Many phones can play MP3's, but require you to purchase the same songs as ringtones to use them as such.

Well dont people already listen to most of their music mp3 anyway ? So why do you have to purchase a song you already got on your PC or mp3 player ?

Darth Wong wrote:How many people seriously want to run applications on their phones, other than an address book or Tetris? I can see people using their phones for doing things like taking pictures or playing music, but would people really want to run out and buy fancy apps for a cell-phone? Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I want everything built into my cell-phone from the start, and I'm not likely to buy a third-party application for it.

I can say that plenty of people ARE willing to do so, although in most cases the application isn't necessarily something that you pay for. Yahoo Go! is a good example of this, and the mobile application my company makes is also free of charge.

Actually it's these applications that scare the carriers MORE because they are essentially forfeiting content revenue.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:

The Kernel wrote:
Wi-fi phones ARE stupid. Wi-fi was never meant as a replacement for cellular, as the range of the technology indicates. If we really want mobile IP telephony, we should be pushing Wi-MAX, not dicking around with Wi-fi.

Eh? The services are for better Internet and local Wi-Fi connection capabilities, without having to go on the mobile network itself which can be patchy and cost more. I don't see why anyone would use Wi-Fi when the mobile already allows cheap phonecalls without a Wi-Fi access point anyway, which is why the VoIP aspect never appealed.

Oh, I see what you are talking about now. There are actually plenty of phones in the US that support Wi-Fi, although most of them are smart phones that rely heavily on data services.

And actually, VoIP is an exciting idea using Wi-Max because it opens up the wireless networks to more diversity of carriers. Sure there are a ton of MVNOs in the US markets, but they are all simply reselling services from one of the big four and they don't actually offer anything innovative or of drastically lower price.

One of the nice benefits of the idea of Wi-Max VoIP is that it will probably cut your wireless bill in half for both Wi-Max carriers AND cellular who will be forced to compete. Data services will also be drastically cheaper.

Praxis wrote:The most crippled part of all is ringtones. Many phones can play MP3's, but require you to purchase the same songs as ringtones to use them as such.

Well most phones actually have the ability to load your own MP3s, you just have to go through a ton of bullshit to do it. I've mixed my own ringtones and then put them up on my website, which I can then point a WAP browser to and download the song. This works on most handsets, but it's a ridiculously roundabout way to do it, but since most carriers disable bluetooth file push, this is about the only way to go aside from ordering a data cable.

Bounty wrote:We've got a similar system here - operators sell phones but they're not locked; the best they can do is push for a combo package that includes the phone and a plan, but even then there's nothing stopping you from ripping out the SIM and using a different phone. Electronics chains just sell blank phones, you stop by an operator for a SIM.

I don't see how you can do this otherwise with any semblance of fairness.

How the hell else are you going to sell subsidised handsets to prepaid customers without some sort of assurance that the customer isn't just going to be walk off and use it with someone else?

SIM locked handsets - you get what you paid for. Want an unlocked handset? Pay full price up front or sign a contract on postpaid. It's not rocket surgery.

How the hell else are you going to sell subsidised handsets to prepaid customers without some sort of assurance that the customer isn't just going to be walk off and use it with someone else?

Well, Proximus seems to be doing it just fine by providing decent service. That tends to keep customers brand-loyal quite more efficiently than extortion.

What are the prices for mid-ranges, subsidised phones in the US like?

Well i think that proximus/Base/Mobistar are giving us 20€ of subside, not much more

The Kernel wrote: I can say that plenty of people ARE willing to do so, although in most cases the application isn't necessarily something that you pay for. Yahoo Go! is a good example of this, and the mobile application my company makes is also free of charge.

Actually it's these applications that scare the carriers MORE because they are essentially forfeiting content revenue.

Dont forget mobile IM programs and web browsers. Many programs available for cellphones are frankly unnecessary but these 2 apps are going to be big hits. I am surprised more people dont use them already considering that most phones made in last 4 years could run these apps.

GuppyShark wrote:

Bounty wrote:We've got a similar system here - operators sell phones but they're not locked; the best they can do is push for a combo package that includes the phone and a plan, but even then there's nothing stopping you from ripping out the SIM and using a different phone. Electronics chains just sell blank phones, you stop by an operator for a SIM.

I don't see how you can do this otherwise with any semblance of fairness.

How the hell else are you going to sell subsidised handsets to prepaid customers without some sort of assurance that the customer isn't just going to be walk off and use it with someone else?

SIM locked handsets - you get what you paid for. Want an unlocked handset? Pay full price up front or sign a contract on postpaid. It's not rocket surgery.

Did you or did you not read my post above? Binding contracts. you don't need to have any of this SIM-locked shit, because operator can take the customer to court if he doesn't hold up his end and the courts will do the assfucking for the operator.

Moron.

Edi

The Kernel wrote:
Oh, I see what you are talking about now. There are actually plenty of phones in the US that support Wi-Fi, although most of them are smart phones that rely heavily on data services.

From the reports I've read, it's not so much the availability, but the uptake of them. The UK and rest of EU are selling them quite well (not just smartphones that are pseudo-PDAs, but regular handsets from BT for instance that just have a Wi-Fi chip) as are Asian companies. I believe the US just isn't motivated enough yet, which is strange given the technology market over there should adopt newer things far quicker if history is anything to go by (though you do have Japan for that now).

And actually, VoIP is an exciting idea using Wi-Max because it opens up the wireless networks to more diversity of carriers. Sure there are a ton of MVNOs in the US markets, but they are all simply reselling services from one of the big four and they don't actually offer anything innovative or of drastically lower price.

One of the nice benefits of the idea of Wi-Max VoIP is that it will probably cut your wireless bill in half for both Wi-Max carriers AND cellular who will be forced to compete. Data services will also be drastically cheaper.

The problem is Wi-MAX simply isn't widespread enough to be considered and these companies want to rake in the cash with systems people already know of, for I doubt even many grandparents don't know of Wi-Fi Internet at least. When Wi-MAX becomes a more common standard, you'll likely see Wi-Fi and Wi-MAX compatible handsets which would, of course, benefit those living in small villages with very few Wi-Fi access points. In fact, Wi-MAX coming of age at all is good for any remote community who can't get cables laid and where satellite is expensive and craptacular.

Admiral Valdemar wrote: From the reports I've read, it's not so much the availability, but the uptake of them. The UK and rest of EU are selling them quite well (not just smartphones that are pseudo-PDAs, but regular handsets from BT for instance that just have a Wi-Fi chip) as are Asian companies. I believe the US just isn't motivated enough yet, which is strange given the technology market over there should adopt newer things far quicker if history is anything to go by (though you do have Japan for that now).

It's more the carriers wanting to push their expensive 3G data services that they've all invested in. Wi-Fi phones sell fine with smartphones (the majority of WM5 devices ship with it), but remember it's also relatively high power and not truly mobile because of the lack of free Wi-Fi.

The problem is Wi-MAX simply isn't widespread enough to be considered and these companies want to rake in the cash with systems people already know of, for I doubt even many grandparents don't know of Wi-Fi Internet at least. When Wi-MAX becomes a more common standard, you'll likely see Wi-Fi and Wi-MAX compatible handsets which would, of course, benefit those living in small villages with very few Wi-Fi access points. In fact, Wi-MAX coming of age at all is good for any remote community who can't get cables laid and where satellite is expensive and craptacular.

Give Wi-MAX some time, it's a very new standard. It should take off as a replacement for Wi-Fi hotspots alone, let alone VoIP services.

Sarevok wrote:

The Kernel wrote: I can say that plenty of people ARE willing to do so, although in most cases the application isn't necessarily something that you pay for. Yahoo Go! is a good example of this, and the mobile application my company makes is also free of charge.

Actually it's these applications that scare the carriers MORE because they are essentially forfeiting content revenue.

Dont forget mobile IM programs and web browsers. Many programs available for cellphones are frankly unnecessary but these 2 apps are going to be big hits. I am surprised more people dont use them already considering that most phones made in last 4 years could run these apps.

Frankly, I'd be satisfied more with the ability to load ringtones easily than being forced to get them off of specialized services that probably don't have what I want and are going to charge me out the ass, than having stuff like IM features that I can just use my laptop for.

Why not load the ringtons via a PC data cable to your phone i? That eliminates paying for the clumsy ringtone services most operators have. Plus you can load any music you want.

Sarevok wrote:Why not load the ringtons via a PC data cable to your phone i? That eliminates paying for the clumsy ringtone services most operators have. Plus you can load any music you want.

Because I didn't feel like shelling out more than $50 for a phone with that capability. (It comes with web-browsing functionality, yet oddly limited ringtone functionality). As far as music, that's why I have my Zen.

Sarevok wrote:Why not load the ringtons via a PC data cable to your phone i? That eliminates paying for the clumsy ringtone services most operators have. Plus you can load any music you want.

I think last I checked the cable itself was ridiculously priced.

I've heard of a website which allows you to send files to your phone, but I haven't given that a try yet.

Uraniun235 wrote:

Sarevok wrote:Why not load the ringtons via a PC data cable to your phone i? That eliminates paying for the clumsy ringtone services most operators have. Plus you can load any music you want.

I think last I checked the cable itself was ridiculously priced.

I've heard of a website which allows you to send files to your phone, but I haven't given that a try yet.

Whatever happened to IrDa and Bluetooth? Four years ago every phone was fitted with them, these days you'd be lucky to find either.

And the WAP upload sites work - well, the ones I've been forced to use.

Ideally, you'd be able to simply hook up your cell-phone to the USB port on a computer and then download some application from the cell-phone vendor to control every aspect of the phone that is customizable. That would be a helluva lot easier than trying to do any kind of fancy work with the shitty interface that is a cell-phone's keypad.

I personally hope the iPhone pulls off the touch-screen keyboard well, because the standard numeric pad is just too bothersome to do any real work with, unless it's an equally crappy mini-QWERTY pad. The virtual projection keyboard was interesting, so long as you didn't mind tapping on a solid surface to a laser drawn image of a keyboard.

On the subject of cellphone/small device UI, I really fail to see what's wrong with the stylus approach. I hate rubbing my fingers across glossy surfaces, in terms of the texture it gives me, and a stylus is smaller and more accurate than fingers. I would not be at all suprised to see third party styli appear for the iPhone.

Darth Wong wrote:Ideally, you'd be able to simply hook up your cell-phone to the USB port on a computer and then download some application from the cell-phone vendor to control every aspect of the phone that is customizable. That would be a helluva lot easier than trying to do any kind of fancy work with the shitty interface that is a cell-phone's keypad.

Actually you can, although the level of customization varies. Your best bet is with a BREW device and the BREW AppLoader.

Darth Wong wrote:Ideally, you'd be able to simply hook up your cell-phone to the USB port on a computer and then download some application from the cell-phone vendor to control every aspect of the phone that is customizable. That would be a helluva lot easier than trying to do any kind of fancy work with the shitty interface that is a cell-phone's keypad.

That's why Apple went with a touch screen for the iPhone. Everyone else was busy trying to shoe-horn PC functionality on to a 12-button pad.

As to third-party support in the iPhone, Jobs hasn't said one way or the other. He's just said it'll be a much more controlled platform because people want their mobile phones to Just Work™. It's a smart phone for people who don't buy smart phones.

Durandal wrote: As to third-party support in the iPhone, Jobs hasn't said one way or the other. He's just said it'll be a much more controlled platform because people want their mobile phones to Just Work™. It's a smart phone for people who don't buy smart phones.

Oh come on, he's basically come out and said that he doesn't want third party apps because they'll crash the Cingular network.

There is pretty much certainty at this point that Apple is making the iPhone a closed development platform. If they weren't, they wouldn't have half the goddamn wireless business begging them for a license right now.

And need I remind you that it isn't the big bad Cingular that is driving this despite what Jobs has said? Cingular is relatively open as development platforms go because you can load apps on a Cingular device (non smart phones) without the need for a Cingular certificate. Heck, all of their APIs are available too! Just look at the other carriers:

T-Mobile: Closed development platform, must obtain a T-Mobile certificate, go through Tira testing and have a business relationship with T-Mobile. All apps must be obtained through the T-Mobile deck.

Verizon: Closed development platform, must provision applications directly from Verizon, must complete NSTL testing.

Sprint: Semi-open platform. Many APIs (including PIM and HTTPS) are closed to anyone who doesn't have a Sprint certificate, but unsigned apps that use non-restricted APIs can run.

Cingular: All APIs unrestricted, can provision from a third party site.

So it's not like Cingular is close minded to third party development. Sure, they will shut down network applications they don't like (and they have), but for the most part they ignore the third party developers. I'm sure Cingular would LIKE to have the iPhone be closed considering its media-centric features, but Jobs must have agreed with this philosophy to close out development like this.