What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
137 Comments
- duke, on 07/15/2009, -5/+96[sobbing like a petulant child]
You RUINED IT!! You WRECKED MY LIFE!!!
[/sobbing like a petulant child]
The music and wireless industries seem to want to just sit there like a slug and passively let the money roll in while they do nothing. They see that Apple innovates, changes culture, enjoys rapid growth that they could never dream of in their boring worlds, so they want to buy in and ride the wave. And once they do, they can't understand why they can't just resume their peaceful slumber while riding this enormous wave. They try to snooze anyway, wipe out, nearly drown, and then look for someone else to blame for "ruining" their industry. Meanwhile, Apple paddles out to catch the next wave. Overseas in Asia, the wireless companies are catching waves and offering services we could never dream of in the States, but no, doing that here would disturb their nap. AT&T could have looked for ways to heighten the experience by improving infrastructure and services, but they preferred to nap and to lobby government regulators for protection instead.
File this under "they just don't get it". - ArkRep, on 07/15/2009, -31/+113Digg me down all you want .. But I wouldn't buy another Phone.. Games on the iphone are the best thing ever when your shopping with the women .. "I'm just going to try this on" .... knock yourself out love ... I'm try to get to level 10 here ...
- taokr, on 07/15/2009, -1/+77WTF? The title says they're "wrecking the industry" but the article essentially says that Apple has helped spur competition, "forcing companies to keep reasonable service rates and let apps dictate business rather than network services". Title makes it sound like they're doing something bad, but the article says they're essentially doing something good.
- MaxMWood, on 07/15/2009, -11/+66Apple has raised the bar for mobile phones (or cell phones that you Americans call them). I think it's great that Apple is changing the industry, if no one was putting out better products then we'd still be stuck with crappy crappy phones, it's brilliant how some other companies think throwing a touch screen on a phone makes it an iPhone competitor.
One thing I do feel very strongly against is the fact that O2 or AT&T get exclusivity of the iPhone. I really don't know why nothing has been done to challenge this on a large scale, since it is clearly anti competitive. - MacParrot, on 07/15/2009, -5/+47Yes Apple "wrecked" the music industry by forcing them to let "us" decide what songs we are going to download without all the filler. If the Music Industry had it's way, we wouldn't be allowed to buy any singles, wouldn't be allowed to burn digital copies of CD's we already own, and DRM would not only lock it to one computer, but each device as well making us re-purchase it in every single case.
I'm not saying Apple did this alone as this was a natural progression and evolution of the music industry once the true digital age arrived, it's just that some businesses have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future. The movie industry is fighting this tooth and nail too, but they will either evolve or perish.
As far as the iPhone and ATT goes, is everyone forgetting what the deal was prior to the iPhone? Units locked down to whatever features each provider was willing to grant you no matter what the phone was truly capable of. Access providers not really caring if some features didn't work because they screwed with the OS. There could not have been an app store prior to the iPhone with so many different phones that all were pretty much incompatible with each other. This was not the fault (mostly) of the companies that actually made the phones but of access providers who dictated to them exactly what features their phones would have. Apple turned that on it's ear and now we have those same access providers bending over backwards to the phone makers in some kind of search for a phone that will out iPhone the iPhone.
And ATT looks like ass (and made to look so BY Apple) for not having features ready in the iPhone available on their network. - jsmith39, on 07/15/2009, -1/+39I've had an iphone for just over a year now, and yeah I love the thing. I'll replace it when something better comes along, but for right now there isn't anything better out there. I've got high hopes for android phones over the next couple of years, but so far I'm unimpressed with them. Truth is I don't even look at the iphone as a phone anymore. I occasionally make calls on it, but mostly it's just become an all encompassing communication device, voice is probably my least used function.
- deaftly, on 07/15/2009, -5/+32Awesome story
- smacksaw, on 07/15/2009, -5/+28I also guess it's true to say that Mexican drug cartels keep marijuana prices low while they fight a drug war with each other on several fronts, including price. But in the end, it's the innocent people who pay for their behaviour while they get rich off of us.
Love my iPhone, hate Rogers and hate AT&T with a passion. But what I dislike even more is the anti-competitive partnerships that come from having exclusivity deals. I took my iPhone with Rogers - I get tethering, but I had to use my US address to get Skype? Seriously? I could have dropped Verizon and gone with AT&T, but then I don't get tethering?
Of course Rogers doesn't want me to have Skype since they give me jack for usage, whereas AT&T doesn't want to give me computer internet through my phone since they give unlimited usage. So when people jeer the carriers, it's well-founded. But if iPhones were available on other carriers we might see more competitive data plans.
I'm all for people signing agreements and partnerships, but they should not be anti-competitive and anti-choice. - migitalwarfare, on 07/15/2009, -0/+22Exactly. Before the iPhone, in the US anyway, the hottest phone was the ***** Razr, and for some reason, it had been the hottest phone for years prior. That thing is a ***** joke, and I'm glad Apple raised the bar.
Say what you want, Alexmfm, about HTC and Samsung already having implemented the tech that is in the iPhone, not that many people gave a ***** about those phones in the US. It took the iPhone to get the industry off their asses and start developing good phones again. - galore, on 07/15/2009, -1/+22Yeah, the average $100/month that an iPhone user forks over to ATT each month for pretty much guaranteed two years is just ruining this company.
- SoyoKaze, on 07/15/2009, -2/+19Wait.... so the fact that the iPhone has pushed ATT to give us features like MMS and tethering is a bad thing? ATT should have had this type of thing years ago! I'm no Apple fan, but I think it's good they are "wrecking" the cell market if that's your definition.
- Sashwan, on 07/15/2009, -1/+17Agreed if it wasn't for Apple, the mobile phone industry would have just stagnated with basically the same crap each release with a new shell.
With the release of the iPhone we are now seeing some wonderful new phones like the Palm Pre, the HTC phones etc. - OrangeTide, on 07/15/2009, -1/+16sudden competition in the US wireless carrier market, say it ain't so!
- chrisdodges, on 07/15/2009, -0/+15Dugg you up because voice is also one of my least used functions. Texing, web browsing, music/video, and other application usage all come before voice.
- kreatre2007, on 07/15/2009, -0/+15I wouldn't say that the iPhone is "wrecking" the cell phone industry. I would say however that the iPhone (and hopefully the Palm Pre, and Android phones) is raising the bar on consumer expectations which will fuel demand for more technologically advanced phones, and hopefully, greater interoperability with more carriers. It's stupid that we can't use any phone that we want on any carrier. Exclusivity deals are great only for the carrier with the exclusive contract. They're harmful for consumers, and for the phone manufacturers. I'm hoping that exclusivity deals are made illegal soon. The carriers also need to settle on a wireless standard that the OEMs can get behind. This will be great because it will force the carriers to compete in service and price, which is the way the industry should be. If you don't like AT&T, you should be be able to take your iPhone to another carrier WITHOUT jailbreaking. Imagine if you could only use your computer with one internet service provider. That's exactly how the wireless industry is right now.
- aladrin, on 07/15/2009, -1/+15It's not 'the industry' they are wrecking. It's AT&T's reputation.
But even that is wrong. AT&T had a bad reputation before the iPhone, and people hated the ***** they pulled. Now customers that expect better service (You know, Apple customers) are experiencing that same ***** and are just being a lot louder about it... At least in the tech circles.
Ask anyone over 50 about it and they won't have a bloody clue what you mean, though The same goes for most people under 50 as well. - spazzcat, on 07/15/2009, -0/+13Can someone tell me how this is a bad thing?
- jman583, on 07/15/2009, -2/+14Can Digg please put a one link per day limit on new users?
- jsmith39, on 07/15/2009, -7/+19I see the 'if it's popular, I have to hate it' squad found your post.
- ArkRep, on 07/15/2009, -2/+14Reality TV Show like American / uk Idol wreaked the music Industry ...
- mrBitch, on 07/15/2009, -1/+12RE: " .. Truth is I don't even look at the iphone as a phone anymore. I occasionally make calls on it, but mostly it's just become an all encompassing communication device, voice is probably my least used function."
Agree, I use an iPhone as a GPS enabled netbook replacement. - ehaugan, on 07/15/2009, -0/+10iPhone hasn't wrecked the industry. It spawned a new standard in cell phone design. How many companies were perfectly fine with their mediocre products like the Treo or Razr anything with Windows Mobile (ie- crap) until the iPhone was released?
Then people like Steve Balmer said the iPhone would never get more than 3 or 4 percent of cell phone market share, and now its up over 10%. 60% of all mobile web traffic comes from the iPhone.
My point is, we saw everyone and their brother saying how the iPhone wouldnt be that big a deal before it was released, and since we've had every cell phone company out there try to release an "iPhone killer" which have basically all been a half-assed attempt at an iPhone. Just because it has a few features the iPhone has does NOT make it anywhere near the level of what the iPhone has.
In short, I doubt you would have seen anything like the Pre released from a company like Palm who was content with dumping junk Treos into the market for 10 years had it not been for the iPhone. And thats just one example of the many companies now trying to play catchup. - Liquidswar, on 07/15/2009, -0/+10More like they're wrecking their party. AT&T is a good 'ole boy, a grumpy old man that doesn't like to be bothered when he's taking a nap -- even if the pipe in his mouth is about to fall into his lap. I say just let it fall and watch him burn.
- EtherGnat, on 07/15/2009, -1/+11"I will add that anyone who buys a different smart phone is a ***** idiot."
It would cost me a small fortune to switch away from Verizon, which is a better network anyway (around here anyway). I also like some of the features I can't get on an iPhone like a memory card reader, true multitasking, removable battery, physical keyboard, and being able to install whatever applications I choose without some nanny company filtering them.
How does that make me a "***** idiot"? The iPhone has a very nice UI, and the developer support makes it tempting indeed, but there are plenty of reasons to consider other phones. - dienamite, on 07/15/2009, -0/+9Skype for iPhone in Canada is prohibited due to patent issues, but I'm sure Rogers would've crippled the app to wifi-only if no legal matters got in the way.
Look on the bright side, at least those of us with bigger data plans have tethering access with no additional charges. - znicket, on 07/14/2009, -21/+30"Wrecking" as in Restructuring? Why the negative word?
- TruckStuff, on 07/15/2009, -4/+13Tell it again.
- silversilver, on 07/15/2009, -0/+8Actually it was wreaked long before that.
- D14852001neko, on 07/15/2009, -0/+8I think they are "wrecking" the old business model, therefore, "wrecking the industry" as we now know it, or they wanted it to be.
- FGDave, on 07/15/2009, -0/+8If the quotes around "wrecking", is supposed to imply "saving", then the title actually makes sense.
- mcnasby, on 07/15/2009, -0/+7Something smells like AT&T PR behind this story. The iPhones is great for users terrible for carriers. We should have no vested interest if a business can't adapt its again model. Why people are apologists for AT&T's crappy ways is beyond me.
- Myztry, on 07/15/2009, -2/+9Australia doesn't allow phone locking or exclusivity in the same manner as the US. Sure, there can be contracts but providers must allow people to unlock phones (though break costs are allowable).
The first iPhone was skipped because it used redundant technology which was being phased out like non-digital TV in Australia and the U.S. The current (3G capable) iPhone is available with any carrier. It's just a phone after all.
Anyway, I think it's great that Apple are changing the status quo. The U.S. Government seems to be the Corporates whore, and when Carriers get away with what IS anti-competitive behaviour in one country, they tend to want to extend it into mine. And every Government is a whore to a degree. - Mike17102, on 07/15/2009, -1/+8They still are. AT&T sucks, but Verzion still sucks worse. Their network coverage might be nice, but they STILL cripple their phones by removing things like bluetooth file transfer on a lot of models. The only reason they have slacked up at all is because Apple is killing them.
AT&T is far from a bastion of freedom, but they never locked down their phones (and removed features) like Verizion did. - m00nmaster, on 07/15/2009, -6/+13No, I'm digging it down as the comment is the answer to a question never asked.
- Mike17102, on 07/15/2009, -0/+7Because as good as the iPhone is, it still doesnt equal a monopoly for just one carrier to have it. There are plenty of other cell phone companies and phones out there.
Would I love to see other companies have it? Sure. But for now they dont (and you can get someone at Verizon was drug out into the street and shot for turning it down when Apple came to them first). - Mike17102, on 07/15/2009, -6/+13Having just got my first iPhone (the 3Gs), I will add that anyone who buys a different smart phone is a ***** idiot. Unless you have some solid business need for something the iPhone just cant do, there is no reason to have anything else. Its simply that much better than all other phones.
This is from someone that has owned both Symbain and WinMo phones. - btschul, on 07/15/2009, -1/+8Unfortunately spam isn't rare by any stretch.
- javaroast, on 07/15/2009, -0/+6You nailed this one. The US communication companies are completely lost at this point. If just one of the companies would wake up it would temporarily give them a huge competitive advantage. Alas, I don't forsee any of them waking up and getting it any time soon.
- DJRobX, on 07/15/2009, -0/+6You must be longing for those pre-2002 days when the Backstreet Boys, Britney Spears and N'Sync were ruling the Billboard charts. Idol sure changed all that!
- macbookpromat, on 07/15/2009, -0/+6Apparently no one took the time to RTFA. I dugg you up for the reference.
- rx8geek, on 07/15/2009, -0/+5Its one of the very few modern technologies Australia hasnt got shafted on! When I look at the plan options for getting an iPhone in the US they're really getting boned!
I didnt pay a cent upfront for the 2 yr contract with Virgin, $74 and I get more calls, sms/mms and data than can I use in a month! It does have a 1gig limit on data but I rarely go close to that, although now I can tether I might have to be careful.
I feel sorry for the people that got excited in the US when the price of the handset dropped to $199US! Plus they have to PAY to receive calls and sms! - fribhey, on 07/15/2009, -0/+5yeah because it has nothing to do with the fact that "cell phone" is short for cellular phone
- sensor, on 07/15/2009, -10/+15buried for inaccuracy... ***** title
- MtheoryX, on 07/15/2009, -1/+6I don't care how you slice it... selling a CD for $20 is generally more lucrative than selling it for $5, especially since most of the costs are fixed.
They like when you buy full albums with lots of filler.
And who the ***** are you to assume we don't know what a B side is? Way to miss the whole ***** point of his comment. - cliptip, on 07/15/2009, -0/+5how is making the cell industry consumer centric "wrecking" it?
- migitalwarfare, on 07/15/2009, -0/+5I can only speak for myself, but here in America, wireless house phones are called cordless phones, not mobile phones. Mobile would suggest being able to travel with it.
Also, cell phone is a more descriptive term, as it describes the type of technology used, and is therefore the better term to use. mobile phone could also encompass sat phones. So call him a dumbass, but technically speaking, you're the one coming off sounding ignorant. - bblande, on 07/15/2009, -2/+6I will get an iPhone the second I can use it outside of AT&T. Not a day sooner.
- kipmarlowe, on 07/15/2009, -0/+4[For those paltry few readers in this increasingly abandoned thread (chronic latecomers adults with day jobs, or at least where digg-ing is frowned upon or just impossible), I'm using voice dictation software, so please excuse any bizarre homonyms, like their there they're in what turned out to be a gargantuan comment.]
"Since when is the disaster of government intervention a Paradox? Its always a disaster."
Yea, leave big biz alone and it'll magically, randomly and accidentally make life peachy for the middle class, if not the poor. Sure, like it did with that clumsy, historic reversal of 80 year old "interventions" put in place after the Depression because they'd become "outdated" (read: inconvenient for a select group of rich power brokers). Instead of re-regulating one critical "intervention" was "deregulated." Trouble is the un-intervention didn't have the typical intended effect: make the rich richer / poor poorer / middle class smaller, all the while convincing social conservatives that it's okay, we're the family values moral majority party, so trust us to remove the shackles from those poor misunderstood corporations. "Deregulation good!"
Noooo, not always because this one screwed EVERYONE, including the rich, all, that is, except for one tiny, select group classified as the "super-rich." (Some of them may not have gotten richer, per se, but they emerged with a larger slice of the American pie. That = power, the next best thing to wealth.)
Along comes a novel new way of spreading the risk of loan repayment beyond staid institutions to random, individual investors (as in countless, singular individuals or small groups of them), but the scheme needs a regulatory tweak or two. Pesky interventionist regulations! Forget that they were put into place after the Depression to avoid another Depression.
This novel new profit scheme will turn out to be no better than the Savings & Loan scandals or Dot Com speculation artificial "economic boom" periods, but F that — deregulate, Texas-style, and do it among a citizenry that's already bulging at the seams with credit card and student loan debt, both phenoms much more specific to Americans than most of us know, or care to know. Then use certain corporate media propaganda pundits to blame it on dems who wanted affordable first home buying for the poor. (Trust republicans. They're socially conservative, believe in God, and are certainly no worse than democrats.)
And no, I'm not anti-corporation. I know we need them, desperately, in fact. They are the answer, in so many ways, to employing ever-growing populations, and hopefully will continue to employ them, even when people-replacing technology reaches a critical mass of mass layoffs. Of course, government will intervene in a sober and sensible way. Okay, it'll be flawed as hell, but better their human, greasy and greased hands than be subject to the profit machinery of what is basically an organism. Capitalism is, can be, one cruel entity. Talk to certain cultural anthropologists, sociologists, even neuro-biologists, and they'll speak of the ongoing race between corporate good (technology that will save us), and corporate bad (technology that will replace us). Profit is the magic motive for much that is good, problems solved that seem a fantasy today. But without intervention, both within and externally, profit motive is also ruthless.
The default is greed, the exception altruism.
I recently discovered the peculiar words "student loans" literally inspire morbid fascination among citizens of other nations, grads of which can't imagine starting life after school with any debt at all, nonetheless tens of thousands of dollars. (Didn't know that, until very recently, even MBA's were free in many such countries.) "No wonder you work longer hours!" they opine in their European accents and superior grammar. Yea, they simply do not envy our busy careerist lifestyles, high divorce rates, myriad social problems like teen pregnancy and denied medical coverage for "pre-existing conditions" (which is another phrase that inspires perplexed awe).
They don't envy us all the other perks that come from the cultist capitalism that Fox & Friends expects us to trust in, the source being Rupert Murdoch, a particularly power-grabbing media mogul that, just like Obama, is not born in the U.S. Interesting how media consolidation back in the 20's preceded the Depression, just like recent corporate media consolidation preceded Depression Lite. But we must not regulate the alarming media push toward consolidation! Intervention always bad, market self-correction always good!
But, of course, nowadays saying anything bad about market capitalism is construed as ANTI-capitalism, anti-freemarket, anti-American, pro-socialism, outright communism. Sorry but, far from radical, I don't believe anything different from most politicians residing in the middle during the days of Ike on up to Goldwater. Another tidbit from history, it's fascinating how even most Protestant churches (right up until the spectacle of Jerry Falwell marrying polygamist President Reagan, hence giving birth to the Religious Right) used to warn parishioners of the inherent evils of man-made institutions, including not just government, but powerful businesses, and particularly Wall Street, not to mention the church itself. Much healthier days for Christianity and the church, which divorced its groom, Christ, to marry the republican party.
Funny also, how it was a republican icon, (General) Eisenhower that warned us of the alarming trend among his republican brethren to farm out the entirety of the U.S. government's military to for-profit corporations. He predicted the trend would amount to a "military industrial complex" that would eventually bring war upon humanity, just for the need for ever-increasing profit foisted upon any publicly traded company.
(In crack-grade capitalism it's not good enough to just remain profitable, faithfully employing the previously loyal and often permanent employees. No, the company has to dance an endless trajectory of growth, even if it's not good for the particular industry, or country at large. Hence, the appearance — and the sheer, arguably needless and often counterproductive size of multinational corporations so large that they're already beginning to trump the power of governments. Capitalism always good, government always bad.)
Speaking of, the very worst of both united under Bush Too and Dick "military industrial complex" (pull my) Cheney, when the U.S. government hired Haliburton, the very company he had recently been CEO — behind closed doors, closed to any and all bidders. Republicans everywhere just couldn't understand (intellectually? God) why democrats and independents, alike, dropped our collective jaws at the arrogance involved, not just in the very act, but in bothering to actually defend and/or spin such a spectacle.
Surrealism.
And way back when, the second most famous General in presidential history gave a speech, warning that the critical and historic time for "government intervention" was slipping away with each day these companies grew big enough to lobby for and totally and permanently ensure their own eventually intractable survival. Were Ike alive today to see what became of his party, and his prediction . . .
Like the saying goes, the following are inevitable: war, taxes, death, and debt. I also discovered recently that just about ALL of those European evil, backwards social democracies have draconianly stiff credit card laws protecting consumers from themselves first, companies second, even though their public literacy and education levels, and superior knowledge of government and world affairs dwarfs ours.
For instance, their governments simply don't allow universities to align with card companies to target freshmen college students on registration day with rows of cafeteria tables that remind you of stalled highway traffic, each table full of slick and misleading brochures. But, but isn't that against these companies' free speech? Why that's anti-capitalism! Damn socialists! Sure, credit on campus is just a scheme to push tuition ever-higher. But, how dare you? Isn't "what the market will bare" practically a bible verse in capitalist manifesto?
I can scarcely recognize capitalism, compared to the days when one adult per household could work 8 hours a week less than today, yet still care for a family with 2.4 kids, own a home, with 1.7 cars, a 1.4 car garage, retirement fund, the kids of which faced a far more affordable education.
But, hey, back before the MBA invasion newspapermen were the editors, educators the college presidents, movie makers the studio heads, producers the music moguls, editors and writers the publishers. We all know how that turned out. I'll never forget the hairy Harvard-bound student that followed Girard Depardieu around in My Father the Hero. "I think I'll go to Harvard Law, then do something sexy, like . . . film."
Yes, corporations and even business men used to be far less intrusive, and business sizes consistently balanced for decades on end back when small businesses were ubiquitous, almost to the point of fantasy by today's standards. But without Walmart and Home Depot how did people afford this supposedly high, pre-1980 standard of living? Oye. (By the way, I'm not particularly old. I just come from a politically active family who consistently live into their nineties.)
What I've learned, in my own lifetime, actually, is that un-tethered profit motive run amuck can be just as bad as ill-fated government meddling. Gone from our collective consciousness are of the unimaginable days of the robber barons that we fecklessly and fearlessly assume will never happen again. Then there are the infamous monopolies from the likes of powerful people/families like the Rockefellers on up to their modern, corporate replacements, like ATT, for instance. In the 80's it was an aggravated and destructive monopoly the government divided into 25 "Baby Bells" — a necessary evil, performed under republican President Reagan's watch. No veto there.
Unfortunately, the affects of the breakup were eventually watered down until the would-be benefits were reversed during the recent transition from wired to wireless. Destructive greed is very often the default. ATT has to grow, and Wall Street punishes those American corporations that spend capital on long-term infrastructure or solutions instead of the scheming amenable to quick buck short-term speculative investing. So sometimes, not often, but sometimes intervention or even outright radical change is necessary.
In Switzerland and Sweden "intervention" is frequent, swift, and frighteningly powerful by our hand's off standards. O'Reilly warns Fox viewers we're turning into (one or the other of these countries, maybe both). Not ideal, certainly, but perhaps better than the coming, corporate-centric alternative in an increasingly unrecognizable country.
Haven't reread what I just spoke, but if I'm wrong about anything, and I'm sure that's inevitable (despite the emphatic show of confidence) I would suggest it's a matter of degrees or emphasis, and not the general perspective. I may even be playing devil's advocate because, like many of you, I'm still figuring this whole thing out.
Venting might also describe what's been building up in me, post 9/11, post Iraq war, post-elections, post-culture wars. Whatever, I don't actually WISH to offend anyone, even though I'm finding it more and more necessary.
Ultimately, my sincere wish is for a return to critical thinking, applied contextually, with an eye toward history, and an open mind toward the balance struck by certain of the social democracies, specifically the Nordic and Scandinavian models. In my book, these countries, and our own past, each have something to teach us. - BossKey, on 07/16/2009, -0/+4"I use an iPhone as a GPS enabled netbook replacement."
A lot of people think this is why Apple doesn't make a netbook. They already make something that does the job of a netbook, but it fits in a pocket and is more popular. - cthellis, on 07/15/2009, -0/+4> Apple at first won important concessions and praise from its partners, only for them to regret it later as the iPod maker's popularity left these companies at the supposedly smaller company's mercy.
...which led directly to the labels dropping DRM from their music purchases! OH NOES!
If ONLY they'll have a similar effect on cell carriers!
> The attack is such that Apple has all but taken control of the partnership, according to the analyst. Now, the Cupertino company has "radically tilted" the normal balance of power against AT&T and cellular networks as a whole. If Apple preferred another carrier, many iPhone owners would switch to preserve the experience they already have; an incentive that forces carriers to keep the handset maker happy. At times, though, it also has the caustic effect of suggesting an conspiracy at the carrier to limit useful services, such as voice over IP calls, when cost or technical reasons are the real motivators.
Frankly, if Apple had ACTUALLY taken control, AT&T would have had MMS available and made tethering available for free... The 10MB cap on media and app purchases through the cell network would have been removed...
In short, we would have seen ACTUAL CONCESSIONS, instead of what feels like AT&T pushback. Doing so got AT&T some bad press. Deservedly.
OH NOES! -
Show 51 - 100 of 143 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is