Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Details and Rumors of iPhone Restrictions Emerging

Posted by kdawson on Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:18 AM
from the still-don't-know-how-much-a-month dept.
We're getting indications of the ways the iPhone will be sold (or not sold) and restricted by Apple and AT&T. Reader thefickler writes, "An anonymous AT&T store manager has told blorge.com that users will get their WiFi when they sign a contract locking them into a data plan and EDGE. Kiss your dreams of WiFi reliance goodbye." And our own CmdrTaco found an article up on AppleInsider reporting that the iPhone will not be sold through established business channels — forcing Cingular business customers to stand in line for their goodies, as individuals, at Apple stores. An AT&T Business Division rep told one customer, "There is no ETA on the [ending of the] sale ban to business."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • uh oh... (Score:5, Funny)

    by sumi-manga (948999) on Thursday June 14 2007, @10:21AM (#19505877) Journal
    more like, iPwned
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      more like, iPwned
      Now thats funny, I don't care who you are. Wow they are trying to force me into waiting for the Neo1973 [openmoko.org].
    • by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday June 14 2007, @01:42PM (#19509183)
      ...the guy who bought it.
      • Not so (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Apple fans will put up with anything. Including this.
          • Re:Not so (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Golias (176380) on Thursday June 14 2007, @11:06AM (#19506669)
            I'm an Apple junkie going all the way back to the System 7 days. I currently use multiple Macs, have an Airport hub, and am on my second (probably not last) iPod. I have drunk deep of the Kool-ade, and asked for seconds. You will seldom find a bigger Apple zealot than me. OS X is justification for the very existence of Western Civilization. Steve Jobs is my hero. While I would not blow him, I would make arrangements for him to be blown at my own expense if he asked me to, merely out of gratitude for the ways in which his company has improved my life.

            But there's no way in hell I'm buying into the at&t EDGE network plan to use this phone. If I could have just bought the phone and relied of free Wi-Fi hotspots for data use (and preferably drop my T-Mobile SIM into it and keep my current plan), I would have gladly dropped far more than the $600 price tag to snap one of these things up. OS X "Lite" on a hand-held? Are you kidding me? Even without the phone, I would want it.

            The other shortcoming is that the "best iPod we ever made" as Steve calls it, lacks enough storage for my music collection, let alone video files.

            But as it is... Screw it. I'll keep toting around my 5th Gen 80GB iPod and my RAZR. Get back to me with iPhone 2, and if there are fewer ties to a ridiculously expensive (for what it is) phone/data service, I'll consider it.
              • Re:Not so (Score:4, Interesting)

                by Golias (176380) on Thursday June 14 2007, @11:28AM (#19507005)
                But what I haven't yet been able to figure out is why anybody except the most extreme junkies is going to purchase this phone.

                I don't see it as a phone with an iPod & Browser in it.

                I see it as an at-long-last replacement for the old Newton, with a phone in it.

                If, by "the most extreme junkies", you mean 1 percent of the current cell phone market, then Apple hits their sales target for this phone right there. Get a few casual and/or business users on board, and it becomes one of Apple's most successful product launches, ever.

                But they'll be doing it without me, so long as it's locked into high-priced, low-performance, long-term contracts.
                • Re:Not so (Score:5, Insightful)

                  by oatworm (969674) on Thursday June 14 2007, @12:03PM (#19507591) Homepage
                  I was talking about this with a coworker of mine, and we decided something:

                  The iPhone is not meant to compete against the Blackberry or Windows Mobile phones of the world. The iPhone is not for business customers. Instead, it's for home users that want similar basic functionality to a Blackberry or Windows Mobile device (something that handles e-mail, browses the web on an easy-to-read display, that sort of thing) but don't want it to feel like a "work" phone. Consequently, Exchange support is unnecessary, as is anything beyond basic calendaring and the like. If it can play a few mini-games, so much the better. It doesn't have support for a bunch of third-party plugins? Oh well - the home user won't need them anyways.

                  Now, what my coworker and I couldn't agree on was how many home users actually want that, and the reason for that is because this market segment has never been touched. Consequently, I'm curious to see how big the "I want a PDA but not for work" market really is.
                  • waiting is (Score:4, Insightful)

                    by Gary W. Longsine (124661) on Thursday June 14 2007, @03:21PM (#19511013) Homepage Journal
                    Well, to start with it's not clear if the WiFi will really be disabled without an EDGE service plan, or exactly what the AT&T service plan for the iPhone will be, so it seems a little premature to be issuing the big FU to the one guy on the planet who's trying to fix the cell phone industry. Recall, this is the same guy and the same company who tried to save the music industry from it's own stupidity. (Reference EMI's evolving position on DRM). You might want to give this a little time. Apple cannot fix the entire cell phone industry overnight, but they can fix some things up front, gain influence in the market, and use that influence to fix other problems later.
  • AT&T NBS sales (Score:5, Interesting)

    by willith (218835) * on Thursday June 14 2007, @10:23AM (#19505899) Homepage
    I just got off the phone with the AT&T National Business Ordering Center, and they confirmed that they *will* be selling the iPhone to individuals attached to business accounts (i.e., accounts with FANs) on 29 June. It's possible that the person to whom I spoke might have just been BS'ing, but I figure that person is at least as reliable as the anonymous sources in the article summary.
  • by minginqunt (225413) on Thursday June 14 2007, @10:24AM (#19505933) Homepage Journal
    "Users will get their WiFi when they sign a contract"

    I'm not sure this statement makes much sense. Since the iPhone won't be sold without a (data-enabled) contract, shouldn't it read:

    "Users will get their iPhone when they sign a contract", which has the advantage of being true, if less trolly.
    • by Frosty Piss (770223) on Thursday June 14 2007, @10:58AM (#19506547)
      But think about this...

      An anonymous AT&T store manager has told blorge.com...

      Talk about unreliable rumors, a store manager? There's only 5 or 10 of those in the country! How far down the food chain is that? This guys information is probably based on rumors of rumors. In other words, very possibly no relation to reality.

    • To be a bit more informative, it should read:

      "Users will get their iPhone when they sign a contract including both voice and data plans."

      This has the advantage of pointing out that data plans are required. I know I've been considering getting an iPhone, but once you add a data plan you're basically at $80+/month. Of course, that figure is estimated using the current voice and PDA data plans. Throw in another 20 bucks minimum if you want to tether w/o violating their terms of use.

      Without having actually tr
  • But... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mattgreen (701203) on Thursday June 14 2007, @10:24AM (#19505935)
    I thought the iPhone was going to be REVOLUTIONARY! I've never felt so empowered about a product launch! (Well, there was that one time when I was really big into Rage Against the Machine, and I considered myself acutely aware of the injustice around the world.) Maybe I need to stop reading RoughlyDrafted so much...
  • I just wonder (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MemoryDragon (544441) on Thursday June 14 2007, @10:25AM (#19505953)
    If this thing is DOA, no app development, and a lot of other lock in restrictions. I am not sure who the customers of those things should be the technical crowd definitely is not.
    And lots of other usual apple customers probably are shied away by the contract enforcements connected to this thing.

    I assume it will be the crowd who wants to have the latest shiny toy. I am not sure if this thing will be able to stand on its own after some initial success. Apple could have had a winner on this thing if they wouldnt have played Sony or Nintendo in trying to lock the user of this thing down!

    It probably will come down to how fast the thing will be hacked open!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      no app development

      We know this to no longer be true - 3rd party apps for the iphone can and will be created using methods similar to the way widgets are developed for os x. As to contracts.....why is everybody whining about contracts? *Every* phone that is not a prepaid phone requires a contract, and nearly all of them have draconian cancellation fees - why don't we wait until we have the actual details of the contract, rather than the word of an anonymous AT&T store manager.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Name one other phone that is not sold without a contract.

        (PS: I don't think the iPhone will be contract restricted either)
  • Sorry. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by iknownuttin (1099999) on Thursday June 14 2007, @10:26AM (#19505983)
    I'm not getting it because its a Cingular plan. And after reading consumer reports, Cingular/ATT is one of the worst plans you can get. And I don't buy the phone: I buy the plan.

    So, until Apple cuts this shit of giving one provider exclusive sales rights and allows Verizon to sell it, Apple will not have me as a customer.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Apple will never sell a Verizon or Sprint version of the phone. PERIOD. Thats a complete hardware redesign for the radio (same reason the Treo 700p will never show up on a GSM carrier). Apple is after worldwide GSM providers. Not backwater thinking US centric companies like those two. Want to switch to a local number when in Europe? Get yourself a new phone or be raped by Verizon/Sprint for overseas rates. Sure Cingular sucks if you need actual customer support, but I'll take being able to swap my SIM when
  • by ivan256 (17499) on Thursday June 14 2007, @10:27AM (#19505989)
    Are there smartphones out there that don't require a data plan?

    For example, with my Treo I'm forced to purchade the $15/month unlimited data plan from Sprint. It's required for all their smartphones.

    So this story seems to be about.... A theoretical contract that is the same as the typical contract and may be unfair if the price is too high (but we don't know the price yet)?
    • by asv108 (141455) <alex.phataudio@org> on Thursday June 14 2007, @10:34AM (#19506135) Homepage Journal
      Its not about a data plan, the story is that in order to use WIFI on your phone(a non AT&T network feature), you will be forced to sign up for an expensive data plan. The iphone's feature set is dependent on your network contract, even if that feature doesn't use the network.
      • by SuperKendall (25149) on Thursday June 14 2007, @12:10PM (#19507667)
        I thought people were complaining because WiFi wasn't prevalent enough and so EDGE was too slow. Now people are complaining because WiFi is everywhere and they don't want a data plan. Give it a rest! sn't it possible that having data wherever you go, sometimes faster and sometimes slower, via different means, is the best of all worlds?

        Where I live we don't even HAVE 3G yet, so I don't need it. But I welcome the realistic combination of WiFi and EDGE to get the widest possible network coverage and the best possible battery life (3G currently really chows down on batteries). All these things add up to actually being able to make full use of data on the device, instead of carefully hording limited battery or data amounts.

    • Of course that was quite a while ago (two years almost, if I remember correctly). And as far as I know, you could always buy a smartphone (for full-price) and put the CIM from your non-smart (dumb?--that doesn't work for a phone... unintelligent?) phone into it and get phone service on your normal plan and just use the pay-per-bit data.
    • by wiggles (30088) on Thursday June 14 2007, @10:42AM (#19506287)
      I don't have a data plan on my old T-Mobile Treo 600. I can use all the palm functionality, sync with Outlook, but I just can't browse the web or get e-mail in real time.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Yep, in fact my Treo with Cingular does not require a data plan. And I just queued up an order for a 755p on sprint.com with only the $39.99 regular plan. I think your rep took you for a ride.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Are there smartphones out there that don't require a data plan?

      For example, with my Treo I'm forced to purchade the $15/month unlimited data plan from Sprint. It's required for all their smartphones.

      Yes, I bought an Unlocked GSM Treo 650 a couple years ago, put a SIM card in it from T-Mobile, later decided I wanted to switch to Cingular because their GPRS data was faster than T-Mobile, and I've been using it ever since.

      If you want an unlocked GSM smartphone you just have to buy it yourself, pay the true cos

  • by blueZ3 (744446) on Thursday June 14 2007, @10:28AM (#19506019) Homepage
    but does this surprise anyone? For-profit companies maximizing profit by locking users in and limiting access to ensure demand--what a shocker.

    Let's face it, if this were any non-Apple or non-tech product we'd all shake our heads at the sad gullibility of the purchasing public and move on. The fact that this is a highly anticipated product that's going to have limited availability isn't anything unusual in and of itself. Apple and Cingular are going to make a good bit of money, which is what they're both in business to do.

    Cellular service providers have made it a practice to "strongly encourage" customers to sign up for multi-year contracts to get a better deal on phones, subsidizing the cost of the phones, for which very few people would be willing to pay full price. The WiFi restriction, if true, is just more of the same.

    In any event, I can pretty much guarantee that there will be hacks to work around this. I've never owned a phone (much less a smart phone) that wasn't hacked to get around carrier restrictions.
  • by LordNimon (85072) on Thursday June 14 2007, @10:28AM (#19506021)
    I was never planning on buying one, so maybe I shouldn't be commenting, but it's bullshit like this why I'm not an "early adopter" for technology, despite the fact that I'm an engineer. I'm amazed at how many high-tech products these days have proprietary restrictions in them. I find it ironic that the worst offenders are communication devices. The iPhone costs $600. Usually, companies form restrictive alliances to keep the price down - if product X only works with service Y from company Z, then company Z will usually give a discount for service Y. But the iPhone costs $600, so at that price you'd think that Apple wouldn't need to partner with anyone.
  • Here's an idea (Score:5, Interesting)

    by squiggleslash (241428) on Thursday June 14 2007, @10:31AM (#19506065) Homepage Journal

    Rather than hearing gossip from AT&T reps who almost certainly know virtually nothing about the final details of iPhone marketing (the only information I'm aware of them being provided is a brochure that explains how the thing works), why don't we wait until we get official announcements from Apple and AT&T. Not only are these rumors almost certainly based upon speculation and technological ignorance, but even if both Apple and AT&T have provisionally decided to go with them, there's still a strong chance of them changing their minds in the next week or two.

    It's not even 100% clear if the iPhone will need a contract at this stage. Apple hastily removed language implying such from the online version of their ads, and AT&T has internal codes set up for selling iPhones with GoPhone plans, according to some reportage. This week we've seen Apple at a high-level flip flopping on various issues, such as the pretense of ZFS in Leopard (initially ruled out, then changed to present in a stripped down form), and the ability of Leopard's bootcamp to be used as a switcher between suspended versions of Windows and Mac OS X.

    The final decisions haven't been made yet.

  • This is news? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by volkris (694) <volkris@gmail.com> on Thursday June 14 2007, @10:32AM (#19506093)
    This is old news and entirely expected.

    Anyone who thought they could get an iPhone without "appropriate" cellular service will also be disappointed to find out that the iPhone will not grant super-human strength either.

    The iPhone has always been presented as part of a platform that included the cellular service. It was always tied tightly to the network. I don't know why anyone is surprised, then, that purchase of an iPhone comes with the network as well.
  • by Cr0w T. Trollbot (848674) on Thursday June 14 2007, @10:36AM (#19506183)
    Important: You Must Follow All These Steps in the Precise Order to Obtain Your iPhone. Failure to Do So Will mean Being Denied Entry To the Kingdom of Jobs

    1. Take a number from the iphone number dispenser at the front of the store.
    2. Proceed to the Coolness Evaluation Station. There you will be evaluated on your dress, apperance, and general coolness to determine whether you are worthy of having an iPhone. Among the criteria: A.) If you have a goatee, you may not have an iPhone. Those are so last year. B.) If you are a white man with Chinese or Japanese symbols tattooed on any part of your body, AND you can't read the language it's written in, you may not have an iPhone. Posuers are so lame. C.) If you are wearing a NASCAR shirt, a mullet, or carrying a can of Skoal, no iPhone for you, Cletus. D.) If you've ever owned, or even touched, a Zune, you may not have an iPhone. What's wrong with you? Finally, E. Any woman carrying a small dog with her as a fashion accesory may not have an iPhone. Get a life, Princess.
    3. If you have passed the Coolness Test, you may proceed to the Icon of Jobs in the center of the store. Kiss it thrice and ask for Jobs to bless your purchase.
    4. After kissing the Jobs icon, proceed to iPod/iPhone Acclimation station, where your iPod and your iPhone will be introduced to each other to see if their peronalities are compatible. If you have forgotten to bring your iPod, you may, at the acolytes' discression, buy a new one.
    5. Finally, proceed to the Wallet Weighing Checkout station. Your wallet will be weighed, and must weigh more than a feather, but less than a duck. If it passes these tests, your wallet will be taken and you will be allowed to have your iPhone. No, you may not have your wallet back. Your bank will be able to issue you new credit cards.

    Crow T. Trollbot

  • by El_Smack (267329) on Thursday June 14 2007, @10:40AM (#19506251)

    "iPhone will not be sold through established business channels -- forcing Cingular business customers to stand in line for their goodies, as individuals, at Apple stores."

    Yeah, man. Like, you gotta wait in line with the rest of us. Hey, you mind if I blaze up? Thanks man. *fffffffttttt* Sure, I can spare a spliff. *fffffttt* Sure, I'll show you my Powerbook, man. Check out that widescreen.

    And another business PC user is converted.
  • Well, good (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Moochman (54872) on Thursday June 14 2007, @10:54AM (#19506501)
    People, this is a good thing that the data plan will be required. The iPhone would be practically useful without it anyway, which would just result in dissatisfied customers. This way, AT&T will be forced to make their "iPhone plan" halfway reasonably-priced in order to draw customers in, which will in turn help drive down data plan rates from all carriers across the board.
    • Re:Well, good (Score:4, Insightful)

      by grapeape (137008) <mpope7 AT kc DOT rr DOT com> on Thursday June 14 2007, @11:03AM (#19506631) Homepage
      I wouldnt count on any data rate price wars. Frankly I would not be surprised if AT&T tried to charge more. They are counting on the apple fanboys to make it the next ipod. I think they overestimate themselves but rest assured they are going to make a go at making it the most expensive phone to own ever.
  • by The_Rook (136658) on Thursday June 14 2007, @11:02AM (#19506595)
    the article describing the limitations on the iphone's wifi cites an 'anonymous at&t store manager'. not exactly an athoritative source.

    that the iphone's key features might be disabled without a mobile phone contract is all too believable in light of how mobile phones are marketed by the wireless companies. it's one of the reasons why so many people (myself included) insist on keeping the phone as simple as possible and using a second device for the pda, camera, wifi, and mp3 functions. makes it easy to change carriers also.

    however, before completely going ape over this, i'd suggest waiting until someone in authority actually spells out at&t's contracts and service plans for the iphone, or to see how an iphone actually comes out of an apple store.

    at&t doesn't really need a contract since the iphone only works on their network. granted, the mobile phone company contracts don't require much of the carrier, but why would at&t make any requirements for itself at all when it doesn't have to?

    as for potential ipod users who want iphone features without having a phone contract; i suspect that the iphone is only the first of a new generation of ipods. over the next few years, i expect the entire ipod line will get an iphone makeover sans mobile phone features.
    • Apple, just like Microsoft, is a BUISNESS. Buisnesses are about profit. That's it.

      This is why, to me, Apple lovers that despise Microsoft simply because they are Microsoft are some of the most clueless people around (the same holds true the other way around, of course). Microsoft TELLS you they are fucking you in the ass, wheresas Apple hides it (and it usually works)

      ALL buisnesses are in it for the money. Welcome to reality, bud.
      • by Shakrai (717556) on Thursday June 14 2007, @10:38AM (#19506211) Journal

        Apple, just like Microsoft, is a BUISNESS. Buisnesses are about profit. That's it.

        Replace "Apple", with "Cingular"^W"AT&T" and you might be accurate there. I'm no Apple fanboy and I don't even own an iPod but if you think that Apple wants these restrictions you are insane. This was the best deal they could get with a national carrier (Verizon demanded even worse restrictions) so they are going with it.

        Why they wouldn't have just released it as a unbranded GSM phone that any T-Mobile or AT&T customer could just throw a SIM card into is beyond me. It wouldn't have had all the carrier dependent features, but it would have been a workable iPod/phone combo, it would have been affordable, and it might even have set a precedent for selling these things outside the iron grasp of the carriers who want them locked down and crippled so they can provide their own revenue stream.

        That would have been a nice way to Jobs to do something pro-consumer and stick it to the carriers for forcing all of these restrictions on him. Guess that was too much to hope for. Yeah, it's all about the money :(

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Why they wouldn't have just released it as a unbranded GSM phone that any T-Mobile or AT&T customer could just throw a SIM card into is beyond me



          SIM card? Apple won't even let you replace the BATTERY!

          If you think it's only the nasty carriers that would make this a closed device, you're deluding yourself--look how "open" the ipod is.
      • by Bemopolis (698691) on Thursday June 14 2007, @11:11AM (#19506755)
        Speaking as an Apple lover, I don't despise Microsoft because they are Microsoft. I despise Microsoft because of what Microsoft is: a company that is unable to make anything except for wonky, artless crap. And if that were the end of it that would be fine; but their crap is ubiquitous, and sometimes a requirement.

        To use a non-car analogy, Microsoft is like....Celine Dion. I mean, sure, I can concede that she's a gifted technical singer, but she has the aesthetic sensibility of a third-grade dropout Appalachian bootlegger who lost 90% of his hearing in a still explosion, with the rest of his faculties addled by methanol poisioning and a dose of the clap he got while stationed in the Pacific theater fighting the nips. (Hi, Grampa). Now, there are some people whose palate Vann diagram overlpas well with this, and more power to them. As for me, I won't allow that meliasmic dog sick in the house. And if that were the end of it that would be fine. Now imagine a world where you go to work and they pipe Dion over the PA; and after work you go online to your bank website to pay your credit card, and there's a banner that says "Sorry -- you must be playing 'My Heart Will Go On' to access this feature"; and then your so-called friends keep sending you email with attachements that plays a mashup of 'Ce N'Etait Qu'un Reve' and 'To Love You More'; and then, to get a grip on sanity you turn on the news and Rene Angelil is on Letterman talking about how Celine Dion is spurring 'innovation' by requiring the vast majority of mp3 player manufacturers to include 'Miracle' and 'On Ne Change Pas' pre-installed, along with preview tracks of 'D'Elles' that can, in some instances, cause malware to take over your player and play 'Power of Love' repeatedly at full volume.

        So yeah, I hate Microsoft. That's The Way It Is.
    • Re:How odd (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Shakrai (717556) on Thursday June 14 2007, @10:34AM (#19506141) Journal

      It almost sounds like they don't really want to sell the things.

      No, it sounds like the damn carrier (AT&T in this case), as usual, has way too much power and is holding back true innovation by restricting what the device maker (Apple) in this case can offer to their customers.

      Motorola, Nokia, etc, etc all have the same complaints about American carriers. Crippled phones that consumers don't want, disabled bluetooth profiles, the complete carrier control over what goes on the phone, etc, etc, etc. None of this is new.

      I've linked this document [ssrn.com] before, but I'll link it again. A call to apply wireless network neutrality and Carterfone rules to the cell industry. A must read for anybody that thinks need practices need to end. Forward it to your State and Federal elected officials. Sooner or later this has to stop.

      • Re:How odd (Score:4, Informative)

        by StarvingSE (875139) on Thursday June 14 2007, @10:43AM (#19506303)
        I am a Cingular/AT&T customer, and have been since 2001. While all of the phones I have received from them are locked to only work with Cingular service, I have had complete control over what I do with the phone in terms of ringtones, java mini-apps, etc.

        I used to have a motorola v200 and all I had to do was get a driver off the net and I could load the thing up with custom ringtones and not pay a dime for them. I now have a RAZR, and I still am able to load it up with mp3's, background graphics, java, and have full unlocked bluetooth capability.

        I'm not trying to be a Cingular/At&t fanboy, but I think it can be said that some carriers are better than others. There is one carrier (I think it's verizon, but correct me if I'm wrong) that totally replaces the user interface of all their phones with their own in-house one. The new interface apparently locks most of the functionality and is much less usable than the standard interface, and forces the customer to purchase all the extras through verizon.
            • Re:How odd (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Shakrai (717556) on Thursday June 14 2007, @11:32AM (#19507085) Journal

              the margins in the wireless industry (last I checked) were rather thin overall

              It's hard to know what the margins actually are because most of them are owned by parent companies (T-Mo by Deutsche Telekom, VZW by Verizon and Vodafone, etc, etc) and don't report separate results, but even assuming that's the case I don't buy it as justification for this behavior. That was one of the "bad" things that Ma Bell did -- forcing long distance users to subsidize local service. Once Ma Bell was broken up long distance prices dropped like a brick and local service went up to reflect the true costs. In any case, why should my functionality be reduced because of their business model?

              Though the amount of features available to the US market sucks

              And that's entirely the fault of the carriers. In Europe you don't even typically buy a phone when you get service. You buy a phone at a Nokia store and then find a carrier to get service with. That's also how landline service worked the last time I checked -- I buy a phone (an el-cheapo at Wally World or a $300 one at Staples, doesn't matter) and then get service. The device makers have an incentive to add features to compete with each other. If the carterfone rule hadn't been applied then we might not have ever had analog modems, fax machines, answering machines, etc, etc, etc. Think of the innovation possible with cell phones if the carriers got out of the way.

              Basic service must not be a huge moneymaker for them

              I'd dispute that. Voice minutes cost them next to nothing to provide. A friend of mine works at the local university. They have their own telephone switch and telecom department and lease dedicated flat-rate trunks to carry their off-campus traffic. How much do you think they pay for voice minutes to the US and Canada? With the flat-rate trunks it works out to less then a hundredth of a penny per minute. With all the long distance and backbone assets that Verizon, AT&T and Sprint own, somehow I doubt that voice isn't rolling in the dough for them. It may not have as big of a margin as data or SMS, but it makes enough money.

              So if all you want is a phone, go with a carrier that uses vendor lock-in to screw their other customers! You'll probably get a better deal.

              I'd also dispute that. T-Mobile doesn't use vendor lock-in and they are about the best value in mobility, if you live an area with coverage. Right now they are even offering a promotion of 1,000 minutes for $39.99/mo with full N&W. That's 3.999 cents a minute. Verizon's $39.99 offering is 450 minutes or 8.8886 cents a minute. Granted, it all depends on your needs, coverage and where your friends are (mobile to mobile is nice), but I think it dispels the fact that you need to screw your customers to offer a good price on voice. If anything, T-Mo would have the highest backend cost for voice too, given that they don't own their own backhaul networks in the United States like the other carriers do.

              Who pays for that? The people who run up huge finance charges, that's who

              Your paying for that as well. Ever hear of the merchant fee? Even if you don't eat finance charges the merchant is eating 1.5-3.0% of every sale when you use your credit card. In fact, I'm helping you to pay for that as well because the merchant isn't allowed to pass that charge along to you -- so the cash users wind up subsidizing the credit card ones. Net result: prices go up, Visa, Mastercard and your bank all get richer.

      • Re:How odd (Score:4, Insightful)

        by DrXym (126579) on Thursday June 14 2007, @12:14PM (#19507735)
        Apple is not forced to sell through a carrier. All they need to is produce a GSM enabled phone with a SIM slot and they can sell these things through their store like any other device. Let the consumer choose their own carrier.
        • Re:How odd (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Shakrai (717556) on Thursday June 14 2007, @11:37AM (#19507185) Journal

          The free market will take care of that. People already choose providers based on the features they provide. If you don't like the restrictions your carrier places on your phone, choose another one, don't go crying to the government.

          We don't have a free market for cell phones! That's the whole point that nobody understands. Four carriers is not competition. It's an oligopoly. How is it competition when they all raise their SMS prices within three months of each other? How is it competition when none of them will allow unsigned applications to run on their phones? How is it competition when nobody new can break into the market because of the combination of start-up costs (billions) and a lack of available spectrum?

          The government will only make things worse. Witness the Cable Card debacle for a good example of the government attempting to do something like what you're demanding and failing miserably at it.

          Yes, because the carterfone decision can be compared to the Cable Card clusterfuck. The carterfone decision never led to open devices or consumer choice. Ma Bell still has a lockdown on the POTS network and won't allow you to use a phone unless you get it from her. Oh, wait....

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Apple and AT&T are not concerned at this point with price, contract requirements, etc. It's simple business. So many people want this thing right now they could charge $140 per month and $1000 for the phone and still not meet production demand. Give it a few months (6 tops) until the other vendors are allowed to join the game, and until other supported data system networks are added and the price will drop as fast as that for the RAZR. Remember, the RAZR was a $300 phone when it came out, and it's j
        • Re:How odd (Score:5, Insightful)

          by EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) on Thursday June 14 2007, @10:36AM (#19506179)

          So many people want this thing right now they could charge $140 per month and $1000 for the phone and still not meet production demand.

          Sony thought the same thing about the PS3, and look how that turned out.

          • Re:How odd (Score:5, Insightful)

            by TheRaven64 (641858) on Thursday June 14 2007, @11:09AM (#19506713) Homepage Journal
            The difference between a mobile phone and a console is the expected lifespan. Mobile phones rarely last more than a year in the marketplace (except at the very cheap end). The iPhone has to do two things:
            1. Look shiny enough to drum up interest for the iPhone 2.
            2. Finance the R&D on the (cheaper) iPhone 2.
            Like the first generation iPod, it's not about getting a product out that will own the market, it's about getting a product out that will generate excitement and establish Apple as a player in the market.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Seriously, if they are losing money selling the phone at $500-$600, then someone over there is a total moron. The iPhone is hi-tech and all, but it's no PS3.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      If the SIM card is not removable, what happens if someone accidentally locks the SIM card by typoing their PIN, then the PUC (unblock code) too many times? On GSM phones, it would require a new SIM card, which isn't too expensive, around $20 or so at a T-Mobile or AT&T store. However, if the SIM card is not removable on an iPhone would mean that too many typos would permanently brick the phone.

      Hopefully this isn't the case.