AT&T To Allow VoIP On iPhone 220
Toe, The writes "On Tuesday, AT&T announced it will allow Apple to enable Voice over Internet Protocol applications, such as Skype, to run on its 3G wireless data network. Apple stated, 'We will be amending our developer agreements to get VoIP apps on the App Store and in customers' hands as soon as possible.' And Skype, while happy over the move, also stated, 'the positive actions of one company are no substitute for a government policy that protects openness and benefits consumers.'"
Wait a minute (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:About time. (Score:2, Interesting)
I hope your right, but me thinks AT&T will just shape traffic so VOIP doesn't work well al la Comcast torrenting.
VOIP is cool, but what about tethering? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm more interested in tethering -- I mean, officially-supported, I-don't-have-to-violate-my-warranty tethering. It's been promised for awhile.
Re:Bad deal for AT&T (Score:3, Interesting)
You do have this freedom with the iPhone. Apple does not make it easy, they don't support or sanction it. But it is possible.
How does Skype handle changing to/from wi-fi? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm wondering how Skype will handle a call if you lose your 3G signal and the iPhone switches to an available wi-fi signal, or back?
That's a pretty common scenario here at my workplace, for example. We have wi-fi in the office but sometimes you might walk out to the parking lot where the wi-fi drops out, and you're back on 3G ... and vice-versa obviously happens when you go back inside.
You'd see the same thing happening at restaurants like McDonalds that have free wi-fi for iPhone owners. Are people going to drop all their Skype calls as they leave or enter places like that?
That, alone, could be a big motivator for people to just use the "real" cell network instead of Skype .....
Re:Bad deal for AT&T (Score:3, Interesting)
Capitalism is NOT dominant in the U.S. region. Creditism is. Nobody uses capital except people at the top of the food chain. Everybody below has to use credit to buy anything of substantial worth.
Re:AT&T wants to hold onto the big cash (Score:3, Interesting)
My wife just went in to an AT&T store to pick up a new phone (hers was ~5 years old, and the last time she dropped it the thing finally [mostly] died). Yes, they have text message plans. In fact, in order to get the phone she really wanted (with a qwerty keypad), she would have been required to add unlimited text messaging. Not a big deal, right? Wrong. They want $20 per month for an unlimited texting plan (or $5 per month for 200 messages). Absolute insanity.
I'd threaten to switch to another carrier, but all of the national carriers seem to be in on the text messaging extortion these days. And no, $0.20 is not the cost without a plan (unless you mean a separate text messaging plan). I regularly pay $3-$5 in text message fees every month for the few text messages my friends insist on sending (yes, I could probably disable them [the text messages, though probably most of my friends too if it came to that :] - but I actually rather like text messages, I just think the carriers charge astronomical rates for something that should be included in a calling plan for free).
Re:Bad deal for AT&T (Score:3, Interesting)
More like how important it is to AT&T not to have network neutrality codified into regulation. This move is only to mollify the FCC and get them off their backs so they can still double-dip by charging companies running popular sites for "preferential" (read non-degraded) access to AT&T subscribers.
I'd expect nothing less from the number one political gift donor [opensecrets.org] in America.
Re:Bad deal for AT&T (Score:3, Interesting)
...If an iPhone were a closed system, like the iPod Nano, it would be unreasonable for the government to force Apple to support developers. However, the iPhone is programmable. What's new here is how Apple regulates software that can run on the computers their customer's buy (an iPhone is a computer). I think companies should be barred from limiting what programs I run on any generic programmable computer I own. Any computer where programmers are encouraged to create 3rd-party software should have the ability to run such software without interference from evil companies...
I completely agree that it's silly that Apple limits customers from running what they want to run. However, it's my opinion that this should be Apple's choice. I also believe that it should be your choice to not buy Apple's iPhone. Why should it be a fundamental right for you to run any software that you want on a programmable device? Is it a grave injustice that you are forced to endure, or do you just feel that you deserve legal entitlement to using a great product any way you want at the expense of Apple's freedom?
The same argument goes for video game consoles. These could easily be designed as general purpose computing devices - and made to be user-programmable. However, they are hindered by nearly identical restrictions as the iPhone. Why can't those companies try to protect their own revenue streams? Further, why can't another company develop a device that will compete by allowing users to program their own?