Re: NEWS: AT&T loosens its iPhone 3G S upgrade policy

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:01:32 -0700, Mark Crispin <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Jeff Liebermann posted:
>> Translation: Verizon announced that they're apparently going to be
>> selling a genuine Apple iPhone shortly.
>> <http://gadgetress.freedomblogging.com/2009/06/05/verizons-iphone-has-arrived/14745/>
>
>You didn't read it very carefully, did you?
>
>It's an iPod Touch with a Verizon MiFi attached to it. You don't have to
>wait, you can buy a MiFi now.
>
>-- Mark --


As wide spread as WiFi, especially ATT WiFi is, 3G is just more
ubiquitous, doncha know.

Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 07:55:51 -0700, John Navas
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>In my current location, I have 5 bars of 3G, but no Wi-Fi signals.
>>(Likewise when I'm out on the water sailing.)
>
> Wi-Fi rules. I have wi-fi at home, at my office, at most of my
> customers, where I eat lunch, and at most places that I lurk. My
> guess is about 70% of the places where I might want connectivity. The
> main benefit of wi-fi is not having to pay Verizon $360/year plus
> taxes for a (mandatory) data plan. This provides a financial
> incentive for the inconvenience of Wi-Fi. That's the equivalent of a
> new iPhone or two iPod Touch devices every year. In other words, if I
> refuse to subscribe to the data plan from my cellular service, and use
> an iPod Touch (same as an iPhone but without the cellular and GPS)
> instead, it only takes 6 months to break even. Also, Wi-Fi is faster
> than 3G, doesn't have a download limit, and can be used peer-to-peer
> (bypassing the cellular provider).
>

The downside of Wi-fi is that you can't be truly mobile with it. It forces
you to become static in order to remain productive and connected. And
unlike the 70% of your regular life that is covered by Wi-fi, I find that
about 95% of mine is covered by my carrier's network and allows for a
seamless and constant connection to their network. I work when and where I
need to, instead of wasting time trying to find a connection. It is easily
worth the money spent.

One other observation about wi-fi. Anybody in this day and age that still
has an unprotected hotspot is an idiot. That being said, the number of
open connections grows smaller by the day.

In alt.cellular.cingular John Blutarsky <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> One other observation about wi-fi. Anybody in this day and age that
> still has an unprotected hotspot is an idiot. That being said, the
> number of open connections grows smaller by the day.

I visit a lot of places that have secure WiFi, and they offer it to their
customers, or people with WiFi in their homes that they will share the
credentials with me. I have a bunch of auto-connect profiles in my
AT&T Blackberry Bold, and it uses either WiFi or 3G to open a browser. I
didn't have to do anything for it to connect to WiFi in the various places
that offer AT&T hotspots, like Starbucks and McDonalds.

You are correct that WiFi doesn't work while moobile, but in a lot of the
places where I come to a stop, there is someone with WiFi, and a key that
never changes.

I did _almost_ fall for the early upgrade fees, though. Someone bought the
Bold for me for Christmas, although my phone wasn't eligible for upgrade.
The out the door price was horrendous. I checked the company discount, and
somehow I knew that I should ask how much my present cost... It was over
2.5 times as much. I talked to some folks, and wound up taking the phone
back, waiting about three weeks, and ordering it as an upgrade to one of
the other lines on my plan.

(Then, after confirming my shipping address, they sent the Bold FedEx to a
former work address, where I guess I had initially qualified for the
corporate discount. The company isn't there anymore. Someone signed for
it. It was probably sitting in the reception area. AT&T wanted to run a
trace on the package, and let me know the outcome in two weeks. I told
them that I didn't really care what they did to correct their mistake in
two weeks, I wanted a new phone shipped now. Which they did.)

--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Already has. Even the better dumb phones now have memory card slots,
> and the cost of GB flash memory is dirt cheap. I "only" got 2 GB for my
> "dumb" TM506 because it was easy, cheap, and big enough for my immediate
> needs, but I plan to upgrade to at least 8 GB when I find a good deal,
> or perhaps even 16 GB. (That the iPhone doesn't use memory cards is
> what's really "dumb".)

the iphone comes with as much as 32 gig built-in, so why fuss with
cards? it's much more than what most people generally use. the most
popular ipods have historically been smaller in capacity, starting with
the 4 gig mini that far outsold the 20 gig ipod which was only $50 more
at the time, and later the ipod nano that replaced it.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> Already has. Even the better dumb phones now have memory card slots,
> >> and the cost of GB flash memory is dirt cheap. I "only" got 2 GB for my
> >> "dumb" TM506 because it was easy, cheap, and big enough for my immediate
> >> needs, but I plan to upgrade to at least 8 GB when I find a good deal,
> >> or perhaps even 16 GB. (That the iPhone doesn't use memory cards is
> >> what's really "dumb".)
> >
> >the iphone comes with as much as 32 gig built-in, so why fuss with
> >cards?
>
> Because it's better, easier, and cheaper to use removable memory cards,
> which have the advantage of being swappable and usable in other devices.

most people are not interested in juggling multiple memory cards.

> I can take a memory card out of a digital camera, insert it into a
> phone, and send pictures to my friends, online album, and blog.

there's already a camera in the iphone and there will be card readers
that attach to the dock connector shortly.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> Because it's better, easier, and cheaper to use removable memory cards,
> >> which have the advantage of being swappable and usable in other devices.
> >
> >most people are not interested in juggling multiple memory cards.
>
> Most people I know are quite comfortable moving memory cards to transfer
> and print pictures, transfer files, etc.

invalid sample size that's not representative of the masses. the
average user is not a geek that wants to deal with cards and the ipod
and iphone already have more storage than they know what to do with.

> >> I can take a memory card out of a digital camera, insert it into a
> >> phone, and send pictures to my friends, online album, and blog.
> >
> >there's already a camera in the iphone and there will be card readers
> >that attach to the dock connector shortly.
>
> It's a poor camera compared to a real digital camera, and I'm not
> interested in carrying accessories around.

it's certainly no dslr but it *is* a camera and the latest firmware
improves the picture quality. the best camera is one that's with you
and it's not always feasible to carry another camera, no matter what
kind of camera it is.

> The iPhone would be more impressive if fans didn't have to keep making
> excuses and work-arounds for it.

i can't speak for others but i'm not making excuses at all. it's not
perfect and despite its shortcomings, a lot of people are extremely
satisfied with it, something like 80-90% in a survey last year. sorry
if facts don't jive with your bias.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> Most people I know are quite comfortable moving memory cards to transfer
> >> and print pictures, transfer files, etc.
> >
> >invalid sample size that's not representative of the masses. the
> >average user is not a geek that wants to deal with cards and the ipod
> >and iphone already have more storage than they know what to do with.
>
> I'm talking a respectable sample size (20+) of ordinary users.

20 out of a billion cellphone users is not representative.

> >> It's a poor camera compared to a real digital camera, and I'm not
> >> interested in carrying accessories around.
> >
> >it's certainly no dslr but it *is* a camera and the latest firmware
> >improves the picture quality. the best camera is one that's with you
> >and it's not always feasible to carry another camera, no matter what
> >kind of camera it is.
>
> It's a poor camera.

i never said it was a great camera. read what i wrote.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> I'm talking a respectable sample size (20+) of ordinary users.
> >
> >20 out of a billion cellphone users is not representative.
>
> You apparently don't understand statistics.

actually i do, and apparently you don't understand the needs of the
typical user versus 20 of your friends.

> >> It's a poor camera.
> >
> >i never said it was a great camera. read what i wrote.
>
> In fact you touted it as an alternative to a quality digital camera.

i said no such thing. what i said was that it is an alternative when
carrying another camera is not desired or even possible. obviously,
there are better cameras available.

Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):


>
> Out of curiosity, what part of your activities (home, office, work)
> are covered by Wi-Fi and do you consider the added cost of 3G to be
> sufficiently beneficial to justify the added cost?

There are really two questions there. Home and office would be a 100%. The
"work" portion (which I'll assume to be "non-office" in nature) gets a mark
of about 75% for destinations, but a zero in terms of road time, which is
extremely important to me. I have about two and a half hours of extremely
rural Interstate commute time each day when I'm in the office and spend
many hours in airports in the course of a typical year. The nature of my
job requires an "always-on" approach and there have been a number of times
where I've pulled off the highway to swap and compare documents or start up
some database queries based on the discussion at hand. All I have to do is
fire up the laptop before I leave the house and the connection is available
when ever I need it. The reporting piece that I mentioned is extremely
handy- I can kick off queries before I leave the house and have the
information available by the time I hit the office. I even have a nice
little text-to-speech app that will read long documents to me if I'm in the
mood.

A lot of people think that the "need" for on the road connectivity means
that you must be staring at a screen while going down the raod. Far from
it. As for the price justification. it's a slam dunk for me- I'm able to
take non-productive driving time and make it work for me. The things that
I do while driving would have to be done at some point and by getting them
done while driving frees up time in what is typically already a hectic day
and helps to avoid spending extra time in the office getting everything
done. Spending what amounts to about two dollars per working day to have
the flexibility is a no-brainer.

Kurt <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:labolide-(E-Mail Removed):

> In article <Xns9C2EA11AFDD9Ablutofabercom@85.214.105.209>,
> John Blutarsky <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>> > On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 07:55:51 -0700, John Navas
>> > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >
>> >>In my current location, I have 5 bars of 3G, but no Wi-Fi signals.
>> >>(Likewise when I'm out on the water sailing.)
>> >
>> > Wi-Fi rules. I have wi-fi at home, at my office, at most of my
>> > customers, where I eat lunch, and at most places that I lurk. My
>> > guess is about 70% of the places where I might want connectivity.
>> > The main benefit of wi-fi is not having to pay Verizon $360/year
>> > plus taxes for a (mandatory) data plan. This provides a financial
>> > incentive for the inconvenience of Wi-Fi. That's the equivalent of
>> > a new iPhone or two iPod Touch devices every year. In other words,
>> > if I refuse to subscribe to the data plan from my cellular service,
>> > and use an iPod Touch (same as an iPhone but without the cellular
>> > and GPS) instead, it only takes 6 months to break even. Also,
>> > Wi-Fi is faster than 3G, doesn't have a download limit, and can be
>> > used peer-to-peer (bypassing the cellular provider).
>> >
>>
>> The downside of Wi-fi is that you can't be truly mobile with it. It
>> forces you to become static in order to remain productive and
>> connected. And unlike the 70% of your regular life that is covered
>> by Wi-fi, I find that about 95% of mine is covered by my carrier's
>> network and allows for a seamless and constant connection to their
>> network. I work when and where I need to, instead of wasting time
>> trying to find a connection. It is easily worth the money spent.
>>
>> One other observation about wi-fi. Anybody in this day and age that
>> still has an unprotected hotspot is an idiot. That being said, the
>> number of open connections grows smaller by the day.
>
> "Forced to be static" How about being a slave to your phone?
> Seems to a bigger problem.
>

Who said anything about being a slave to the phone. It's more a case of
making the best use of time while working to allow more time for not
working. Some of us don't have the luxury of being able to use the
timeclock as an excuse to leave something hanging until tomorrow.