tethering
jc
When OS 3 came out, Apple proudly announced that one of the big
improvements was that it would support internet tethering, but
that it was "not currently offered in the US and some other
countries" (gee, thanks guys):
http://www.apple.com/iphone/softwareupdate/
That was a LONG time ago in the tech world.
Any update on this front?
-jc
Jon Ribbens
> In article
><0c08b33b-2700-4bdf...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> tethering in the USA.
Indeed. It's been working fine for me for ages in the UK.
jc
> In article
> <0c08b33b-2700-4bdf-9d0b-c8ad406fa...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> tethering in the USA.
>
Given the size of the market, I think it's fair to assume that Apple
has *some* leverage with AT&T in this matter.
Nevertheless, that wasn't my question. My question was
whether there has been any news on this front.
-jc
> --
> Member National Rifle Association
> Member American Civil Liberties Union
> Member Human Rights Campaign
Jolly Roger
<003dcd92-b5f5-41a7...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
jc <cire...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 10:47�am, Michelle Steiner <miche...@michelle.org> wrote:
> > In article
> > <0c08b33b-2700-4bdf-9d0b-c8ad406fa...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �jc <cirej...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > When OS 3 came out, Apple proudly announced that one of the big
> > > improvements was that it would support internet tethering, but that it
> > > was "not currently offered in the US and some other countries" (gee,
> > > thanks guys):http://www.apple.com/iphone/softwareupdate/
> >
> > > That was a LONG time ago in the tech world. Any update on this front?
> >
> > That is strictly up to the carriers. �Blame AT&T, not Apple, for lack of
> > tethering in the USA.
>
> Given the size of the market, I think it's fair to assume that Apple
> has *some* leverage with AT&T in this matter.
Not enough, apparently. ; )
> Nevertheless, that wasn't my question. My question was
> whether there has been any news on this front.
AT&T made news recently stating that 3% of iPhone users account for 40%
of data traffic on their network, and there are plans to introduce a
pricing system that discourages heavy uses such as streaming audio and
video:
<http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-iphone10-2009dec10,0,4262001.story
>
It wouldn't surprise me if we don't see AT&T tethering any time soon. ; )
That said, if you *really* want it, you can jail break your phone to get
it.
--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
Mike
> On Dec 28, 10:47 am, Michelle Steiner <miche...@michelle.org> wrote:
>> In article
>> <0c08b33b-2700-4bdf-9d0b-c8ad406fa...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> jc <cirej...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> When OS 3 came out, Apple proudly announced that one of the big
>>> improvements was that it would support internet tethering, but that it
>>> was "not currently offered in the US and some other countries" (gee,
>>> thanks guys):http://www.apple.com/iphone/softwareupdate/
>>> That was a LONG time ago in the tech world. Any update on this front?
>> That is strictly up to the carriers. Blame AT&T, not Apple, for lack of
>> tethering in the USA.
>>
>
> Given the size of the market, I think it's fair to assume that Apple
> has *some* leverage with AT&T in this matter.
>
Would you blame Sony or Nokia for your service providers issues or
expect them to resolve them for you?
No you wouldn't, so why do US posters blame apple when there are network
service problems?
O2 here in the UK has poor 3G coverage outside of cities (fine for me
95% of the time) but I don't blame the iphone/apple, I just look forward
to the day I can leave my O2 contract and use my phone on a better network.
Mike
jc
wrote:
> jc wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 10:47 am, Michelle Steiner <miche...@michelle.org> wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <0c08b33b-2700-4bdf-9d0b-c8ad406fa...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> jc <cirej...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> When OS 3 came out, Apple proudly announced that one of the big
> >>> improvements was that it would support internet tethering, but that it
> >>> was "not currently offered in the US and some other countries" (gee,
> >>> thanks guys):http://www.apple.com/iphone/softwareupdate/
> >>> That was a LONG time ago in the tech world. Any update on this front?
> >> That is strictly up to the carriers. Blame AT&T, not Apple, for lack of
> >> tethering in the USA.
>
> > Given the size of the market, I think it's fair to assume that Apple
> > has *some* leverage with AT&T in this matter.
>
> Would you blame Sony or Nokia for your service providers issues or
> expect them to resolve them for you?
>
I would if they had entered into exclusive contracts with a single
service
provider. Do you really think AT&T would drag their feet about
tethering if Verizon were about to offer it?
-jc
nospam
<f596fe5f-54e1-4139...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, jc
<cire...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Would you blame Sony or Nokia for your service providers issues or
> > expect them to resolve them for you?
> >
>
> I would if they had entered into exclusive contracts with a single
> service
> provider.
except that apple already implemented the capability to tether. at&t
has not yet enabled it.
> Do you really think AT&T would drag their feet about
> tethering if Verizon were about to offer it?
they would if their system is already overloaded, which it is, and
verizon offers tethering.
Tom Harrington
> On Dec 28, 10:47�am, Michelle Steiner <miche...@michelle.org> wrote:
> > In article
> > <0c08b33b-2700-4bdf-9d0b-c8ad406fa...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �jc <cirej...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > When OS 3 came out, Apple proudly announced that one of the big
> > > improvements was that it would support internet tethering, but that it
> > > was "not currently offered in the US and some other countries" (gee,
> > > thanks guys):http://www.apple.com/iphone/softwareupdate/
> >
> > > That was a LONG time ago in the tech world. Any update on this front?
> >
> > That is strictly up to the carriers. �Blame AT&T, not Apple, for lack of
> > tethering in the USA.
>
> Given the size of the market, I think it's fair to assume that Apple
> has *some* leverage with AT&T in this matter.
>
> Nevertheless, that wasn't my question. My question was
> whether there has been any news on this front.
There has been no news on this front.
As for leverage, Apple made it pretty clear back in June that this was
not a situation they were happy with, but it was also clear they
couldn't force AT&T to support it if they didn't want to. I'm sure
their agreement includes terms that essentially say that Apple can't
offer service on the network that AT&T doesn't want to offer.
At the time AT&T had said tethering would be available by the end of
2009. The year's not over yet but given AT&T's widely-reported trouble
supporting the iPhone I'm not expecting anything for a while. If and
when Apple's able to offer the phone on another carrier, it's possible
that the competition would force AT&T to pull their thumb out and do
something about it.
--
Tom "Tom" Harrington
Independent Mac OS X developer since 2002
http://www.atomicbird.com/
Mike
> On Dec 28, 12:32 pm, Mike <mikeloveschampagneandru...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>> jc wrote:
>>> On Dec 28, 10:47 am, Michelle Steiner <miche...@michelle.org> wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <0c08b33b-2700-4bdf-9d0b-c8ad406fa...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> jc <cirej...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> When OS 3 came out, Apple proudly announced that one of the big
>>>>> improvements was that it would support internet tethering, but that it
>>>>> was "not currently offered in the US and some other countries" (gee,
>>>>> thanks guys):http://www.apple.com/iphone/softwareupdate/
>>>>> That was a LONG time ago in the tech world. Any update on this front?
>>>> That is strictly up to the carriers. Blame AT&T, not Apple, for lack of
>>>> tethering in the USA.
>>> Given the size of the market, I think it's fair to assume that Apple
>>> has *some* leverage with AT&T in this matter.
>> Would you blame Sony or Nokia for your service providers issues or
>> expect them to resolve them for you?
>>
>
> I would if they had entered into exclusive contracts with a single
> service
> provider. Do you really think AT&T would drag their feet about
> tethering if Verizon were about to offer it?
>
> -jc
>
Just because apple have a contract does not mean they have leverage over
AT&T.
Can you not unlock your iphone and use on another network?
Mike
nospam
<mikelovescham...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Can you not unlock your iphone and use on another network?
the alternative is t-mobile, whose 3g network is the oddball and
incompatible with at&t and the iphone, so any tethering is limited to
2g speeds (assuming t-mobile allows it). there is no way to get an
iphone working on sprint or verizon.
Larry
c8ad40...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
Geez, even PagePlus allows tethering my laptop to my old MotoROKR Z6m phone
I brought from Alltel. At $1.20/MB it's too pricey to use. Too bad they
don't have a deal to use it....(d^:)
Todd Allcock
> except that apple already implemented the capability to tether. at&t
> has not yet enabled it.
Do you know how silly that sounds? Why does the tethering function on
the iPhone need AT&T to "enable" it? What you should blame Apple for is
putting features on YOUR phone YOU paid for, and then putting the "kill
switch" for them into the mobile operator's hands!
While I'm not suggesting users go and violat their ToS, this is a perfect
example of the manufacturer and mobile operator being far too cozy with
each other (though it's certainly not unique to Apple and AT&T). As a
manufacturer Apple should implement a feature, and AT&T, as operator,
should decide how to deal with it; e.g. prohibit its use in the ToS and
punish violators, charge extra, etc. AT&T offers extra-cost tethering
packages on every other smartphone they sell, and adding tethering to a
phone reduces the "unlmited" data plan to 5GB. Seems like it'd kill two
birds with one stone: increase revenue and cap usage!
nospam
<elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> > except that apple already implemented the capability to tether. at&t
> > has not yet enabled it.
>
> Do you know how silly that sounds?
it's more stupid than silly.
> Why does the tethering function on
> the iPhone need AT&T to "enable" it?
so that they can provision it and bill you.
> What you should blame Apple for is
> putting features on YOUR phone YOU paid for, and then putting the "kill
> switch" for them into the mobile operator's hands!
you mean like every other manufacturer does? you've never entered apn
info into another phone?
at&t has to provision tethering and so far, they haven't. it took them
a long time just to get mms working. they're inept and have their heads
up their asses.
> While I'm not suggesting users go and violat their ToS, this is a perfect
> example of the manufacturer and mobile operator being far too cozy with
> each other (though it's certainly not unique to Apple and AT&T). As a
> manufacturer Apple should implement a feature, and AT&T, as operator,
> should decide how to deal with it; e.g. prohibit its use in the ToS and
> punish violators, charge extra, etc.
that's exactly what's happening. apple implemented tethering. at&t
blocks it while other carriers enable it.
at&t is likely terrified of what will happen to their frail network.
> AT&T offers extra-cost tethering
> packages on every other smartphone they sell, and adding tethering to a
> phone reduces the "unlmited" data plan to 5GB. Seems like it'd kill two
> birds with one stone: increase revenue and cap usage!
last summer, at&t said they will offer it 'later this year.' they have
three days to go.
Larry
@newsfe22.iad:
> adding tethering to a
> phone reduces the "unlmited" data plan to 5GB. Seems like it'd kill two
> birds with one stone: increase revenue and cap usage!
>
>
Wouldn't that just take us back to the days of the 22,837 page ATT bill
delivered in a huge pasteboard box by UPS?
....or have we forgotten the hilarious YouTube posts....(c;]
Larry
nos...@nospam.invalid:
> last summer, at&t said they will offer it 'later this year.' they have
> three days to go.
>
>
I was looking for a good joke for tomorrow.....(c;]
Think I'll drop by the new ATT superstore here and ask them, "Which day are
you going to activate tethering on Iphones before the end of the year?"
I want to go in and have my "cellular plan analyzed" by the experts that
accosted me in the mall, and have little to do before lunch. The last time
Verizon "analyzed" my cellular plan, PagePlus got 3 new customers!
Todd Allcock
> In article <Kch_m.43853$_b5....@newsfe22.iad>, Todd Allcock
> <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> > > except that apple already implemented the capability to tether. at&t
> > > has not yet enabled it.
> >
> > Do you know how silly that sounds?
>
> it's more stupid than silly.
Stupid on who's part? AT&T for not providing a service at any cost? Or
Apple's for allowing their phone to be remote-controlled?
> > Why does the tethering function on
> > the iPhone need AT&T to "enable" it?
>
> so that they can provision it and bill you.
Data is already provisioned. Sharing that data with another device
doesn't require the operatoe's blessing on a technological level. Apple
would be doing the operator a favor by rigging the tethering app to
simply "fink" to AT&T when the phone was tethered. That I'd be ok with.
But Apple takes it one step further by requiring the operator to "bless"
the tethered connection before the phone allows it.
> > What you should blame Apple for is
> > putting features on YOUR phone YOU paid for, and then putting the
"kill
> > switch" for them into the mobile operator's hands!
>
> you mean like every other manufacturer does? you've never entered apn
> info into another phone?
I've never had to enter a separate APN for tethering. Of course most
phones support dial-up networking, so "tethering" is simple matter of a
bluetooth DUN connection, not a WiFi kludge.
I've never had a GSM phone that allowed an operator to _block_ a tethered
connection if the phone supported tethering.
I've had (dumb)phones where the ability to tether was blocked; the
operator's custom firmware disabled the ability to tether altogether, but
that's different: the phone itself lost the feature and couldn't tether
on any carrier. Here Apple has enabled tethering on the phone but
allowed the operator the ability to "veto" it.
> at&t has to provision tethering and so far, they haven't.
You're ducking the point- AT&T shouldn't have to "provision" squat for a
data feature built-into a data-enabled phone to work.
"Provisioning" tethering is a biling system issue- not a technological one.
People tether, using a phone's inate features, then the carrier decides
whether to look the other way (if usage is minor/sporadic), bill you by
the kb (for use outside your plan) or make you buy a tethering plan.
> it took them
> a long time just to get mms working. they're inept and have their heads
> up their asses.
That was pretty lame, but frankly, if MMS was supported on the iPhone
from the get-go, it wouldn't have been a problem. AT&T feared pent-up
demand being unleashed (which was prety silly- on a phone with real
email, MMS was a minor feature.)
> > While I'm not suggesting users go and violat their ToS, this is a
perfect
> > example of the manufacturer and mobile operator being far too cozy
with
> > each other (though it's certainly not unique to Apple and AT&T). As a
> > manufacturer Apple should implement a feature, and AT&T, as operator,
> > should decide how to deal with it; e.g. prohibit its use in the ToS
and
> > punish violators, charge extra, etc.
>
> that's exactly what's happening. apple implemented tethering. at&t
> blocks it while other carriers enable it.
That's not what happened. Apple implemented a locked feature and gave
the keys to the operators. On other devices the ability to tether is
unfetered and users use it at their own discretion and their own peril-
that's why there's a ToS. To use a YASUA (Yet Anothe Stupid Usenet
Analogy)- your car can probably attain a speed of 100MPH, despite the
speed limit in your state being 55 or 65. If the iPhone were a car, the
state police would be able to open the hood and set the car's maximum
speed to 65 while it was in your driveway- but only on iPhones. The
Blackberry, WinMo, Symbian, et al cars would be left alone, and left to
their driver's discretion.
Apple has given far to much control to the wireless operator, to the
detriment of their end-users, probably as a capitulation to the operator
being unable to customize the phone's software.
> at&t is likely terrified of what will happen to their frail network.
Which makes no sense. Sure, some extra usage would likely happen, but an
extra $30/month would be a considerable disincentive I'd suspect, and
those that did tether would be paying. If AT&T's network is THAT
fragile, pehaps they should stop taking on new customers, if they're
unwilling to collect additional revenue from existing customers. They
haven't stopped selling $60/month data cards to customers, so why are
they resisting selling $60 data plans to iPhone customers?
> > AT&T offers extra-cost tethering
> > packages on every other smartphone they sell, and adding tethering to
a
> > phone reduces the "unlmited" data plan to 5GB. Seems like it'd kill
two
> > birds with one stone: increase revenue and cap usage!
>
> last summer, at&t said they will offer it 'later this year.' they have
> three days to go.
Net neutrality can't come soon enough! ;)
Jolly Roger
Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
If you think AT&T and Apple are the only carrier and cell phone maker in
such a relationship, you're fucking delusional. ; ) All carriers have
such relationships with cell manufacturers. It's the way the game works.
IIRC, for instance, my Palm 700p had tethering on Sprint, while that
feature was disabled on Verizon's network. So don't try to cast blame on
Apple for something that is common throughout the industry.
Jolly Roger
Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> Apple has given far to much control to the wireless operator, to the
> detriment of their end-users, probably as a capitulation to the operator
> being unable to customize the phone's software.
No more control than other cell phone manufacturers give other carriers.
There is no news here. Get over it.
nospam
<elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> > > > except that apple already implemented the capability to tether. at&t
> > > > has not yet enabled it.
> > >
> > > Do you know how silly that sounds?
> >
> > it's more stupid than silly.
>
> Stupid on who's part? AT&T for not providing a service at any cost? Or
> Apple's for allowing their phone to be remote-controlled?
the phone is not remote controlled. it has the ability to be configured
for use on various carriers around the world with the apn and other
parameters. at&t, for reasons known only to them, refuses to support
tethering.
> > > Why does the tethering function on
> > > the iPhone need AT&T to "enable" it?
> >
> > so that they can provision it and bill you.
>
> Data is already provisioned.
data *from* the phone, not tethering.
> Sharing that data with another device
> doesn't require the operatoe's blessing on a technological level.
yes it does.
> Apple
> would be doing the operator a favor by rigging the tethering app to
> simply "fink" to AT&T when the phone was tethered. That I'd be ok with.
> But Apple takes it one step further by requiring the operator to "bless"
> the tethered connection before the phone allows it.
it's no different on sprint. some phones on the sprint network can have
the nai disabled so that tethering looks like the phone is requesting
the data rather than coming from an external device, thus avoiding the
extra phone-as-modem plan. newer phones can't do that anymore, and will
*not* tether unless you have a pam plan.
there was even one very short lived phone that didn't need to have its
nai changed at all and it tethered out of the box on the basic $10-15
vision plan. it was quickly replaced with a newer model once word got
out that it was the phone to get to avoid paying extra while tethering
and it still commands a ridiculously high price on ebay for this very
reason.
> > > What you should blame Apple for is
> > > putting features on YOUR phone YOU paid for, and then putting the
> > > kill switch" for them into the mobile operator's hands!
> >
> > you mean like every other manufacturer does? you've never entered apn
> > info into another phone?
>
> I've never had to enter a separate APN for tethering. Of course most
> phones support dial-up networking, so "tethering" is simple matter of a
> bluetooth DUN connection, not a WiFi kludge.
and you don't think that is detectable by the network? maybe on older
phones it isn't (as with sprint) but now that the carriers know they
can charge extra for tethering, they require phones that differentiate
it.
> I've never had a GSM phone that allowed an operator to _block_ a tethered
> connection if the phone supported tethering.
the carriers see money and want to charge for it and newer phones can
block it.
> I've had (dumb)phones where the ability to tether was blocked; the
> operator's custom firmware disabled the ability to tether altogether, but
> that's different: the phone itself lost the feature and couldn't tether
> on any carrier. Here Apple has enabled tethering on the phone but
> allowed the operator the ability to "veto" it.
how is a carrier specific update for a single firmware version (iphone)
any different than a carrier specific firmware (other phones), other
than it's a *lot* easier to have one firmware with a config file than
numerous custom builds?
> > at&t has to provision tethering and so far, they haven't.
>
> You're ducking the point- AT&T shouldn't have to "provision" squat for a
> data feature built-into a data-enabled phone to work.
other carriers do it.
> "Provisioning" tethering is a biling system issue- not a technological one.
yes, and at&t can't even get that right. that's why it's so stupid. how
long did it take to update the billing system so that mms would work?
they're inept.
> > it took them
> > a long time just to get mms working. they're inept and have their heads
> > up their asses.
>
> That was pretty lame, but frankly, if MMS was supported on the iPhone
> from the get-go, it wouldn't have been a problem. AT&T feared pent-up
> demand being unleashed (which was prety silly- on a phone with real
> email, MMS was a minor feature.)
as you say, mms is a minor feature, especially on a phone with a decent
email client.
why doesn't anyone bitch about google voice not supporting mms? they
can transcribe voicemail and email it, so why can't they simply
redirect an mms to email too? it's not that hard, certainly a lot
easier than speech to text.
> > that's exactly what's happening. apple implemented tethering. at&t
> > blocks it while other carriers enable it.
>
> That's not what happened. Apple implemented a locked feature and gave
> the keys to the operators.
which is exactly the same.
> On other devices the ability to tether is
> unfetered and users use it at their own discretion and their own peril-
> that's why there's a ToS.
not all. see sprint, above.
> To use a YASUA (Yet Anothe Stupid Usenet
> Analogy)- your car can probably attain a speed of 100MPH, despite the
> speed limit in your state being 55 or 65. If the iPhone were a car, the
> state police would be able to open the hood and set the car's maximum
> speed to 65 while it was in your driveway- but only on iPhones. The
> Blackberry, WinMo, Symbian, et al cars would be left alone, and left to
> their driver's discretion.
it's more like charging more to own and operate a sports car that *can*
do 100+ and less for the econoboxes that can barely sustain half that.
> Apple has given far to much control to the wireless operator, to the
> detriment of their end-users, probably as a capitulation to the operator
> being unable to customize the phone's software.
oh no! the carrier can tweak a phone that is used on their network so
that it doesn't adversely affect the network.
> > at&t is likely terrified of what will happen to their frail network.
>
> Which makes no sense. Sure, some extra usage would likely happen, but an
> extra $30/month would be a considerable disincentive I'd suspect, and
> those that did tether would be paying. If AT&T's network is THAT
> fragile, pehaps they should stop taking on new customers, if they're
> unwilling to collect additional revenue from existing customers. They
> haven't stopped selling $60/month data cards to customers, so why are
> they resisting selling $60 data plans to iPhone customers?
they're already buckling under the stress of iphone users. adding
*more* usage is not high on their priority list.
Chris
2009 with the resulting in outages in London.
Chris
Larry
@newsfe13.iad:
> Data is already provisioned. Sharing that data with another device
> doesn't require the operatoe's blessing on a technological level. Apple
> would be doing the operator a favor by rigging the tethering app to
> simply "fink" to AT&T when the phone was tethered. That I'd be ok with.
> But Apple takes it one step further by requiring the operator to "bless"
> the tethered connection before the phone allows it.
>
>
The phone wouldn't have to fink out the user. Any fool at ATT capable of
monitoring the data streams could simply notice the iPhoneys streaming
incompatible data like FLASH, Xvid, DivX, Realvideo/audio, WMA/WMV/WM? into
an iPhoney with high usage to see it was, obviously, tethered to a device
that can use data iPhone can't. "Hey, Roy, this jerk is streaming FLASH
from xcldkfj.com to his iPhone! Looks like we hooked another one!" (click)
Larry
92AEB7.112...@news.individual.net:
> If you think AT&T and Apple are the only carrier and cell phone maker in
> such a relationship, you're fucking delusional. ; ) All carriers have
> such relationships with cell manufacturers. It's the way the game works.
> IIRC, for instance, my Palm 700p had tethering on Sprint, while that
> feature was disabled on Verizon's network. So don't try to cast blame on
> Apple for something that is common throughout the industry.
>
>
Technical question to anyone in the business:
When an iPhone sends out packets to a server, is it the phone or the
software running in the phone that identifies the packets that they came
from an iPhone, so the server sends it iphone-friendly, hobbled up stuff
instead of that big 800x600 webpage loaded with FLASH, JAVA, and other
stuff iPhoneys won't play?
If the phone is iding the packets, how are we gonna tether to it and get
the servers to send real webpages to the tethered laptop, not that WAP-
looking crap iPhone's Safari renders on the low resolution screen?
nospam
<no...@home.com> wrote:
> When an iPhone sends out packets to a server, is it the phone or the
> software running in the phone that identifies the packets that they came
> from an iPhone, so the server sends it iphone-friendly, hobbled up stuff
> instead of that big 800x600 webpage loaded with FLASH, JAVA, and other
> stuff iPhoneys won't play?
nothing identifies it as an iphone. it makes a request and gets back
data. why can't you get that through your thick skull?
it's possible that a web server might see mobile safari as a user agent
and sent a mobile version of a site, just as it would with any other
mobile phone, but that's up to the web server, not the phone.
> If the phone is iding the packets, how are we
'we' ? are you planning on getting one of these hobbled up devices?
> gonna tether to it and get
> the servers to send real webpages to the tethered laptop, not that WAP-
> looking crap iPhone's Safari renders on the low resolution screen?
more nonsense. it's not 'wap looking crap' and tethering works if you
want to hack it to get around at&t's stupidity and violate the terms of
service, which not everyone does.
nospam
<no...@home.com> wrote:
> The phone wouldn't have to fink out the user. Any fool at ATT capable of
> monitoring the data streams could simply notice the iPhoneys streaming
> incompatible data like FLASH, Xvid, DivX, Realvideo/audio, WMA/WMV/WM? into
> an iPhoney with high usage to see it was, obviously, tethered to a device
> that can use data iPhone can't. "Hey, Roy, this jerk is streaming FLASH
> from xcldkfj.com to his iPhone! Looks like we hooked another one!" (click)
more nonsense.
Jolly Roger
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <Xns9CF0DB4DF10...@74.209.131.13>, Larry
> <no...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > When an iPhone sends out packets to a server, is it the phone or the
> > software running in the phone that identifies the packets that they came
> > from an iPhone, so the server sends it iphone-friendly, hobbled up stuff
> > instead of that big 800x600 webpage loaded with FLASH, JAVA, and other
> > stuff iPhoneys won't play?
>
> nothing identifies it as an iphone. it makes a request and gets back
> data. why can't you get that through your thick skull?
>
> it's possible that a web server might see mobile safari as a user agent
> and sent a mobile version of a site, just as it would with any other
> mobile phone, but that's up to the web server, not the phone.
Yep. And most simply use CSS "max-device-width" to swap style sheets for
iPhones.
Todd Allcock
What I CAN blame Apple for is the app store restrictions preventing any
workarounds. Neither Palm nor Verizon could stop you from installing
June Fabrics' PDANet on that 700P without hacking the phone or voiding
its warranty. Where's the "App For That" that doesn't require
jailbreaking?
Todd Allcock
> In article <Nlq_m.65549$ZF3....@newsfe13.iad>,
> Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> > Stupid on who's part? AT&T for not providing a service at any cost?
Or
> > Apple's for allowing their phone to be remote-controlled?
>
not
> being able to be driven on that road?
>
> Your argument, frankly, is idiotic.
But the road is only closed to YOUR aple-branded vehicle. The RIM, HTC,
Samsung, etc. vehicles can drive on past you without a care.
> > Here Apple has enabled tethering on the phone but
> > allowed the operator the ability to "veto" it.
>
> In other words, you believe that AT&T should not have a say in how its
> network should be used and that it should do everything that Apple
tells it
> to do.
No, I'm saying that AT&T should enforce its ToS upon its end-users, not
devices. Just as the movie industry created the MPAA ratings system to
skirt the looming spectre of Government censorship, the wireless industry
should lighten up if they want to skirt net neutrality.
> > > at&t has to provision tethering and so far, they haven't.
> >
> > You're ducking the point- AT&T shouldn't have to "provision" squat
for a
> > data feature built-into a data-enabled phone to work. "Provisioning"
> > tethering is a biling system issue- not a technological one.
> > People tether, using a phone's inate features, then the carrier
decides
> > whether to look the other way (if usage is minor/sporadic), bill you
by
> > the kb (for use outside your plan) or make you buy a tethering plan.
>
> Or not offer such a plan at all. That is their prerogative. I'm not
> saying that I agree with their choice, but I recognize that it is their
> choice.
That's AT&T's choice- the issue, then, is how to deal with the end-users
that break their rules.
> > That's not what happened. Apple implemented a locked feature and gave
> > the keys to the operators.
>
> The feature isn't locked; the road is blocked.
No, it isn't, since all of the other cars can pass! I've never seen a
roadblock that only blocked Chevys but let Fords through.
> > To use a YASUA (Yet Anothe Stupid Usenet Analogy)- your car can
probably
> > attain a speed of 100MPH, despite the speed limit in your state being
55
> > or 65. If the iPhone were a car, the state police would be able to
open
> > the hood and set the car's maximum speed to 65 while it was in your
> > driveway- but only on iPhones.
>
> Not analogy is not only stupid; it is inaccurate. The proper analogy
is
> that the police set up a roadblock, and your car can't go on the road.
But just YOUR car. What "roadblock" works like that? It's a killswitch-
not a roadblock.
Todd Allcock
> In article <Nlq_m.65549$ZF3....@newsfe13.iad>, Todd Allcock
> <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > except that apple already implemented the capability to tether.
at&t
> > > > > has not yet enabled it.
> > > >
> > > > Do you know how silly that sounds?
> > >
> > > it's more stupid than silly.
> >
> > Stupid on who's part? AT&T for not providing a service at any cost?
Or
> > Apple's for allowing their phone to be remote-controlled?
>
> the phone is not remote controlled. it has the ability to be configured
> for use on various carriers around the world with the apn and other
> parameters. at&t, for reasons known only to them, refuses to support
> tethering.
Because the phone finks that it is tethering. The same APNs are used by
tethered devices- hell, in the past I've tethered over MEdiaNet just to
have done it.
> > > > Why does the tethering function on
> > > > the iPhone need AT&T to "enable" it?
> > >
> > > so that they can provision it and bill you.
> >
> > Data is already provisioned.
>
> data *from* the phone, not tethering.
The concept of tethering is an artificial billing construct created by
carriers, not a technological one. The data is still sent/received
from/to the phone. Only by "crippling" the phone can you prevent it from
sharing its data connection with a tethered device (assuming the phone
has "modem" capability to begin with.) There's a reason "old phones" all
tether- no one thought of trying to block access back then. Obviously it
has nothing to do with "provisioning" anything on the network end or else
those old phone _wouldn't_ work by default, rather than work.
> > Sharing that data with another device
> > doesn't require the operatoe's blessing on a technological level.
>
> yes it does.
Only on a ToS level, or if, like some Sprint phones (and apparently the
iPhone,) a special tethering app designed to "ask permission" first is
used. Sprint's Windows Mobile phones, for example, have the native MS
"Internet Sharing" applet removed, and a substitute "ask first" app
installed in it's place. Re-enabling tethering without a tethering plan
simply requires installing the native app. In the iPhone's case, the
native app itself is crippled.
> > Apple
> > would be doing the operator a favor by rigging the tethering app to
> > simply "fink" to AT&T when the phone was tethered. That I'd be ok
with.
> > But Apple takes it one step further by requiring the operator to
"bless"
> > the tethered connection before the phone allows it.
>
> it's no different on sprint. some phones on the sprint network can have
> the nai disabled so that tethering looks like the phone is requesting
> the data rather than coming from an external device, thus avoiding the
> extra phone-as-modem plan. newer phones can't do that anymore, and will
> *not* tether unless you have a pam plan.
Smartphones will- ask the good folks at June Fabric who've nailed Sprint
and Verizon Palm and WinMo users $30 a pop for their "invisible"
tethering app, PDANet for years.
> there was even one very short lived phone that didn't need to have its
> nai changed at all and it tethered out of the box on the basic $10-15
> vision plan. it was quickly replaced with a newer model once word got
> out that it was the phone to get to avoid paying extra while tethering
> and it still commands a ridiculously high price on ebay for this very
> reason.
Dumbphones that tether are more attractive to some because you can
sneakily tether on a cheap dumbphone data plan rather than a $30
smartphone plan. For someone trying to cheat AT&T out of a $60 aircard
line, a 3G RAZR is an infinitely more dangerous weapon than an iPhone. It
tethers just fine, and can do it with a $15 MEdiaNet plan.
> > > > What you should blame Apple for is
> > > > putting features on YOUR phone YOU paid for, and then putting the
> > > > kill switch" for them into the mobile operator's hands!
> > >
> > > you mean like every other manufacturer does? you've never entered
apn
> > > info into another phone?
> >
> > I've never had to enter a separate APN for tethering. Of course most
> > phones support dial-up networking, so "tethering" is simple matter of
a
> > bluetooth DUN connection, not a WiFi kludge.
>
> and you don't think that is detectable by the network? maybe on older
> phones it isn't (as with sprint) but now that the carriers know they
> can charge extra for tethering, they require phones that differentiate
> it.
Out of the box, perhaps, but again, since no other smartphone pre-iPhone
was limited to manufacturer/operator approved apps, Apple stood alone
(until Palm picked up that gauntlet with the Pre!)
> > I've never had a GSM phone that allowed an operator to _block_ a
tethered
> > connection if the phone supported tethering.
>
> the carriers see money and want to charge for it and newer phones can
> block it.
It goes back to my old joke about only using phones that remember who
owns them. Part of the attraction of GSM is the ability to bring any
compatible equipment to the table, and this kind of nonsense has
destroyed that.
> > I've had (dumb)phones where the ability to tether was blocked; the
> > operator's custom firmware disabled the ability to tether altogether,
but
> > that's different: the phone itself lost the feature and couldn't
tether
> > on any carrier. Here Apple has enabled tethering on the phone but
> > allowed the operator the ability to "veto" it.
>
> how is a carrier specific update for a single firmware version (iphone)
> any different than a carrier specific firmware (other phones), other
> than it's a *lot* easier to have one firmware with a config file than
> numerous custom builds?
To the end-user? Because, again, the non-iPhones aren't limited in their
ability to source unapproved apps.
>
> > > at&t has to provision tethering and so far, they haven't.
> >
> > You're ducking the point- AT&T shouldn't have to "provision" squat
for a
> > data feature built-into a data-enabled phone to work.
>
> other carriers do it.
Yes and no- they do it as a billing issue- they don't have to turn
tethering on to allow access (other than as a "flag" to tell crippled
phones it's "ok.")
> > "Provisioning" tethering is a biling system issue- not a
technological one.
>
> yes, and at&t can't even get that right. that's why it's so stupid. how
> long did it take to update the billing system so that mms would work?
> they're inept.
Or, perhaps they just didn't put a high priority on it after having to
setup and operate the faux MMS web kludge so iPhone users could see
received MMS on a webpage. Perhaps they're inept, but you've got to love
he irony that it took Apple two years to implement MMS in the software,
and it took AT&T a week or two to get it up and running, and iPhone users
were pissed at AT&T, not Apple, for the delay!
> > > it took them
> > > a long time just to get mms working. they're inept and have their
heads
> > > up their asses.
> >
> > That was pretty lame, but frankly, if MMS was supported on the iPhone
> > from the get-go, it wouldn't have been a problem. AT&T feared pent-up
> > demand being unleashed (which was prety silly- on a phone with real
> > email, MMS was a minor feature.)
>
> as you say, mms is a minor feature, especially on a phone with a decent
> email client.
>
> why doesn't anyone bitch about google voice not supporting mms? they
> can transcribe voicemail and email it, so why can't they simply
> redirect an mms to email too? it's not that hard, certainly a lot
> easier than speech to text.
True, but GV isn't a wireless carrier. MMS is a mobile phone construct.
My landline telephone company doesn't handle MMS either.
> > > that's exactly what's happening. apple implemented tethering. at&t
> > > blocks it while other carriers enable it.
> >
> > That's not what happened. Apple implemented a locked feature and gave
> > the keys to the operators.
>
> which is exactly the same.
Again, any unlocked phone with tethering capability placed on AT&T's
network would be able to tether- AT&T doesn't have to "provision" anything.
The iPhone acts like a Sprint phone- it essentially asks the carrier for
permission first before running its tethering app. That's a significant
difference for the end-user.
> > On other devices the ability to tether is
> > unfetered and users use it at their own discretion and their own
peril-
> > that's why there's a ToS.
>
> not all. see sprint, above.
Again, I'm talkng about smartphones. Give me any Windows or Palm OS
device that can't tether on Sprint and $30 and it'll be tethering up a
storm within minutes.
> > Apple has given far to much control to the wireless operator, to the
> > detriment of their end-users, probably as a capitulation to the
operator
> > being unable to customize the phone's software.
>
> oh no! the carrier can tweak a phone that is used on their network so
> that it doesn't adversely affect the network.
Until recently such "tweaking" was limited to the more draconian CDMA
carriers here in the US. The iPhone was "groundbreaking" in many ways! ;)
Show me a GSM RAZR and I'll show you a tethering "modem" that works out-
of-the-box.
> > > at&t is likely terrified of what will happen to their frail network.
> >
> > Which makes no sense. Sure, some extra usage would likely happen,
but an
> > extra $30/month would be a considerable disincentive I'd suspect, and
> > those that did tether would be paying. If AT&T's network is THAT
> > fragile, pehaps they should stop taking on new customers, if they're
> > unwilling to collect additional revenue from existing customers. They
> > haven't stopped selling $60/month data cards to customers, so why are
> > they resisting selling $60 data plans to iPhone customers?
>
> they're already buckling under the stress of iphone users. adding
> *more* usage is not high on their priority list.
Has AT&T stopped selling $60 data cards due to this "buckling"? Added a
data cap to new iPhone users? (Obviously current contracted users
couldn't have a new ToS unilaterally imposed on them.) The real irony is
enabling iPhone tethering would likely have a minimal impact on the
network, since the user would simply be doing the same stuff on a laptop
that they already do on a iPhone: streaming, viewing "real" web pages,
YouTube, etc. The major differences would be the user would have a
larger screen and a lighter wallet!
Selling tethering plans to iPhone users would be an ideal way to both
increase revenue AND limit usage- they'd just have to create a new ToS
for tethering plan buyers. Current PDA data plans ar unlimited, but PDA
tethering plans have a 5GB cap, same as data cards.
Todd Allcock
> > Apple has given far to much control to the wireless operator, to the
> > detriment of their end-users, probably as a capitulation to the
operator
> > being unable to customize the phone's software.
>
> No more control than other cell phone manufacturers give other
carriers.
> There is no news here. Get over it.
No thanks, I won't get over it. By offering only one legitimate avenue
for sourcing software, that is seemingly influenced by mobile operators,
(no third-party tethering apps, 3G limitations on Skype and Sling, etc.)
Apple invites, and deserves, such scrutiny.
What other smartphone manufacturer prior to Apple limits app selection
and installation to a single source blessed by the mobile operator?
Arcsoft probably would've had an MMS app ready a week after the iPhone
launched if not for the app store restrictions.
nospam
<elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> Because the phone finks that it is tethering. The same APNs are used by
> tethered devices- hell, in the past I've tethered over MEdiaNet just to
> have done it.
from what i understand, there's a carrier update that has separate apn
info for tethering. if you don't install it, you don't tether.
> The concept of tethering is an artificial billing construct created by
> carriers, not a technological one.
yes it is.
> The data is still sent/received
> from/to the phone. Only by "crippling" the phone can you prevent it from
> sharing its data connection with a tethered device (assuming the phone
> has "modem" capability to begin with.) There's a reason "old phones" all
> tether- no one thought of trying to block access back then. Obviously it
> has nothing to do with "provisioning" anything on the network end or else
> those old phone _wouldn't_ work by default, rather than work.
and once they realized they could charge for it, they blocked it by
default.
> In the iPhone's case, the
> native app itself is crippled.
no it's not. the phone is just not configured until the carrier pushes
the proper parameters.
> Or, perhaps they just didn't put a high priority on it after having to
> setup and operate the faux MMS web kludge so iPhone users could see
> received MMS on a webpage. Perhaps they're inept, but you've got to love
> he irony that it took Apple two years to implement MMS in the software,
> and it took AT&T a week or two to get it up and running, and iPhone users
> were pissed at AT&T, not Apple, for the delay!
it didn't take them two years, since they probably weren't working on
it the entire time. it wasn't a high priority because, as you said,
there's a full featured email client. google agrees with that
assessment.
> > why doesn't anyone bitch about google voice not supporting mms? they
> > can transcribe voicemail and email it, so why can't they simply
> > redirect an mms to email too? it's not that hard, certainly a lot
> > easier than speech to text.
>
> True, but GV isn't a wireless carrier. MMS is a mobile phone construct.
> My landline telephone company doesn't handle MMS either.
it doesn't matter what it is. google voice doesn't support mms.
if you want to use google voice for your universal number and give it
out to everyone like google wants you to do, you must give up using mms
entirely. the only way to continue to use mms is for people to mms your
cellphone directly, which negates the whole point of google voice to
forward to all of your phones.
they can forward sms messages, so why can't they handle mms? the answer
is that it's not a high priority, just as it wasn't for apple.
> Until recently such "tweaking" was limited to the more draconian CDMA
> carriers here in the US. The iPhone was "groundbreaking" in many ways! ;)
> Show me a GSM RAZR and I'll show you a tethering "modem" that works out-
> of-the-box.
i don't know about the razr, but one big reason the se tm506 is
debranded is for tethering support, unless you have the original
firmware that still had it enabled.
> Has AT&T stopped selling $60 data cards due to this "buckling"? Added a
> data cap to new iPhone users? (Obviously current contracted users
> couldn't have a new ToS unilaterally imposed on them.) The real irony is
> enabling iPhone tethering would likely have a minimal impact on the
> network, since the user would simply be doing the same stuff on a laptop
> that they already do on a iPhone: streaming, viewing "real" web pages,
> YouTube, etc. The major differences would be the user would have a
> larger screen and a lighter wallet!
i dunno about that. on an iphone, you can't stream audio at the same
time while surfing, but you can easily do that on a laptop. data usage
will more than likely go up, and by a lot.
there's also the issue that a lot of iphone owners who want to tether
are probably using an aircard on a *different* network, since they
aren't tied to at&t for their laptop. if the iphone offers tethering,
some of them might ditch the second contract and deal with lesser
coverage but one monthly fee instead of two.
Jolly Roger
Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
Stop trying to change the subject.
First you complain that AT&T has too much control over the iPhone,
despite the fact that all mobile phone manufacturers have such control
over all cell phones. The fact is AT&T did not allow MMS for their own
reasons - just as they now do not allow tethering for their own reasons.
The mobile phone manufacturer has little to do with AT&T's decision.
Then, when your silly argument doesn't work, you try to change the
subject to Apple having control over which applications you can run on
their own phones.
Those two arguments are not nearly the same thing - even on your planet,
dumbass.
Jolly Roger
Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
Nice try, but that's not what we are talking about here. Don't try to
change the subject. Stay on topic, or create a new post about some other
topic if you want.
nospam
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> The fact is AT&T did not allow MMS for their own
> reasons - just as they now do not allow tethering for their own reasons.
> The mobile phone manufacturer has little to do with AT&T's decision.
other than the fact that the iphone itself didn't support mms until the
3.0 firmware, just six months ago, you mean? how exactly can at&t
support mms if it's *not there* ?
the lack of initial mms support was *entirely* apple's doing, and as i
said before, apple gave it a lower priority than other features, just
like google voice is doing with mms.
where at&t fucked up is not having their system ready when iphone 3.0
with mms support shipped. they no doubt knew ahead of time what was
coming, yet it *still* took three months to activate.
Jolly Roger
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-8E61A...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > The fact is AT&T did not allow MMS for their own
> > reasons - just as they now do not allow tethering for their own reasons.
> > The mobile phone manufacturer has little to do with AT&T's decision.
>
(snip)
>
> where at&t fucked up is not having their system ready when iphone 3.0
> with mms support shipped. they no doubt knew ahead of time what was
> coming, yet it *still* took three months to activate.
In other words, I'm right.
Thanks for playing! : )
nospam
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > The fact is AT&T did not allow MMS for their own
> > > reasons - just as they now do not allow tethering for their own reasons.
> > > The mobile phone manufacturer has little to do with AT&T's decision.
> >
> (snip)
> >
> > where at&t fucked up is not having their system ready when iphone 3.0
> > with mms support shipped. they no doubt knew ahead of time what was
> > coming, yet it *still* took three months to activate.
>
> In other words, I'm right.
only if you snip the part where apple took two years to implement mms.
as i said, it's kinda hard to support it when it's not there.
Todd Allcock
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:301220090027554369%nos...@nospam.invalid...
> In article <6CD_m.96345$Zu5....@newsfe24.iad>, Todd Allcock
> <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
>> Because the phone finks that it is tethering. The same APNs are used by
>> tethered devices- hell, in the past I've tethered over MEdiaNet just to
>> have done it.
>
> from what i understand, there's a carrier update that has separate apn
> info for tethering. if you don't install it, you don't tether.
I believe that update simply populates the tethering app with the
appropriate APN- it's most likely not a separate APN- at least it isn't on
other AT&T phones. (The real issue, of course, is that the end-user isn't
able to simply type the appropriate info in themselves!)
>> In the iPhone's case, the
>> native app itself is crippled.
>
> no it's not. the phone is just not configured until the carrier pushes
> the proper parameters.
Any end-user setting that the end-user can't manipulate is a form of
crippling.
>> Until recently such "tweaking" was limited to the more draconian CDMA
>> carriers here in the US. The iPhone was "groundbreaking" in many ways!
>> ;)
>> Show me a GSM RAZR and I'll show you a tethering "modem" that works
>> out-
>> of-the-box.
>
> i don't know about the razr, but one big reason the se tm506 is
> debranded is for tethering support, unless you have the original
> firmware that still had it enabled.
The TM506 still works as a PAN out-of-the-box device, I'm told. Only DUN
had been removed. (Though I don't have one to test.)
>> Has AT&T stopped selling $60 data cards due to this "buckling"? Added a
>> data cap to new iPhone users? (Obviously current contracted users
>> couldn't have a new ToS unilaterally imposed on them.) The real irony is
>> enabling iPhone tethering would likely have a minimal impact on the
>> network, since the user would simply be doing the same stuff on a laptop
>> that they already do on a iPhone: streaming, viewing "real" web pages,
>> YouTube, etc. The major differences would be the user would have a
>> larger screen and a lighter wallet!
>
> i dunno about that. on an iphone, you can't stream audio at the same
> time while surfing, but you can easily do that on a laptop. data usage
> will more than likely go up, and by a lot.
I hadn't considered that. Good point.
> there's also the issue that a lot of iphone owners who want to tether
> are probably using an aircard on a *different* network, since they
> aren't tied to at&t for their laptop. if the iphone offers tethering,
> some of them might ditch the second contract and deal with lesser
> coverage but one monthly fee instead of two.
Perhaps. Maybe if AT&T wants to lessen data usage, they can get Apple to
allow the iPhone to make a DUN connection through a Verizon phone! ;)
Jolly Roger
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
Yes, which is why Apple wasn't able to implement it until then.
Thanks for playing!
Jolly Roger
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> In article <301220091633163893%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <jollyroger-2E825...@news.individual.net>,
> > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > The fact is AT&T did not allow MMS for their own
> > > > > reasons - just as they now do not allow tethering for their own
> > > > > reasons.
> > > > > The mobile phone manufacturer has little to do with AT&T's decision.
> > > >
> > > (snip)
> > > >
> > > > where at&t fucked up is not having their system ready when iphone 3.0
> > > > with mms support shipped. they no doubt knew ahead of time what was
> > > > coming, yet it *still* took three months to activate.
> > >
> > > In other words, I'm right.
> >
> > only if you snip the part where apple took two years to implement mms.
> > as i said, it's kinda hard to support it when it's not there.
>
> Yes, which is why Apple wasn't able to implement it until then.
>
> Thanks for playing!
Next, you'll say the reason we don't have tethering on the iPhone is
because Apple has held it back. = D As if Apple wants to *lessen* the
user experience or something... Right.
Todd Allcock
"Jolly Roger" <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:jollyroger-DD21E...@news.individual.net...
> In article <4CD_m.96342$Zu5....@newsfe24.iad>,
> Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
>> What I CAN blame Apple for is the app store restrictions preventing any
>> workarounds. Neither Palm nor Verizon could stop you from installing
>> June Fabrics' PDANet on that 700P without hacking the phone or voiding
>> its warranty. Where's the "App For That" that doesn't require
>> jailbreaking?
>
> Nice try, but that's not what we are talking about here. Don't try to
> change the subject. Stay on topic, or create a new post about some other
> topic if you want.
How is that changing the subject? It's all part of the same larger issue:
Apple putting the mobile operator in front of the customer. And yes, other
manufacturers do that as well, but they're making custom models for each MO.
Outside the reality distortion field, a customer would have the option of
buying that same model phone direct from the manufacturer (Nokia, Moto, LG,
Samsung., etc.) to get an unbranded unit never touched by an MO's custom
crippleware, for more money of course. (At least with GSM models. CDMA not
so much.)
Apple makes one iPhone (two if you count the initial batch of custom Chinese
WiFi-disabled units), and even if you buy an unlocked/unbranded model form
Hong Kong or wherever, it still doesn't allow the end-user to enter the
correct tethering parameters for his or her carrier. Because of the single
model/single firmware approach, Apple built-in MO-friendly limitations, like
a tethering app that gets configured by the operator, or a 10MB
file-download limit over cellular. (T-Mo, my carrier, has no such filesize
limit, yet my wife's iPhone still refuses to download anything larger. Why?
Ooops- I'm changing the subject again...)
nospam
<elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> > from what i understand, there's a carrier update that has separate apn
> > info for tethering. if you don't install it, you don't tether.
>
> I believe that update simply populates the tethering app with the
> appropriate APN- it's most likely not a separate APN- at least it isn't on
> other AT&T phones. (The real issue, of course, is that the end-user isn't
> able to simply type the appropriate info in themselves!)
the iphone has its own apn, which is how they disabled 'unapproved'
accounts on the 3.x firmware. not that it's overly difficult to find
out what the new settings are.
> The TM506 still works as a PAN out-of-the-box device, I'm told. Only DUN
> had been removed. (Though I don't have one to test.)
from what i've read on hofo, it must be debranded to tether unless you
have the original firmware (which means you need to block ota updates
or you lose functionality). you also gain an fm radio, disabled by
t-mobile and a couple of other things i don't recall.
> Perhaps. Maybe if AT&T wants to lessen data usage, they can get Apple to
> allow the iPhone to make a DUN connection through a Verizon phone! ;)
don't laugh. people are doing essentially that with a verizon mifi.
nospam
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> In article <301220091633163893%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <jollyroger-2E825...@news.individual.net>,
> > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > The fact is AT&T did not allow MMS for their own
> > > > > reasons - just as they now do not allow tethering for their own
> > > > > reasons.
> > > > > The mobile phone manufacturer has little to do with AT&T's decision.
> > > >
> > > (snip)
> > > >
> > > > where at&t fucked up is not having their system ready when iphone 3.0
> > > > with mms support shipped. they no doubt knew ahead of time what was
> > > > coming, yet it *still* took three months to activate.
> > >
> > > In other words, I'm right.
> >
> > only if you snip the part where apple took two years to implement mms.
> > as i said, it's kinda hard to support it when it's not there.
>
> Yes, which is why Apple wasn't able to implement it until then.
apple wasn't able to??? you must be kidding. are you actually saying
at&t told apple not to do mms for the first two revisions?
mms was an existing standard and many other phones had it. apple
decided it wasn't as high of a priority as other features, such as the
apps store. that was probably a very wise decision, but it was entirely
apple's call.
had apple decided that mms was a priority, at&t would have supported it
with version 1. at&t had to revamp their voicemail system for visual
voicemail support (which is actual changes to their system, send out
the mp3, etc.), certainly they could have added a provision for mms,
something they *already supported* with other phones.
nospam
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Next, you'll say the reason we don't have tethering on the iPhone is
> because Apple has held it back. = D As if Apple wants to *lessen* the
> user experience or something... Right.
the lack of tethering is because at&t is inept, runs a very overloaded
network and fears what might happen when they start supporting it.
Todd Allcock
>> > There is no news here. Get over it.
>>
>> No thanks, I won't get over it. By offering only one legitimate avenue
>> for sourcing software, that is seemingly influenced by mobile operators,
>> (no third-party tethering apps, 3G limitations on Skype and Sling, etc.)
>> Apple invites, and deserves, such scrutiny.
>> What other smartphone manufacturer prior to Apple limits app selection
>> and installation to a single source blessed by the mobile operator?
>> Arcsoft probably would've had an MMS app ready a week after the iPhone
>> launched if not for the app store restrictions.
>
> Stop trying to change the subject.
>
> First you complain that AT&T has too much control over the iPhone,
> despite the fact that all mobile phone manufacturers have such control
> over all cell phones.
Manufacturers or operators?
> The fact is AT&T did not allow MMS for their own
> reasons - just as they now do not allow tethering for their own reasons.
> The mobile phone manufacturer has little to do with AT&T's decision.
> Then, when your silly argument doesn't work, you try to change the
> subject to Apple having control over which applications you can run on
> their own phones.
It stopped being THEIR phone when YOU bought it. Now it's YOUR phone. And
you can't even change important settings like data configuarations.
I'm amazed at the stuff you'll take in stride on an iPhone that'd torque you
off if Microsoft Windows or Macs did it. Can you imagine if your Mac could
only run "blessed" software? Or worse, if "evil" Microsoft limited Windows
to software signed by Microsoft? You'd be storming Redmond with torches!
> Those two arguments are not nearly the same thing - even on your planet,
> dumbass.
I assume the name calling is an indication you're out of arguments?
Jolly Roger
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
Nope. Any other wireless provider would suffer the same or similar
setbacks if they had the iPhone.
Thanks for playing!
Jolly Roger
"Todd Allcock" <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> "Jolly Roger" <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:jollyroger-8E61A...@news.individual.net...
> >> > There is no news here. Get over it.
> >>
> >> No thanks, I won't get over it. By offering only one legitimate avenue
> >> for sourcing software, that is seemingly influenced by mobile operators,
> >> (no third-party tethering apps, 3G limitations on Skype and Sling, etc.)
> >> Apple invites, and deserves, such scrutiny.
> >> What other smartphone manufacturer prior to Apple limits app selection
> >> and installation to a single source blessed by the mobile operator?
> >> Arcsoft probably would've had an MMS app ready a week after the iPhone
> >> launched if not for the app store restrictions.
> >
> > Stop trying to change the subject.
> >
> > First you complain that AT&T has too much control over the iPhone,
> > despite the fact that all mobile phone manufacturers have such control
> > over all cell phones.
>
> Manufacturers or operators?
Operators, obviously.
> > The fact is AT&T did not allow MMS for their own
> > reasons - just as they now do not allow tethering for their own reasons.
> > The mobile phone manufacturer has little to do with AT&T's decision.
>
> > Then, when your silly argument doesn't work, you try to change the
> > subject to Apple having control over which applications you can run on
> > their own phones.
>
> It stopped being THEIR phone when YOU bought it. Now it's YOUR phone. And
> you can't even change important settings like data configuarations.
Bullshit. I can change whatever I want. It's, as you say, MY phone. : )
> I'm amazed at the stuff you'll take in stride on an iPhone that'd torque you
> off if Microsoft Windows or Macs did it. Can you imagine if your Mac could
> only run "blessed" software? Or worse, if "evil" Microsoft limited Windows
> to software signed by Microsoft? You'd be storming Redmond with torches!
I'm perfectly happy with the thousands upon thousands of available apps
for the iPhone. : )
> > Those two arguments are not nearly the same thing - even on your planet,
> > dumbass.
>
> I assume the name calling is an indication you're out of arguments?
Bad assumption.
Jolly Roger
"Todd Allcock" <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> "Jolly Roger" <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:jollyroger-DD21E...@news.individual.net...
> > In article <4CD_m.96342$Zu5....@newsfe24.iad>,
> > Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> >
> >> What I CAN blame Apple for is the app store restrictions preventing any
> >> workarounds. Neither Palm nor Verizon could stop you from installing
> >> June Fabrics' PDANet on that 700P without hacking the phone or voiding
> >> its warranty. Where's the "App For That" that doesn't require
> >> jailbreaking?
> >
> > Nice try, but that's not what we are talking about here. Don't try to
> > change the subject. Stay on topic, or create a new post about some other
> > topic if you want.
>
> How is that changing the subject? It's all part of the same larger issue:
> Apple putting the mobile operator in front of the customer. And yes, other
> manufacturers do that as well
Yep. So why don't I see you in Nokia, Motorola, and other cell makers
forums bitching it up about them as well? Hmmm?
Jolly Roger
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
Conjecture.
nospam
<elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> How is that changing the subject? It's all part of the same larger issue:
> Apple putting the mobile operator in front of the customer.
how is that different than any other phone maker?
guess who is subsidizing most of the cost of the phone. it's not the
end user. thus, the carriers get to call the shots.
> And yes, other
> manufacturers do that as well, but they're making custom models for each MO.
and apple makes one model with a way to configure it per carrier.
that's much easier than having many different builds, each with
different feature sets.
nospam
<elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> It stopped being THEIR phone when YOU bought it. Now it's YOUR phone. And
> you can't even change important settings like data configuarations.
except for the subsidy, so it's *both*, and you can change it, just
hope that at&t doesn't notice.
nospam
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > the lack of tethering is because at&t is inept, runs a very overloaded
> > network and fears what might happen when they start supporting it.
>
> Nope. Any other wireless provider would suffer the same or similar
> setbacks if they had the iPhone.
speculation. you don't know whether verizon would buckle or not.
verizon has gone on record saying they're ready for the onslaught of
iphone users, should apple decide to support cdma, so chances are they
won't buckle.
how many new yorkers who use verizon are told that one out of every
three calls is expected to fail and is considered normal, as is the
case with at&t?
nospam
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Bullshit. I can change whatever I want. It's, as you say, MY phone. : )
really? like unlocking it for t-mobile?
oh wait, you have to jailbreak it and patch the firmware. be careful
about upgrades because it might relock the phone.
nospam
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > had apple decided that mms was a priority, at&t would have supported it
> > with version 1.
>
> Conjecture.
and your claim that apple wasn't able to support mms initially is based
on what, exactly?
Jolly Roger
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-EE2A6...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > > the lack of tethering is because at&t is inept, runs a very overloaded
> > > network and fears what might happen when they start supporting it.
> >
> > Nope. Any other wireless provider would suffer the same or similar
> > setbacks if they had the iPhone.
>
> speculation. you don't know whether verizon would buckle or not.
I'm not the only one speculating such:
<http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/29/technology/att/>
Anyhow, you don't know whether other carriers would buckle or not
either. So your assertion is speculation as well. : )
> verizon has gone on record saying they're ready for the onslaught of
> iphone users, should apple decide to support cdma, so chances are they
> won't buckle.
Doubt it. AT&T said they were ready, too. ; )
> how many new yorkers who use verizon are told that one out of every
> three calls is expected to fail and is considered normal, as is the
> case with at&t?
The iPhone isn't on Verizon yet; so that's neither here nor there. : )
Jolly Roger
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-2CF37...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <Z_S_m.15940$Gf3....@newsfe18.iad>,
> > "Todd Allcock" <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It stopped being THEIR phone when YOU bought it. Now it's YOUR phone. And
> >> you can't even change important settings like data configuarations.
> >
> > Bullshit. I can change whatever I want. It's, as you say, MY phone. : )
>
> really? like unlocking it for t-mobile?
>
> oh wait, you have to jailbreak it and patch the firmware. be careful
> about upgrades because it might relock the phone.
Todd said it couldn't be done.
Either it can be done or it can't. You can't have it both ways. Make up
your mind, smarty pants. : )
Todd Allcock
> In article <BWS_m.15926$Gf3....@newsfe18.iad>,
> "Todd Allcock" <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
>> "Jolly Roger" <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>> news:jollyroger-DD21E...@news.individual.net...
>> > In article <4CD_m.96342$Zu5....@newsfe24.iad>,
>> > Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> What I CAN blame Apple for is the app store restrictions preventing
>> >> any
>> >> workarounds. Neither Palm nor Verizon could stop you from installing
>> >> June Fabrics' PDANet on that 700P without hacking the phone or voiding
>> >> its warranty. Where's the "App For That" that doesn't require
>> >> jailbreaking?
>> >
>> > Nice try, but that's not what we are talking about here. Don't try to
>> > change the subject. Stay on topic, or create a new post about some
>> > other
>> > topic if you want.
>>
>> How is that changing the subject? It's all part of the same larger
>> issue:
>> Apple putting the mobile operator in front of the customer. And yes,
>> other
>> manufacturers do that as well
>
> Yep. So why don't I see you in Nokia, Motorola, and other cell makers
> forums bitching it up about them as well? Hmmm?
Simple. With other manufacturers, you can simply pay more money and get the
unlocked, unbranded GSM version of the phone with absolutely no operator
imposed restrictions, which I already explained in the portion you snipped.
Where do I find the unlocked, unbranded version of the iPhone with
unrestricted downloading over 3G, and end-user access to tethering
parameters? I don't.
[FWIW, AT&T actually has a pretty good history of not crippling their
branded phones- much better than other US carriers. Sure, they add crap
like AT&T logos and color schemes, rename the browsers "MEdia Net", etc.
But even the defeaturing they typically do (like removing the menus that let
you change data settings) are linked to a flag on the SIM card. Unlock an
AT&T phone, put a non-AT&T SIM in, and the "missing" features suddenly
return, at least on the myriad of AT&T Nokias and Samsungs I've owned.]
Larry
39180F.193...@news.individual.net:
> Yep. So why don't I see you in Nokia, Motorola, and other cell makers
> forums bitching it up about them as well? Hmmm?
>
>
Because his wife doesn't have a Nokia, Motorola or other??
....Just a guess. You'll think of another rationalization in a minute.
Larry
> dumbass.
>
OH, oh...You got him, Todd! He's starting to call you names!
Larry
news:301220091445315954%nos...@nospam.invalid:
There's a lot less excuse on the Bluetooth front. Why is the Bluetooth
on iPhone so restricted as it is? I have a Bluetooth/Wifi direct
printer. Just connect the Linux tablet to the printer on Bluetooth or
Wifi and print the documents/pictures/etc., direct! Why is the BT only
headphones/A2DP which doesn't even include a volume control on the
stereo?
No OBEX
No HID for a neat BT keyboard so you can finally type on it.
No FTP
Zip....
nospam
<no...@home.com> wrote:
> Why is the Bluetooth
> on iPhone so restricted as it is?
probably the same reason as everything else. other features had a
higher priority.
> I have a Bluetooth/Wifi direct
> printer. Just connect the Linux tablet to the printer on Bluetooth or
> Wifi and print the documents/pictures/etc., direct!
so use wifi. it's faster than bluetooth too. and realistically, how
many people care about printing from an iphone? bluetooth printing is
not a high priority.
> Why is the BT only
> headphones/A2DP which doesn't even include a volume control on the
> stereo?
huh?
Andrew Templeman
> In article <301220091719249945%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <jollyroger-31379...@news.individual.net>,
> > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Next, you'll say the reason we don't have tethering on the iPhone is
> > > because Apple has held it back. = D As if Apple wants to *lessen* the
> > > user experience or something... Right.
> >
> > the lack of tethering is because at&t is inept, runs a very overloaded
> > network and fears what might happen when they start supporting it.
>
> Nope. Any other wireless provider would suffer the same or similar
> setbacks if they had the iPhone.
>
> Thanks for playing!
Tethering is available to me, although I haven't chosen to activate it
(It's a pay option) as I have no need for it. This is on the Orange
network in the UK
http://www.orange.co.uk/iphonesupport
If you are on the most expensive monthly plan, you get tethering
included. I am on the least expensive one.
--
Andy Templeman <http://www.templeman.org.uk/>
Jolly Roger
an...@templeman.org.uk (Andrew Templeman) wrote:
And how many iPhones are on the Oragen wireless network in comparison to
the number of iPhones on the AT&T wireless network?
Andrew Templeman
> In article <1jbkv24.wns4mmq7wus8N%an...@templeman.org.uk>,
> an...@templeman.org.uk (Andrew Templeman) wrote:
>
> > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <301220091719249945%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> > > nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <jollyroger-31379...@news.individual.net>,
> > > > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Next, you'll say the reason we don't have tethering on the iPhone is
> > > > > because Apple has held it back. = D As if Apple wants to *lessen* the
> > > > > user experience or something... Right.
> > > >
> > > > the lack of tethering is because at&t is inept, runs a very overloaded
> > > > network and fears what might happen when they start supporting it.
> > >
> > > Nope. Any other wireless provider would suffer the same or similar
> > > setbacks if they had the iPhone.
> > >
> > > Thanks for playing!
> >
> > Tethering is available to me, although I haven't chosen to activate it
> > (It's a pay option) as I have no need for it. This is on the Orange
> > network in the UK
> >
> > http://www.orange.co.uk/iphonesupport
> >
> > If you are on the most expensive monthly plan, you get tethering
> > included. I am on the least expensive one.
>
> And how many iPhones are on the Oragen wireless network in comparison to
> the number of iPhones on the AT&T wireless network?
Not that many. It only became none-exclusive to the original carrier in
November, but the original carrier 'O2' also offers tethering. You may
have read about their network problems in London recently.
I don't see tethering being a big part of the traffic problems as most
people have DSL. Tethering may be used by road warriors in hotels and
such.
DevilsPGD
Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>Next, you'll say the reason we don't have tethering on the iPhone is
>because Apple has held it back. = D As if Apple wants to *lessen* the
>user experience or something... Right.
Apple has always been about Jobs' (or other product manager's) vision
for a product over the actual user experience.
This area is one possible exception, in that Apple has carrier
agreements to factor in as well.
DevilsPGD
<nos...@nospam.invalid> was claimed to have wrote:
>In article <jollyroger-EE2A6...@news.individual.net>,
>Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> > the lack of tethering is because at&t is inept, runs a very overloaded
>> > network and fears what might happen when they start supporting it.
>>
>> Nope. Any other wireless provider would suffer the same or similar
>> setbacks if they had the iPhone.
>
>speculation. you don't know whether verizon would buckle or not.
>
>verizon has gone on record saying they're ready for the onslaught of
>iphone users, should apple decide to support cdma, so chances are they
>won't buckle.
Verizon pretty much knows that Apple won't redesign the entire radio
just for Verizon though, and with virtually the entire remainder of the
planet on GSM/HSDPA rather than cdmaOne/EVDO, there is little market
outside of Verizon (and Sprint, assuming Verizon doesn't want
exclusivity in the CDMA market)
DevilsPGD
<nos...@nospam.invalid> was claimed to have wrote:
The iPhone BT A2DP implementation has a few limits. 1) You can't
control the volume from the iPhone, only the headset. 2) You can't
change tracks from the headset, only from the iPhone.
nospam
<Death...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
> Verizon pretty much knows that Apple won't redesign the entire radio
> just for Verizon though, and with virtually the entire remainder of the
> planet on GSM/HSDPA rather than cdmaOne/EVDO, there is little market
> outside of Verizon (and Sprint, assuming Verizon doesn't want
> exclusivity in the CDMA market)
i expect verizon (and t-mobile) support when the iphone lte is
released. sprint needs to get their heads out of their asses and
support lte, because they won't be around if they don't.
however, it will be quite a while until lte is fully deployed, so maybe
there will be a combination 3g/cdma/lte phone that works on anything.
Todd Allcock
> In article <301220091741420262%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <jollyroger-2CF37...@news.individual.net>,
> > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <Z_S_m.15940$Gf3....@newsfe18.iad>,
> > > "Todd Allcock" <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> It stopped being THEIR phone when YOU bought it. Now it's YOUR
phone. And
> > >> you can't even change important settings like data configuarations.
> > >
> > > Bullshit. I can change whatever I want. It's, as you say, MY
phone. : )
> >
> > really? like unlocking it for t-mobile?
> >
> > oh wait, you have to jailbreak it and patch the firmware. be careful
> > about upgrades because it might relock the phone.
>
> Todd said it couldn't be done.
>
> Either it can be done or it can't. You can't have it both ways. Make up
> your mind, smarty pants. : )
I believe I said "without voiding the warranty" earlier in the thread,
but in any case I was referring to un-jailbroken phones.
Jailbroken phones are a PITA to upgrade. None of my upgrades have gone
smoothly yet. I'm still on 3.0.x because I read 3.1 removes manual data
configuration (necessary to enable data on "unauthorized" carriers, like
my carrier T-Mobile.)
Todd Allcock
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote in news:jollyroger-
> 39180F.193...@news.individual.net:
>
> > Yep. So why don't I see you in Nokia, Motorola, and other cell makers
> > forums bitching it up about them as well? Hmmm?
> >
> >
>
> Because his wife doesn't have a Nokia, Motorola or other??
True- I tend to vote with my wallet, so I don't buy crippled phones as a
matter of personal policy, but my wife REALLY wanted an iPhone. My
personal policy of keeping my wife happy trumps that other one! ;)
Larry
news:michelle-3BF5A5...@nothing.attdns.com:
> In article <_Jd%m.131$Ww...@newsfe14.iad>,
> Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
>> My personal policy of keeping my wife happy trumps that other one!
>
> If anyone ever doubted your intelligence, that should put those doubts
> to rest.
>
> But as for the blinders... <smirk>
>
> Happy New Year.
>
Waytago, Todd! You got ANOTHER rationalist calling you names! Michelle is
a real prize, 4.0!
Todd Allcock
I have no problem with the iPhone enthusiasts here, like Michelle,
nospam, or even Jolly- they know the device and its limits, and they,
like my wife, accept them as part of the whole package, which is
perfectly justified- it's still a very good device in spite of its
limits. I'll debate spiritedly with folks like them all day- I generally
respect their opinions. They have different priorities in a mobile
device than you or I do, so it's natural that deficiencies I may find
critical can be complete non-issues to them, (and probably vice-versa.)
It's the clowns like Healey and Oxford/Moyer that pretend the limits are
actually features that are doing the rationalizing.
Because it IS such a good device is why the restrictions and limitations
bug me so much. It could be a much greater device than it is if Apple
would open things up a little and put some faith in their third-party
devs to extend the device's capabilities rather than simply repackage its
existing features.
What made Palm OS, Windows Mobile, and your Maemo tablets into usable
systems was the ability of 3rd-party devs to look at what the base OS
didn't do, or did poorly, and add/improve that functionality. All of the
major iPhone limitations could be easily rectified by developers with
"full" access to the OS and file system, as evidenced by the number of
jailbroken apps that manage to fill some of those gaps.
Jolly Roger
Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
Totally agree. While I am comfortable with the fact that Apple has
chosen not to sanction such access, I am equally comforted to know that
jail breaking is an option. I might do that myself if any of the
features enabled by jail breaking were to become very important to me.
It seems the feature most likely to become important to me at some point
would be tethering.
Larry
@newsfe03.iad:
> What made Palm OS, Windows Mobile, and your Maemo tablets into usable
> systems was the ability of 3rd-party devs to look at what the base OS
> didn't do, or did poorly, and add/improve that functionality. All of
the
> major iPhone limitations could be easily rectified by developers with
> "full" access to the OS and file system, as evidenced by the number of
> jailbroken apps that manage to fill some of those gaps.
>
>
>
So true. I'm playing with the new Firefox 3.5 Mobile on the N800, now.
It lacks FLASH support, as of now, but the operating way it functions
doing all kinds of things for you without having to push buttons is very
well thought out and the "Wonder Bar", or whatever they call it, is FAR
better than having to have the URL bar on screen all the time. It
scrolls off the top of the pages so it doesn't hog the little screen from
the content you're trying to read. But, just gotta have FLASH to make it
a browser, these days. They say that's coming as it was already
implemented in Fennec last year. It's still growing.....
I'm running lots of Palm software under the Garnet Virtual Machine that
turns the Nokia Linux tablets into real Palm machines. Lots of Palm
software is very mobile/bandwidth friendly and it just syncs over wifi so
easy with Palm Desktop on the mainframe. It's great fun to have the VM
to use it over the Linux tablet with full touchscreen support.
iPhone is growing old fast. I see the numbers are dropping. The
public's fascination with any electronic gadget wanes quite rapidly,
apple or no apple. Apple's new tablet is going to hurt iPhone sales hard
as even the fanboiz attention will be diverted to the new toys.
Sure hope this Firefox gets Flash support real soon. Other than that,
it's a really cool piece of code, typical of Mozilla's great hackers.
Larry
> It seems the feature most likely to become important to me at some point
> would be tethering.
>
Tethering is a sellphone corporate decision, not the manufacturers. I can
tether to the MotoROKR Z6m only because it came from Alltel, not Verizon.
Verizon's version won't tether in their firmware. Pageplus didn't shut
down any features when I moved the phone from Alltel, after the Borg
Assimilation, to Pageplus. Even Alltel Celltop appears to work, but that
may change as the free data hole gets sealed up on Verizon.
I bet your iPhone would tether at a pushed command from ATT....if there's
some way to plug in a USB cable into that stupid proprietary nonsense on
the bottom without dragging around a docking gadget.
nospam
<no...@home.com> wrote:
> So true. I'm playing with the new Firefox 3.5 Mobile on the N800, now.
> It lacks FLASH support,
what? you can't be serious.
> iPhone is growing old fast. I see the numbers are dropping.
lighten up on the meds. you're hallucinating.
> The
> public's fascination with any electronic gadget wanes quite rapidly,
> apple or no apple. Apple's new tablet is going to hurt iPhone sales hard
> as even the fanboiz attention will be diverted to the new toys.
yes of course, because someone who needs a phone will buy a completely
different product that's not only bigger, but isn't actually a phone.
makes perfect sense.
nospam
<no...@home.com> wrote:
> I bet your iPhone would tether at a pushed command from ATT....if there's
> some way to plug in a USB cable into that stupid proprietary nonsense on
> the bottom without dragging around a docking gadget.
the cable snaps right in, but it can tether over bluetooth too. no
cable needed. how's that for amazing.
nospam
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <Xns9CF59EE2F7...@74.209.131.13>,
> Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
> > I bet your iPhone would tether at a pushed command from ATT....if
> > there's some way to plug in a USB cable into that stupid proprietary
> > nonsense on the bottom without dragging around a docking gadget.
>
> Do you know *anything* about the iPhone?
you really need to ask that???
> You don't need a docking gadget;
> all you need is a cable with a USB A connector at one end and an iPod
> 30-pin connector at the other.
you don't even need that. just use that crippled bluetooth that won't
support anything but headsets. :)
Larry
news:020120102126517202%nos...@nospam.invalid:
>> The
>> public's fascination with any electronic gadget wanes quite rapidly,
>> apple or no apple. Apple's new tablet is going to hurt iPhone sales
>> hard as even the fanboiz attention will be diverted to the new toys.
>
> yes of course, because someone who needs a phone will buy a completely
> different product that's not only bigger, but isn't actually a phone.
> makes perfect sense.
>
>
Huh? Are you involved in Climate Science at Penn State or NASA?
Apple's new tablet will DIVERT THE FANBOIZ ATTENTION from phone
toys.....not replace them! If Apple came out with a shiny new toy car,
fanboiz would stop worrying over iphone and be standing in line at Apple
stores, worldwide, camping out for days until the magic day the new toy
car were "released".....after, of course, a few weeks of "leaks" from
Cupertino HQ about the new toy car's amazing scientology, not to mention
its glitz!
Doesn't make a shit whether the tablet even runs Skype or not! It's NEW!
NEW! NEW!!.....therefore, must be drooled over until they find out you
can't replace the fucking battery pack for less than $500, either.
Let's just hope the new tablet will run more than one developer app at a
time....possibly even LINKING data between apps....an entire new Apple
concept....making it indispensable for "business" use!
I'm hoping College Humor will beat Jobs with the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xgls9IwWUyU
Very well done....not to mention hilarious satire!
Larry
news:020120102127420278%nos...@nospam.invalid:
Tether it to a standard headset device, such as a Motorola S9HD stereo BT
headset.....standard A2DP, handsfree, phone control protocols...
Change the volume by pressing the headset volume controls.
Change the song by pressing the headset song change controls...fwd or back
Stop the play by pressing the headset PAUSE control.
Answer the call by pressing the headset hook control.....then, when you
hang up or the caller hangs up, see if it RESUMES playing where it left
off.
The simplest phone with an MP3 player from anyone does this......why?
Larry
> all you need is a cable with a USB A connector at one end and an iPod
> 30-pin connector at the other.
>
And YOU all bitch about ME carrying around a lot of extra crap in my
pocket?!
The cheapest MP3 player at Wally World has a mini-USB jack on it.....even
charges the battery from it?! Why not Applecrap?
Larry
nos...@nospam.invalid:
> you don't even need that. just use that crippled bluetooth that won't
> support anything but headsets. :)
>
>
It doesn't support BT headsets, much:
http://discussions.apple.com/forum.jspa?forumID=1143&start=0
nospam
<no...@home.com> wrote:
> Tether it to a standard headset device, such as a Motorola S9HD stereo BT
> headset.....standard A2DP, handsfree, phone control protocols...
tethering refers to connecting to the internet, not a headset.
nospam
<no...@home.com> wrote:
> Doesn't make a shit whether the tablet even runs Skype or not! It's NEW!
> NEW! NEW!!.....therefore, must be drooled over until they find out you
> can't replace the fucking battery pack for less than $500, either.
you're off by an order of magnitude, but why am i not surprised.
> Let's just hope the new tablet will run more than one developer app at a
> time....possibly even LINKING data between apps....an entire new Apple
> concept....making it indispensable for "business" use!
it's not a new concept for apple. better luck next time.
nospam
<no...@home.com> wrote:
> The cheapest MP3 player at Wally World has a mini-USB jack on it.....even
> charges the battery from it?! Why not Applecrap?
guess what, the iphone also charges off usb. crazy, isn't it. what will
they think of next.
and that dock connector can do quite a bit more than a lowly 4 pin usb,
but if you're happy with limited functionality, that's ok too.
in any event, it's still a cable, and as i said before, it can tether
wirelessly, so no cable is actually needed.
Andrew Templeman
As does the iPhone....
--
Andy Templeman <http://www.templeman.org.uk/>
Jon Ribbens
> When an iPhone sends out packets to a server, is it the phone or the
> software running in the phone that identifies the packets that they came
> from an iPhone, so the server sends it iphone-friendly, hobbled up stuff
> instead of that big 800x600 webpage loaded with FLASH, JAVA, and other
> stuff iPhoneys won't play?
The web browser on the iPhone sends a "User-Agent" header, just as
pretty much all web browser software on all platforms does. Some
web sites then use this header to make decisions about what content
to send (this process being in no way limited to the iPhone).
> If the phone is iding the packets, how are we gonna tether to it and get
> the servers to send real webpages to the tethered laptop, not that WAP-
> looking crap iPhone's Safari renders on the low resolution screen?
Because when you're using a different web browser on a laptop which is
merely connected to the Internet via an iPhone, the User-Agent header
will identify the browser you're running on the laptop, not the
iPhone's browser.
DevilsPGD
A swing and a miss, the iPhone doesn't support changing tracks from the
headset.
Most of the other functionality is there.
John McWilliams
Huh. Mine does. And my previous model did, too. Two rapid clicks.
--
john mcwilliams
DevilsPGD
<jp...@comcast.net> was claimed to have wrote:
>DevilsPGD wrote:
>> A swing and a miss, the iPhone doesn't support changing tracks from the
>> headset.
>>
>> Most of the other functionality is there.
>
>Huh. Mine does. And my previous model did, too. Two rapid clicks.
No, it doesn't. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY and
http://support.apple.com/kb/TS3018
| Symptoms
|
| When using a stereo Bluetooth headset or other stereo Bluetooth device with
| an iPhone or iPod touch*, certain features may not work as expected.
| Examples include:
|
| * Pressing previous and next controls has no effect.
| * Pressing play/pause control only pauses or starts playback.
| * Pressing other headset controls has no effect.
Wired headsets does have next/previous track support, but not A2DP/AVRCP
bluetooth headsets.
Marc Stibane
> First you complain that AT&T has too much control over the iPhone,
> despite the fact that all mobile phone manufacturers have such control
> over all cell phones.
Manufacturers != carriers. The latter have control only over the
(branded) phones THEY sell you, not over the (unbranded) phones you buy
elsewhere.
It's your own decision to buy a crippled, branded, subsidised phone
"cheap" from the carrier and pay with horrible monthly fees, or do the
math...
I always buy the uncrippled, unbranded phone myself, then add a cheap
contract.
--
In a world without walls and fences,
who needs windows and gates?
Marc Stibane
> > Why is the Bluetooth
> > on iPhone so restricted as it is?
>
> probably the same reason as everything else. other features had a
> higher priority.
Nope. But because Apple wants to get money from the manufacturers of
bluetooth devices - they must enter the "Made for iPhone" program, and
buy an ID chip from Apple to be integrated into their device. If the
iPhone detects that chip in the device, all bluetooth communication you
want is possible.
The Bluetooth Interest Group or even the goverment should ban such
behaviour...
Marc Stibane
> What made Palm OS, Windows Mobile, and your Maemo tablets into usable
> systems was the ability of 3rd-party devs to look at what the base OS
> didn't do, or did poorly, and add/improve that functionality. All of the
> major iPhone limitations could be easily rectified by developers with
> "full" access to the OS and file system, as evidenced by the number of
> jailbroken apps that manage to fill some of those gaps.
Now if almost everyone would jailbreak his/her iPhone, that would tell
Apple a story to think about. Especially, when noone upgrades to a new
OS until the jailbreak is ready for it...
But according to Jay Freeman, the maker of Cydia, the alternative iPhone
software download portal, only about 10% of all iPhones are jailbroken -
which means that ca. 90% of iPhone owners have either no problems with
the limitations, or are afraid to jailbreak (which is dumb IMHO because
it doesn't give Apple the message).
Marc Stibane
> and even if you buy an unlocked/unbranded model form
> Hong Kong or
Belgium, Italy, Czech Republic
> wherever, it still doesn't allow the end-user to enter the
> correct tethering parameters for his or her carrier.
it did, with 3.0 and 3.0.1
Apple then locked (digitally signed) the mobileconfig files.
If jailbroken, you can
Enable Tethering on iPhone 3.1.2 - ONLY 3G & 3GS Supported
Make sure you have MobileTerminal installed on your phone.
• First get this file and put CommCenter.patch on your
Desktop:
3G S: http://iphwn.org/CommCenter_3gs_312.zip
3G: http://iphwn.org/CommCenter_3g_312.zip
• Copy
/System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/CoreTelephony.framework/Support/CommCe
nter from your iPhone to your Desktop also.
• Open the Terminal and:
cd Desktop
bspatch CommCenter CommCenter-hacked CommCenter.patch
• Now go ahead and delete CommCenter now from your Desktop
and rename CommCenter-hacked to just CommCenter.
• Rename CommCenter on your iPhone to CommCenter.backup in
case something bad happens, so you have a backup.
• Copy the new CommCenter to your iPhone.
• SSH into your iPhone or use MobileTerminal as root and
chmod 755 the new CommCenter so that it's executable.
chmod 755
/System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/CoreTelephony.frameworks/Support/CommC
enter
• Restart your phone.
• Check your Setting > General > Network, and you should
have the Tethering option. If you dont Go to http://help.benm.at on your
phone and install the mobileconfig just like you did in 3.0.