iPhone FAQ
ira.j.sc...@gmail.com
This FAQ addresses the frequently asked questions regarding the Apple
iPhone. If you have any suggestions or corrections for the iPhone FAQ,
please send them to iraDOTjDOT...@gmail.com (replace DOT with a
period).
This FAQ will be re-posted periodically to alt.cellular.attws,
alt.cellular.t-mobile, alt.cellular.verizon, alt.cellular.sprintpcs,
comp.sys.mac.advocacy, and other relevant groups.
Q. How do I change the battery on my iPhone?
A. Unfortunately, you must send the phone back to Apple's service
depot for battery replacement. The cost is $86.95. See "http://
tinyurl.com"/iphonebatteryreplacement. If you don’t mind voiding your
warranty (or your iPhone is already out of warranty), and you are good
working with small electronics, a number of companies sell replacement
batteries for both the 2G and 3G iPhones at far lower prices. In
Google shopping search for “iPhone 3G Battery Replacement.“ The iPhone
is easy to open, i.e. the 3G model has two Phillips 00 screws on the
bottom that hold the phone together. Note that on the original iPhone
the battery is soldered in, so you’ll need to unsolder the original
battery and solder in the new one. It’s not all that hard to do, but
if you’ve never soldered before you might want to practice on some
wires first. Be careful about using after-market batteries of unknown
orgin as lithium based batteries can be dangerous.
Q. How do I enable voice dialing on my iPhone?
A. Unfortunately, the current iPhone model does not support voice
dialing. There are some after-market voice dialing applications for
the iPhone available in the Apps store, but because the iPhone lacks a
button to press for voice dialing, you still have to use the screen to
start the application which makes the feature somewhat lame. You can
also purchase a Bluetooth device such as the Parrot Minikit Slim
Portable Bluetooth Car Kit for iPhone 3G, iPhone, which will transfer
the phonebook from the iPhone to itself and do voice dialing
externally.The next generation iPhone will likely support voice
dialing natively.
Q. Why can't I stream music from my iPhone to a Bluetooth stereo
headset?
A. Unfortunately, Apple did not include the necessary Bluetooth
profile, called Advanced Audio Distribution Profile (A2DP) in the
original OS. This profile has been added in OS 3.0. Update your iPhone
and A2DP will work.
Q. How do I connect my notebook computer to the iPhone to use my
carrier's 3G network over Bluetooth or USB or WiFi?
A. Unfortunately, tethering is not yet supported on the iPhone. You
will need to sign up for separate 3G data service from your carrier.
Note that when Apple and the carrier do support tethering it is a
virtual certainty that the carrier will charge extra for it. The good
news is that tethering support is built into OS 3.0 and developers
have already had it working, see "http://tinyurl.com"/iphonetethering.
It’s just a matter of time before tethering will work.
Q. When I insert a prepaid SIM card when travelling in foreign
countries it doesn't work. What am I doing wrong?
A. Unfortunately, iPhones are subsidy-locked to the carrier. Unless
you have your iPhone unlocked (jail broken) you cannot use a prepaid
SIM card. While AT&T will unlock their other quad band phones, they
will not unlock the iPhone. Be very careful when travelling
internationally because the iPhone can "phone home" running up
enormous roaming chargers. Your best bet is to carry along an unlocked
GSM phone and use a prepaid SIM card in that phone, and use your
iPhone only on Wi-Fi networks (and of course as a music and video
player).
Q. I can’t find a memory card slot on the iPhone. How can I transfer
photos from my digital camera to my iPhone?
A. Unfortunately, the iPhone lacks the Micro-SD or Mini-SD card slot
present on most smart phones. You must use iPhoto (on a Mac) or iTunes
to transfer photos.
Q. I want to use a Bluetooth keyboard with my iPhone but it doesn’t
seem to connect. What am I doing wrong?
A. Unfortunately, the iPhone does not support the proper Bluetooth
profile. You can use a Bluetooth keyboard only on jailbroken iPhones.
Q. The camera on my iPhone doesn’t have sufficient wide-angle range.
Is there any after-market device to fix this?
A. Yes. See "http://usbfever.com/index_eproduct_view.php?
products_id=789".
Q. The camera on my iPhone doesn’t have sufficient telephoto range. Is
there any after-market device to fix this?
A. Yes. See "http://mobile.brando.com.hk/prod_detail.php?
prod_id=03534".
Q. I frequently take long international airline flights and the iPhone
battery goes flat during the flight. How can I work around this?
A. Since the iPhone battery is not user-replaceable, a number of
companies have produced work-around products. In Google shopping
search for “iPhone battery external.”
Also, look into whether or not your airline (and the plane used on
your particular flight) has any sort of power jacks at the seat. Some
airlines have power jacks even in coach. Be sure to bring the proper
adapters for the type of system used by your airline (i.e. 120VAC to
5VDC USB adapter, 12VDC to 5VDC USB adapter, or EmPower to 5VDC USB
adapter).
Q. I want to use my iPhone for work related stuff, but my IT
department doesn’t support it. How can I convince them to add support
to the iPhone for enterprise applications?
A. The main problem with the iPhone in terms of enterprise support is
the inablility to push applications to the iPhone. Enterprises don’t
want to have to use iTunes, with the phone wired to a desktop, to push
applications. The other problem with the iPhone is that enterprises
don’t want to be locked to AT&T as a carrier, though for personally
owned iPhones this should not be an issue. On the plus side,
enterprises like the low cost of the iPhone.
Once the exclusivity arrangement with AT&T is over, if there is a
version of the iPhone for Verizon, then IT departments will offer more
support for the iPhone. In the meantime, you’ll have to go with
Blackberry or Windows Mobile if you want full IT support on a smart
phone.
Q. The internal memory on the iPhone is insufficient for storing the
amount of music and videos I would like. I don’t want to carry around
a laptop, but an external hard drive would be okay. Is there any after-
market USB add-on drive to expand the storage to something like the
120GB on the iPod Classic?
A. Unfortunately, there is no way to connect a USB drive to the USB
port of the iPhone. Your best bet is to carry around a netbook, and
transfer music and videos back and forth between the netbook and the
iPhone. It is not clear if the SIMA Hitch will work with the iPhone
(it works with FAT32 formatted iPods). It’s likely that as Apple
expands the iPhone line there will be different models available and
at least one model will have disk based storage (like the iPod
Classic).
Q. I often have no signal on my iPhone, why is this?
A. Unfortunately, while the iPhone is a very advanced device, it’s
only as good as the network that it operates on. Unfortunately, in the
U.S., the smaller AT&T Wireless network significantly lags the larger
Verizon Wireless network in terms of coverage, especially outside of
urban areas. Since Verizon operates a CDMA network, the GSM iPhone
cannot roam onto Verizon.
Interestingly, Apple first approached Verizon with the iPhone and
Verizon turned them down because of Apple’s proposal for monthly
revenue sharing.
You have several options regarding phone calls outside of the GSM
network coverage area. If you have a laptop, you can sign up with a
VOIP provider such as Skype, and make calls over the Internet (i.e. at
hotels with free wireless). You can carry along a prepaid CDMA phone
that works on Verizon. You can use pay phones. Of course if you never
venture out of GSM coverage areas, this is unnecessary, but most
iPhone users in the U.S. often find themselves in areas without any
GSM coverage.
Q. Is their a way to listen to the radio on the iPhone?
A. Unfortunately, the Apple iPod Radio Remote is incompatible with the
iPhone. However there is an after-market FM radio available. See
"http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.13773".
Q. Will my iPhone work in Japan?
A. No. Unfortunately, Japan uses a different 3G and voice system than
is present in the iPhone. You cannot use your iPhone in Korea either.
There is a Japanese model of the iPhone available, but because the
iPhone lacks many of the advanced features that Japanese consumers
expect in their phones, sales have been abysmal. In fact the Japanese
carrier for the iPhone has had to rush out add-on accessories to
address the iPhone’s shortcomings, for example the lack of an
integrated TV tuner. See "http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/
08/10/30/japanese_iphone_owners_to_be_offered_tv_tuner_add_on.html".
Q. Where are the best places to buy iPhone accessories?
A. "http://www.monoprice.com/products/search.asp?keyword=iphone" and
"http://www.dealextreme.com/search.dx/search.iphone".
Q. Why does Apple make highly desirable, and seemingly easy to
implement features, so difficult?
A. In some cases the software or drivers necessary to implement these
features has simply not yet been written. The iPhone is a relatively
new platform, and it will take Apple a while to catch up with phones
using other operating systems (Windows Mobile, Palm, RIM, Symbian,
Android).
In some cases Apple wants to protect its revenue stream and does not
want to offer any features that would cause users to purchase fewer
applications or content (i.e. that’s why there is no FM radio built
in).
In some cases it’s not entirely Apple, it’s also the carrier. For
example, AT&T would rather get a cut of roaming revenue from foreign
carriers than to have an iPhone user stick in a prepaid SIM card.
In some cases, the hardware was not designed to support the feature.
I.e. there’s no button to press for voice dialing because there are no
hard buttons on the phone at all.
The iPhone was designed and marketed as phone/web browser/media
player. Now it’s transitioning into a Smart Phone, and that transition
isn’t going to be without some problems. Be patient. Future iPhones
will likely solve most of the issues, and iPhone users will someday
have many of the same features already enjoyed by Blackberry Storm and
Windows Mobile users. For the next year or so, if you can't live
without some features, you'll have to choose a different smart phone.
© 2009 Ira J. Schechtman
Ira J. Schechtman is a technology expert specializing in smart phones.
Contact him at iraDOTjDOT...@gmail.com (replace DOT with a
period).
Richard B. Gilbert
We seem to be getting a lot of iPhone traffic here. Does the iPhone
work on Verizon's network?
SMS
> Be careful about using after-market batteries of unknown
> orgin as lithium based batteries can be dangerous.
I'd be really careful about using batteries from an unknown source. It's
one thing when it's in a camera or laptop, but the phone is right by
your head a lot of the time. $87 is a lot, but it may be worth it.
> also purchase a Bluetooth device such as the Parrot Minikit Slim
> Portable Bluetooth Car Kit for iPhone 3G, iPhone, which will transfer
> the phonebook from the iPhone to itself and do voice dialing
> externally.The next generation iPhone will likely support voice
> dialing natively.
Oy, talk about a kludge to get around a serious omission of functionality.
> Unfortunately, Apple did not include the necessary Bluetooth
> profile, called Advanced Audio Distribution Profile (A2DP) in the
> original OS. This profile has been added in OS 3.0. Update your iPhone
> and A2DP will work.
I guess I've never considered a wire a problem. With a Bluetooth
headphone it's one more device to keep charged for minimal benefit.
> Your best bet is to carry along an unlocked
> GSM phone and use a prepaid SIM card in that phone, and use your
> iPhone only on Wi-Fi networks (and of course as a music and video
> player).
Oh great, one more thing to carry. I want to reduce the number of
devices, not increase them. But I'm sure someone will claim that only a
small percentage of iPhone users ever travel outside their home country.
> Unfortunately, the iPhone lacks the Micro-SD or Mini-SD card slot
> present on most smart phones. You must use iPhoto (on a Mac) or iTunes
> to transfer photos.
Can you e-mail pictures to yourself from a laptop and store them in the
iPhone's memory? In any case, I'm sure someone will claim that few
iPhone users would ever want to transfer photos from a digital camera to
an iPhone in situations where a computer is not available. After all,
such capability insults the iPhone's built in camera.
> A. Yes. See "http://mobile.brando.com.hk/prod_detail.php?
> prod_id=03534".
Amusing.
> Also, look into whether or not your airline (and the plane used on
> your particular flight) has any sort of power jacks at the seat. Some
> airlines have power jacks even in coach. Be sure to bring the proper
> adapters for the type of system used by your airline (i.e. 120VAC to
> 5VDC USB adapter, 12VDC to 5VDC USB adapter, or EmPower to 5VDC USB
> adapter).
More gadgets and wires to carry.
> It’s likely that as Apple
> expands the iPhone line there will be different models available and
> at least one model will have disk based storage (like the iPod
> Classic).
Yeah, that's a pet peeve of mine too. If the iPhone is supposed to be
this great device for video, why isn't there some sort of thin disk
drive you can glomp onto it for more storage, just like you glomp on a
battery sleeve for more battery life. If an iPod Classic (and a Zune)
can have 120GB of storage, why not an iPhone?
> You can carry along a prepaid CDMA phone
> that works on Verizon.
Let me plug PagePlus, a Verizon MVNO, but again, who wants to be
carrying yet another device.
Maybe the next hardware release will address some of this stuff.
SMS
> We seem to be getting a lot of iPhone traffic here. Does the iPhone
> work on Verizon's network?
Soon.
Mark Crispin
> A. No. Unfortunately, Japan uses a different 3G and voice system than
> is present in the iPhone. You cannot use your iPhone in Korea either.
As much as I love to torment iToy fanboys, the above statement isn't true.
Foreign iPhones work quite well in both Japan and Korea. This includes
North Korea, should you be privileged to be allowed the use of a mobile
phone in the limited areas where the service is offered.
The first generation iPhone was GSM-only and as such did not work in
Japan or Korea. Japan's 3G network is the same UMTS 2100 system used in
most of the world (with the notable exception of North America).
The last I heard, iPhone is not marketed in South Korea yet because Apple
refuses to comply with South Korea's WIPI (wireless platform for
interoperability) standard. Other mobile phone companies offer WIPI
compliant phones in Korea.
-- Mark --
http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
Mr. Strat
<35826104-0242-4347...@y33g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
<ira.j.sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> iPhone FAQ
>
> This FAQ addresses the frequently asked questions regarding the Apple
> iPhone. If you have any suggestions or corrections for the iPhone FAQ,
> please send them to iraDOTjDOT...@gmail.com (replace DOT with a
> period).
If we see this posted every couple of weeks, we'll know it's really
John Navas in disguise.
Dennis Ferguson
> ira.j.sc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Your best bet is to carry along an unlocked
> > GSM phone and use a prepaid SIM card in that phone, and use your
> > iPhone only on Wi-Fi networks (and of course as a music and video
> > player).
>
> Oh great, one more thing to carry. I want to reduce the number of
> devices, not increase them. But I'm sure someone will claim that only a
> small percentage of iPhone users ever travel outside their home country.
My wife uses that technique when she wants to use the data service
from her laptop, to work around the lack of tethering to the iPhone.
She carries an older Motorola 3G phone in her laptop bag, and swaps
the SIM from the iPhone into the Motorola for use with the laptop.
Since tethering works fine with the four carriers' SIMs she's used
with her iPhone (just not with the SIM in the iPhone) it doesn't
seem like the iPhone's problem with tethering is a problem
with the carriers.
Dennis Ferguson
David Moyer
> The last I heard, iPhone is not marketed in South Korea yet because Apple
> refuses to comply with South Korea's WIPI (wireless platform for
> interoperability) standard. Other mobile phone companies offer WIPI
> compliant phones in Korea.
incorrect Mark, Apple was simply waiting until the WIPI requirement was
dropped. It ended on Dec 10th 2008, so soon South Korea will have access
to the popular iPhone.
David Moyer
"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> We seem to be getting a lot of iPhone traffic here. Does the iPhone
> work on Verizon's network?
someday it will, so it's good to keep verizon users up to date with
modern mobile developments.
watch the video of version 3, wow...
The Bob
news:49c5c469$0$87068$815e...@news.qwest.net:
Wikipedia as an authoritative source?
ZnU
Dennis Ferguson <dcfer...@pacbell.net> wrote:
It's slightly more complicated than that. The iPhone doesn't have
software that supports tethering out of the box. But if it weren't for
carrier restrictions, there would be third-party software that supported
it. We know this because there briefly *was* such software, before it
was pulled from the App Store, presumably as a result of Apple's
agreements with carriers.
3.0 *does* apparently have built-in tethering support; we'll see what
Apple manages to work out with the carriers in terms of actually letting
people use it.
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
ed
> In article <slrngsafhc.16fs.dcfergu...@akit-ferguson.com>,
> Dennis Ferguson <dcfergu...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > On 2009-03-20, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > > ira.j.schecht...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Your best bet is to carry along an unlocked
> > > > GSM phone and use a prepaid SIM card in that phone, and use your
> > > > iPhone only on Wi-Fi networks (and of course as a music and video
> > > > player).
>
> > > Oh great, one more thing to carry. I want to reduce the number of
> > > devices, not increase them. But I'm sure someone will claim that only a
> > > small percentage of iPhone users ever travel outside their home country.
>
> > My wife uses that technique when she wants to use the data service
> > from her laptop, to work around the lack of tethering to the iPhone.
> > She carries an older Motorola 3G phone in her laptop bag, and swaps
> > the SIM from the iPhone into the Motorola for use with the laptop.
>
> > Since tethering works fine with the four carriers' SIMs she's used
> > with her iPhone (just not with the SIM in the iPhone) it doesn't
> > seem like the iPhone's problem with tethering is a problem
> > with the carriers.
>
> It's slightly more complicated than that. The iPhone doesn't have
> software that supports tethering out of the box. But if it weren't for
> carrier restrictions, there would be third-party software that supported
> it.
always blaming the carriers instead of apple- how does this explain
the fact that you can get plenty of other phones on at&t that you can
tether with?
> We know this because there briefly *was* such software, before it
> was pulled from the App Store, presumably as a result of Apple's
> agreements with carriers.
>
> 3.0 *does* apparently have built-in tethering support; we'll see what
> Apple manages to work out with the carriers in terms of actually letting
> people use it.
why do you keep blaming the carriers when the carriers have plenty of
other phones that allow tethering?
ZnU
<30a12b62-e42b-4ec5...@s12g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
Looked at from one angle, Apple is partially at fault. The most
straightforward way to get tethering support for the iPhone is for Apple
to implement it as an official feature, and for carriers to official
support it. Apple apparently didn't start that process until recently.
But looking at things from that angle means ignoring all the ways in
which the carriers have completely screwed up the cellular industry, to
their benefit.
Wireless data services should work like wired data service. You pay for
a connection. There's a nearly universal standard. You bring your own
device, rather than the carrier being involved in what device you use.
And it's none of the carrier's business what services you use your
bandwidth for or what type of device you connect.
If we lived in that world, the iPhone (and everything else) would be
sold unsubsidized. You'd pick your provider, sign up, and punch a few
settings into the device so it could connect to their network. If some
third-party wrote a tethering app and submitted it to the App Store, it
would be approved and would remain available, because it won't be a
violation of anyone's terms of use.
It's not Apple's fault we don't live in that world. Apple would probably
prefer that world. It's entirely the fault of the carriers.
KDT
There were also other 3G phones on AT&T network before the iPhone but
none of them had the impact on AT&T's network that the iPhone had.
Apple said they have client support for tethering in the iPhone and a
third party app was already written and released that could do
tethering. Besides, It's quite obvious that Apple has a different
deal with the carriers than any other carrier, Why would Apple want to
block tethering?
Jim Dandy
<ira.j.sc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:35826104-0242-4347...@y33g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
iPhone FAQ
This FAQ addresses the frequently asked questions regarding the Apple
iPhone. If you have any suggestions or corrections for the iPhone FAQ,
please send them to ira.j.sc...@gmail.com (replace DOT with a
period).
Don't you know that the Samsung (Sprint) Instinct is the I-phone killer.
I-Phone sucks ass compared to Instinct.
David Moyer
> > It's slightly more complicated than that. The iPhone doesn't have
> > software that supports tethering out of the box. But if it weren't for
> > carrier restrictions, there would be third-party software that supported
> > it.
>
> always blaming the carriers instead of apple- how does this explain
> the fact that you can get plenty of other phones on at&t that you can
> tether with?
>
> > We know this because there briefly *was* such software, before it
> > was pulled from the App Store, presumably as a result of Apple's
> > agreements with carriers.
> >
> > 3.0 *does* apparently have built-in tethering support; we'll see what
> > Apple manages to work out with the carriers in terms of actually letting
> > people use it.
>
> why do you keep blaming the carriers when the carriers have plenty of
> other phones that allow tethering?
it's mainly because iphone users are more tech savvy than most cell
users, so until att finishes their buildout and catches up with current
data demands of iphone users, tethering needs to be kept on hold.
be patient young grasshopper :)
David Moyer
> Don't you know that the Samsung (Sprint) Instinct is the I-phone killer.
>
> I-Phone sucks ass compared to Instinct.
when did that happen? the instinct was panned by all reviews comparing
it with the iphone. did they release a new model or something?
The Bob
Wait a minute- not more than 12 hours ago you were telling about how ATT
has the best 3g network and now you are panning it? Which is it, moron?
SMS
More likely it's AT&T that's terrified what would happen to their 3G
network if a lot of iPhone owners started tethering. They need to figure
a way to charge for tethering so iPhone owners don't use it too much,
yet not charge so much that it drives customers away to other carriers.
David Moyer
MJKolodziej
"David Moyer" <dav...@world.com> wrote in message
news:49c6de71$0$87065$815e...@news.qwest.net...
> ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>
>> > It's slightly more complicated than that. The iPhone doesn't have
>> > software that supports tethering out of the box. But if it weren't for
>> > carrier restrictions, there would be third-party software that
>> > supported
>> > it.
>>
>> always blaming the carriers instead of apple- how does this explain
>> the fact that you can get plenty of other phones on at&t that you can
>> tether with?
>>
>> > We know this because there briefly *was* such software, before it
>> > was pulled from the App Store, presumably as a result of Apple's
>> > agreements with carriers.
>> >
>> > 3.0 *does* apparently have built-in tethering support; we'll see what
>> > Apple manages to work out with the carriers in terms of actually
>> > letting
>> > people use it.
>>
>> why do you keep blaming the carriers when the carriers have plenty of
>> other phones that allow tethering?
>
> it's mainly because iphone users are more tech savvy than most cell
> users,
Right. Sure, uh huh. Too bad iphone developers weren't tech savy.
mk
David Moyer
> >> why do you keep blaming the carriers when the carriers have plenty of
> >> other phones that allow tethering?
> >
> > it's mainly because iphone users are more tech savvy than most cell
> > users,
>
> Right. Sure, uh huh. Too bad iphone developers weren't tech savy.
> mk
what? developers quickly had tethering apps for the iphone, but att
killed them with weeks.
Dennis Ferguson
> In article
> ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>> why do you keep blaming the carriers when the carriers have plenty of
>> other phones that allow tethering?
>
> Looked at from one angle, Apple is partially at fault. The most
> straightforward way to get tethering support for the iPhone is for Apple
> to implement it as an official feature, and for carriers to official
> support it. Apple apparently didn't start that process until recently.
I guess I should point out that my wife's iPhone is an unlocked,
carrier-free model for which someone (my wife got the phone as a
gift) likely paid the full, unsubsidized price. The phone was activated
on a non-iPhone operator with which Apple has no relationship at all.
I hence don't quite get why Apple support for tethering on her
phone could possibly be dependent on whatever policy her carrier
might have. Clearly tethering works on her carrier (with a Motorola
phone), the only thing missing is software on her iPhone.
> But looking at things from that angle means ignoring all the ways in
> which the carriers have completely screwed up the cellular industry, to
> their benefit.
>
> Wireless data services should work like wired data service. You pay for
> a connection. There's a nearly universal standard. You bring your own
> device, rather than the carrier being involved in what device you use.
> And it's none of the carrier's business what services you use your
> bandwidth for or what type of device you connect.
>
> If we lived in that world, the iPhone (and everything else) would be
> sold unsubsidized. You'd pick your provider, sign up, and punch a few
> settings into the device so it could connect to their network.
That's exactly what my wife did. The phone was bought unsubsidized,
she picked the provider, I punched in the settings and the device
connected to the network. Everything works except visual voicemail
(which the "official" operator didn't support either until recently,
so that isn't much of a loss).
Tethering still doesn't work, though.
> If some
> third-party wrote a tethering app and submitted it to the App Store, it
> would be approved and would remain available, because it won't be a
> violation of anyone's terms of use.
So if there is some carrier somewhere in the world which disallows
tethering on some plan on which the iPhone might be used, then tethering
is disallowed on all iPhones everywhere? That makes no sense.
> It's not Apple's fault we don't live in that world. Apple would probably
> prefer that world. It's entirely the fault of the carriers.
I don't get it. My wife, at least, lives in that world. My wife's
carrier allows tethering, and if it didn't she could always move to
another which did. It is the iPhone which is missing the support she
needs.
I think your theory is implausibly complex, and especially so since
I have an iPhone which matches your vision of a perfect world but
which still can't be tethered. I much prefer the simpler explanation:
Apple didn't get around to writing the software to support tethering,
but planned to someday and so shitcanned an application which slipped
out which provided competing, but maybe incompatible, functionality.
Clearly if there are some carriers on the planet for which Apple
feels compelled to leave the functionality off the phones which those
carrier subsidize, then Apple needs to provide the function in a
way where it can be selectively turned off and only an Apple-provided
feature could do that.
Dennis Ferguson
William Sheehan, Jr.
They cant seem to get it that we don't care how much they love it or whether
or not WE think it is better or cooler or worse than what we have now. They
simply can not grasp that we rejected it. They cant grasp that for some
reason we don't want it and don't care that only they think we should. It's
sad really.
"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilb...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:HbWdna3f8JI7nFnU...@giganews.com...
ZnU
Dennis Ferguson <dcfer...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 2009-03-22, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > In article
> ><30a12b62-e42b-4ec5...@s12g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
> > ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> >> why do you keep blaming the carriers when the carriers have plenty of
> >> other phones that allow tethering?
> >
> > Looked at from one angle, Apple is partially at fault. The most
> > straightforward way to get tethering support for the iPhone is for Apple
> > to implement it as an official feature, and for carriers to official
> > support it. Apple apparently didn't start that process until recently.
>
> I guess I should point out that my wife's iPhone is an unlocked,
> carrier-free model for which someone (my wife got the phone as a
> gift) likely paid the full, unsubsidized price. The phone was activated
> on a non-iPhone operator with which Apple has no relationship at all.
>
> I hence don't quite get why Apple support for tethering on her
> phone could possibly be dependent on whatever policy her carrier
> might have. Clearly tethering works on her carrier (with a Motorola
> phone), the only thing missing is software on her iPhone.
AT&T is Apple's only official US partner for the iPhone. It is virtually
certain that the contract which exists between AT&T and Apple requires
that Apple not allow software for the iPhone that, though its use, would
necessarily violate AT&T's terms of service.
I really don't see how this is at all difficult to understand.
[snip]
Mark Crispin
> AT&T is Apple's only official US partner for the iPhone. It is virtually
> certain that the contract which exists between AT&T and Apple requires
> that Apple not allow software for the iPhone that, though its use, would
> necessarily violate AT&T's terms of service.
An unlocked, carrier-free, iPhone is not marketed in the USA. This
phone is an overseas model, purchased overseas, in a market that offers
unlocked, carrier-free, iPhones.
If AT&T and Apple have a contract that dictates limitations in non-US
models, this is a matter that needs to be examined by various
international authorities (WTO, EU, etc.).
Nor would Americans be particularly pleased to have products marketed in
the USA be placed under restrictions established by Saudi Arabia, Iran,
Red China, Zimbabwe, ...
Put another way: in your zealous effort to exonerate Apple of blame for
stupid restrictions, you instead accuse both Apple and AT&T of far greater
offenses that could land both in a great deal of trouble.
> I really don't see how this is at all difficult to understand.
Perhaps because you really are clueless.
Dennis Ferguson
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, ZnU posted:
>> AT&T is Apple's only official US partner for the iPhone. It is virtually
>> certain that the contract which exists between AT&T and Apple requires
>> that Apple not allow software for the iPhone that, though its use, would
>> necessarily violate AT&T's terms of service.
>
> An unlocked, carrier-free, iPhone is not marketed in the USA. This
> phone is an overseas model, purchased overseas, in a market that offers
> unlocked, carrier-free, iPhones.
Thanks, yes. I'm pretty sure it is this one since its part number
doesn't match any on Apple lists for carrier-supplied phones:
http://store.apple.com/hk/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone
"iPhone 3G purchased at the Apple Online Store can be activated
with any wireless carrier. Simply insert the SIM from your current
phone into iPhone 3G and connect to iTunes 8 to complete activation."
Dennis Ferguson
Larry
news:slrngsi5tg.20...@akit-ferguson.com:
Will the foreign iPhone even tune the US bands which are on different
frequencies??
That's one way Apple could easily stop the importation.
Todd Allcock
"Larry" <no...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9BD88DAA39E...@74.209.131.13...
There's really only one model of iPhone sold (not counting color and memory
size variants.) It's a quad-band GSM, tri-band 3G (UMTS) phone, so it works
anywhere GSM works, and even a few places it doesn't (like the 2100MHz UMTS
systems in Japan, which, to oversimplify, are compatible with GSM's 3G
overlay service, but not the original GSM voice system.)
This is the situation Verizon and Vodafone are trying to get into with the
move to LTE for 4G- this way, American Verizon CDMA 4G handsets would work
in Europe on LTE, and Voda's European GSM 4G handsets would work in America
on LTE. As it stands now, Verizon has to sell or rent it's customers combo
CDMA/GSM handsets to roam in Europe, and Voda, 45% owner of Verizon
Wireless, has to pay it's own competitors, AT&T and T-Mobile, for Voda's
customer's roaming usage in the USA, despite the fact that their customers
are literally surrounded by perfectly strong, but completely unusable
Verizon service that Voda owns half of! That must REALLY frost them!
Contrast that with T-Mobile, who can charge it's USA customers up the wahzoo
for roaming on its own T-Mobile systems throughout Europe, and vice-versa!
Larry
news:iwayl.173240$fM1....@newsfe14.iad:
> This is the situation Verizon and Vodafone are trying to get into with
> the move to LTE for 4G- this way, American Verizon CDMA 4G handsets
> would work in Europe on LTE, and Voda's European GSM 4G handsets would
> work in America on LTE. As it stands now, Verizon has to sell or rent
> it's customers combo CDMA/GSM handsets to roam in Europe, and Voda,
> 45% owner of Verizon Wireless, has to pay it's own competitors, AT&T
> and T-Mobile, for Voda's customer's roaming usage in the USA, despite
> the fact that their customers are literally surrounded by perfectly
> strong, but completely unusable Verizon service that Voda owns half
> of! That must REALLY frost them! Contrast that with T-Mobile, who can
> charge it's USA customers up the wahzoo for roaming on its own
> T-Mobile systems throughout Europe, and vice-versa!
>
>
AS I've said before, the FCC should have CHOSEN the system for them all,
like it did digital TV, to prevent all this nonsense. Then, we could have
insisted they all share resources in order to keep their license from being
revoked......to the benefit of every sellphone user in the country.
Unfortunately, the government isn't about the people any more. It works at
the whim of the corporations.
Mark Crispin
> As it stands now, Verizon has to sell or rent it's customers combo
> CDMA/GSM handsets to roam in Europe, and Voda, 45% owner of Verizon Wireless,
> has to pay it's own competitors, AT&T and T-Mobile, for Voda's customer's
> roaming usage in the USA, despite the fact that their customers are literally
> surrounded by perfectly strong, but completely unusable Verizon service that
> Voda owns half of!
Vodafone does sell combo CDMA/GSM handsets to its customers that are
frequent travellers to North America. So at least some Vodafone customers
do roam onto Verizon.
But you're right, most Vodafone roamers in the USA roam onto AT&T and
T-Mobile, and constantly gripe about the lousy mobile phone service here.
SMS
> But you're right, most Vodafone roamers in the USA roam onto AT&T and
> T-Mobile, and constantly gripe about the lousy mobile phone service here.
One problem is that only T-Mobile makes it relatively easy and
inexpensive for travelers to the U.S. to obtain prepaid SIM cards and
T-Mobile prepaid doesn't have the same roaming privileges as T-Mobile
postpaid, so coverage is very poor at some of the places that leisure
visitors to the U.S. are most likely to visit. If they're paying for
international roaming, at least they get to use AT&T which has better
coverage than T-Mobile prepaid, though not nearly as good as Verizon.
I keep a spare PagePlus phone in the house to lend to people that visit
me. My visitors tend to be heading up to Yosemite, or out to the less
populated portions of the California coast, and having a GSM phone,
whether it's an iPhone or not, is not going to do them much good at all
once they get outside the urban core area.
Actually there is a slight advantage to the iPhone over most GSM phones
because many of the lodging facilities in areas with no GSM coverage do
have free Wi-Fi. So while they can't make a call because VOIP doesn't
work on non-jail-broken iPhones, at least they can access e-mail and the
web when they're at the motel or lodge.
Visitors from Europe and Asia are so used to ubiquitous coverage on
their phones that they are quite surprised to learn how poor the GSM
coverage is in the U.S..
Mike Hofman
wrote:
> No, only the douchebags that cannot understand this is not an iphone group.
> They cant seem to get it that we don't care how much they love it or whether
> or not WE think it is better or cooler or worse than what we have now. They
> simply can not grasp that we rejected it. They cant grasp that for some
> reason we don't want it and don't care that only they think we should. It's
> sad really.
William. please don't put comments at the top of a reply, that is bad
usenet nettique and makes you look like a Windows user.
Someday you too will have an iPhone, thanks.
Jim Dandy
"Mike Hofman" <in...@recreate68.org> wrote in message
news:49c98e54$0$33225$815e...@news.qwest.net...
He deserves an I-Phone. I'll keep my Instinct please.
Todd Allcock
> AS I've said before, the FCC should have CHOSEN the system for them
all,
> like it did digital TV, to prevent all this nonsense.
I used to think that as well, but I'll admit when I was wrong. The free
market is slowly doing exactly what the FCC predicted- settling on a
defacto standard by themselves, which will apparently be LTE.
Eventually, as 4th, 5th, etc generation standards are common between
carriers, the original GSM and CDMA support will eventually become
obsolete and retired, and you and I and Steven Scharf will complain that
some rural areas still need GSM and CDMA like we did when they pulled
down analog. ;-)
> Then, we'll
> insisted they all share resources in order to keep their license from
being
> revoked......to the benefit of every sellphone user in the country.
>
> Unfortunately, the government isn't about the people any more. It
works at
> the whim of the corporations.
The real problem is that we consumers are stupid animals- we like fluffy
ideas like "no roaming" and "nationwide service." I'd love for my phone
to be able to tell me something like "T-Mobile has no service or roaming
agreements in this area. Dial *ROAM to roam on AT&T for $1/per minute,
dial #ROAM to stop roaming."
In the good old days, you could roam on anyone's system, at a
ridiculously high price, of course, but at least you could opt for
service anywhere it existed. I just wish consumers had to option to roam
on any carrier, even at full "rack rate" if they chose to, but then
carriers couldn't advertise "no roaming charges!" (which, frankly, is a
silly thing to brag about in some ways since it really means "limited
ability to roam.")
SMS
> At 24 Mar 2009 19:39:03 +0000 Larry wrote:
>
>
>> AS I've said before, the FCC should have CHOSEN the system for them
> all,
>> like it did digital TV, to prevent all this nonsense.
>
> I used to think that as well, but I'll admit when I was wrong. The free
> market is slowly doing exactly what the FCC predicted- settling on a
> defacto standard by themselves, which will apparently be LTE.
> Eventually, as 4th, 5th, etc generation standards are common between
> carriers, the original GSM and CDMA support will eventually become
> obsolete and retired, and you and I and Steven Scharf will complain that
> some rural areas still need GSM and CDMA like we did when they pulled
> down analog. ;-)
Speaking of analog, I was down at Pinnacles National Park last weekend
and there was analog on the east side. I don't know which carrier it was
from, or where the tower was.
Larry
$2O4....@newsfe03.iad:
> The real problem is that we consumers are stupid animals- we like
fluffy
> ideas like "no roaming" and "nationwide service." I'd love for my
phone
> to be able to tell me something like "T-Mobile has no service or
roaming
> agreements in this area. Dial *ROAM to roam on AT&T for $1/per
minute,
> dial #ROAM to stop roaming."
>
> In the good old days, you could roam on anyone's system, at a
> ridiculously high price, of course, but at least you could opt for
> service anywhere it existed. I just wish consumers had to option to
roam
> on any carrier, even at full "rack rate" if they chose to, but then
> carriers couldn't advertise "no roaming charges!" (which, frankly, is
a
> silly thing to brag about in some ways since it really means "limited
> ability to roam.")
>
>
Again, this roaming nonsense is the FCC fault. Smiley's Tire and
Cellular applied for and got a license to provide SERVICE from this
point to that point to that point and all points in between. We
licensed him to provide that service at his profit and we protected him
from many competitors during that process.
Where the system failed was Smiley had no intention of providing service
across this vast area of real estate. He only wanted to have the most
profitable customers in Reality and Barndoor and Wilson where most of
the rich people live who would buy the most expensive system and
products he produced. So, that's what he did....and to hell with
everyone else in his "service area" that had no signal or such poor
signal as to be useless.
The SYSTEM, aka FCC, that's supposed to REGULATE the airwaves and the
commercial profit mongers they gave licenses to "for the public good"
should have gone in and measured Smiley's service X months after
granting him a construction permit and wrote his sorry ass up in a court
proceeding relieving him of his profit if Smiley didn't do what he
promised the FCC, and the public by their proxy, he would do...provide
service from this point to that point to that point....not just in the 3
rich cities.
The FCC needs to have their bureaucratic asses kicked out of their
building, the damned lawyers who have taken over the positions of power
in the FCC and continue to sell off the public's airwaves to line their
pockets. The FCC needs to reinstate those stodgy old ENGINEERS who
started the place, taking no excuses and no exceptions, that gave
America the finest television, radio, telephone, cable and telecom
systems BEFORE the lawyers took over and screwed it up with cronyism.
You promised the FCC ENGINEERS you would provide this much signal across
your licensed area so the PEOPLE could hear your station in their cars
even outside the most profitable areas of your region. If you didn't
pass the TEST the ENGINEERS called a "Proof of Performance"....GOD
couldn't help you from their wrath! If you refused to hold up your end
of the bargain with the PEOPLE'S ENGINEERS at the FCC....They simply
took away your license, shut down your transmitter(s) and reissued that
license to someone who WOULD cooperate to do what's right, even if it
weren't so profitable as it could be running it the way your greedy
beancounters wanted.....
Too bad sellphones don't have those boys riding around in the little
trucks measuring the signals and writing up the NALs, "Notice of
Apparent Liability", the FCC's equivalent of a parking ticket.
It's OUR airwaves, goddamn it, not Verizon's....
Larry
@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com:
> Speaking of analog, I was down at Pinnacles National Park last weekend
> and there was analog on the east side. I don't know which carrier it was
> from, or where the tower was.
>
>
Lucky bastard....HI FI Cellular phone calls....
FM really DOES sound better....
Roger 2008
"Mike Hofman" <in...@recreate68.org> wrote in message
news:49c98e54$0$33225$815e...@news.qwest.net...
>
Maybe just maybe but first I want to see it support Bluetooth Stereo (A2DP),
Bluetooth DUN, Bluetooth FTP, Bluetooth keyboards (HID) and Bluetooth AVRCP.
http://bluetooth.com/Bluetooth/Technology/Works/Profiles_Overview.htm
BTW Bluetooth DUN is not a thing of the past because the GSM Touch Diamond
has it and you can use PDANet to add it to other phones like the a CDMA
Touch Pro. What can you use BT DUN for? To get Internet on your laptop
from your phone without physically connecting your laptop to your phone and
once BT DUN is setup it is easier to use then BT PAN which does about the
same thing.
Then for the Apps it would have to support Slingplayer Mobile and Remote
Desktop Mobile with the file transfer capabilities. Someone at an AT&T
store told me the iPhone already has "Remote Desktop" but he couldn't tell
me if it supported the file transfer capability so he wasn't much help.
Oh yeah, I expect to see a screen resolution of WVGA on the next version of
the iPhone that could be called "iPhone WVGA" where WVGA = 800x480. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_VGA
Todd Allcock
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:fIcyl.12888$hc1....@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
> Mark Crispin wrote:
>
>> But you're right, most Vodafone roamers in the USA roam onto AT&T and
>> T-Mobile, and constantly gripe about the lousy mobile phone service here.
>
> One problem is that only T-Mobile makes it relatively easy and inexpensive
> for travelers to the U.S. to obtain prepaid SIM cards and T-Mobile prepaid
> doesn't have the same roaming privileges as T-Mobile postpaid, so coverage
> is very poor at some of the places that leisure visitors to the U.S. are
> most likely to visit. If they're paying for international roaming, at
> least they get to use AT&T which has better coverage than T-Mobile
> prepaid, though not nearly as good as Verizon.
To be fair, T-Mobile has added most of their postpaid roaming areas to their
prepaid service over the last two years. A couple of roaming carriers
(presumably the most expensive for T-Mo) failed to make the cut, but in your
neck of the woods, the maps are identical. Identically anemic,
unfortunately, but identical, nonetheless... ;-)
> I keep a spare PagePlus phone in the house to lend to people that visit
> me. My visitors tend to be heading up to Yosemite, or out to the less
> populated portions of the California coast, and having a GSM phone,
> whether it's an iPhone or not, is not going to do them much good at all
> once they get outside the urban core area.
>
> Actually there is a slight advantage to the iPhone over most GSM phones
> because many of the lodging facilities in areas with no GSM coverage do
> have free Wi-Fi. So while they can't make a call because VOIP doesn't work
> on non-jail-broken iPhones, at least they can access e-mail and the web
> when they're at the motel or lodge.
Another slight correction- non-jailbroken iPhones will do VoIP over WiFI,
(but not over cellular data,) with either TruPhone or Fring. Fring is a
sort of VoIP "aggregator" that allows you to connect to any standard SIP
provider, most IM+ voice services like GoogleTalk or even Skype, but you
connect to them through their own Fring server. (Cue Larry to jump in now
and point out that Fring and their servers are headquartered in *gasp*
ISRAEL!) The advantages of Fring are that you can run multiple VoIPs
simultaneously in the one app, and that their server is designed to work
with very low bandwidth connections, like EDGE or even GPRS (not that this
helps iPhone owners- the iPhone version of Fring adheres to the app store's
"WiFi only" VoIP mandate. The Symbian and WinMo versions of Fring work
amazingly well over EDGE, however.)
I downloaded Fring to my wife's iPhone when we were in Cancun back in
December (my hotel had an amenity very rare in Cancun: free WiFi!) and we
both used Voicestick via Fring to call back to the States at $0.02/minute.
AFICT, Fring's proprietary system doesn't use the "standard" VoIP port
(5060) which the hotel seemed to block, so Fring (from the phones) and Skype
(on my netbook) worked there fine, but the standard SIP client on my netbook
refused to connect to Voicestick directly over port 5060.
> Visitors from Europe and Asia are so used to ubiquitous coverage on their
> phones that they are quite surprised to learn how poor the GSM coverage is
> in the U.S..
Compared to many European countries, CDMA coverage here isn't that much
better either, though it does seem to beat the pants off GSM here off the
beaten path (less so since most analog has been shut down, it seems,
however...)
Todd Allcock
"Mark Crispin" <m...@panda.com> wrote in message
news:alpine.OSX.2.00.0...@hsinghsing.panda.com...
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Todd Allcock posted:
>> As it stands now, Verizon has to sell or rent it's customers combo
>> CDMA/GSM handsets to roam in Europe, and Voda, 45% owner of Verizon
>> Wireless, has to pay it's own competitors, AT&T and T-Mobile, for Voda's
>> customer's roaming usage in the USA, despite the fact that their
>> customers are literally surrounded by perfectly strong, but completely
>> unusable Verizon service that Voda owns half of!
>
> Vodafone does sell combo CDMA/GSM handsets to its customers that are
> frequent travellers to North America. So at least some Vodafone customers
> do roam onto Verizon.
Interesting. Do they sell them inexpensively to encourage roaming on
Verizon? That would be pretty advantageous to them since it effectively
locks their customers into using Voda-owned service here.
ZnU
Mark Crispin <m...@panda.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, ZnU posted:
> > AT&T is Apple's only official US partner for the iPhone. It is virtually
> > certain that the contract which exists between AT&T and Apple requires
> > that Apple not allow software for the iPhone that, though its use, would
> > necessarily violate AT&T's terms of service.
>
> An unlocked, carrier-free, iPhone is not marketed in the USA. This
> phone is an overseas model, purchased overseas, in a market that offers
> unlocked, carrier-free, iPhones.
>
> If AT&T and Apple have a contract that dictates limitations in non-US
> models, this is a matter that needs to be examined by various
> international authorities (WTO, EU, etc.).
>
> Nor would Americans be particularly pleased to have products marketed in
> the USA be placed under restrictions established by Saudi Arabia, Iran,
> Red China, Zimbabwe, ...
>
> Put another way: in your zealous effort to exonerate Apple of blame for
> stupid restrictions, you instead accuse both Apple and AT&T of far greater
> offenses that could land both in a great deal of trouble.
*Most* carriers don't allow tethering except on plans specifically sold
for that purpose, and would probably be very unhappy with a phone vendor
enabling people to use a phone this way. As I said in other other post,
it's the sort of thing many carriers would probably overlook with less
popular phones because it wouldn't really matter much, but would be
unlikely to overlook with the iPhone.
SMS
> To be fair, T-Mobile has added most of their postpaid roaming areas to
> their prepaid service over the last two years. A couple of roaming
> carriers (presumably the most expensive for T-Mo) failed to make the
> cut, but in your neck of the woods, the maps are identical. Identically
> anemic, unfortunately, but identical, nonetheless... ;-)
I thought that only roaming partners with 1900 MHz networks were
included on T-Mobile prepaid roaming.
Todd Allcock
No, that changed a long time ago. In fact it actually changed before
T-mobile included 850 roaming on thier map. I assume that was to "protect"
them from annoyed customers- T-Mobile "dumped" their 1900-only handsets on
their prepaid service after adding 850 roaming, and it took awhile to get
rid of them. I assume they didn't want to brag about expanded roaming to a
bunch of customers that bought incompatible handsets just a few months
prior, so they "soft-launched" 850 roaming on prepaid without including it
on the map (at the time I had an old unlocked ATTWS Nokia 3620 tri-band
850/1800/1900 relegated to prepaid and a T-Mobile Nokia 6610 triband
900/1800/1900, and there were a LOT of places the 3620 would register and
the 6610 didn't.)
Then, in typical T-Mobile ("we'll edit the website when we get around to
it") fashion, they updated the prepaid coverage map to include the 850
roaming (marked in a different color/pattern to differentiate it from 1900)
but left the text disclaimer up below the map warning 850 roaming wasn't
included on prepaid! Eventually they fixed it with a different disclaimer:
"850 Roaming Coverage requires a multi-band (850/1900 MHz) GSM/GPRS device."
The current map is here: http://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/prepaid.aspx.
While the coverage is California is still relatively piss-poor compared to
other carriers, at least it's the same piss-poor coverage T-Mobile contract
customers get! ;-)
Kidding aside, with the expansion of the prepaid roaming area, T-Mobile
actually has much better prepaid coverage than AT&T's GoPhone prepaid in
many parts of the country- particularly the midwest and southwest.
California coverage is still lagging, though, particularly in your area-
still no coverage in Yosemite or Sequoia, for example.
Mark Crispin
> Compared to many European countries, CDMA coverage here isn't that much
> better either, though it does seem to beat the pants off GSM here off the
> beaten path (less so since most analog has been shut down, it seems,
> however...)
One major difference is that North America is much less densely populated
than Europe. Europe doesn't have much in the way of suburban sprawl.
SMS
> Kidding aside, with the expansion of the prepaid roaming area, T-Mobile
> actually has much better prepaid coverage than AT&T's GoPhone prepaid in
> many parts of the country- particularly the midwest and southwest.
> California coverage is still lagging, though, particularly in your area-
> still no coverage in Yosemite or Sequoia, for example.
But no AT&T coverage in those places either, except in Yosemite Valley
where apparently they put in some cells. Won't T-Mobile roam onto that
AT&T coverage?
When I stay in Midpines at the Yosemite Bug, I now get excellent
coverage on Verizon (via Golden State Cellular) but the AT&T map
accurately shows zero coverage.
You gotta love the statement on the AT&T web site "AT&T's wireless
network has the best global coverage." Technically untrue. The network
outside the U.S. is not their own, and inside the U.S. they don't have
the best coverage. If you truly want the best global coverage, you get a
phone from Verizon with both GSM and CDMA.
SMS
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Todd Allcock posted:
>> Compared to many European countries, CDMA coverage here isn't that
>> much better either, though it does seem to beat the pants off GSM here
>> off the beaten path (less so since most analog has been shut down, it
>> seems, however...)
>
> One major difference is that North America is much less densely
> populated than Europe. Europe doesn't have much in the way of suburban
> sprawl.
That's why CDMA works better in the U.S., even without analog, the range
of a CDMA cell is much greater.
There used to be a guy that posted in these groups that claimed that
AT&T had put in extended range GSM cells to solve this problem, but of
course he made the whole thing up, and then he left when everyone
pointed out how wrong he was.
Mark Crispin
> Maybe just maybe but first I want to see it support Bluetooth Stereo (A2DP),
> Bluetooth DUN, Bluetooth FTP, Bluetooth keyboards (HID) and Bluetooth AVRCP.
I have similar requirements. A2DP and AVRCP aren't particularly important
to me, but DUN (and/or PAN), FTP, and HID are essential.
> Oh yeah, I expect to see a screen resolution of WVGA on the next version of
> the iPhone that could be called "iPhone WVGA" where WVGA = 800x480.
This, too, is essential. The Nokia N800 had it years ago. All modern
Japanese phones have it.
The tiny 480x320 screen on the iPhone is completely inadequate, except by
comparison with Windows Mobile dinosaurs that have even tinier screens.
To do a good job of reading email, it is necessary to have 80 character
margins. Even if the iToy's Mail tool allowed horizonal viewing (it
doesn't as of 2.2), 480 pixels isn't up to the task.
The same holds true for web pages, many of which assume a minimum of 800
pixels horizontal. After all their hype about "the real Internet" (as
opposed to WAP), Apple ends up having to publish a set of guidelines for
"iPhone optimized web pages" to deal with the tiny screens...just like
WAP!
For the web pages that aren't "optimized", Safari on the iPhone scrunches
them into low-resolution unreadability. You can use pinching to zoom in
to make them readable, but then you have to scroll back and forth to read
the text. Fortunately, Safari allows horizontal viewing which helps a
bit, but doesn't quite go all the way.
Last, but most certainly not least, I require a decent radio on the phone
so that...get this...I can use it as a phone! [What? People still use
mobile phones as phones? Who'da thunk it?]
iPhone 2G's radio was terrible. All but the most insane fanboys admit
that.
iPhone 3G has a much better radio, but it is still noticably inferior to
the 3G radios on my other phones, including on AT&T's network. I can
still tell when someone calls me using an iPhone, and it's not due to
AT&T's network since an HTC Tytn on the same network at the same location
is fine.
It's possible that part of the problem is not with iPhone's radio, but
rather with its microphone. On the other hand, numberous other phones
have similar microphones but not the same class of problems.
Todd Allcock
> no AT&T coverage in those places either, except in Yosemite
> Valley where apparently they put in some cells. Won't T-Mobile
> roam onto that AT&T coverage?
Not according to T-Mo's coverage maps. Keep in mind T-Mo only has a few
very limited roaming agreements with AT&T- probably legacy agreements
with carriers AT&T has acquired over the years, mostly.
SMS
> "Mike Hofman" <in...@recreate68.org> wrote in message
> news:49c98e54$0$33225$815e...@news.qwest.net...
>> Someday you too will have an iPhone
>
> Maybe just maybe but first I want to see it support Bluetooth Stereo (A2DP),
> Bluetooth DUN, Bluetooth FTP, Bluetooth keyboards (HID) and Bluetooth AVRCP.
> http://bluetooth.com/Bluetooth/Technology/Works/Profiles_Overview.htm
Also see "http://www.cellular-store.com/categorybluetooth.aspx" for a
chart that shows which phones support which Bluetooth profiles. Actually
the iPhone will soon support A2DP with the OS 3.0 update, but the iPhone
still lags the more advanced Smart Phones like the HTC Touch by a very
wide margin.
Again (sounding like a broken record) the iPhone was never designed or
marketed as a SmartPhone, so of course it's not going to be as fully
featured in terms of Bluetooth profiles (or other features) as true
Smart Phones. Probably as Apple releases new models that bring the
iPhone more into the Smart Phone category they'll add more profiles.
SMS
> It's possible that part of the problem is not with iPhone's radio, but
> rather with its microphone. On the other hand, numberous other phones
> have similar microphones but not the same class of problems.
I don't think it's the microphone, or the problem would go away with the
use of a headset.
It's kind of sad that the radio side of cell phones is of so little
importance on so many phones. Motorola had pretty lame UIs but most of
their phones had very good radios.
Perhaps Apple should buy Motorola's handset business to get the radio
expertise. They already bought Motorola's campus (the present Apple
campus is on the site of Motorola's old Four Phase campus, but Apple
tore down all the Four Phase tilt-up buildings and built much nicer ones).
Roger 2008
>
> Also see "http://www.cellular-store.com/categorybluetooth.aspx" for a
> chart that shows which phones support which Bluetooth profiles. Actually
> the iPhone will soon support A2DP with the OS 3.0 update, but the iPhone
> still lags the more advanced Smart Phones like the HTC Touch by a very
> wide margin.
Thanks for the chart but I wouldn't make purchasing decisions based on it.
Despite what the chart says I know first hand that the Sprint CDMA Touch Pro
does not support BT DUN. The Sprint CDMA Touch Pro doesn't even list DUN
under Bluetooth->Profiles.
However the GSM Touch Diamond has BT DUN but it isn't listed on that chart
at all.
The Chart also says the AT&T Tilt has BT DUN but if you try to get it to
work the Client will display a message something to the effect "No Modem
Found . . .".
I know there is a software update for the "AT&T Tilt" but the phone I tested
wasn't mine to update and the information about the update doesn't tell you
if the update fixes the BT DUN.
SMS
> "SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:ptHyl.27121$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> Also see "http://www.cellular-store.com/categorybluetooth.aspx" for a
>> chart that shows which phones support which Bluetooth profiles. Actually
>> the iPhone will soon support A2DP with the OS 3.0 update, but the iPhone
>> still lags the more advanced Smart Phones like the HTC Touch by a very
>> wide margin.
>
> Thanks for the chart but I wouldn't make purchasing decisions based on it.
>
> Despite what the chart says I know first hand that the Sprint CDMA Touch Pro
> does not support BT DUN. The Sprint CDMA Touch Pro doesn't even list DUN
> under Bluetooth->Profiles.
Hmm, even Phone Scoop says that the CDMA Touch Pro has DUN, but you're
right, no one seems to have gotten it working on Sprint, and have
resorted to using ICS.
Mark Crispin
> Actually the iPhone
> will soon support A2DP with the OS 3.0 update
I find this quite funny, given how the Apple fanboys insisted that there
was no need for such a thing.
News
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, SMS posted:
>> Actually the iPhone will soon support A2DP with the OS 3.0 update
>
> I find this quite funny, given how the Apple fanboys insisted that there
> was no need for such a thing.
>
> -- Mark --
Delayed/belated recognition of marketplace realities; it's a feature.
SMS
> Perhaps Apple should buy Motorola's handset business to get the radio
> expertise. They already bought Motorola's campus (the present Apple
> campus is on the site of Motorola's old Four Phase campus, but Apple
> tore down all the Four Phase tilt-up buildings and built much nicer ones).
Motorola: "http://i43.tinypic.com/25u2mja.jpg"
Apple: "http://i39.tinypic.com/2qm1y74.jpg"
Larry
@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com:
> http://www.cellular-store.com/categorybluetooth.aspx
That's not very accurate because it doesn't take into account the carriers.
Case in point: Motorola ALLTEL Z6m in my pocket.
Put a green check next to SPP and OBEX that show on my tablet as protocols
on the phone. They're listed as X on the website.
I tried to pair it with my HID BT keyboard but it ignored it so HID isn't
supported.
One wonders what else on this list is inaccurate. Z6tv is Verizon. It
doesn't tether to the Linux tablet because we tried it. It doesn't even
have a menu you can get to for Bluetooth easily.
Larry
> http://www.cellular-store.com/categorybluetooth.aspx
It also says the top-of-the-line Nokia N-series, only 2 of them have A2DP
stereo. I don't think that's right, either....
Larry
news:cJWdnToLq_-SzVbU...@giganews.com:
I'm not sure about these models, but my Motorola ROKR Z6m didn't support
DUN and other profiles UNTIL I paid for data service at Alltel and Alltel
turned it on over the air.....
Could that be why?
Roger 2008
"Larry" <no...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9BDAA5EAAE9...@74.209.131.13...
Thanks but I doubt if it has anything to do with the SIM card I used since I
have seen BT DUN work with other PPC/phones that have BT DUN. Plus other
people have tired to get BT DUN to work on the "AT&T Tilt" and failed so it
appears to be a problem with that PPC/phone.
BTW it is very easy to test BT DUN because all you need is a Windows Mobile
Phone with or without a SIM card. The settings for the Client are under
Start->Settings=>Connections->Connections->Manage existing connections.
Roger 2008
I use PDANet to my Pro to enable BT DUN and not only does it give me BT DUN
but it it has a setting for "Proxy" where you can have internet on the phone
at the same time another device is using the BT DUN. In other words PDANet
can be used for "Internet Connection Sharing" since the ICS on the Sprint
Pro doesn't share the Internet unless it is hacked.
Sandman
<30a12b62-e42b-4ec5...@s12g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > > My wife uses that technique when she wants to use the data service
> > > from her laptop, to work around the lack of tethering to the iPhone.
> > > She carries an older Motorola 3G phone in her laptop bag, and swaps
> > > the SIM from the iPhone into the Motorola for use with the laptop.
> >
> > > Since tethering works fine with the four carriers' SIMs she's used
> > > with her iPhone (just not with the SIM in the iPhone) it doesn't
> > > seem like the iPhone's problem with tethering is a problem
> > > with the carriers.
> >
> > It's slightly more complicated than that. The iPhone doesn't have
> > software that supports tethering out of the box. But if it weren't for
> > carrier restrictions, there would be third-party software that supported
> > it.
>
> always blaming the carriers instead of apple- how does this explain
> the fact that you can get plenty of other phones on at&t that you can
> tether with?
Easy. The iPhone is revolutionary when it comes to mobile internet,
that you'd actually be surfing the net with it (as opposed to most
other smartphones) so the carriers felt anxious about letting people
surf with their phones AND their laptops.
With most phones, this isn't a problem, since people don't use them
for surfing the web really.
--
Sandman[.net]
Richard B. Gilbert
And why would they? Most cell phones have a rather small display; too
small to be usable except in emergencies and maybe not even then! I
much prefer my 19" monitor.
Sandman
Exactly - most cell phones are worthless when it comes to surfing the
web - except the iPhone, so the concern is legit. And it's not the
screen size, it's the web "browser" found in most phone.
--
Sandman[.net]
SMS
> Exactly - most cell phones are worthless when it comes to surfing the
> web - except the iPhone, so the concern is legit.
Exactly the opposite would follow from your logic. If the iPhone is so
great for surfing the web, no one would bother to tether their laptop
(or desktop) to the iPhone, there's just no need to do so, so AT&T would
have nothing to worry about.
In reality, while the iPhone gives a better web experience than say a
Blackberry, it's still inferior to smart phones like the HTC Touch which
support more plug-ins and have better screens and better browsers.
And no matter the smart phone, it's still a tiny screen and when people
have their laptop along they'd rather tether.
The monthly cost for the iPhone is much less than the cost of a phone
plus a tethered (or Cardbus/ExpressCard/USB) data plan. If and when the
iPhone supports tethering, it almost certainly won't be a no-extra cost
add-on. And of course none of the carrier still offer unlimited data on
their tethering or data plans. It's different on a smart phone because
the amount of internet use is limited by default. No huge downloads are
possible, and everyone will use a laptop or desktop whenever available.
Apple is under pressure from AT&T to not allow tethering. Too many users
have figured ways around tethering limitations on other phones, smart or
not, and enforcing terms of service by monitoring data use is not
something the carriers want to start doing.
The Bob
news:mr-E78F5A.15...@News.Individual.NET:
No- it is the screen size. Nothing more, nothing less.
I use my BB frequewntly to browse the internet. The problem is that the
information can not be displayed in a cohesive and readable format- just
like the iPhone. Zooming and scrolling is not acceptable.
Dennis Ferguson
> The monthly cost for the iPhone is much less than the cost of a phone
> plus a tethered (or Cardbus/ExpressCard/USB) data plan. If and when the
> iPhone supports tethering, it almost certainly won't be a no-extra cost
> add-on. And of course none of the carrier still offer unlimited data on
> their tethering or data plans. It's different on a smart phone because
> the amount of internet use is limited by default. No huge downloads are
> possible, and everyone will use a laptop or desktop whenever available.
>
> Apple is under pressure from AT&T to not allow tethering. Too many users
> have figured ways around tethering limitations on other phones, smart or
> not, and enforcing terms of service by monitoring data use is not
> something the carriers want to start doing.
What "tethering limitations"? I must have had a dozen GSM/3G phones
by now and I'm pretty sure the iPhone is the first I've had which
couldn't be tethered out of the box. And if AT&T were really
interested in limiting tethered Internet access to air cards than
how the heck can one explain support for 3.6 Mbps HSDPA on the
Motorola V3xx or V9, which AT&T sold until recently, or even the Z9,
which is current, with screens so small that I have to put on my glasses
to see the numbers I'm dialing? There's really only one thing you can
do with those phones which can make use of 3.6 Mbps.
It's easy. If you really need to tether your computer you buy a
plan which lets you do what you need to. I prefer to have that
plan on the same SIM I use for voice because it means less stuff
to carry around and, for prepaid SIMs for travel, fewer SIM cards
to maintain to keep them alive. My AT&T SIM (from work) allows
tethering, my overseas SIMs do too, they all work in my wife's iPhone
(sans tethering) or in one of the dumb phones I have (with tethering).
The only thing the lack of tethering on the iPhone does is to force
you to carry around more equipment.
And if you really want to be able to tether on your iPhone data
plan right away then go to eBay and buy an AT&T V3xx. They're
running as low as $40 now, maybe cheaper if you take pink. Swap
the SIM from the iPhone into it and give it a try, Mac OS X will
recognize the phone out of the box. If it doesn't work than AT&T
has nothing to worry about for tethering iPhones either, but if it
does (and my SIM does on the APN the iPhone uses, though the plan its
on allows use of the other one) then preventing tethering from
the iPhone in particular is like closing the barn door well after
the horse has left.
Dennis Ferguson
SMS
> What "tethering limitations"? I must have had a dozen GSM/3G phones
> by now and I'm pretty sure the iPhone is the first I've had which
> couldn't be tethered out of the box. And if AT&T were really
> interested in limiting tethered Internet access to air cards than
> how the heck can one explain support for 3.6 Mbps HSDPA on the
> Motorola V3xx or V9, which AT&T sold until recently, or even the Z9,
> which is current, with screens so small that I have to put on my glasses
> to see the numbers I'm dialing? There's really only one thing you can
> do with those phones which can make use of 3.6 Mbps.
But what was the voice and data plan? Was it the same as what's charged
for voice & data on the iPhone?
Dennis Ferguson
AT&T has two data plans for all phones which also have a voice plan, the
$30 data plan and the $60 data+tethering plan. The iPhone isn't an
exception to this. I don't believe the tethering-or-not part of the
plan is enforced by software on many, or any, of the phones they sell,
other than the iPhone which can't do it at all. The difference between
the plans that I've noticed is that the $30 plan is NATed, while the
$60 plan lets you use the APN which gives out real addresses. The NATed
service seems to do things which make it unpleasant to use with a laptop
(I suspect they limit the number of connections they'll keep state for,
though there might be other measures they take) unless you limit yourself
to doing very simple things.
So as far as I can tell AT&T has this all worked out. Changing from
a $30 to a tetherable $60 plan doesn't change anything in the phone,
it changes the service you get from the network from one which can be
really annoying on a laptop to one which works much better. This is
probably sufficient to ensure that people who really need to use their
laptop with the data service will pay the extra $30, so they don't
worry about trying to control the phones (which they couldn't do anyway
since unbranded phones are easy to get). All of this seems to work
just as well with a tetherable iPhone as it does for any of the other
data-capable phones AT&T sells; a tetherable iPhone might let AT&T
coax another $30/month out of some subset of the owners. If AT&T is
upset about this it could only possibly be because it would make
it less likely that they could instead sell a $60 datacard + another
2 year contract all those rich iPhone-owning laptop users.
In any case, I don't think any of the operators are likely to
be too worried about a tetherable iPhone; they've already got
experience with much larger installed base of tetherable phones
and, if they charge different prices for handset versus computer
use, they've already figured out how to encourage people onto
the higher tariff when appropriate.
Dennis Ferguson
SMS
> AT&T has two data plans for all phones which also have a voice plan, the
> $30 data plan and the $60 data+tethering plan. The iPhone isn't an
> exception to this. I don't believe the tethering-or-not part of the
> plan is enforced by software on many, or any, of the phones they sell,
> other than the iPhone which can't do it at all.
That's what I was referring to. If Apple had allowed tethering on the
iPhone, AT&T would almost be forced to enforce the tethering rules, and
charge the extra $30/month for tethering, or their network would be
overwhelmed by the millions of iPhone users tethering because it's such
a good deal, and because it's so much nicer to use the web on a computer
than a phone (despite what the fanbois claim).
The other phones that support tethering aren't much of a concern because
so few people that aren't paying for tethering are trying to tether.
I'd bet big money that the reason the iPhone can't tether is because
AT&T and Apple agreed that it must not be able to tether.
Kevin K
wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>> The other phones that support tethering aren't much of a concern
because
> so few people that aren't paying for tethering are trying to tether.
>
> I'd bet big money that the reason the iPhone can't tether is because
> AT&T and Apple agreed that it must not be able to tether.
I've occasionally tethered on other phones, including a Treo 600 on
Sprint, and a Treo 750 and CU500 on ATT. Rare, but I've done it when
no wifi was available.
ZnU
Dennis Ferguson <dcfer...@pacbell.net> wrote:
[snip]
> In any case, I don't think any of the operators are likely to
> be too worried about a tetherable iPhone; they've already got
> experience with much larger installed base of tetherable phones
I think this is a somewhat naive statement.
When the iPhone debuted, the response of many analysts was something
like "So what? There are already lots of phones with those features."
People who really got what Apple was doing, though, understood that just
having a bullet on a spec sheet wasn't what mattered; that while most of
the iPhone's features where available elsewhere, the UI and marketing
surrounding other phones was so bad that most people either couldn't
figure out how to use them, found them too awkward to actually use, or
didn't even know the devices they were carrying around had those
features at all, whereas on the iPhone these would be real, useful
features that people could actually use (and knew the device had).
This understanding proved to be correct, as we've seen from indicators
like mobile web browsing marker share and how likely users of various
mobile platforms are to sync them with their computers, install apps,
etc.
Tethering would probably be the same. Maybe there are tons of devices
out there that don't enforce carrier rules about teathering. But guess
what? Most of the people using these devices probably have no idea they
even have this feature. If the iPhone had this feature, that information
would be all over the Mac/iPhone fan sites immediately, and the more
savvy users who read those sites would quickly disseminate the
information to all of their iPhone-using acquaintances. I guarantee it
would become a major problem (well, within the context of the current
carrier business model), rather fast.
[snip]
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
Tim Murray
>
> I've occasionally tethered on other phones, including a Treo 600 on
> Sprint, and a Treo 750 and CU500 on ATT. Rare, but I've done it when
> no wifi was available.
I can tether on my Motorola RAZR via AT&T.
Tim Murray
> That's what I was referring to. If Apple had allowed tethering on the
What the hell are you missing here? The iPhone CAN tether!
> ...AT&T would almost be forced to enforce the tethering rules, and
> charge the extra $30/month for tethering, or their network would be
> overwhelmed by the millions of iPhone users tethering because it's such
> a good deal, and because it's so much nicer to use the web on a computer
> than a phone (despite what the fanbois claim).
Perhaps you can find a post of someone who said browsing was better on a
phone. Any phone. I'll not hold my breath.
The Bob
95E546.210...@news.individual.net:
>
> People who really got what Apple was doing, though, understood that just
> having a bullet on a spec sheet wasn't what mattered;
So your contention is that iPhone users get what Apple is doing?
Larry
news:0001HW.C5F5953F...@216.77.188.18:
...and on my Motorola ROKR Z6m on Alltel. 22GB last month!
Dennis Ferguson
>
>> AT&T has two data plans for all phones which also have a voice plan, the
>> $30 data plan and the $60 data+tethering plan. The iPhone isn't an
>> exception to this. I don't believe the tethering-or-not part of the
>> plan is enforced by software on many, or any, of the phones they sell,
>> other than the iPhone which can't do it at all.
>
> That's what I was referring to. If Apple had allowed tethering on the
> iPhone, AT&T would almost be forced to enforce the tethering rules, and
> charge the extra $30/month for tethering, or their network would be
> overwhelmed by the millions of iPhone users tethering because it's such
> a good deal, and because it's so much nicer to use the web on a computer
> than a phone (despite what the fanbois claim).
As explained in the part of the post you deleted, the tethering rules
are enforced by the fact that tethering doesn't work very well on the
handset plan.
> The other phones that support tethering aren't much of a concern because
> so few people that aren't paying for tethering are trying to tether.
How would you know that?
> I'd bet big money that the reason the iPhone can't tether is because
> AT&T and Apple agreed that it must not be able to tether.
I'd take that bet, because AT&T not wanting tethering on AT&T phones
would in no way prevent them from doing tethering for non-AT&T phones.
If AT&T didn't want it on AT&T phones they'd just make the configuration
menu to go away on AT&T phones, exactly like they make the APN
configuration menu go away on phones from carriers who don't want
it, e.g.
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2283
That's iPhone 2.0 technology, if not earlier, so there's no reason
they couldn't have done tethering exactly the same way. In fact I'd
bet this is exactly the way they handle the tethering in iPhone 3.0,
leaving the menu off for carriers who don't care for it on their
phones, and the only reason they didn't do this earlier is that they
didn't get around to writing the code for the functionality yet.
I fully expect to see tethering with 3.0 on my wife's iPhone, and
the presence or absense of the feature on AT&T iPhones will actually
provide a factual basis to judge how scared AT&T is (or isn't) of
the feature. There'll be no need to speculate before long.
Dennis Ferguson
William Sheehan, Jr.
Who says I can't top post? Most of us are smart enough to not feel like
scanning 60 lines of old crap 30 times to read a "me too" from an iphone
user.
I am a Windows user, btw. Been since I beta'd v.2 back in 1988!! Damn proud
of it. I switched from command line Unix. Which I revert to all time on my
Linux boxes.
"Mike Hofman" <in...@recreate68.org> wrote in message
news:49c98e54$0$33225$815e...@news.qwest.net...
> "William Sheehan, Jr." <w.sh...@remove.worldnet dot att dot net>
> wrote:
>
>> No, only the douchebags that cannot understand this is not an iphone
>> group.
>> They cant seem to get it that we don't care how much they love it or
>> whether
>> or not WE think it is better or cooler or worse than what we have now.
>> They
>> simply can not grasp that we rejected it. They cant grasp that for some
>> reason we don't want it and don't care that only they think we should.
>> It's
>> sad really.
>
> William. please don't put comments at the top of a reply, that is bad
> usenet nettique and makes you look like a Windows user.
>
> Someday you too will have an iPhone, thanks.
Alan Baker
<G69Bl.515990$Mh5.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"William Sheehan, Jr." <w.sh...@remove.worldnet dot att dot net>
wrote:
> No I'll go to a tin can with a string first.
Have you heard the expression, "Cutting off your nose..."?
>
> Who says I can't top post? Most of us are smart enough to not feel like
> scanning 60 lines of old crap 30 times to read a "me too" from an iphone
> user.
So snip unneeded content.
>
> I am a Windows user, btw. Been since I beta'd v.2 back in 1988!! Damn proud
> of it. I switched from command line Unix. Which I revert to all time on my
> Linux boxes.
Wow. You're "proud" to be a Windows user? Why? What is there to be proud
of in that?
I'm not proud to be a Mac user. I'm satisfied -- pleased even, but not
"proud".
>
>
> "Mike Hofman" <in...@recreate68.org> wrote in message
> news:49c98e54$0$33225$815e...@news.qwest.net...
> > "William Sheehan, Jr." <w.sh...@remove.worldnet dot att dot net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> No, only the douchebags that cannot understand this is not an iphone
> >> group.
> >> They cant seem to get it that we don't care how much they love it or
> >> whether
> >> or not WE think it is better or cooler or worse than what we have now.
> >> They
> >> simply can not grasp that we rejected it. They cant grasp that for some
> >> reason we don't want it and don't care that only they think we should.
> >> It's
> >> sad really.
> >
> > William. please don't put comments at the top of a reply, that is bad
> > usenet nettique and makes you look like a Windows user.
> >
> > Someday you too will have an iPhone, thanks.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
james g. keegan jr.
<G69Bl.515990$Mh5.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"William Sheehan, Jr." <w.sh...@remove.worldnet dot att dot net>
wrote:
> Who says I can't top post?
no one. it's a simple issue of manners and consideration for others.
--
"You have confirmed my suspicion that those who argue the rights
of the fetus view the woman as a container."
==Muriel Nelson <1992Jun22.123409.5...@hemlocké.cray.com>
Richard B. Gilbert
> No I'll go to a tin can with a string first.
>
> Who says I can't top post? Most of us are smart enough to not feel like
> scanning 60 lines of old crap 30 times to read a "me too" from an iphone
> user.
>
It's usenet custom. It can be enforced by ostracism; e.g. your name
gets into people's kill files and they never see your messages.
SMS
> In article
> <G69Bl.515990$Mh5.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "William Sheehan, Jr." <w.sh...@remove.worldnet dot att dot net>
> wrote:
>
>> Who says I can't top post?
>
> no one. it's a simple issue of manners and consideration for others.
Oh please. While I follow the specific thread in terms of top or bottom,
in fact top posting makes infinitely more sense in terms of not having
to read all the previous posts by people too lazy or clueless to snip.
james g. keegan jr.
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
why do you think that long ago failed argument makes any more sense now
than it did when it was first presented and laughed off? i'll grant that
the level of user has fallen sharply since the advent of paid access
but, really, if you don't see any original text on the first screen,
just kill the post.
top posting never made sense and was done only by people too limited to
post with tools other than outlook.
it's really not like you to beat a dead horse.
SMS
> why do you think that long ago failed argument makes any more sense now
> than it did when it was first presented and laughed off?
LOL, who laughed it off? It's just far more logical for the newer text
to be on the top. Look at any online forum, i.e.
"http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=31461052"
to see how it works.
james g. keegan jr.
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
i can see why you deleted the remainder of my post. i won't embarrass
you by repeating it.
i also see you as less than i had.
SMS
> In article <enfBl.14916$8_3....@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com>,
> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>>
>>> why do you think that long ago failed argument makes any more sense now
>>> than it did when it was first presented and laughed off?
>> LOL, who laughed it off? It's just far more logical for the newer text
>> to be on the top. Look at any online forum, i.e.
>> "http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=31461052"
>> to see how it works.
>
> i can see why you deleted the remainder of my post. i won't embarrass
> you by repeating it.
>
> i also see you as less than i had.
I'm crushed.
I did not see you as less than I had. That would not be possible.
Into the kill file with the other clueless newbies you go.
nospam
> > why do you think that long ago failed argument makes any more sense now
> > than it did when it was first presented and laughed off?
>
> LOL, who laughed it off? It's just far more logical for the newer text
> to be on the top.
A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right.
Q: Why should I start my reply below the quoted text?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read
text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: The lost context.
Q: What makes top-posted replies harder to read than bottom-posted?
A: Yes.
Q: Should I trim down the quoted part of an email to which I'm
replying?
> Look at any online forum, i.e.
> "http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=31461052"
> to see how it works.
that doesn't mean anything.
james g. keegan jr.
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
wow. you were so stung that you ended with what you know is a blatant
lie. you defined yourself far more clearly than anyone else could have.
at least you're encouraging readers to view you with the same disrespect
which you seem to feel for yourself; rightfully so too.
AJ
Bottom posting originated with teletype and the old scrolling
terminals because of the way they functioned. It made sense only
because of the hardware. All the net nannies think it makes them
look smart to postulate about top posting ; too bad it makes them
look like newbies. Actually doesn't matter if it fits on one page.
Done DARPANET ARPANET NYSERNET and a bunch more..
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> top posting never made sense and was done only by people too
> limited to post with tools other than outlook.
--
Jim
SMS
>
> Bottom posting originated with teletype and the old scrolling
> terminals because of the way they functioned. It made sense only
> because of the hardware. All the net nannies think it makes them
> look smart to postulate about top posting ; too bad it makes them
> look like newbies.
LOL, so maybe some of them are actually clueless oldies not clueless
newbies.
I don't really have a horse in this race, if the thread is top posted
I'll top post, if it's bottom posted I'll bottom post. But logically,
top posting is more sensible, which is why all the on-line forums thread
there posts that way.
SMS
editor back in the 1980's.
James could benefit by reading
"http://web.archive.org/web/20070607221125/http://alpage.ath.cx/toppost/toppost.htm".
ZnU
Having a combination of top and bottom posting in a thread makes it
nearly impossible to keep track of what text is a reply to what, and
bottom posting is necessary when breaking a post up into blocks to
respond to them individually, which any poster might conceivably want to
do with (almost) any post. Therefore, top posting breaks Usenet.
SMS
> Having a combination of top and bottom posting in a thread makes it
> nearly impossible to keep track of what text is a reply to what, and
> bottom posting is necessary when breaking a post up into blocks to
> respond to them individually,
That's not bottom posting.
The Bob
news:QAfBl.27695$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com:
Keegan is hardly a newbie, Scharf. Now you're grasping.
BTW- announcing you are killfiling actually decreases the odds of doing so
to about 25%
Top posting is for clueless idiots, I see why you defend it so
voraciously.
ZnU
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
Semantics. It's posting the reply under the content it's replying to.
And it fundamentally doesn't mix with top-posting.
SMS
> In article <PxgBl.23693$Ws1....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> ZnU wrote:
>>
>>> Having a combination of top and bottom posting in a thread makes it
>>> nearly impossible to keep track of what text is a reply to what, and
>>> bottom posting is necessary when breaking a post up into blocks to
>>> respond to them individually,
>> That's not bottom posting.
>
> Semantics. It's posting the reply under the content it's replying to.
> And it fundamentally doesn't mix with top-posting.
No, it's not semantics. I post that way often too. It's called
interspersed posting.
William Sheehan, Jr.
use a toilet now?
"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilb...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:l7CdnaOvTqOO3UjU...@giganews.com...
ZnU
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
It's semantics because, in the context your raised the objection, it
doesn't matter what you call it; the argument remains valid either way.
SMS
> It's usenet custom. It can be enforced by ostracism; e.g. your name
> gets into people's kill files and they never see your messages.
OMG, how awful. How about we start by kill filing both top and bottom
posters that don't snip long posts.
The "custom" originated because of crappy editors when Usenet first
started by in the days of line editors. It was more convenient, though
illogical, because most people prefer to see the latest information at
the top, rather than having to scroll down through a lot of old stuff,
especially on long threads.