Re: IPhone and AT&T

[David Farber <dfarber () cs cmu edu>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Christian de Larrinaga <cdel () firsthand net>
Date: August 27, 2007 11:26:57 AM EDT
To: L Victor Marks <victor () victormarks com>
Cc: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] IPhone and AT&T

Victor


It is interesting to hear your comparisons but just because they seem  
to have done a bad job of integrating diverse carrier messaging for  
iPhone doesn't really change my point that there is more to locking a  
phone than just locking it into (carrier) network locking. I was  
commenting that users also risk being locked into the carrier through  
losing control over their data by having it managed through carrier  
applications that are specific to the carrier's infrastructure.

To prevent this applications should be done or controlled in the  
device. Optionally if support outside the device is useful which it  
probably is with small handhelds then the device can access services  
deployable across IP networks transparently (deploying standards  
based protocols such as SIP, POP3 or IMAP4) rather than rely on any  
one carrier's telco style implementation of IMS, SIP or similar.  
There is no need for carrier specific solutions other than for  
carrier piggy in the middle revenue generation reasons. Incidentally  
I am not saying carriers should not deploy applications just that  
they should be open and transportable.

As an Apple user myself my hope is that they will rethink the way  
they deliver the appliance style functionality so that they focus on  
the appliance as the way to put the power in the hands of their users  
and not let their customers become intermediated in the process. What  
I think Dave was complaining about and I rather agree with him is  
that Apple appear to have become complicit in seeing their customers  
intermediated and worse still appear to have a financial stake in  
seeing this intermediation happen. If it is the case then it runs  
counter to the whole personal computer, Internet and now IP based  
mobile device industries which put the user in control and so in a  
real sense runs counter to the whole philosophy that brought people  
to Apple II, and Mac and now the OSX platforms.

It is something Apple needs to grapple with as it works out if it is  
a company harvesting (fickle) consumers or a business that is trusted  
because it puts its customers interests as its core business value  
and objective.

Christian





On 27 Aug 2007, at 13:48, L Victor Marks wrote:

> Dave, For ip if you wish.
>
> Actually, sms, and voicemail are separate. Only voicemail breaks if  
> you roam out of ATT. And then, it breaks by defaulting back to the  
> old style 'call voicemail, listen to every message in order' method.
>
> Instant messaging on iPhone isn't present. I've used mobile aim to  
> forward IM to SMS, and that works. SMS doesn't break regardless of  
> where you roam. Other users use website services like Meebo to get  
> on IM via Safari. Could it be more open? Sure. Then I could do as I  
> did on my Nokia symbian handset: load applications to try and get  
> the functions I wanted, have interfaces that were inconsistent and  
> unreliable, and rebooted the handset unpredictably. Opera Mini,  
> Gmail, Fring, iSkoot, Shozu were the ones that I had loaded. It  
> worked best if you actively quit each app before switching to  
> another, which destroys the utility in a messenger client. iPhone  
> has no such requirement, and so I can context switch and when I  
> return, I'm looking at the same information I was when I switched  
> away.
>
> I had similar problems on a Blackberry 7100. Each provider has  
> their own slightly different firmware revision level, and themes  
> and applications I tried to load were rejected by the device for  
> not having the exactly proper revision level, which was down to the  
> provider's thousandths place in the version number.
>
> The Treo was probably the easiest to get applications for, but it  
> had all the problems of the Palm I used in 1996. When you switch  
> context, you freeze the network usage of that application. In fact,  
> Palm hadn't managed to progress appreciably as a user experience  
> from 2000 until now. Sure, it's color, sure they changed  
> architectures, but as a user, holding a Treo was like traveling  
> back in time. Clunky.
>
> The network transparency isn't broken on iPhone. You can check any  
> pop3 email server you wish, view sites in safari, get SMS. You're  
> no more tied in than you are on any other cell operator's service.  
> Granted, it would be nice if it could use the wifi for voip instead  
> of the cell network for voice, but it's still the rev1 device.  
> little steps.
>
> I wonder if this information modifies Mr. da Larrinaga's views?
>
> Victor Marks
>
>
> On Aug 27, 2007, at 8:07 AM, David Farber wrote:
>
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Christian de Larrinaga <cdel () firsthand net>
> > Date: August 27, 2007 6:59:09 AM EDT
> > To: dave () farber net
> > Subject: Re: [IP] Digest 1.1457 for ip
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > Perhaps there is an apparent shared lack of humility to which you  
> > are referring?
> >
> > There is locking and there is locking in. Steve Job's "appliance "  
> > fixation has led to some great innovations but also to the many  
> > brick walls that Apple has hit over the years.  I do wonder if the  
> > desire to offer iPhone - the mobile appliance - has led to this  
> > deal with the devil. I do not so much refer to the locking of the  
> > phone to a particular network carrier but to the deployment of IP  
> > Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) style carrier network dependent  
> > applications such as the much vaunted iPhone's combined Instant  
> > Message, SMS, Voice mail message browser. If you happen to roam  
> > out of ATT firewall will it be broken? That is the problem.
> >
> > Maybe Apple found they could not deploy a fully open (that is  
> > scalable) IP style architecture for a mobile wireless appliance in  
> > the time they wanted to do it. However unless they start to move  
> > very fast either to open up the architecture to open source  
> > community to fill in the gaps or make the necessary internal  
> > investment to do it in their own proprietary way they will fail to  
> > deliver the open end to end capable device they could and what I  
> > think users really would like.
> >
> > Locking iPhone to a carrier disguises the really fundamental lock  
> > down which is the breaking of network transparency for the  
> > applications on iPhone and this may all have been done to satisfy  
> > the desire by Mr. Jobs to create iPhone as the mobile "appliance".  
> > Unfortunately for Apple it has instead run into the wall of  
> > scaling iPhone to the proportions of the Internet.  Even choosing  
> > to partner with the quite large company of ATT doesn't give the  
> > scale needed to address the market. Until Apple can do that it  
> > sadly will be offering a broken appliance.
> >
> > best regards,
> >
> >
> > Christian
> >
> > Christian de Larrinaga FBCS CITP
> > Internet Evangelist
> > ---------------------------------------
> > Chairman - Network Brokers
> >
> >
> > On 26 Aug 2007, at 23:25, ip () v2 listbox com wrote:
> >
> > > From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
> > > Subject: iPhone Unlocking ATT treatens. YOUR EDITORS COMMENTS
> > > Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:59:08 -0400
> > >
> > >
> > > http://blog.iphoneunlocking.com/
> > >
> > > I am wondering more and more what the difference is,  if any,
> > > between Apple and Microsoft. Apple is behaving just like MS not like
> > > the old Apple I used to like a lot and buy from. In the case of  
> > > ATT I
> > > am not surprised. ( I use T-Mobile)
> > >
> > > I do have a Windows machine now running Vista and it is not at all
> > > bad. I may be close to changing my loyalties.
> > >
> > > I wonder when the iphone is sold in the rest of the world,  
> > > especially
> > > where locking may be illegal or un-enforceable whether ATTAPPLE will
> > > demand the US Customs seize such phones.
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > > ps remember I testified in the US vs MS  anitrust trial.
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
> > Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> > RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com



-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com