OSNews

Funny iPhone is sold in Europe by lot other operators that do sell phones that allow usage VoIP. Also ATT allows usage phones and sells phones that have ability to use VoIP. Quite frankly this sounds more like Apple bullshit to me.

I agree. I got a free Skype app on my '3'(UK) phone. Other UK phone networks do the same. Some say in their T's & C's but don't actively block it.

IMHO, this hoohah is all down to AT&T. If they won't allow VOIP on their network then more fool them.
I guess the app having the 'Google' brand on it was the turning point.
All Apple need to do is sell the app for non US customers. The, I'm sure will get the FCC off their backs and firmly onto AT&T's.

If this is all down to AT&T then why do we not have Google Voice in the UK app store? AT&T should have no influence at all, of course I'm sure O2 would/ have objected as well. Perhaps OFCOM should take a look into things, although that usually just results in a stern telling off and being told not do so again.

Dude, the answer is right there in the title:

Apple: Google Voice Alters "iPhone Distinctive User Experience"

That is the distinctive and delicious experience of AT&T milking consumers for every last penny.

Mmmmkey,and which facet of this distinctive user experience was afected. More precisely,again,why was GV rejected?

Your sentiments are all well and good, however, most people, especially lay people, can't resist the need to "be popular". That means they buy Apple iPods, in spite of superior offerings from competitors, and iPhones for the same reasons. They're willing to put up with Big Brother and non-competitive practices by Apple and AT&T in order to be included in the coveted "in crowd"; be one of the "cool kids." How many of us have seen obnoxious people shamelessly showing off their iPhones and other gadgets in public as if the rest of us cared? Apple will continue to rule the roost and do whatever they want in spite of their customers wishes because, quite simply...they can. Until people are truly willing to put their money where their mouthes are, nothing will change.

You're overreacting on it. It's just a phone. It may have its flaws but it's not the only phone in the universe. In fact comments like these is what elevates its status to 'Jesus phone' among the geek crowd which was originally meant to be sarcastic.

Perhaps some "anti-spin" is indicated.

You know, I heard that the iPhones were all set to explode on 9/11. Probably not true. But you never know. And it pays to be careful. It may be more prudent to buy something else.

Edited 2009-08-22 17:10 UTC

"They're willing to put up with Big Brother"

That's even assuming they are aware of the security faults with both Apple and Google.

In the second case, I've yet to be convinced that the data users store on Google's servers is properly protected and only accessible by the user who owned it originally. The EULA for Google serves doesn't help.

In the first case:
- an overly closed system more interested in hiding bugs rather than transparency

- an overly controlled method for third party software installs and un-clearly documented approval attributes

- non-removable battery with no true way to turn the device off; sleep with remote wake is your best bet

- questionable IPv6 ready networking

and the latest

- deleted email is easily read as it's not truly purged from the phone

You almost sound jealous. ;-) I understand, though. I was standing in an Apple store when someone pushed an original iPhone, only 1 month old into my face.



From what I understood, this provision concerns any application using AT&T's services, so basically any connected application requires Apple to consult AT&T about it.

I presume what you mean by the term "lay people" is the 90% to 95% who are not interested in how their computers or phone or music players work and who actually just want a good and pleasing experience when using them (i.e. the overwhelming bulk of the population).

Such "lay people" increasingly find much of what Apple offers, whether phones, music players or computers, to offer a much happier and pleasing experience than the alternatives - that is why Apple can shrug off the recession in the traditional computer market with continued growth, why Apple can walk in and take over a market such as music players and why Apple can explode into an established market like phones with exponential growth.

Apple does this by combining an expertise in combining software AND hardware that few companies can match, by having an absolute commitment to good design and my not being afraid to truly innovate in a way that makes most of its competitors look plodding and mediocre.

Yeah, (Beep!) right. They (Beep!) definitely (Beep! Beep!) know how to (Beep! Beep! Beep!) combine (Beep! Beep! Beep! Beep! Beep! Beep! Beep!) software and (Beep!) hardware (Beep! Beep! Beep! Beep! Beep! Beep! Beep! Beep! Beep! Beep! Beep! Beep! Beep! Beep!).

http://www.osnews.com/comments/22026

And in a way that, fortunately, few companies can match. (Sizzle! Sizzle! Sizzle! BOOM!!!)

http://tinyurl.com/l7cmwf

Their level of commitment to good design quite literally speaks for itself.

Of course, making illegal deals with cell phone carriers, and directing their huge legal department to attack any competitors, and to silence any dissatisfied customers helps, too.

Edited 2009-08-22 19:41 UTC

Meanwhile in the real world Apple continue to top the customer satisfaction polls in every market they are in. You guys really should get out more often.

Instead of "in the real world," it would have been more accurate to say, "in the real[ity distortion] world."

Such polls are erroneous reflections of reality, and often have absolutely no connection to the actual quality/value of a product.

One could say that Windows is better, because, in the real world, more people buy Windows than OSX. However, the specific fact that Windows has more sales than OSX, doesn't make it better.

If one conducted "customer satisfaction" polls with a group of Scientologists and a group of atheists, which group would "top the poll?" The Scientologists would be probably be more emphatic about telling the pollsters that they are very happy. They have invested a lot of time, emotion and money into being Scientologists, so, they had better be very happy. On the other hand, Atheists don't have the same type of time/emotional/monetary investment (although most atheists have very strong beliefs/principles). The atheists would probably give a more complex, qualified answer.

Which group's view more accurately reflects the "real word?"

In the computer world, who has invested the most emotion and money in their computer -- the Mac followers or the Windows users? The Mac people had better be very happy, otherwise their notions of superiority are false and the extra money that they paid was wasted. So, Apple users have an extra motivation to tell the pollsters that they are happy.

There is no denying that many Apple users are more emotional than rational about their machines. After an Apple keynote speech, a Mac user gushed, "I've had a Macintosh now for a total of 35 days, and I'm really excited to be part of the Mac community!" As Maddox responded, "It's a computer, not a social movement!": http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant

In addition, on this very forum, Apple users have actually admitted that they sometimes sit and admire their Mac's enclosure, while the machine is switched off.

So, customer satisfaction polls that put Apple at the top are probably tainted by the emotions and motivations of the Apple userbase.

Edited 2009-08-23 21:04 UTC

So you think that people who express their satisfaction with Apple products are doing so for reasons other than being happy with their products. People who say they are happy with Apple products are only doing so because the Apple products have made them experience false happiness, that the strange pleasure generated by using Apple products has actually masked their true inner, hidden, unhappiness. They are secretly unhappy and somehow Apple, or even more sinister the conspiracy which is the Apple user community, brainwashes them into only thinking they are happy.

So what are you saying - that there are better ways of discovering whether people are happy with the products they purchase than asking them? What are those better methods?

It really is amazing that anyone would actually believe this notion, in light of the countless software/hardware problems inherent in Apple products over the last decade, and especially in light of the recent deluge of problems with Apple items.



In regards to Apple design, the usability of the software and hardware has never really been the main priority, even though Apple (and its fanboys) would have one believe otherwise. There's a long list of Apple usability blunders that has been posted many times on this forum.

With Apple, the look of the enclosure is more important than actual usability (and more important than the quality of the internal components). However, the aesthetic value of any "look" is entirely subjective -- a concept that Steve Jobs and his followers seem to have trouble comprehending.

In addition, most of Apple's "looks" are relatively mundane, retro and derived (especially from 1960s Braun products).



Apple has "innovated" very little, especially when compared to other big computer/electronic outfits. However, Apple certainly has capitalized on trends and marketed well.

Edited 2009-08-22 21:30 UTC

Always keeping in mind, of course, that the term "usability blunder", for Apple, encompasses things like blowing up in your hands, or frying your testicles.

Edited 2009-08-22 21:44 UTC

You are referring to features of "the Iphone's distinctive user experience."

All mass market complex technology will encounter some occasional problems in some examples of its components - the point is that relatively in the market place Apple is experienced by end users as having less problems than its competitors. As I said in another response Apple continues to top the polls in all surveys of customer satisfaction in all its markets.

Thinking that design is just about the enclosure or that Apple design is just about an enclosure is exactly the type of limited thinking that leaves so many of Apples competitors floundering.

If the success of, for example, the iPod was just based on its enclosure then presumably all another company would have to do in order to emulate Apple's success is cram a similar bunch of functions into a similar enclosure and give it a catchy name -such as for example Zune. Its odd that they don't succeed isn't it? It almost makes you think that there is more to Apple's success than its fancy enclosures.

Good marketing?

Good marketing? "
So you think that macs sell well because they have attractive enclosures and Apple does good marketing? Have you ever noticed how many professionals, people who need rock solid hardware that deliver the absolute best in productivity, use macs? A huge proportion do.

For example go to Photoshop TV, or Luminous Landscapes and watch the best and most respected people in the field of digital photography do their video presentations and note the brand of laptops they ALL use (here is a hint - they are not running Windows).

I am so tired of the continuous, and frankly cretinous, comments here along the lines that Apple's success is somehow down to just good marketing, hype, idiot consumers and fancy enclosures. Guys - get up, go out into the real world and walk down to your local Apple store - the products are flying off the shelves because they good products that people want to buy.

Inertia and being accustomed to Mac OS. Also, please go to a graphic studio and try working there without a Mac. If you want no problems, then you have to buy a Mac.



See above.



Please tell me what’s so good about an iMac that I can’t get with a PC. Apple doesn’t magically make components more durable when they put them in a Mac.

Apple got where they are now by having a great marketing department coupled with a very happy legal team that would sue you if you spoke bad about Apple. Also, by having great products a few years ago. Now I can get better products (PCs, Zune HD, HTC Hero, etc) for less and, while they do not look as shiny, they are as functional as their Apple counterparts.

People go to Apple Stores because, yes, they want to buy the latest cool Mac that is more idiot-proof than before. Meanwhile, somebody’s iPod explodes in their hands.

Frankly, I think both arguments - yours and the opposing one - are guilty of being over-simplified false dichotomies. One side claims that Apple's success is due entirely to slick marketing (with no other factors), while the other claims that Apple's success is due to quality products (with no other factors).

In reality, it's much more likely that the answer is "a little from column A, a little from column B." I suspect that, in many cases, people buy Apple products because of the clever marketing - and keep them because of the quality of the products. Of course, it would intellectually lazy to claim that that's always the case.



And...? First of all, as stated, that point is nothing more than an example of fallacies "appeal to the majority" and "appeal to popularity.

Second, even if appeals to the majority/popular were valid arguments, they are more harmful than helpful to your argument. There are many, many other types of professionals who use computers (besides digital photographers) - and Macs are not going to be the majority in most of those fields.

Premium isn't about just producing products that satisfy customers - it's about the support you receive when something DOES go wrong. In this second area, Apple fails so miserably it's not even funny. They will try to weasel their way out of replacing products until class-action lawsuits force them to, they will make you sign gag orders, they will try to keep flaws under wraps or downright deny them, and so on.

A truly premium company helps its customers *unconditionally*. A normal company assumes the *user* is at fault when something breaks, whereas a premium company assumes their *product* is at fault. This difference in perspective is what sets the premium company apart from the normal company.

Edited 2009-08-23 11:42 UTC

You seem to know a lot about product design.

Please enlighten on what Apple product design is about, exactly.

I mentioned enclosure design and software and the usability of each (which includes such things as the action of the hardware buttons and the GUI). What else is there?

Friday evening I was watching a documantry about food additives.
Basically food supliers and many industry experts were blaming consumers for the additives in food. Their arguement was this:
"Mass processing food takes out some of the properties that consumers like to look for in food (eg colour, texture, etc) so we have to add them back in"

This was true for a study that was carried out: where by consumers were offered two identically-tasting jars of jam - the only difference being one had red food colouring and the other did not (thus the jam without the additives didn't have a red "jam-like" colour to it)
However, the moment consumers knew about the differences - nearly every single one changed their mind and preferred the off colour jam.

The reason I point this out is because most people DO care about what they buy. They just don't have insight to know about the products they're purchacing. And you can hardly blame them for their lack of information when companies like Apple do everything in their power (and even ignoring our basic freedom of speach rights) to pull the wool over the consumers eyes.

What superior offerings are these that you talk about. Until very recently, Apple was a brand that was decidedly upmarket and appealed to people who were willing to spend extra to buy their admittedly expensive gear. Then they made iPods, and everyone (myself included) bought one because they are better than the competition. Seriously, iPods were so much better than anything that came before and after them, until Apple made the iPod touch.

I had a smart phone by Sony Ericcson and it doesn't hold a candle to what Apple has provided. Apple is successful because they focus on what matters to customers. No one is forcing anyone to buy a specific phone, much less an iPhone given it's substantial cost. I would welcome competition because it means Apple is actually forced to improve their offering. if no one wants a product, then it is not superior.

You don't really know much about marketing do you?

The only reason the Ipod took off is because they got in bed with the music industry. Diamond was basically put out of business even though they didnt lose the lawsuit. Once it was clear that people weren't going to get sued making the devices, everyone was making them. And to be honest, I will take an open music device that acts like a standard USB device over Apples proprietary encrypted music database piece of crap any day. Not to mention most mp3 players now offer expansion ports, fm, and the ability to record(including fm). Apple stopped innovating on that market.

As for the Touch, while it is very slick and popular, it certainly wasn't innovative. Many companies, Nokia for one, offer similar devices that had the same capabilities (and then some) long before the touch.

What other products are superior to iPods in your opinion?

Also, what smartphone do you think is better than the iPhone? I've had friends who have had Palm Pre's, Windows Mobile, and Nokia Smartphones and all of them have decided that the iPhone or some variant of the Blackberry are currently the best and most usuable smartphones on the market. I'm currently trying to decide between getting an iPhone or a Blackberry so I would like to know what product you would consider superior to the iPhone and why.

Pretty much anything that doesn't double as an incendiary device.

Hey, if you're ever stuck on a desert island with no way of starting a fire, you'll appreciate that feature.

Not everywhere. In The Netherlands, unlimited data plans go for as cheap as 10-15 EUR a month.

Edited 2009-08-23 13:33 UTC

Is that flat rate, unlimited, no strings attached? I remember seeing an ad from American for example which had 'unlimited' then in small print it had a limit of 5GB and over that limit would cost x number of cents per kilobyte.

No degradation in service (aka people milking the service)? just wondering because the telco's in New Zealand routinely use that as a reason for not having unlimited data, internet downloads and so forth.

Kaiwai, Unlimited data plans with truly no limits are pretty common in Europe. I know that in Sweden and Finland you can buy 384kbps data plan for 10 euros and there is no data limits. I been using mine since they started offering cheap data plans 3-4 years ago. I been using VoIP, download bittorrent and mails without any notification from ISP. They even ones called and asked did I want to upgrade it to faster 1Mbps but that would cost 20 Euros per month.

If you're using a phone with wifi support, then you have the option of using VoIP when you're in range of a wireless network - and using the cell network the rest of the time.