SuperSite Blog

Paul

Actually, with the seemingly arbitrary refusal to allow apps the compete with Apple's own products even when they offer increased functionality (Podcaster), the "F'ing NDA" inability to let developers share tips, the lack of any way to offer demo versions of apps, the wait of up to two weeks to even get bug fixes published, the $20 Apple tax on a $5 cable and the inclusion of kill chips to detect accessories that didn't pay license fees, Apple's own developer and partner programs are the weak link in the iPhone ecosystem.

@ Shark47 The thread for this was locked so I added it here

"Another OT post:

You are insulting women (Sarah Palin in particular) by referring to the new electric blue Zune as 'lipstick on a pig'. I think they're both gorgeous."

I am not in the US and my use of the phrase was entirely coincidental having been posted before I read it. Perhaps Obama read my post and thought that is absolutely spot on.

Therefore I may be insulting a pig but I am most certainly not insulting women. Look up the word specious, it's what describes most of your conclusions.

How predictable.

"Therefore I may be insulting a pig but I am most certainly not insulting women. Look up the word specious, it's what describes most of your conclusions. "

Lighten up, dude. I was just kidding.

@Mike - Real question...Can you explain the bit about the $20 Apple tax on a $5 cable? Not sure what you are talking about there.

--tayme

It came out (I don't have the link but it's come up a few times in the last week) that Apple has a minimum charge for carrying products in their stores. One vendor had to add $20 to their price on a $5 cable just to cover Apple's "stocking fee".

I was wondering because for my Sprint/Nextel Blackberry an identical USB charging cable from a Verizon Blackberry will not work. When I plug it in, a message pops up on the screen saying "Unauthorized Cable" and will not charge. The Sprint/Nextel cable, on the other hand works fine on a Verizon Blackberry. The cost difference -- about $15 for the Verizon cable, $30 for the Sprint/Nextel. I was wondering if it was something similar.

--tayme

tayme

If they're doing that, it'd be more like that Apple lock-in chip they added to block cables that haven't licensed the chip.

It could also be a case where one doesn't provide the right amperage and they're protecting from an overload on the charging circuit. I'd hate to say for sure.

Are they the same model?

I think it's the amperage as my iPod 2G nano cable works, but an auto adapter does not, but works on the iPod. however, the newer auto cables are listed 1000mA for the  3G. Still the prices at the Apple store are higher than online places like PCmicrostore and Meritline, and they look like the same product.

@Paul,

Apple went to Verizon first and was shot down.  Verizon has generally been horrible about crippling devices and their CEO certainly seems stubborn, so they weren't left with much choice.  Just as with the NBC negotiations, we don't know the details and until someone comes out with some verified tell-all, any leaping to conclusions will only be built on bias.

That said, AT&T clearly isn't great.  Things have markedly improved for me in the NYC area in the past month and now with 2.1.  So it is improving.  My guess is they are just not fully prepared for such a smash hit with such high network use.  No phone prior to the iPhone has enabled such rich internet use and the traffic spike seems to be hitting the AT&T network hard.

@Mike,

Of course you come in with a 100% pure negative anti-Apple screed, ignoring that on-balance the iPhone is still a major leap forward on all fronts.  

I will absolutely agree that Apple better come clean on why podcaster was denied to the Appstore or they may be irreparably damaging the developer ecosystem.  I don't think we can honestly conclude yet that this is true systematic tyranny vs. mistakes and scaling problems with their review process.  We could be looking at a patent-office type scenario at Apple right now.

On the Mac, I don't believe Apple has done anything that blatantly anti-competitive as the denial of podcaster.  It is the nature of the Anti-Apple bias to assume that things are evil conspiracies instead of mistakes or incompetence.  The same happens with anti-microsoft bias.

I am willing to give Apple some time to work out the AppStore and find that balance between openness, discoverability and quality.  Markets do behave best when there are some rules, but they need to be clear, simple and known.  Apple's not living up to that right now.

Same model blackberry...Its just lock-in...But, hey...its a free market, and if a company can get by with it...why not. I mean, there is really no reason Apple and MS couldn't have used a standard USB cable for the iPods and Zunes, is there?

--tayme

So when is Paul going to double down on Mike for bringing in OT information ?  Never...

Anyway, Apple knew who it was getting into bed with when it signed the contract.  And honestly, I'd bet the other carriers 3G isn't all that much better.

Ocean

Paul's post is on what he thinks is the weak link in the iPhone ecosystem. My comment is on what I think is the weak link in the iPhone ecosystem. That's about as on topic as you can get.

(and my other comments were direct responses to other people's comments so if they're OT then you'd be whining about them so you must mean my original one, right?)

No, it wasn't.  It was (to you) a quick and dirty way to play the same game that you and others cry foul about when it's done by someone who doesn't see things the way you do.

It was blatantly OT.

Dam Mike, did Paul IM you and say "the blog post is up, rip Apple up....its the ATT post just so you know"???

Lol you need help, I can almost see you sitting at your computer typing that first post up, ""ATT my @$$, those mofo's at Apple cant get a $%#ing thing right", with your wife in the back ground telling you to calm down before you give your self a stroke:)

ON TOPIC: I have been with cingular/att since 2000?  My first 3G phone was the original Black Jack.  I think I mentioned it suffered from major battery drain from having 3G on.  So much so ATT/Samsung would give you a free replacement that came with a FAT and Slim battery each with a different back plate.  The fat battery would last 24 hours before going dead.  I switched that phone to edge only since it still worked fine with Exchange, and it would last 3-4 days.  I would get dropped calls a lot when driving and using 3G in a major city.  Switching to edge fixed that.

I also had a 3G PCMCIA card for my notebook that my employer provided me at the time.  Up to late 2007 3G speeds were OK, 1-1.2meg down, 128k up.  No bad, like slow DSL but the latency was worse for sure.  Still be on the road and while in coverage it would work good enough.  The worst part about 3G is coverage, it plain sucks.  Sure its getting better, but its pretty bad.  So much so my employer switched to Sprint and EDVO cards that had WAY better coverage.  Fact is ATT 3G is still young and has problems with all users at some point.  It can be great, a call on 3G with good coverage is crystal clear.

I stick with ATT, because I have a family rate plan that is not offered anymore and rollover.  On top of that my current employer gets a 15% discount so its cheap.  I now have just a RAZR, since my current employer takes security to the extreme, but they need to, and so we dont have Exchange AtiveSync open to the internet, nor is OWA for that matter.

Just a quick note: Please hold a minute of silence for us here in the land down-under.

Mind you, slowest mobile broadband isn't bad for a country that (according to The Simpsons) only got electricity about 35 years ago :)

benjwah

You got electricity?

(insert generic sheep joke)

:-)

@benjwah - You guys are in our church's prayers.

Thankfully, Ike veered right of Dallas Fort Worth, but Houston and Galveston took a lot. Don't forget those folks down there.

On to the discussion: I have a lot of misgivings as a former cingular and AT&T customer. The service was always crappy at best, many places in Dallas I'd get no signal, and dropped calls a plenty. Frankly, I wanted to reach out and strangle an AT&T executive.  Besides the technical issues, the monthly bills were irratic and bloated. I had just enough to hang up on AT&T and this was before the iPhone ever came out. All of this was on their Edge network. Listening to my brother's phone service, I know how bad their 3G service is. Most of the time, he's on Edge and rarely on the 3G.

Apple did not have to just choose one vendor. They could have allowed AT&T to have the newest version and allowed the older versions to competitors. They made their bed and now they have to lie with it. It was a huge mistake, because clearly Verizon and Sprint have better networks.

Say what you will, Sprint blows AT&T's service away into the water here in Dallas. I'm always connected at 3G EV-DO speeds. I've never had to drop to a 2.5G speeds anywhere in the Metroplex. The phones are getting better and the Simply Everything plan gives me a consistent bill. What possible incentive do I have to switch? Because of the iPhone? Thats a laugh. The Instinct is just as good, if not better because of the network. Plus HTC, Treo, and Blackberry are making some damn good phones available to Sprint customers.

The phone is only as good as the network its on. Its like having Brett Farve on the Raiders. Even being on the Jets is preferable to the Raiders. If I was Apple, do the right thing and buy out your contract with AT&T. Then allow Sprint and Verizon to get the iPhone and work out a deal. If any cell phone provider needs to fold, its AT&T. Take it from me, a former customer who'd rather date Paris Hilton than sign an AT&T contract.

The reason I don't have an iPhone is....ATT. Clearly, the weak link it the whole setup, and the plans you have to have with the iPhone are very, very expensive.

That said, the kindest thing I can say about Verizon is that it sucks less, and not much less at that.

"Broadband" and cell phone service in the US both stink compared to most of the developed world (and even some countries that barely make that list). It's the same handful of companies that we have to blame for both.

The Microsoft/Apple debate is a trivial sideshow compared to how we are ALL being screwed ALL the time by ATT, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, etc. The only exception to their junk is FIOS, which is pretty good, but really just average compared with what you can get in, say, Japan or Korea.

Oh, and the other "weak link"....Apple's sudden desire to strangle the App store.

See that erstwhile iCabalist   http://daringfireball.net/ for a long essay on this stupidity and a list of comments from many other Mac sites. I think you might say that people are pissed about this behavior.

This is also very relevant to the hypothesis that the weak link is ATT, because the two most salient cases involve banning a tethering application and an App to view/listen to podcasts. What these have in common is that they would use a lot of data bandwidth. I suspect that the heavy hand is as much from ATT as it is Apple. Either way, this is a bad development.

chuckb84

Two problems with the "Apple really banned Podcaster because of bandwith issues"

1) There are approved apps that use more bandwidth than downloading podcasts.

2) Apple didn't use their standard "bandwith restrictions" mail to ban it which would let the author restrict downloads to WiFi and resubmit the app. They said the app was banned because it duplicates existing functionality.

Paul has been saying that iPhone was the next big platform for 3rd party developers. I'd say Apple is doing just about everything in their power to make sure that doesn't happen.

@Chuck and Mike,

Listen, we know what we know, and we don't know much.  Apple's handling of this app rejection is terrible.  No question.  But we don't know if it's top-down policy or just lower-level mistakes.  Until we get more information, we can only state the facts.  But the facts do suck regarding Podcaster.

Extrapolating intentions is a game played by the biased (since bias is all you can base it on).

"Paul has been saying that iPhone was the next big platform for 3rd party developers. I'd say Apple is doing just about everything in their power to make sure that doesn't happen."

That's a reasonable statement right now.  If they don't clear the air about this process, it is going to chill the market.  No question.  The track record overall suggests that Apple is NOT interested in stifling direct competitors.  Since their money is in the hardware sale, Apple loses nothing by allowing Podcaster to be sold.

Jobs is not nearly as ideological as his detractors make him out to be.  My guess, and it is a guess, is that this is all a product of scaling problems and poor internal communication.  But I could very well be wrong.

What's also not a question is that the great majority of websites devoted to Apple and the iPhone are criticizing this very loudly.  Mr. Gruber at daringfireball is clearly very critical and is linking to many others....

We have here a shining example of how the mac-centric websites are not in the tank for Apple, despite Paul's almost-daily insistence that they are.  All of which is more indisputable proof that Paul's "iCabal" is a dishonest and bigoted rhetorical strawman.

"It is the nature of the Anti-Apple bias to assume that things are evil conspiracies instead of mistakes or incompetence."

meh....either way, I accept your apology.

john

I'd say a good measure of whether someone subsists on the Apple brand Kool-aid is their response to this mini-controversy.

Apple said the app was rejected because: "Since Podcaster assists in the distribution of podcasts, it duplicates the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes"

What I've seen is a bunch (but not even close to all) of the Mac faithful saying that we should assume that Apple's own statement is wrong. ("It really is a bandwidth issue" or "it's clearly a mistake" or "it's because Apple is about to do the same app and wants to protect their users from paying for a less perfect version" or, or, or)

Vast verbiage on why Apple can't really be doing what they clearly say they are doing. Along with a few people saying "hey, it's OK with me. Apple really should totally control what I can and can't install"

The reality is that Apple was quite clear with their reason for refusing to allow Podcaster on the only distribution channel they allow and tightly control. To not take them at face value does a disservice to both their customers and the future of the platform.

@Mike

I don't know, but I'd BET that I read more of the (take your pick) iCabal, Apple fanatic, Apple fanboy, sites than you do. The condemnation is nearly universal, with roughlydrafted.com a notable exception, and even there, most of the comments disagree with him. Apple has screwed the pooch on this one, and they have to fix this.

What apps are you thinking of that use more bandwidth? I'm not up on all(!) the apps, but I suppose there are some. Pandora radio? Or does that only work over WiFi? I only have the iTouch, so don't know...

Total agree with this "Paul has been saying that iPhone was the next big platform for 3rd party developers. I'd say Apple is doing just about everything in their power to make sure that doesn't happen."

Apple is being stupid like the days of Jean Louis Gassée.

Pull my finger! Oops, too late!

John

Are you really saying you are NOT seeing lots of posts like:

"It really is a bandwidth issue and not about duplicating function"

"it's clearly a mistake by some low-level guy that Apple will correct"

"it's because Apple is about to do the same app and wants to protect their users from paying for a less perfect version"

"Apple really doesn't have a choice. I'll bet AT&T's really forcing them to do this"

Or, are you counting those in the nearly universal condemnation?

John

"Apple is being stupid like the days of Jean Louis Gassée."

You're saying that Apple's bad days were only 1985-1990 and not the fault of Sculley but of the head of the Mac division?

Do you know something good about the Spindler days or the Amelio days that I'm forgetting (or even most of Sculley's tenure)?

Mike,

Actually, that was from me, not John, and I'm trying to make a specific point about arrogance, not to give a recapitulation of every business error made by Apple (which would take too long!).

Gasse, Scully, Spindler and Amelio all had problems, but I single out Gassee for his overbearing arrogance. He famously said that Microsoft would "Never catch up" and he insisted on high prices/margins in preference to a larger marketshare. Sculley listened to him and is also culpable, but I blame most of it on Gassee. Of course, he was also sure that Apple was doomed when they didn't pay him way too much money for Be ;).

chuck and john

My apologies for confusing you

And, on this topic, this is why I love Gruber:

daringfireball.net/.../podcasters_rejection

"Things That Podcaster’s Rejection From the App Store Is Not About

Monday, 15 September 2008

Daniel Dilger has a piece on Roughly Drafted today arguing that Apple’s rejection of Podcaster from the App Store should not have been a surprise, and in fact should have been expected under section 3.3.3 of the iPhone SDK Agreement.

This is such bullshit it hurts my head."

A very nice piece by John Gruber. I kind of think he has blown his "iCabal" credentials pretty thoroughly :).

He also says that apps can be restricted to run only over WiFi, not 3G, which I didn't know. That puts to rest the "ATT won't let us use that much bandwidth" notion.

"Do you know something good about the Spindler days or the Amelio days that I'm forgetting (or even most of Sculley's tenure)?"

The computer aided graphic design revolution that was lead by designers using a combination of Macs, PageMaker (as well as Photoshop and Illustrator) and the LaserWriter printer, counts as something pretty huge in my books.

Chuckb84

I can't say that overbearing arrogance is really anything specific to Gassée. It's a time honored Apple executive tradition and a part of the corporate culture. I'd even argue that it's been a part of their successes as much a their failures.

Pretty serious levels of overbearing arrogance. are an Apple tradition. Saying Microsoft would never catch up seems similar to:

Jobs thinking the IBM PC wouldn't be able to leapfrog the Apple ]['s lead and doing the "The Bastards Say Welcome" ad.

Gil Amelio paying trucks with signs saying "C:\ONGRTLNS.W95"

to drive around the Microsoft campus during the Windows 95 launch

Mum

A lot of that came during Jean Louis Gassée's tenure as head of Macintosh division.

John,

I had never heard the "C:\ONGRTLNS.W95" bit. That's funny.

And since we're supposed to be in an adversarial role here ;), I have to add that monkey-boys chair tossing antics have always impressed me as pretty arrogant.

And, to the extent that I discern any point to the Seinfeld-Gates non-commercials, I believe the idea is present a kinder, guilty Microsoft to the world. You don't do that unless you have an arrogance problem.

Finally, it is worth repeating John's point in the context of Gruber's post referenced above,

"We have here a shining example of how the mac-centric websites are not in the tank for Apple, despite Paul's almost-daily insistence that they are.  All of which is more indisputable proof that Paul's "iCabal" is a dishonest and bigoted rhetorical strawman."

Yep.

Chuckb

I'd say this is more a case of abuse so egregious that all but the most die hard iCabal people can't justify it. Of course, there are still some (iIlluminati?) that found a way to say it was anybody else's fault (the author, AT&T, people reporting it, unsatisfied users have all been blamed in just the sites I've seen)

It is indeed amazing to see how someone's devotion to a particular company (and antipathy for another company) can render one unable to hear any criticism of the former, or to see any merit in the latter.

Indeed, WebGuy3000, indeed. Instances of both prevail in this thread, and many others on Mike's...oops, I mean Paul's...blog.

--tayme

"We have here a shining example of how the mac-centric websites are not in the tank for Apple, despite Paul's almost-daily insistence that they are.  All of which is more indisputable proof that Paul's "iCabal" is a dishonest and bigoted rhetorical strawman."

To accept this statement is true is to also accept that all it takes to be considered "not in the tank" is to be 99.9% biased. If you ever said anything less than 100% favorable to Apple you aren't biased.

Even Ivory Snow only claims to be 99.44% pure.