[fbcooper]

"This is why I think Apple is so resistant to making the iPhone's data plan optional."

Well, we don't really know why we must use AT&T and why we must use a data plan, do we?

We certaintly don't have any ongoing message from Apple or AT&T about the situation. I haven't seen one anyway.

I have certain beliefs as to what occurred to bring out the iPhone:

1) Cell phone bandwidth is limited especially for data. Even 3G has limits.

2) Cell phone coverage with data is limited geographically and would need possible upgrades to handle new services.

3) Apple wanted to make a HUGE splash with iPhone. Not a little splash.

4) Apple could NOT do this without some clear partnership to ensure limited fingerpointing with service/installation or other technical problems, especially with tying very new applications across the network to the phone, with unknown bandwidth availability.

5) AT&T wants money.

6) The 2 companies made the initial agreement to ensure that AT&T would carry the burden of bandwidth and service . Apple doesn't have to work with more than one cell provider so its internal stress are lessened.

That all said, Apple was required to roll out a data required set here in the US. That maximized AT&Ts ROI.

In other markets, Apple knew finanically this was a non-starter and did not make the same requirements, although those cell companies in other countries keep VERY quiet about this 'feature'. See #5 - it works in other countries to.

At this stage, it is questionabile whether this strategy is still helping Apple - the single provider being less than ideal with many of us who actually prefer a cellullar provider (strange that we would actually like a cell company, huh?) it sure is helping AT&T so they aren't complaining. The real issue is the customers are not complaining (much). Not that potential customers are turned away - but that existing customers are not demanding Apple open up the network sufficiently loud enough.

Why? First, 3G alone is so new in the US.

Second, Apple customers are loyal to Apple and AT&T gets the benefit of that.

I'd love to hear more from Apple but doubt anything is going to change soon since the 3G rollout is so new.

[l84toff]

"This is why I think Apple is so resistant to making the iPhone's data plan optional", and I thought it was because they have a legal obligation to their shareholders to make as much $$ as possible.
"a universal information appliance", I think I would have to agree. But if some people can't afford to use it to its full potential or only wish to use what they need from then who am I or you for that matter to judge.
"It takes some time to learn what it means to have the Internet in one's pocket all the time", no, it takes time to get the masses used to the convenience of having it, then they won't be able to live without it. I don't have to learn that it's convenient to access my emails when and where ever I am. The iPhone has no bearing on my lifestyle and I could easily live without it if I needed to. For the time being, it's simply a convenient tool!
"An iPhone should not be thought of as a ”combo-gadget“ incorporating a phone, music player and, optionally, the Web", why not? That's exactly what it is. You can worship it all you want but it's a little device that does exactly that. It's the best at what it does mind you and I happen to think it's the coolest phone I've ever had. Even Apple thinks this it what it is, they named it iPhone aftert all, not iUnversal Lifestyle Impactor.
"In modern industrial nations our lives are conditioned by information" , I couldn't agree with you more. And a sad sad thing thing that is. Information in todays world is more fiction and propaganda rather than truth and I agree, it conditions the masses.
As for an iPhone...it's the coolest gadget I own, with or without data!

[spinoza2]

I think you are just confirming the point I wish to make: Apple offers the Touch for those who are fortunate enough to have open wireless around them most of the time (like college students living on campus, for example). If you are in that situation, great, but I wouldn't then complain of the minor inconvenience of carrying around a small cell phone as well, since you are in the fortunate situation of not having to pay data fees to get Internet access. Personally, I feel that relying on open wireless for access to the Internet is still a dicey proposition at best. Even in Boston one frequently has to look long and hard to find an open network, and after a while ordering a cappuccino in cafe after cafe with wireless ends up as expensive as having a data plan.

Every country has developed its own cell phone ?culture? based on national technologies, laws, regulations, and consumer behavior, and Apple has had to negotiate with each of them to introduce the iPhone in a way that preserves the device's integrity in the marketplace. Having had cell phones for over ten years with all of the American (and some European) carriers, I've been very satisfied with ATT's network and service over the past two years of owning an iPhone. I've never had such good cell phone reception, and the 3G network has been fast and reliable for me (for greater Boston it is much better than Verizon EVDO from my experience). Customer service--for me--is light years better than Sprint, and still better than Verizon (though I found TMobile best for customer service). I have no direct experience with Rogers in Canada: is there ubiquitous coverage around the country? Can you get fast, reliable 3G in Sudbury, Kitchener, Winnipeg, Windsor, Halifax, etc etc, for $30 a month?

[Alex_Hill]

Not carrying around a cell phone as a separate device is something I'm willing to pay more for (in the one-time purchase price), and I wish Apple would give me the option; that doesn't preclude anyone else from having AT&T subsidize the phone. However, it's really AT&T that's the stumbling back for me: I've had horrible customer service experience with them in the past and will never go back. T-Mobile, as you say, has been as good as I can expect from a telephone company, and because of the compatible technology, the network difference between T-Mobile and AT&T has no bearing on my coverage.

More to the point, as Steve Jobs emphasized in his original iPhone presentation, most cell phones out there (including my RAZR) are pretty awful as devices to make phone calls on. The iPod Touch's address book is much nicer than that on my phone, so the iPhone is appealing from that point of view alone. Again, the $30/month for data contributes nothing here.

[l84toff]

Well I can only speak for coverage where I am. In the Brant county and Hamilton area (southern Ontario) 3G as far as I can tell is great. Even the drive from Windsor, I had great 3G coverage all the way home.

I don't see how I was confirming your point for you. Is the iPod Touch a viable solution? Perhaps for some but not for me. The Touch does not allow for text messeges, something I use my iPhone for more than anything else. Texting does not require data. I agree with Alex_Hill, I too am willing to pay a little more to have 2 devices on 1 iPhone. I think our points are similar in that we both want the conveniece. You of having data and others of having 1 device that instead of 2. The bottom line is that everyone should have a choice in the matter. AT&T or any other carrier, should provide their customers with the option.

Not every car comes fully loaded. To say that it should be because you need to learn to how rely on those fully loaded features and that once you do a light bulb will light up over your head is silly. Some people can't live without all the fully loaded features of their car, ok. Others can only afford some of those features or just do not have a need for all of them. But the choice is there. Charging each customer an arm and a leg and forcing them to buy the fully loaded version is a rip off!

AT&T does it because no other carrier is currently allowed to sell the iPhone, a monoploy if you will. This will not always be this way. And when it changes, I'm sure you will see carriers offer all sorts of plans that are more attractive, with or without data. No one is going to turn away a $30/month customer because they won't spend another $30 on data, especially when they can go down the street to their competition and get what they want.

[skipaq]

It is called an iPhone for a reason. It is supposed to get online. It is not the hardware that creates the problem of a costly data plan. The terms that AT&T requires are set by them to recover their cost. How many people who are complaining about the two year data plan cost of $720 are actually going to be willing to pay full price for the iPhone and then be happy that they can't get online? Some perhaps; but is that really a market for Apple or AT&T.

Remember, Apple is interested in the 'smart' aspect of this device because it makes computer and software products. The iPhone is built to connect to their iTunes universe. Does Apple want to cripple this device so that you can only access this over wi-fi? I don't see that happening. And AT&T is not about to give up the revenue from the data plan any time soon.

Verizon turned Apple down. T-Mobile wasn't much of an option in the States. Sprint? Well, AT&T was Apple's best option. You don't like AT&T; your not going to buy an iPhone. Can't afford the data plan or don't want to pay it; your not going to buy an iPhone. Doesn't anyone remember all the exclusive deals that cell phone companies have been making with various wireless companies? Apple didn't invent this system. Maybe, someday we will all be able to buy the device of our choice and use with the wireless provider of our choice and buy just the services we want. Just follow the yellow brick road.

[l84toff]

"Remember, Apple is interested in the 'smart' aspect of this device"...and I think people are interested in being smart period. Most people don't go to purchase the iPhone and think: what's Apple interested in?" or "what's best for Apple or AT&T?". They get what's best for them at the time. The iPhone may be the best phone out there right now but that doesn't mean that the data plan is what's best for me, for my family or for my budget right now.



Unless of course you know of a phone out there that does texting as easily as an iPhone, has a calendar I can sync with my mac, contacts I can sync with my mac, has an iPod built in, has cool games I can download, does wifi (the list goes on) and has a GUI as good or better than the iphone. Yes it does data and that's awesome too, but if some people don't care about data, then why should they look elsewhere? Would you feel better if those people went out and got Razrs instead? I would get an iPhone any day of the week even if I didn't get data. And for those times when I really need to use some of those data features, let's say I get lost, then they're always there available for me (mind you I'd have pay through the nose to use them), not even an option on most phones out there.



We each have our uses for the frigin' thing, yours is to connect to the iTunes universe, mine is to text, talk on the phone, play games, listen to music, watch a tv show/movie once in a while and download the odd song, even check my emails, calendar and the weather or check Macworld forums once in a while. Just because I don't need all the features doesn't mean I should turn away or be turned away from getting one.



To each his or her own. My point is (and I don't see a downside to this, not even for Apple or AT&T): the choice should be the consumers!

[skipaq]

I don't have an iPhone. As I have posted before I use an iPod touch and a cell phone (It's an AT&T pay as you go plan for on the road.) I don't get any cell signal at home and I work out of my home. But I would have gotten the iPhone if I had good cell service and canceled my land line. The difference in cost would have been small.

I just agree with the opinion of the original article. Apple may prove me wrong and make a iPod touch with cell phone capability. But that seems unlikely. An iPhone nano seems even more unlikely. Besides the problem is with AT&T and their data plan. They have made it plain that this isn't going to change. They are even planning to launch a home micro-cell service for people like me without a cell signal. Why are they doing this? Data plan for two years.

Maybe in a few years the contract between Apple and AT&T will not be renewed. By then 3G cell will probably be giving way to something else. There are new version of wi-fi in the works. Some suggest that this will someday compete with or replace cell service. One thing I am sure of though is that whoever sets it up is going to charge me to use it.

When I first started looking into wireless data plans they were $70/month and more. Now they are $30/month. Hopefully they will keep going down. But the newest stuff will always cost more.

[Gleteto]

If you have limited iphone data plan new app Vieweditor ( utilities or vieweditor.com ) saves money, time and battery life when doing a web search. App uses standard Yahoo search engine results and displays on iPhone the results including thumbnail pictures ( small, medium or large ) of web pages. Very interesting app, with existing data plan user can search much more web pages. User can save up to 70% of web page download size. By zooming to large thumbnail you don't need to download every web page.