[hempadvocate]

Someone mentioned that maybe now that Google is in the phone business that maybe AT&T called Google and asked them to restrict this capability.... just like maybe AT&T called Apple and asked them to not enable Push Notification because it would invariably be used for IM clients to circumvent SMS messaging and deny AT&T a revenue stream.

[nickinvictoria]

Wake up..... Apple called Google, stop this app. It makes us look stupid. Having worked at a telco the cost for text messaging is next to zero. Once you have the infrastructure installed for voice, text messagging can then be run....
For your information, if the voice system is running above a certain percentage of use, text messaging gets reduced automatically. So is there a cost to driving down the street at 1am when no one is on the road. Yes and no. Does it cost 10 cents to send a SMS ..... NO The telco's are in the business of making real money and there is no money in SMS, it is just a convience for users. Otherwise we would see just SMS companies opening up everywhere.......
This is not about cost to send a SMS message..... dig deeper

[TheBum]

SMS rates are a joke. I calculated that it costs me a minimum of $3000 per megabyte to send text messages to my wife: $1500 for me to send and $1500 for her to receive. We've cut that in half by me sending messages to her via e-mail which arrive on her phone as SMS, and then her texting me back through the e-mail gateway (she doesn't have e-mail on her phone).

[edddeduck]

Don't know about the US but in Europe and the UK sms messages on a contract are like confetti :)

I get given hundreds a month as part of my plan and for the cost of $5 (about) I can get hundreds more, in fact many contracts have "unlimited" sms options for a small charge a month.

Finally I don't think this is a conspiracy between Google and AT&T etc rather they have a small SMS system that they have made available (just like lots of things they make available in beta) in this case the load expanded due to the wild popularity so they had to scale down the load by banning 3rd party apps as they became to popular.

As most iPhones are on contacts and most contracts have lots of free messaging I think the logic is a little broken that this was "banned" to make money!

Edwin

[jhorton]

@Sporks:

What, exactly, is unethical about repealing a service after you find that it costs you more to operate than expected? No promises were made, and no money was collected (by Google). It was a free service, which Google found they could no longer support. I fail to see how this demonstrates that google is "on the more unethical side of the business world."

[kboone34]

The app poached and allowed the buyer to poach on someone else's services. Just because someone found a way to take advantage of someone else's property and sells it to you THAT doesn't entitle you to squat. You've been had; suck it up and whine somewhere else about something more important

Okay we have a winner "Golf11" is the first one to really hit the nail on the head. The user got something really for nothing, and whining because they spent 99?. Really, come on guys and gals. It was good while it lasted and that's it. You are not owed a refund just because you paid (lets say it again 99?) to use a service that otherwise there is a fee for. Look at it this way, it got so much attention, that something good may come out of it in the form of some other option. But demanding a refund form Apple. NO FREAKING WAY!

[hempadvocate]

kboone34 said:

Okay we have a winner "Golf11" is the first one to really hit the nail on the head. The user got something really for nothing, and whining because they spent 99?. Really, come on guys and gals. It was good while it lasted and that's it. You are not owed a refund just because you paid (lets say it again 99?) to use a service that otherwise there is a fee for. Look at it this way, it got so much attention, that something good may come out of it in the form of some other option. But demanding a refund form Apple. NO FREAKING WAY!

So basically Golf11 is saying that Apple allowed one of it's developers to sell an app through the Apple controlled AppStore that essentially lead to customers who have "been had?"

What if Apple decided to break MobileFiles 2.0 & Pro (an app that allows you to access your iDisk from your iPhone) because they decided to allow the app to be sold and then decided they didn't want iPhone users remotely accessing their iDisks with non-Apple software... would the customers who bought that program have "been had" and just have to suck it up?

I guess I'm in a minority here, but the fact that Apple tightly controls which apps that are sold through the AppStore seems to give the impression that they are protecting customers from unscrupulous developers and paid apps that will break and cease to function.

[nickinvictoria]

You are so pathetic...... Golf11 wins. Who made you the judge when we are all losers now we can't SMS through Google in 3rd party apps? What about the guy who made the app and spent hours developing it only to have it shut down? Do you think for a second I would take the time out now to write an app if I knew these guys could just unplug me without any notice.

Focus on the ability of these companies (Apple, Google, EBay etc...) to want to control everything and even things they can't control. That is why we need to put our money into products that don't lock you in or towards products who don't limit your control.

This just reeks of a power play. If you have a iPhone, unlock it and support the companies who provide software. If you are thnking of buying a Android forget..... go where you are not going to be controlled by companies who do not have any good intentions.

On a side note, most of these type of decisions are made from x-Hippies now turned executive. What used to be openess and transparency in the 60's is now, behind your back or closed environments.

I am out of here!

[ROWard]

Hemp is just pointing out another slightly annoying aftertaste being left in people's mouths with this entire App Store setup. I lose dollars many more dollars by mistakenly hitting "download entire shopping cart" instead of just the songs I want. I often wait a couple weeks before downloading and listen to the tune again before purchasing. sometimes the whole cart gets downloaded and I'm not 100% sure it was my fault - but that's the way it goes. It does leave a bad taste in my mouth and if enough bad tastes accumulate, I take my business elsewhere. If Apple wants to do something to sweeten my palette by doing something, that is a marketing decision. Also, I would say that soon a new technology or marketing strategy will bring the cost of text messages down at some point - just like NetFlix and Hulu have changed the landscape for Cable TV and Blockbuster.

[montgomery_burns]

edddeduck said:

Don't know about the US but in Europe and the UK sms messages on a contract are like confetti :)

As most iPhones are on contacts and most contracts have lots of free messaging I think the logic is a little broken that this was "banned" to make money!

Edwin

With AT&T in the US, the standard iPhone 3G plan does not include text messages. The starting price for sms is $5 a month for 200 messages. Receiving messages also counts against the total.

[montgomery_burns]

jrandersoniii said:

@hempadvocate,

Quit smoking your reefer and read the article. Apple doesn't owe anyone a refund. The company that developed the App does. That company should be proactive, and work with Apple to facilitate refunds.

We agree about the refund, don't blame Apple when it isn't their fault.

For each application purchased from the iTunes app store, the developer gets 70 percent of the purchase price while Apple gets 30 percent. It would be unreasonable to expect the developer to refund more money than he actually received.

[Golf11]

> {quote:title=hempadvocate wrote:
}{quote}
So basically Golf11 is saying that Apple allowed one of it's developers to sell an app through the Apple controlled AppStore that essentially lead to customers who have "been had?"

What if Apple decided to break MobileFiles 2.0 & Pro (an app that allows you to access your iDisk from your iPhone) because they decided to allow the app to be sold and then decided they didn't want iPhone users remotely accessing their iDisks with non-Apple software... would the customers who bought that program have "been had" and just have to suck it up?

I guess I'm in a minority here, but the fact that Apple tightly controls which apps that are sold through the AppStore seems to give the impression that they are protecting customers from unscrupulous developers and paid apps that will break and cease to function.
[/quote]
Here's an idea if you want to avoid SMS fees and the cost to upgrade to an iPhone purchase Beejive IM...yeah it costs a lot but hey, with the money you save circumventing the SMS charges and the added cost for buying an iPhone the risk/reward favors the reward. It's a legitimate app that isn't taking advantage of a loophole (a fact that you seem to be missing here...as well as Google's statement that it is PAYING for those text messages) and making money on the quick and subject to some other company's control of the switch so there's no mooching. You have IMs without needing WiFi and they're just as fast as text messages.

[johndrake]

hempadvocate said:

The denied permit issue wasn't about a zoning requirement but about an arbitrary decision by an employee to deny your permit while your neighbor was granted a permit to build the same deck on their house two days before you. To think that you could have bought something on Sunday that stopped working on Wednesday and not have a chance for a refund is poor customer service.

If that were the case you'd have a right to appeal, and if you could prove it was in fact an arbitrary decision you'd get your permit. Where I live, the zoning folks are very fair minded and consistent, any other method would most likely end their careers as a Z. O. Most municipalities would be VERY unhappy losing the money they get from permits if they had a rouge Z. O. on the loose.

[johndrake]

If you know that you often wait a couple weeks before downloading WHY WOULDN'T YOU CHECK WHAT'S IN YOUR CART FIRST! It is entirely your fault for hitting download entire cart, unless there are other's in your home/office/commune/ward/cell using your account to add items to the shopping cart it is no one's fault but your own. it's understandable that it could happen once, maybe even twice, say on a late night stroll through the store, but after that there is no excuse, none what-so-ever. It does leave a bad taste in my mouth and indeed it should but blame no one but yourself, it's time to wake up/grow up and take responsibility for your life.