6 ms·

Let's not kid ourselves - all the power Apple wrestled away from AT&T it kept for itself - the consumer didn't see much of a change, or saw a regression. Prior

Let's not kid ourselves - all the power Apple wrestled away from AT&T it kept for itself - the consumer didn't see much of a change, or saw a regression. Prior to the iPhone, loading your own apps and changing settings on your smartphone was standard practice. What Apple did was bring the featurephone practice (jumping through somebody's beaurocracy to get to consumers) to the smartphone market. Suddenly, being in control of your own smartphone is an "openness feature". Now, to loyal Apple fans, who love and trust Apple, this transfer of power/control from AT&T to Apple is the same as them (the Apple consumer) seeing benefits. To other people, it just means dealing with someone else, without any change in the fact that you still have to go through somebody.

lzw 16y ago
Prior to the iPhone, apps on an a phone were paying $3/month to a carrier for crappy junk. The phones were locked down. It was far from "standard practice" to load your own apps onto your own phone, and the apps you could choose to use were highly limited and far more controlled. I think people forget that before the Apple AppStore there really were very few apps for phones.
- nailer 16y ago
  > I think people forget that before the Apple AppStore there really were very few apps for phones. Fewer than today, sure. But Windows Mobile had thousands of apps and a pretty decent app development ecosystem.
- jonknee 16y ago
  I think you're confusing smartphones and feature phones. You're right that the experience of apps on feature phones was lackluster (it still is actually). The iPhone helped catapult smartphones into the mainstream, but there wasn't a lack of smartphone software before the iPhone. Palm, Symbian and Windows Mobile (and BlackBerry to a lesser degree) all had a wide array of apps available before the iPhone was ever announced.
  - jad 16y ago
    It's pretty clear to most people that the smartphone app market that exists today is qualitatively different than the one that existed before the App Store. I think that's the point the parent was trying to make.
    - jrockway 16y ago
      Definitely. The emphasis now is to get your potential users to spend 99c as many times as possible (with "do one thing" and shiny graphics; see "fart apps"). Previously, everything was either free, or something you found for $20 at some commercial vendor's website.
- there 16y ago
  I think people forget that before the Apple AppStore there really were very few apps for phones. really? i've owned a palm treo and nokia e71 that both had hundreds of applications available that i could just download and install right from the device's web browser. no market, no restrictions.
- martythemaniak 16y ago
  You either didn't read my post or you're deliberately being obtuse to make your point - there was a huge difference between smartphones and featurephones. What you're describe is the featurephone app model, which Apple made more user and developer friendly and brought to the smartphone arena. I used to have a blackberry (and yes, I had both apps and games on it) and when I bought the original iPhone, I had to jailbreak it in order to be able to do the same things I could do before. That's a regression.
roc 16y ago
There's a huge difference between a phone maker having control and a network having control. Consider: When Verizon doesn't allow mp3 ringtones ... well, you just don't get phones with mp3 ringtones on their network [1]. When Apple doesn't allow mp3 ringtones, Verizon is compelled to open the door to Android phones that happily allow mp3 ringtones so that they can compete. The only reason Verizon and AT&T have rolled back any of their customary phone-crippling practices is because other phones must compete with the iPhone. Consumers have 'won' to an astounding degree since the iPhone released. I don't know anyone who's purchased a phone in the last three years, that didn't wind up with a device head and shoulders more capable and well designed than what they had before. Frankly, I can't think of anything remotely close to a 'regression' that actual consumers would have been forced to swallow post-iPhone. [1] Yes, I completely discount the existence of unlocked unsubsidized phones on US networks prior to the iPhone. 1. they were horrible, 2. there was no break on service fee for having an unsubsidized phone, if not an outright charge for bringing your own unlocked phone, making the effective price wildly prohibitive.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  > There's a huge difference between a phone maker having control and a network having control. There is, but it only distracts you from understanding that you should be the only one in control of your phone.
  - vidar 16y ago
    Should is a funny word. Just because our perception of fairness dictates that we should control our phones, its just not going to happen in the foreseeable future.
    - abrahamsen 16y ago
      I'd say this particular should is more a question of enlightened self interest, rather than fairness. It is in our long term interest to have as much control of our "digital assistants" (which includes both smartphones and personal computers) in order to ensure that they assist us, and not some other party.
ellyagg 16y ago
You've got to be kidding. The iPhone has attracted hoards of new consumers to Apple who were not previously "loyal Apple fans, who love[d] and trust[ed] Apple". Apparently many normal people feel that they saw a major change for the better after this power redistribution.
- ergo98 16y ago
  >Apparently many normal people feel that they saw a major change for the better after this power redistribution. I would attribute the uptake of smartphones to the standard, endless evolution of technology. And while they fell behind, there is absolutely no doubt that Blackberry blazed the path after Windows Mobile faltered.
padmanabhan01 16y ago
//the consumer didn't see much of a change, or saw a regression The consumers did see a change. The phones beacame usable (pleasure to use) from being unusable (pain to use).
- martythemaniak 16y ago
  This is what we call political point-scoring. I am trying to get a point across on a particular subject (power/control) and you're trying to muddle up the conversation by talking about something else completely.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  And model selection came down from dozens to two. You can have it in any color, as long as it's either black or white.
ynniv 16y ago
Pfft. Smartphones used to be more open because they were the Lexus LSA that gets customers excited about buying their $20k Toyta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect#As_a_business_model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect#As_a_business_model). Anything was acceptable because they were not seen as a primary market to optimize. Enter the iPhone, the first smartphone to achieve mass market. The iPhone requires a premium data plan. The iPhone requires an additional data plan to tether only on AT&T. AT&T may have gotten veto power over certain apps in the AppStore. They certainly had input on the maximum file limits over cellular. You see that Apple has considerable power, and that AT&T still has power, but what you don't see is that the consumer has more power in this equation than in the Android formula. Android users can't even install a vanilla OS or their own updates half of the time. Overall the consumer may have less power than in previous smartphone systems, but to lament this is to assume that the carriers would allow a previous smartphone system to become as dominant as the iPhone without imposing restrictions similar to the state of Android.
- jrockway 16y ago
  Pretty sure that Blackberries were pretty popular before the iPhone.
  - ynniv 16y ago
    Blackberries were corporate purchases with more restrictions than any iPhone. The parent was talking about consumer purchased smartphones like Windows Mobile or Symbian.
awolf 16y ago
You touched on this in your last paragraph, but I think it still deserves saying: Apple wields a lot of the power it wrenched away from carriers to the benefit of it's consumers. I'm stoked that my iPhone doesn't com preloaded with crap ware and that my girlfriend's 3 year old device receives OS updates immediately once they are released to the public.

lzw 16y ago

Prior to the iPhone, apps on an a phone were paying $3/month to a carrier for crappy junk. The phones were locked down. It was far from "standard practice" to load your own apps onto your own phone, and the apps you could choose to use were highly limited and far more controlled. I think people forget that before the Apple AppStore there really were very few apps for phones.

nailer 16y ago
> I think people forget that before the Apple AppStore there really were very few apps for phones. Fewer than today, sure. But Windows Mobile had thousands of apps and a pretty decent app development ecosystem.
jonknee 16y ago
I think you're confusing smartphones and feature phones. You're right that the experience of apps on feature phones was lackluster (it still is actually). The iPhone helped catapult smartphones into the mainstream, but there wasn't a lack of smartphone software before the iPhone. Palm, Symbian and Windows Mobile (and BlackBerry to a lesser degree) all had a wide array of apps available before the iPhone was ever announced.
- jad 16y ago
  It's pretty clear to most people that the smartphone app market that exists today is qualitatively different than the one that existed before the App Store. I think that's the point the parent was trying to make.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    Definitely. The emphasis now is to get your potential users to spend 99c as many times as possible (with "do one thing" and shiny graphics; see "fart apps"). Previously, everything was either free, or something you found for $20 at some commercial vendor's website.
there 16y ago
I think people forget that before the Apple AppStore there really were very few apps for phones. really? i've owned a palm treo and nokia e71 that both had hundreds of applications available that i could just download and install right from the device's web browser. no market, no restrictions.
martythemaniak 16y ago
You either didn't read my post or you're deliberately being obtuse to make your point - there was a huge difference between smartphones and featurephones. What you're describe is the featurephone app model, which Apple made more user and developer friendly and brought to the smartphone arena. I used to have a blackberry (and yes, I had both apps and games on it) and when I bought the original iPhone, I had to jailbreak it in order to be able to do the same things I could do before. That's a regression.

roc 16y ago

There's a huge difference between a phone maker having control and a network having control. Consider: When Verizon doesn't allow mp3 ringtones ... well, you just don't get phones with mp3 ringtones on their network [1]. When Apple doesn't allow mp3 ringtones, Verizon is compelled to open the door to Android phones that happily allow mp3 ringtones so that they can compete. The only reason Verizon and AT&T have rolled back any of their customary phone-crippling practices is because other phones must compete with the iPhone. Consumers have 'won' to an astounding degree since the iPhone released. I don't know anyone who's purchased a phone in the last three years, that didn't wind up with a device head and shoulders more capable and well designed than what they had before. Frankly, I can't think of anything remotely close to a 'regression' that actual consumers would have been forced to swallow post-iPhone. [1] Yes, I completely discount the existence of unlocked unsubsidized phones on US networks prior to the iPhone. 1. they were horrible, 2. there was no break on service fee for having an unsubsidized phone, if not an outright charge for bringing your own unlocked phone, making the effective price wildly prohibitive.

rbanffy 16y ago
> There's a huge difference between a phone maker having control and a network having control. There is, but it only distracts you from understanding that you should be the only one in control of your phone.
- vidar 16y ago
  Should is a funny word. Just because our perception of fairness dictates that we should control our phones, its just not going to happen in the foreseeable future.
  - abrahamsen 16y ago
    I'd say this particular should is more a question of enlightened self interest, rather than fairness. It is in our long term interest to have as much control of our "digital assistants" (which includes both smartphones and personal computers) in order to ensure that they assist us, and not some other party.

ellyagg 16y ago

You've got to be kidding. The iPhone has attracted hoards of new consumers to Apple who were not previously "loyal Apple fans, who love[d] and trust[ed] Apple". Apparently many normal people feel that they saw a major change for the better after this power redistribution.

ergo98 16y ago
>Apparently many normal people feel that they saw a major change for the better after this power redistribution. I would attribute the uptake of smartphones to the standard, endless evolution of technology. And while they fell behind, there is absolutely no doubt that Blackberry blazed the path after Windows Mobile faltered.

padmanabhan01 16y ago

//the consumer didn't see much of a change, or saw a regression The consumers did see a change. The phones beacame usable (pleasure to use) from being unusable (pain to use).

martythemaniak 16y ago
This is what we call political point-scoring. I am trying to get a point across on a particular subject (power/control) and you're trying to muddle up the conversation by talking about something else completely.
rbanffy 16y ago
And model selection came down from dozens to two. You can have it in any color, as long as it's either black or white.

ynniv 16y ago

Pfft. Smartphones used to be more open because they were the Lexus LSA that gets customers excited about buying their $20k Toyta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect#As_a_business_model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect#As_a_business_model). Anything was acceptable because they were not seen as a primary market to optimize. Enter the iPhone, the first smartphone to achieve mass market. The iPhone requires a premium data plan. The iPhone requires an additional data plan to tether only on AT&T. AT&T may have gotten veto power over certain apps in the AppStore. They certainly had input on the maximum file limits over cellular. You see that Apple has considerable power, and that AT&T still has power, but what you don't see is that the consumer has more power in this equation than in the Android formula. Android users can't even install a vanilla OS or their own updates half of the time. Overall the consumer may have less power than in previous smartphone systems, but to lament this is to assume that the carriers would allow a previous smartphone system to become as dominant as the iPhone without imposing restrictions similar to the state of Android.

jrockway 16y ago
Pretty sure that Blackberries were pretty popular before the iPhone.
- ynniv 16y ago
  Blackberries were corporate purchases with more restrictions than any iPhone. The parent was talking about consumer purchased smartphones like Windows Mobile or Symbian.

awolf 16y ago

You touched on this in your last paragraph, but I think it still deserves saying: Apple wields a lot of the power it wrenched away from carriers to the benefit of it's consumers. I'm stoked that my iPhone doesn't com preloaded with crap ware and that my girlfriend's 3 year old device receives OS updates immediately once they are released to the public.