4 ms·

The US (not sure about Canadian) mobile market is completely different to the European one. It's almost alien in comparison - the carrier tries to control absol

by g_p 5y ago

The US (not sure about Canadian) mobile market is completely different to the European one. It's almost alien in comparison - the carrier tries to control absolutely everything, and generally sees the handset as an extension of their network to the extent they want to "type approve" every firmware release on every handset that is "allowed" onto their network. Apple appeared to become the exception due to having such an "in-demand" handset (going exclusive with AT&T initially might have helped them negotiate better terms with other carriers to get the iPhone to their networks) - mobile operators can't modify the iOS firmware at all. On any other phone, expect branding, pre-installed bloatware apps, modified startup and shutdown screens, modified top-bar to show "5G" on presence of a 4G network, and 6+ month delays to security updates while they get the above modifications made to the firmware before they approve it. Arguably part of the "control" mindset comes from CDMA networks, where you couldn't "pop the SIM" and change network - you had to get the ESN whitelisted on the network, and that gave the carrier a lot of control over your ability to switch phone, or whether you could buy it from anywhere except themselves. I guess GSM carriers admired this level of customer-capture, and wanted to replicate it. It sounds like "GSM" carriers are going to have to move fully towards whitelisting to preserve voice calling service when they get rid of their circuit switched fallback networks. Inbound roaming of foreign users will be interesting in the next few years - without any CSFB voice support, they will likely not be able to serve most incoming roamers (who don't have network-to-network arrangement for VoLTE roaming), and that might cause a loss of roaming revenues once travel levels return towards more of a normal.

tpmx 5y ago
> when they get rid of their circuit switched fallback networks Why? Isn't that stuff they run in software (on network hardware) and could emulate forever for a low cost? (Or at least for another decade until very, very few people would care.)
- g_p 5y ago
  Not really - many are still running it on legacy appliances like they have done for years. There's also a lot of implications of moving CSFB type functions into the IT environment due to completely different security assumptions in both worlds. That's not to say you can't do it, but the circuit switched networks are very often actual literal networks of legacy hardware that operators want to get rid of and take out of service. The cost of keeping legacy systems going is also raised due to skills shortages and limited expertise. Another reason operators will try to get rid of it if possible.
madars 5y ago
> On any other phone, expect branding, pre-installed bloatware apps, modified startup and shutdown screens, modified top-bar to show "5G" on presence of a 4G network, and 6+ month delays to security updates while they get the above modifications made to the firmware before they approve it. Have never seen anything like that on Pixel / Nexus phones bought from Play Store and not tied to a particular network. Is this an issue specific to carrier-bought phones or are all Pixels exempt?
- lostcolony 5y ago
  Carrier bought phones except iphones. I think that was the point the OP was making; you can walk into a carrier store and buy an iphone from them, and it's the same phone you'd get from Apple, just with the carrier sim already included. But any Android phone you buy from the carrier is going to come with a whole lotta cruft. None of that applies if you buy a phone separately from the carrier (so Google phones, or OnePlus, or similar), but most of those also make arrangements with the carriers, I think, to recognize the phone before sale (at least, my carrier recognized both my Pixel and OnePlus devices at the times I had them).
29083011397778 5y ago
> Apple appeared to become the exception... Apple was the exception because they initially went with AT&T. Jobs demanded no carrier interference. The first carrier they approached (Verizon, IIRC?) refused Jobs' demand, so instead of caving, Jobs went with another carrier.
- shadilay 5y ago
  Cingular, not AT&T. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2007/01/09Apple-Chooses-Cingular-as-Exclusive-US-Carrier-for-Its-Revolutionary-iPhone/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2007/01/09Apple-Chooses-Cingu...
  - 29083011397778 5y ago
    This is bizarre. After you pointed out my error, I went to Wikipedia to verify before saying anything more. I was wrong originally; you, me, and your link all know it. But Wikipedia says it was AT&T that first carried the iPhone [0]. I assume it's because AT&T bought Cingular, but it feels off not noting that it was branded under Cingular instead of the separate (at the time) AT&T. It's an eerie feeling finding errors or omissions in what is commonly used as an irrefutable source of truth in the modern world. I appreciate the correction though! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility#iPhone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility#iPhone
    - DaniloDias 5y ago
      It is shocking to me that anyone would consider Wikipedia as an irrefutable source of truth.
      - 29083011397778 5y ago
        If I'm at a bar and want to settle something lighthearted between friends, Wikipedia is the source of choice. If it's worth delving deeper, we'll go deeper, but for a quick answer I trust Wikipedia more than saying "Hey Google, which network was the first iPhone exclusive to?" Perhaps irrefutable is too strong a word, but if I'm looking for an answer (instead of researching a topic) and want a quick, single source, Wikipedia is my go-to.
shadilay 5y ago
Apple went with Cingular not AT&T. The iPhone would not have been possible in this era of monopoly where we only have 3 carriers left. This is what we have lost not enforcing antitrust. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2007/01/09Apple-Chooses-Cingular-as-Exclusive-US-Carrier-for-Its-Revolutionary-iPhone/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2007/01/09Apple-Chooses-Cingu...

by g_p 5y ago

tpmx 5y ago

> when they get rid of their circuit switched fallback networks Why? Isn't that stuff they run in software (on network hardware) and could emulate forever for a low cost? (Or at least for another decade until very, very few people would care.)

g_p 5y ago
Not really - many are still running it on legacy appliances like they have done for years. There's also a lot of implications of moving CSFB type functions into the IT environment due to completely different security assumptions in both worlds. That's not to say you can't do it, but the circuit switched networks are very often actual literal networks of legacy hardware that operators want to get rid of and take out of service. The cost of keeping legacy systems going is also raised due to skills shortages and limited expertise. Another reason operators will try to get rid of it if possible.

madars 5y ago

> On any other phone, expect branding, pre-installed bloatware apps, modified startup and shutdown screens, modified top-bar to show "5G" on presence of a 4G network, and 6+ month delays to security updates while they get the above modifications made to the firmware before they approve it. Have never seen anything like that on Pixel / Nexus phones bought from Play Store and not tied to a particular network. Is this an issue specific to carrier-bought phones or are all Pixels exempt?

lostcolony 5y ago
Carrier bought phones except iphones. I think that was the point the OP was making; you can walk into a carrier store and buy an iphone from them, and it's the same phone you'd get from Apple, just with the carrier sim already included. But any Android phone you buy from the carrier is going to come with a whole lotta cruft. None of that applies if you buy a phone separately from the carrier (so Google phones, or OnePlus, or similar), but most of those also make arrangements with the carriers, I think, to recognize the phone before sale (at least, my carrier recognized both my Pixel and OnePlus devices at the times I had them).

29083011397778 5y ago

> Apple appeared to become the exception... Apple was the exception because they initially went with AT&T. Jobs demanded no carrier interference. The first carrier they approached (Verizon, IIRC?) refused Jobs' demand, so instead of caving, Jobs went with another carrier.

shadilay 5y ago
Cingular, not AT&T. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2007/01/09Apple-Chooses-Cingular-as-Exclusive-US-Carrier-for-Its-Revolutionary-iPhone/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2007/01/09Apple-Chooses-Cingu...
- 29083011397778 5y ago
  This is bizarre. After you pointed out my error, I went to Wikipedia to verify before saying anything more. I was wrong originally; you, me, and your link all know it. But Wikipedia says it was AT&T that first carried the iPhone [0]. I assume it's because AT&T bought Cingular, but it feels off not noting that it was branded under Cingular instead of the separate (at the time) AT&T. It's an eerie feeling finding errors or omissions in what is commonly used as an irrefutable source of truth in the modern world. I appreciate the correction though! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility#iPhone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility#iPhone
  - DaniloDias 5y ago
    It is shocking to me that anyone would consider Wikipedia as an irrefutable source of truth.
    - 29083011397778 5y ago
      If I'm at a bar and want to settle something lighthearted between friends, Wikipedia is the source of choice. If it's worth delving deeper, we'll go deeper, but for a quick answer I trust Wikipedia more than saying "Hey Google, which network was the first iPhone exclusive to?" Perhaps irrefutable is too strong a word, but if I'm looking for an answer (instead of researching a topic) and want a quick, single source, Wikipedia is my go-to.

shadilay 5y ago

Apple went with Cingular not AT&T. The iPhone would not have been possible in this era of monopoly where we only have 3 carriers left. This is what we have lost not enforcing antitrust. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2007/01/09Apple-Chooses-Cingular-as-Exclusive-US-Carrier-for-Its-Revolutionary-iPhone/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2007/01/09Apple-Chooses-Cingu...