3 ms·
> There were similar articles when Apple launched the iPhone exclusively on AT&T. We can clearly see now that a) Apple had no interest in controlling the networ
by GeekyBear 4y ago
> There were similar articles when Apple launched the iPhone exclusively on AT&T. We can clearly see now that a) Apple had no interest in controlling the network provider (many people thought they would eventually launch their own MVNO or even network), and b) the overall effect was hugely positive even for networks considered “competitors” at the time, like Verizon or T-Mobile.
It was also good for the customers of those competing networks. Cast your mind back to how Verizon did business before Apple forced them to open up.
>Verizon Wireless customers in California are suing the Bedminster, N.J.-based mobile phone operator for disabling some of the Bluetooth capabilities in a Motorola Inc. handset.
Verizon Wireless has disabled the file-sharing capability, which allows users to transfer photos or other files via Bluetooth to their PCs, printers or other devices.
Motorola, for its part, said the decision over what Bluetooth capabilities to include in handsets is solely up to the wireless operators.
https://www.eweek.com/mobile/verizon-wireless-users-sue-over-disabled-bluetooth-features/ https://www.eweek.com/mobile/verizon-wireless-users-sue-over...
Customers were forced to pay Verizon for file transfers instead.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- lotsofpulp 4y agoAlso, locking all phones to Verizon forcing people to use ATT or T-Mobile if they wanted to use other SIMs during international travel. It is the primary reason I never even considered buying Verizon service.
- leesalminen 4y agoI have a US post-paid VZW plan, but spend 300+ days per year outside of the country. Verizon gets the esim slot, current local country gets a pre paid physical sim. I buy all my phones unlocked from Apple directly. It all works fine.
- lotsofpulp 4y agoI think Verizon changed policy sometime in mid 2010s. And it might not have applied to iPhones because Apple is Apple, but it applied to all other phones that worked on Verizon prior to iPhone coming to Verizon.
- belltaco 4y agoYet Apple disabled FM radio even though the hardware supported it because they wanted to sell music.
- lostlogin 4y agoGood. It’s bad enough hearing shitty cellphone music coming out peoples phones. Hearing radio DJs too would push me over the edge. Rant aside, is profit 100% the reason they blocked it?
- Jtsummers 4y agoIt was more a coincidence that they had some of the hardware needed for FM than a deliberate thing of them screwing over customers. It was the same chip that supported bluetooth and wifi. You also need an appropriate antenna to use a different radio frequency (or frequency range), I don't think they ever had that. The FM hardware was removed by the time of the iPhone 7.
- Maursault 4y agoWhile some bluetooth/wifi chips included FM radio functionality, carriers are not interested in providing smart phones with FM radio. The iPhone 6s was the last Apple model to include this chip, and even Samsung, that had models that enabled FM, ultimately also disabled it. But beyond the chip, the iPhone 6s didn't include an FM antenna, radio filter nor an amplifier, so even if it was enabled, it could never work. Regardless, newer iPhone models don't have that chip, so Apple can't possibly comply with Ajit Pai's irrational demands.[1] [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/28/whose-fcc-is-this/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/28/whose-fcc-is-this/
- GeekyBear 4y agoThere's a small difference between forcing a handset maker to disable a feature that already works, and a device that never supported a given feature at all... and no, "the modem chip could have supported it" isn't the same thing.