Well, I'm very happy with my brand new iPhone, which works like a dream. Here's something Wu and lots of others are overlooking: one of the great features of the iPhone is what Apple calls "Visual Voicemail." When you check your voicemail on every other phone, you have to listen or skip over messages one through four before you can listen to message five. On the iPhone, a numbered indicator tells you how many voicemails you have waiting and when you tap on that a list of the names of who each voicemail is from appears. Tap on any name to listen to that particular voicemail. This is a wonderful innovation that will save consumers time and aggravation. And guess what? It required that AT&T; make changes to its network. This is a special network feature. Even if you could take your iPhone and plug it in to the Verizon network, "Visual Voicemail" would not work. Apple and AT&T; were able to work together to make unique network/software offering that may be proprietary, but sure has real value.
Mark Gamis
· 2 years ago
My initial reaction to Wu's article was: What's wrong with this guy? He seemed to be expecting too much from a single device (on its first version). So I google'd him to learn about his background (learning about the author helps a lot in being a fair "critic" of his work) and realized that Wu, whose forte according to Google is network neutrality, is not just another iPhone skeptic: he is a technology idealist. And though his view on the iPhone is indeed on the pessimistic side, his views are valid observations on the industry from a larger perspective.
I come from the Philippines, where open networks is the default rather than the exception, and all I can say is that choice is really great for the consumers here. Yes, telcos here are still on the "evil" side (but its no match to what you have there in the US), but because consumers can easily switch to other networks, the telcos are forced to offer discounts and value added services to compete.
The scenario here is much like the the computer way of things, as what Wu was saying in his post, where your first consideration is the phone that you want, then the network/telco will come next as a preference. One of the few gripes that I have though is that here, your mobile number (the first 3 digits) is dependent on you network, and maintaining your number (all except the first 3 digits) as you transfer from one network to another is not one that is really considered.
In the end I hope Apple will indeed become a catalyst of change from closed networks where telcos rule (and hamper device innovations) to a one that is more open, more competitive and more conducive for technology innovation.
Tim Wu
· 2 years ago
There seems to be substantial disagreement on whether visual voicemail needs network cooperation to work. I have heard both versions of the story.
Anyhow, despite its cast, my view is in fact quite optimistic.
I didn't have a chance to say this in that Slate piece -- however, Apple's strategy is similar to iTunes. Apple would like to get its foot in the door, and then change the market from within.
Mark Blafkin
· 2 years ago
I think the Tims have a great point: "The iPhone can be a catalyst for change in mobile networks." This kind of revolutionary product can make that happen and we'd all prefer this to happen through market forces rather than a ham-handed response by the FCC or Congress.
In the end, however, we do want to preserve flexibility in the business model. Personally, I like the fact that T-Mobile gave me the MDA at a subsidized rate for choosing their service plan and commiting for a couple years. I think that kind of option is great, as long is it isn't the ONLY option.
Dean Landolt
· 2 years ago
I believe there's yet a third possibility which is just starting to get a little chatter -- the iPDA, so to speak. A completely unlocked iPhone sans phone, sans contract complications with AT&T.; And a precedent has already been set: lost in the coverage of the iPhone-media-madness, T-Mobile just released a phone that picks up a wifi signal and switches to VoIP seemlessly. I'm with you, Tim -- this is where things will end up. And it's already starting...
All Comments
I come from the Philippines, where open networks is the default rather than the exception, and all I can say is that choice is really great for the consumers here. Yes, telcos here are still on the "evil" side (but its no match to what you have there in the US), but because consumers can easily switch to other networks, the telcos are forced to offer discounts and value added services to compete.
The scenario here is much like the the computer way of things, as what Wu was saying in his post, where your first consideration is the phone that you want, then the network/telco will come next as a preference. One of the few gripes that I have though is that here, your mobile number (the first 3 digits) is dependent on you network, and maintaining your number (all except the first 3 digits) as you transfer from one network to another is not one that is really considered.
In the end I hope Apple will indeed become a catalyst of change from closed networks where telcos rule (and hamper device innovations) to a one that is more open, more competitive and more conducive for technology innovation.
Anyhow, despite its cast, my view is in fact quite optimistic.
I didn't have a chance to say this in that Slate piece -- however, Apple's strategy is similar to iTunes. Apple would like to get its foot in the door, and then change the market from within.
I think the Tims have a great point: "The iPhone can be a catalyst for change in mobile networks." This kind of revolutionary product can make that happen and we'd all prefer this to happen through market forces rather than a ham-handed response by the FCC or Congress.
In the end, however, we do want to preserve flexibility in the business model. Personally, I like the fact that T-Mobile gave me the MDA at a subsidized rate for choosing their service plan and commiting for a couple years. I think that kind of option is great, as long is it isn't the ONLY option.