Not that I don't ♥ The Gruber™, but the link should probably be pointing at the original article, as all John is doing here is quoting from the Wired piece.
We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.
31–40 of 100 posts
Re: We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.
#32[deleted]
Re: We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.
#33I do believe apple has given some opaque concessions. Note that this is anecdotal; I have not scientifically tested this. I have the nexus one, running on att 3g - the same similar card I used to use in my iPhone 3g. A co-worker just got the iPhone 4. We both picked up the FCC bandwidth test app. Testing each phone in succession - not simultaneously - in the same spot, hands free, flat on the desk. My N1 consistently…
Assuming you mean SoHo NYC - i think i remember reading something about how there's a problem with AT&T's network currently which is limiting iPhones to 1.5mb/s.
Here's a link:
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/07/att-3g-upload-speeds/
Re: We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.
#34If Apple are so concerned with user experience that they are unwilling to throttle the iPhone to meet ATT's network limitations, then why did they partner with ATT to begin with? ATT are pretty generally perceived as having the worst wireless phone service in the USA, and that certainly dovetails with my personal experience.
You have to remember what the carriers were like in 2006/2007 timeframe. Cingular/AT&T was the open carrier at the time. You would use any GSM phone. More importantly, they allowed you to use any feature on your phone. Conceding to Apple control of the apps on your phone was a very radical idea at the time. Typically carriers dictated what application would be on the phone. On Verizon, you had to use their phones (there was some lipservice around this time about allowing any fully compatible phone on its network). In addition, included features such as bluetooth PC syncing, which had zero impact on the network, was disabled on my Nokia candybar. It was simply too much of a leap for Verizon to allow a phone as open as the iPhone (2007 terms, remember) on its network.
Re: We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.
#35If Apple are so concerned with user experience that they are unwilling to throttle the iPhone to meet ATT's network limitations, then why did they partner with ATT to begin with? ATT are pretty generally perceived as having the worst wireless phone service in the USA, and that certainly dovetails with my personal experience.
It would appear that they didn't want to develop non-GSM headset, and the only two choices for GSM in US is AT&T and T-Mobile. T-Mobile is even slower to roll out network upgrades than AT&T.
Re: We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.
#36I originally misread the quote as "We don't wear suits. We don't even wear suits." I like my misread better. Seems more Apple, even.
You're not the only one. In fact, I went back and read it four or five times because I thought I was missing something. It wasn't until I finished the article that I realized I was wrong.
Re: We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.
#37Of course Gruber will quote the parts where AT&T is asking Apple to tweak the iphone (trying to shift more blame on AT&T for their network) and now all the parts about how Apple is extremely hard to work with or where the iphone's baseband radio is incredibly buggy and is arguably one of the main reasons for the constant dropped calls. Gruber is nothing but a hack who's trying to glorify Apple in every way.
Actually I think these snippets reveal the gist of the original article pretty well, and also highlight some pretty basic differences between AT&T and Apple: 1) AT&T wants to cripple features and sacrifice customer experience because it won't invest in it's network fast enough 2) AT&T wants Steve Jobs to wear a suit to meet with it's board of directors. Not only is this something that AT&T seemingly desires, but it n…
>AT&T wants to cripple features and sacrifice customer experience because it won't invest in it's network fast enough
Alternately, AT&T makes mass-market products, and wants to insure a baseline level of usability for everyone, while Apple makes products aimed at the top 10%, and wants the absolute best user experience possible without regard for scalability.
Don't get me wrong, AT&T's network needs work, but I don't think that this sort of design philosophy can necessarily work if all handsets are designed to be 'selfish.' It only works if the expensive handsets/plans are allowed to do that sort of thing.
Re: We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.
#38Why did Apple decide to tie themselves to a single carrier instead of keeping the phone unlocked? Is it because AT&T would subsidize the R&D cost that went into making the iPhone?
And purely in hindsight, was that a good decision?
Re: We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.
#39I do believe apple has given some opaque concessions. Note that this is anecdotal; I have not scientifically tested this. I have the nexus one, running on att 3g - the same similar card I used to use in my iPhone 3g. A co-worker just got the iPhone 4. We both picked up the FCC bandwidth test app. Testing each phone in succession - not simultaneously - in the same spot, hands free, flat on the desk. My N1 consistently…
Tell him to reset network settings. If not fixed dial 611 to reprovision. Known issue with activation not setting right for iPhone 4 restored from iPhone 3, and some new iPhone 4 with glitch in activation.
I get 3 Mbps / 1.5 Mbps in SoHo and the Village.
Re: We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.
#40Jobs must not get invited to many weddings.
he was the photographer at ellison's, though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Ellison
And yet strangely enough, this doesn't refute the thrust plusbryan's comment if you take it as a reflection on Job's suite owning status or his general character.