1. Buy a SIM card in your destination country. 2. Profit.
Unless you have an unlocked (i)phone, I believe this will probably fail. Sadly.
Highly likely to be the case if you are American.
I have seen the future and I am opposed
11–20 of 77 posts
Re: I have seen the future and I am opposed
#12"as the business potential became obvious to corporate warlords, they struck, [...] getting willing governments to enact rules, regulations and laws to protect corporate interests"
Aye, there's the rub. Corporate welfare programs are the root cause of everything he's describing, and of a lot of other problems with today's economic system. Restrictions on competition, created by the government, have been a major obstacle to everyone's welfare since at least the 18th century (Adam Smith rails against them at length in Wealth of Nations).
Re: I have seen the future and I am opposed
#13Does it strike any one else as at least a _bit_ disturbing that he thinks his "mind" is in his smart phone, and finds no problem with this other than that service providers are greedy? An obvious way to avoid becoming beholden to service providers is to retain some independence from our devices. It's not like people didn't travel before the invention of the iPhone.
I still use a map instead of a GPS and an old Sagem (my 810X) phone with prepaid card that last almost one week on battery. Not because of FUD of the (French) FBI tracking me, and not because I can't see all the benefits of using a GPS or a smartphone, but because I feel free this way: I don't have to pay for a smartphone + contract or (exhorbitant) roaming fees and I'm not dependent on batteries. Plus, I still know…
You can know how to read a map and use GPS. I use a GPS, but I still check road signs to make sure it's right, and so I can use my map if the GPS breaks.
Re: I have seen the future and I am opposed
#14This is a thoughtful piece written by a tech-savvy author who expresses concerns about the idea that we, as tech consumers, will be subject to the greed-driven restraints placed upon the technology we use by various corporate interests. The unstated premise of the piece seems to be that, as technology matures, control over it becomes consolidated in fewer hands, each of whom has a proprietary interest to limit its ul…
"If this were not the case, then our current overlords would be Barnes & Noble (for books), Tower Records (for music), Blockbuster Video (for video rentals), IBM (for enterprise computing), and so on."
Amazon operate in every one of those markets, and they dominate in a couple.
Re: I have seen the future and I am opposed
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still use a map instead of a GPS and an old Sagem (my 810X) phone with prepaid card that last almost one week on battery. Not because of FUD of the (French) FBI tracking me, and not because I can't see all the benefits of using a GPS or a smartphone, but because I feel free this way: I don't have to pay for a smartphone + contract or (exhorbitant) roaming fees and I'm not dependent on batteries. Plus, I still know…
You can know how to read a map and use GPS. I use a GPS, but I still check road signs to make sure it's right, and so I can use my map if the GPS breaks.
;-) denoted humour. Also, "using a map -> keep your map reading skills updated" doesn't imply "using a GPS -> can't read a map". And even A->B doesn't necessarily imply B->A.
Re: I have seen the future and I am opposed
#16Does it strike any one else as at least a _bit_ disturbing that he thinks his "mind" is in his smart phone, and finds no problem with this other than that service providers are greedy? An obvious way to avoid becoming beholden to service providers is to retain some independence from our devices. It's not like people didn't travel before the invention of the iPhone.
Should we discard our clothes harden ourselves for the weather to become less dependent on clothing manufacturers? Technology is what separates humans from the rest of the animals. As time goes by, we will become more and more dependent on our technology, and this is a good thing , because I with my smartphone or laptop can do things I wouldn't be able to do alone.
False analogy. There is a big, big difference between clothes that keep you from perishing due to exposure, and your shiny new smart phone. The real problem here is that the author is, apparently, incapable of thought without an array of instant-access resources at his disposal.
Re: I have seen the future and I am opposed
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can know how to read a map and use GPS. I use a GPS, but I still check road signs to make sure it's right, and so I can use my map if the GPS breaks.
;-) denoted humour. Also, "using a map -> keep your map reading skills updated" doesn't imply "using a GPS -> can't read a map". And even A->B doesn't necessarily imply B->A.
From time to time learned expectations override basic logic. Whoops.
I'm used to crotchety old people complaining about GPS killing map reading skills.
Re: I have seen the future and I am opposed
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should we discard our clothes harden ourselves for the weather to become less dependent on clothing manufacturers? Technology is what separates humans from the rest of the animals. As time goes by, we will become more and more dependent on our technology, and this is a good thing , because I with my smartphone or laptop can do things I wouldn't be able to do alone.
False analogy. There is a big, big difference between clothes that keep you from perishing due to exposure, and your shiny new smart phone. The real problem here is that the author is, apparently, incapable of thought without an array of instant-access resources at his disposal.
The difference, in this case, between clothes and "your shiny new smart phone" is novelty. Since the subject of the article is the future I don't think the analogy was unreasonable.
Re: I have seen the future and I am opposed
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should we discard our clothes harden ourselves for the weather to become less dependent on clothing manufacturers? Technology is what separates humans from the rest of the animals. As time goes by, we will become more and more dependent on our technology, and this is a good thing , because I with my smartphone or laptop can do things I wouldn't be able to do alone.
False analogy. There is a big, big difference between clothes that keep you from perishing due to exposure, and your shiny new smart phone. The real problem here is that the author is, apparently, incapable of thought without an array of instant-access resources at his disposal.
Clearly he is capable of thought without "instant-access resources", given that he drafted the article without them.
Internet access is becoming a fundamental human requirement; this need should not be overly exploited by corporations.
Re: I have seen the future and I am opposed
#20This piece is short on big-picture thinking. None of its complaints hold up under scrutiny.
Mobile internet access while traveling abroad is expensive and unreliable because it's new. Yes, there are commercial forces that try to maintain high prices as long as possible, but short-term profits never hold up forever. Fifty years ago, every phone bill in the US was payable to AT&T, and long distance calls could cost dollars (not cents) per minute. Thirty years ago, we gained multiple long distance carriers and prices fell quickly. Twenty years ago, we cut the cord, but cell phones charged by the minute and came with draconian contracts. Today it's common to lease a service with an near-infinite supply of minutes, that lets you call anywhere in the country for a flat rate. It's incredibly cheap compared to long distance of twenty years ago. All this, despite the evil resistance of profiteering corporations.
Sure, Microsoft laughed at Apple and Sun when they approached to develop a common standard platform. Times change, and high profits are constantly under attack. Microsoft completely missed the internet boat -- not a single protocol in use on the internet today comes out of Microsoft. Google and many other corporations offer free products that compete favorably with Microsoft's expensive products of yore. It must have sucked to compete with Microsoft in the 90's, but here we are, and where is Microsoft? Sinking billions into R&D in the race against Google.
Over and over, new technologies lead to incredible profits for a few, controlling corporations, but inevitably these situations aren't permanent. Our internet faces censorship threats from governments and exclusivity threats from corporations, but these controls, like others before, won't last.
So what is Mr. Norman going on about? Short-term profiteering? That's what covers my paycheck, and makes all this possible. Privatization of the internet? Maybe temporarily, but if that doesn't truly benefit the public then it simply can't endure against technological advancement.