Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 100 posts

Re: We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.

#11

Post by mattparcher »

joubert wrote: post #3

A quick google reveals this: http://www.cultofmac.com/steve-jobs-weras-a-tie/1566

Also, Steve wearing a tux at the 2010 Academy Awards: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/03/08/steve-jobs-big-night-...

For what it’s worth, the dramatic quote is attributed to “one of Jobs’ deputies,” rather than Steve himself.

Re: We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.

#14

Post by aaron111 »

Of 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.

Re: We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.

#16

Post by andreyf »

chwahoo wrote: post #6

It does seem that concessions were made. For example, the Facetime app is currently wifi-only. Also, I believe movie rental is wifi-only. Those are understandable restrictions for now, but this article rings a bit hollow in light of them -- It would seem that AT&T won a few of those battles.

It would seem that AT&T won a few of those battles.

All of the features you mention are so bandwidth-intensive, that the user experience for them would be non-existant. FaceTime simply wouldn't work on a typical AT&T connection. Even YouTube via 3G is painfully slow now, when it works at all. Add a couple of people downloading 1.5GB movies, and the network would grind to a halt.

Re: We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.

#17

Post by jws »

chwahoo wrote: post #6

It does seem that concessions were made. For example, the Facetime app is currently wifi-only. Also, I believe movie rental is wifi-only. Those are understandable restrictions for now, but this article rings a bit hollow in light of them -- It would seem that AT&T won a few of those battles.

Or more likely, the probability of a negative user experience is too high on AT&T's network.

To use a non-#attfail example: The little microwave ISP I use in a rural area gives me 10mbps, but they don't have enough backhaul to support that kind of bit rate in a sustained manner. If I start to watch a YouTube video at a better-than-awful bit encoding the first 10 seconds or so are great, then the routers notice my connection being a pig and fair-queueing or whatever mechanism they are using lowers my allowed bit rate to unwatchable levels.

I have a negative impression of YouTube watching because of my ISP. It is only because I have had experiences on other ISPs first that I don't associate this with YouTube or my browser.

Apple knows better than to let Facetime get a reputation as choppy, unreliable, or generally flakey, which it would on AT&T's network.

Re: We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.

#19

Post by pcc »

chwahoo wrote: post #6

It does seem that concessions were made. For example, the Facetime app is currently wifi-only. Also, I believe movie rental is wifi-only. Those are understandable restrictions for now, but this article rings a bit hollow in light of them -- It would seem that AT&T won a few of those battles.

Another factor might well be related to avoiding excessive accidental data roaming; e.g. helping to avoid surprise roaming bills, interacting with the EU50 data roaming cap etc. (At present people easily run up bills for several thousands by downloading a single TV episode.)

Intl roaming is quite prevalent in places like Europe so it seems well possible that related sensibilities may also be informing these decisions.

Post reply on HN