Posts Tagged ‘AT&T’

Job's jesus-juice tank on empty

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

The ‘Moses Tablet’ was announced today.

I’m glad the original Moses tablet was more revolutionary, cause this was just a disappointment.  I had been casually following the iPad rumors and was interested in what Steve Jobs was going to announce today.

Jobs’ track record over the years has been one of the best in the consumer electronics world.  You would be hard-pressed to find anyone who’s had a larger influence on the CE world than he has.  From all the rumors that have been floating around, this tablet was supposed to be IT.  The pinnacle of Jobs’ design life.  From a hardware point of view a case can be made for that claim.  But the software side of the iPad is what kills it.

Jobs has essentially blown up the iPhone OS and enlarged the size of the screen.  There doesn’t appear to be any major changes in how the OS works,  which is the downfall of the iPad.  What works for a 3.5″ screen does not necessarily translate to the same experience for a 9.7″ screen.  The biggest drawback to Jobs’ decisions on the iPad’s OS is the lack of multitasking.

A reasonable case can be made that a user doesn’t need to be able to multitask on a phone, but on a tablet there is no excuse to exclude this ability.  From everything I’ve read the iPad is extremely fast and responsive and I believe most people would gladly give up a slight boost in speed by allowing multiple applications to run simultaneously.  I use a Palm Pre and one of the main reasons I use that phone is for it’s multitasking abilities.  I have found the multitasking to be extremely convenient and time-saving by being able to have, for instance, Google Maps running alongside my email program or browser.

I’ll list a couple cons & pros of the iPad and then go into a little more depth.

Pros-

  • OLED Display
  • Hardware Design
  • Battery Life – compared to notebooks

Cons-

  • Battery Life – compared to Kindle
  • Multitasking
  • Camera
  • Wireless Data
  • USB Ports

On the plus side, the iPad is a beautiful device.  Jonathan Ive, Apple’s design guru, came through in flying colors with the hardware.  The choice, although not a hard one, to go with an OLED display was smart.  OLED is the current leader for small, affordable displays.  And the battery life, my jaw dropped when Jobs announced that it had 30 days standby time and 10 hours of video use on a charge.  Compared to notebooks this is exceptional in a device this slim.

On the negatives I won’t bother with multitasking again, but the choice to not include a camera is stupefying to me.  I cannot see any logic to not include a camera of some sort besides maintaining niches for each of Apple’s products.  The lack of USB ports I believe was based on the decision of form over function.  Apple would rather have a beautiful device even if it means losing some important functionality.  I wish Apple would have included at least one USB port just so that I could hook up my Clear USB modem and surf the web, that would be a mobile internet experience to fit the Apple ecosystem.

And battery life, yes I know it was on the pro list, but if you compare the iPad to the Kindle, it doesn’t compare.  Jobs seemed to try to position this device as a competitor to the Kindle with many added features, but one of the killer features of the Kindle, or any E-Ink display, is the outstanding battery life.  Most people could easily go a month without needing to charge their Kindle, not so with the iPad.

One major problem I see with the iPad is not inherent in the design or software, it’s in the choice that Jobs made.  His choice to use AT&T as the 3G wireless data provider.  From numerous studies across the US, AT&T is viewed as the largest deterrent for people who are considering buying the iPhone.  AT&T has notoriously bad 3G coverage.  Of the three major wireless carriers in the US, they have by far the worst 3G coverage.  It’s so bad they’ve  sued other companies for advertising their own horrible 3G coverage.

I believe the overriding reason Steve Jobs chose to stick with AT&T is because of a huge wad of cash they shoved in Apple’s pocket.  While that in itself is not such a dastardly thing, what is shocking is that Jobs always harps on user experience being king.  That’s why he doesn’t allow multitasking on the iPhone, that’s why Apple has a strict application approval process for the App Store, that’s why all Macbooks now have a unibodies with non-removable batteries.  It’s all in the endless goal of improving the user experience.  But he chooses to stick with AT&T when they are the largest cause for complaints on the iPhone?  I wonder how much his ideals cost him?  Maybe it’s time he does retire if his jesus-juice is running so low he has to compromise his ideals.

I hope that the disappointment that is being expressed about the iPad will cause Steve Jobs to reconsider a few of his design choices and release an updated design that includes multitasking, camera, USB port and different wireless data provider.  With those four changes I believe the iPad would receive much higher reviews and much higher sales numbers.

Disclaimer: I am a proud user of a Palm Pre on Sprint, I own a first gen iPod Touch, I have Clear WiMax Internet, I used to be an AT&T customer before I got my first smartphone.

Till Next Time

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in industry | No Comments »

Verizon's crusade to 'help' the poor

Saturday, December 19th, 2009

Recently Verizon upped their Early Termination Fee (ETF) for ‘advanced devices’ on two year contracts.  They used to charge the industry standard  $175 pro-rated at $10 $5 a month over two years if you cut your contract early, they now charge $350 for devices that are generally considered smartphones.  This change has brought them under the scrutiny of the new commissioner of the FCC, Julius Genachowski.

The big reason for the scrutiny, I believe, lies in the fact that with the increase of the ETF, if a customer cancels their contract in the last month of their two years, they will pay a $130 cancellation fee.  Many people have been justifiably outraged at this anticompetitive behavior.  The big V also appears to be padding their coffers with a slightly unethical design to many of their phones that allows them to hit their customers with a $1.99 fee many months due to an accidental key press.  David Pogue has started a movement to question Verizon’s new choices.

Verizon has responded[pdf link] to the FCC’s query into these matters with a laughable reasoning.  Verizon believes they are following the spirit of the national broadband plan in aiding “those of more limited means” to gain “access to a range of exciting, state-of-the-art broadband services and capabilities”.  I’m sorry, but subsidizing phones like every wireless carrier  is aiding in nation wide broadband?  That’s preposterous, the only reason Verizon subsidizes the equipment is because every other wireless carrier in the US does it.   The vast majority of users who have a smartphone also have some sort of broadband access from a different source.

The reason stated by Verizon for increasing their ETF is that Verizon pays more for the advanced devices than they do for more basic feature phones.  This I can accept.  However this reasoning falls apart when the ETF is not eliminated by the last month of the contract.  Here Verizon cops to the costs associated with selling the devices.

“In addition to the difference between the purchase and selling prices of devices, Verizon Wireless incurs additional costs to sign up customers, such as advertising costs, commissions for sales personnel, and store costs.”

So are you telling me that customers that are unhappy with Verizon for any reason and decide to leave have to pay extra to help pay for the advertising, commissions and stores??  That’s absolutely ridiculous!  That would be similar to having to pay a termination fee to Comcast to cancel your service to help them cover their normal operating costs.  Why should Verizon get anything extra to cover their normal operating expenses?

For the conscientious consumer, many things go into a purchasing decision.  Even before these laughable changes took place I was very wary of Verizon.  The Big V always seemed more like Big Brother to me.  From the artificial limitations they place of the phones they allow on their network to the arbitrary pricing structures they use, I passed by them when I left AT&T to go to Sprint.  I’m very happy with my Palm Pre and Everything Data plan on Sprint.  I just hope the FCC does their job in protecting the people’s communication infrastructure from those who want to monopolize it for their gain at the expense of the people who use it.  The airwaves that Verizon are using to make money hand over fist belongs to the people,  they are not Verizon’s private frequencies.

Till Next Time

Update: In reading Verizon’s response to the FCC’s inquiry, I found that their standard device ETF is only reduced by $5 every month meaning that in the last month of a two year contract there still exists a $55 ETF.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in general | No Comments »

ad disclaimers

Wednesday, April 29th, 2009

I don’t know what it is about me, but whenever I see an ad, I instinctively look for the small print to find the ‘gotchas’. It may have to do with my cynical nature when it comes to advertising, or it may have to do with my dislike of most advertising.  But it’s an almost obsessive drive I have to check out the fine print to see where the company is trying to pull the wool over my eyes.  

For the few times in my life that I’ve been in a ’sales pitch’ position I always felt a little dirty afterwards. I’ve never been really comfortable trying to persuade someone to buy/lease/use something without giving them the low-down. I’m much more comfortable discussing the positives AND negatives of an idea/product/item than actively avoiding the negatives aspect of said subject.   Now I don’t have a problem selling anything, just in the act of persuading the other person.  The only time I’ve felt differently is when I’m selling someone on myself, most usually in relationships.  

Most everybody’s been on both side of a relationship breakup.  The break-upper, trying to be gentle yet firm and not giving in to the sales pitch when the break-upee is fighting to stay together.  And I’ve been the one fighting to keep the relationship when the girl wants to end it.  I guess my normal objectivity goes out the window when relationship emotions get worked up.  But that’s can be a good thing.  When in a relationship, there should be no holding back.  

I’ve grown accustomed to the usual disclaimers on any advertising related to wireless cellphone companies.  But an ad on facebook caught my eye today for AT&T.  

Disclaimer: I’m a former AT&T customer who left due to the outrageous internet rates they were going to charge me when I purchased a smartphone.  I switched to Sprint for the $20 per month cheaper internet rates.

 

AT&T Ad

AT&T Ad

I am amused by AT&T’s lawyers coming out of the woodwork to update their disclaimers to more accurately reflect the contracts that they require their customers to sign to get the best deals on hardware.  I’m used to the regular disclaimer “2 year contract required, early termination fees apply”.  Simple, sweet, to the point.  Then a couple years ago they added “3G not available in all areas”.   I understand, don’t want to misrepresent AT&T’s (notoriously bad) 3G coverage.  But now they’ve added “significant restrictions apply”.  Has hell frozen over?  Pigs flying? (Oh wait, their flu is flying around the world….bad example!).  I guess some of AT&T’s recent bad press has them getting more sensitive to the response that their data rates (correctly) bring out of people.  But I am overly glad that they are now at least hinting some of the (artificial) limits they are placing on their data plans. 

Maybe people will see enough these disclaimers to cause them to look more closely at their usage agreements with their wireless carrier and start to ask questions on why they can’t use their phone or netbook the way they were designed.  And start to demand that the large sums of money we are paying to the wireless carriers allow us to use their networks for our own purposes and not solely to increase their bottom lines. 

 

Till Next Time

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in industry | No Comments »