iPhone ain't even an iPod without service
By Chris Ziegler 
posted Jun 26th 2007 1:07PM
posted Jun 26th 2007 1:07PM
[Via TUAW, thanks Alex P.]
Update: An anonymous tipster is reporting that the iPhone may only need to be activated once for the iPod (and other features) to work; continuous service isn't necessary after that -- unless you want to use it as a phone and data device, of course.
Even *with* service, the iPhone ain't even a cell phone:
Given its shortcomings as listed in this buyer-beware article:
http://blog.vkistudios.com/index.cfm/2008/10/17/The-iPhone-aint-no-cell-phone
I just purchased a used 3G for $50. Are you all saying it can't be used as a iPod touch? I'm not interested in using it as a phone.
My current 2G is a deactivated, POS, paperweight.
It was SUCH a POS, I got my girl a 3G to replace it-I HAD to, it wouldn't take calls-and it was only six weeks old, from the box. POS 2G!!
The 3G is only slightly better, and OS 3-points-slow is no big improvement. Kinda' like an MS "Service Pack", it's a band-aid for too many ailments to list...
Imo the 3G "S" is a ripoff, as "4G" is right around that corner-and apple knows this...So f**k us, right??
I (sadly) ASSUMED my old 2G would still work as an ipod and the wifi would still be good, after deactivation.
After all I paid for it, and it's as good as an f'ing BRICK.
Thanks, apple, you f**ks.
I've had iPhones since Day One, and imo Appple has never produced a shoddier, more lackluster POS than the iphone family.
They took from Microsoft's playbook, and dumped a "beta" phone on the masses, and made us eat crap while they "improved" it, and it's still FAR from "done".
This is Apple's biggest TURD, ever-Cheap Chinese manufacture, poor quality control (We've been through three 2G's and two 3Gs so far, and I have another year+ on my AppleCare "warranty"!)
It's a fun gadget, WHEN it decides to act as designed.
Otherwise, fwiw, the cost vs. effectiveness, as a phone, is suspect.
Umm... hmmm.... I'm not a lawyer, but if this is true, it will certainly interest the Antitrust guys at the Department of Justice. Tying products is frowned upon...
Oh, wait, I am a lawyer!
I can't port my Verizon LG Chocolate to any other carrier. It has a (crappy) music player and (bad) web capabilities. What's the difference?
The problem isn't that you can't port it; the problem is forcing the consumer to sign up for AT&T in order to use the features of the iPod itself.
You may be a lawyer (I am an astronaut by the way and an ex-stuntman) but you a clearly a bad one.
American Antitrust laws rarely come into play where there is not a virtual Monopolization being imposed (see Microsoft). If Apple can tie your use of an iPod to using iTunes, then they can certainly also tie you to AT&T for two years. They will just say it is an economic necessity in providing the hardware and software to the customer.
and this is different than microsoft requiring you to pay a fee to play games on xbox live? or tivo requiring you to subscribe to their service to use a standard feature on their device?
Also good points Will. Matt, is it burning yet. And both Tivo and MS Live require you to use a service they provide. Apple only requires you to use a service someone else provides. Hardly anti-competitive behavior.
The difference, gentlemen, is that both the XBox and Tivo retain some level of basic functionality without signing up for the services (XBox will still play games, Tivo will still record manually). In contrast, if this line means what it looks like it means, Apple's device will lose essentially all functionality (won't play music, won't surf the Net on Wi-fi...) It becomes little more than a paperweight.
And how can you use an iPod without iTunes. Let em guess, it retains the basic function of a USB drive. Please. Its clear you are reaching to hold on to your point. Its pretty clear that AT&T and Apple have lawyers too, and they MAY have thought of something minor like billions of dollars in fines imposed for anticompetitive behavior. You really think you are the first one to come up with the idea and that Washington is going to come in and shut down this partnership between Apple and AT&T? You really are dense if so. Maybe if they had 80-90% market share and they pulled something like this. Since they now have 0% and as of Friday will have maybe 2% max its stupid to believe that D.C. antitrust enforcement will come after them for trying to initiate an anticompetitive market, even if they were.
Matt, Matty... mat-e,
Don't bother trying to introduce any argument that might make sense to discuss. It's Apple, they can't do anything wrong. Sure, iPod is worthless without itunes and itunes is a monopoly on music via DRM [or you pay 33% more, and have your information embedded in the music *easily removed*], now iPhone is worthless without iTunes, and so on... everything revolves around the 'i' and since its Apple, its okay. Everyone else... the RIAA requires you to license the music so it doesn't end up all over hell and back, but they are wrong. The MPAA does not want their stuff streamed across the net, but they are wrong. Anyone with anything to protect is wrong, except for Apple and all of those people out there who think that only their stuff is worth protecting while everyone else must open their banks.
Nice Attitude people. Nice.
Justin: Calm down! I just said it was fishy behavior, from a legal point of view. There are several intricate rules regarding monopolization and tying. I'm not saying that this behavior IS illegal, just that it could get the attention of Justice.
So? You have to activate the phone to use it. Doesn't sound different from any other phone that I've had. If you want to bring up the point that you can't use even the audio player unless the phone is activated, then tell me who the hell would purchase an iPhone just to play music. That would be one seriously overpriced PMP.
I do think that it is strange that you need to activate the phone to use the music player feature, but I don't see why it's a problem.
Uh I use my ipod without itunes all the time. Try winamp. All the functionality (aside from being able to buy buggy drm riddled music) none of the bloated annoying take-over-everything-and-requires-quicktime software.
Where do these "fanaboys" come from? I have an iPod and have NEVER used iTunes for music- is iTunes THE only source of music then legal or illegal?! This tying down of the iPhone to a specific mobile service not only for the mobile functionality but everything else is plain and simple deceptive marketing by control freaks (Jobs and AT&T). Like selling coffe mugs and saying you can only drink Folgers because you made a deal with them (no water sorry folks)!
You say it's an iPod too, but it isn't w/o the phone, and that's not because it can't be but you want to force the consumer to shell out at least $500-600 plus the $175 ETF? Thus ppl who may just really want a cool iPod with no buttons are screwed...nice one Big Business! Down with the consumer!
I just think its funny how everyone attacks Matt here. Not that I'm for or against his arument, he may very well be wrong. But you know for a fact that if it were a zune-phone we were talking about, every last one of you would instantly be on his side. Period.
I would NEVER purchase an IPHONE just for the fact that its linked to AT&T.. They have the WORST customer service I have ever experienced. I have heard rumors that they (Apple) are also fed up with the poor service AT&T provides that they are looking to move to a different carrier. I say More power to them - Get rid of AT&T
I guess the larger question is, if you activate it and later on cancel your subscription, does the iPhone revert back to a brick without iPod capability?
They'll hit you with a $175 ternubatuib fee, I'd say do it and change carriers anyway just to punck them out.
hacks
Oh, so that's what the 36 bucks is for! And here I thought I could listen to my MP3 for just the original $599.99, silly me.
This poses a good question. If I cancel AT&T service (because it is horrible in my area) and pay the $175 "cancellation fee", can I still use the iPhone as an iPod and wifi browser? Apparently not. Ouch! There went my two iPhone purchases.
You are assuming. Don't assume, you know what it makes out of you...
makes him you?
So you pay $600 unsubsidised and you can't use all the features? I am glad I live in Europe.
Who says it is not subsidized? It is subsidized, hence the requirement of of a contract to get the phone for the 500 or 60o dollar price. They just do not offer it without the subsidy. That is not the same as being unsubsidized. Looking at the hardware, it is pretty clear that it would cost more than 500 or 600 retail. AT&T's 8525 costs $600 without a contract and the Blackberry 8800 costs $500 without a plan. Neither of those matches up hardware-wize in costs (mostly due to the screen and 4-8 gb of flash). Get a clue.
Justin, so what you are saying that with a 2 year contract at at least $60 a month you guys have to pay $600 for a phone. On top of that they rape you with activation charge?
Again, I glad I live in Europe.
We are glad you live in Europe too. By the way, why are you reading an iPhone thread. Just to tell us how great Europe is? Or is it actually envy, maybe its anger that you are always coming in behind the states. You will probably even come behind Canada and Asia on getting the iPhone. Face, Europe is becoming irrelevant across the board. I am not sure what you are good for, maybe a vacation every couple of years. Congrats on that.
Justin,
You really are not wise in the tech field. The US is usually behind in getting the latest phones such as the HTC Universal which never came to any carrier in the US but was on T-Mobile Germany. There is also UTMS and HSDPA in Europre now while we in the states still use EVDO and EDGE. While AT&T has HSDPA, it is only in the cities. I don't know much about the network so if I made a mistake, that's why. But we are definately behind in phone technology. The iPhone is nothing more than a Sidekick/Blackberry/Helio with a flashy new look. The real smartphones are devices like the Palm OS, Windows Mobile, Symbian OS, etc that allow you to add your OWN third-party applications to customize your device to your liking.
Web Applications do not work on the airplane or in areas where there is no WiFi or cell service. So good luck. I'll be playing NES on my Dash :).
I know that my $50 Dash will work when I cancel my T-Mobile Service for it when I get a new phone :).
Well said JAmerican. The Iphone would be a good deal if it allows native applications. By by only allowing web widgets, the third party functionality is reduced to that equivalent of a Series 40 or dumb phone which only allows Java applications.
quite honestly, how many people have to worry about this? Do you think there will be a lot of people that just use this as an ipod only in a year or two? doubtful. not trying to be negative, just saying :)
That would be a major concern for me and probably quite a few other people. I bought a kickass smartphone from Verizon and just got the phone plan cuz I wanted a feature rich phone with wifi in it...I didn't want to be payin 45 bux a month for some data plan I'm never gonna use.
AT&T/Apple have effectively eliminated that option...
to add to my own comment - it says the 2 yr contract is required to activate the phone and all features.
I'd wager a bet that once activated, it will continue to work no matter what
I just went back up and re-read it. It doesn't actually say anything about the data plan. Just a 2-year "wireless service plan". So that could actually mean anything. I retract my previous statement.
I think this is more of AT&T's doing than Apple's, unless Apple has any say in how features can be used and what can be activated. Most likely, a big mistake to have AT&T handle the iPhone as they're just milking whatever they want from consumers. I agree, that if this is true, the DoJ is going to have a nice long talk with AT&T and most likely Apple as well. Functionality should never be exclusive through a service plan and should not require consumers to purchase one either so that they can just use this product.
My first thought was 'no... they must mean to use the phone to download music from the iTMS...' but that doesn't really make sense given what's written there...
Very odd.
So what happens after two years and you've fufilled the contract? Can you keep using your iphone as an ipod and lets say, get some other new phone with a new contract, or is it a brick as soon as you stop paying?
That is to say it lasts two years, I have had two ipods die just weeks after my apple care was up.
July 1, 2009:
pwned!
lol!
hahahahaha
does anyone remember the whole disabled bluetooth/motorola thing... pay 15 more to use a feature that comes on the phone in the first place... come on. if you think they arent going to try to put the squeeze on your pennies as much as possible youre freaking nuts.
The product may be revolutional, but if I can spend $600 on it and not be able to switch it on, I don't think it's going to do to the phones what the iPod did for the music.
"Revolutional" really? Yes, you are one of the people who would spend $600 for an iPhone, and only want to use it as an iPod. Revolutional. GO LITERACY!
"revolutional" isn't a word.
Apologies for the grammatical hiccup, send any complaints to Stella Artios.
Fred: I would spend $600 on an iPhone, as I'd only be spending a few quid more than most consumer phones anyway.
Thats why ANY Windows Mobile based phone is a sound investment... You CAN ALWAYS use the thing as a pocket PC after you disconnect phone service on it!
This HAS TO CHANGE... there is no way that they can do this to people... what about next year when the iPhone Mark 2 hits and people run out and by that... is the old one just a worthless paper weight?
If you own an iPhone Mark II, and you still have your iPhone classic, why not just keep the classic on the same AT&T mobile number and account as the new iPhone? There is no reason you can't maintain its cellular functionality and use the two iPhones with one cell number simultaneously (well, not literally SIMULTANEOUSLY).
As far as I know there is no cost for this.
The worry about this seems fairly absurd to me. The verb in the sentence is "activate" not "use". You activate it once and then you can use it. Are there honestly people who intend to buy an iPhone purely as a music player? It seems to me these are the only people who are losing out by this activation requirement.
Coming soon to an iPhone near you: Apple Genuine Advantage™!
'The verb in the sentence is "activate" not "use". You activate it once and then you can use it."
Once you cancel your service with AT&T, they will "DEactivate" your phone...and according to the service agreement, you won't be able to use its features...
And where, pray tell, does it say that ending your plan with AT&T will disable the iPod feature set?
Alright, I see that an activation fee is required to activate the iphone features.. so it doesn't have to be activated inorder to work.
It's still kinda bogus... you just paid 600 bucks for it, but before you can even use it you, you have to pay the activation fee(which some times can be 50 bucks or more) and then the monthly service fee.
Also, when you deactivate it, you also lose a main component of the iphone, wifi...The only way you can use wifi is if you are using AT&T's dataplan.
I'm not placing all the blame on Apple, btw.. It is also AT&T taking advantage of the hype and sucking all it can from consumers. Hell it's smart, many will buy this just because of the hype.
Well, for one thing, it might have to do with the fact that it needs periodic authorization to allow you to play the stuff you've bought. Granted, iTunes will still let you play what you've ripped if you don't let it re-authorize your purchases... so I don't know why it would require you to have service. Seems like Apple's got a lot of little things coming out at the last minute that alone wouldn't be dealbreakers, but the right combination of a couple small things would scare some people away.
I didn't think 2 phones could be active with the same #...
So in essence, my Blackjack is a better phone than this for half the price. The problem is that the shApple will pay $600 for these shortcomings and do it with a smile and a "thank you apple." Then they will wait in line for a week in a few months when version 2 comes out and do it again. Again with a smile.
"So in essence, my Blackjack is a better phone than this for half the price. The problem is that the shApple will pay $600 for these shortcomings and do it with a smile and a "thank you apple." Then they will wait in line for a week in a few months when version 2 comes out and do it again. Again with a smile."
Sheesh, what is YOUR problem? Why is it a "problem" for you that other people want to get the iPhone? Is it your money? Your time in line? Are they doing something illegal or even if it's not illegal, something that should be illegal? Why do you consider it a "problem" that other people choose to spend THEIR time and THEIR money in the manner that THEY see fit? Fine, you've decided your phone is a better fit for you. Good for you. I happen to agree that the iPhone doesn't fit my requirements either so I'm gonna pass. But I'm not so arrogant or self-centered to think that it's wrong or a "problem" that other people will decide that the iPhone does suit them. Get a clue, dude.
Little Peter, relax. I am entitled to an opinion right?
Drink the Kool-Aid, it will make a lot more sense then.
Your Blackjack with Windows Mobile 5, no touch screen of any kind, no visual voicemail, no internal sensors, no hard drive, and notoriously bad battery life?
Are you freakin' serious?
And the gotchas keep rolling in. Comedy gold.
Are you serious? You are paying $500-$600 for an iPhone, not an iPod. The whole concept of the iPhone is that it is a phone (not an iPod) with a lot of extra functionality included (one of which happens to be an iPod). The main point is that all these goodies are wrapped up in your phone (not iPod). If you want an iPod (not iPhone), save yourself some money and buy a true iPod (not iPhone). If you want a web browsing device, there are many out there. Stop using this as an excuse to nit-pick. It's a phone and as with any other cell phone, you need a service provider for it to work.
I realize that everyone wants a touch sensitive, widescreen, wifi iPod, but this isn't it... this is a phone (not an iPod).
To boil it down:
The iPhone is a phone (not an iPod), so no, it won't be an iPod if you stop paying your phone (not iPod) bill. This is logical. Accept it.
Your logical argument makes zero sense.
The thing is my 2 year old "phone" has built-in music player and I didn't have to pay extra to 'activate' it. You don't buy something unsubsidised and pay more to activate 'features' already built into it.
My Windows Mobile phone works fine even without a Sim card. I just can't call out or send text. But what I can do is surf the web with the built-in WiFi, calls mates on Skype, listen to music, watch a movie, play a game and read an e-book. No activation required.
But then again you Apple apologists are so damn rich you could skip work for days just to be first in line...
Uhh, you might want to take the crack pipe out of your mouth before talking.
Last I checked the iPhone was being touted as an all-in-one device. A PDA phone running Windows Mobile 6 has a bunch of features, but none of those features are dependent on the phone being activated. It functions as each individual device without being crippled.
So if its not an ipod... why in the commercials and other presentations, it has been said that "it is the only IPOD with a widescreen?"
I don't have the time to find a quote, but I'm pretty sure it has been said... maybe during the WWDC or D... anybody confirm this?
"If you want an iPod (not iPhone), save yourself some money and buy a true iPod (not iPhone)"
Show me the "true" iPod that has a widescreen, runs on flash memory, plays music for 24 hours, and has a touchscreen controls and I'll buy it. Oh right, that "true" iPod doesn't exist yet, does it?
Steve Jobs himself said iPhone is the best iPod Apple has ever made so it's completely understandable why someone would want to buy this device for its video/music capacities.
@Jon
You have to have an *unlocked* PDA/Smartphone to be able to use the other features without having an active sim inside.
The iPhone is not *unlocked*.
For only 8 gb of storage, I guess i would have to agree.
Its still bullshit though.
Would the ipod part become unusable if there was no signal? And what about if theywere on a plane. Business people who would buy this thing travel a lot, like me :)
Hey wait, isn't there an "airline" mode? wouldn't this enable the ipod part of it?
$59.99 * (12 + 12) + $499
=
$1938.76
(Taxes?...)
Good day. You are apparently much richer than I.
Minus whatever you are paying for your phone service now.
don't forget about when they come out with the IPhone Nano a year and a half from now which will render the first iphone useless, cost you $ for the upgrade and extend you contract.
I got you for 2 Bender.
:)
"Minus whatever you are paying for your phone service now."
This is an excellent point. I can't believe I ignored that!
Well, my current phone service definitely does cost less, but it is still pretty bloody expensive.
What I am pointing at, though, is not the price of the phone service but that the iPhone does not cost $500. It costs $2000, with a discount available if you have the willpower to cancel your plan (which is rarely an easy thing to achieve).
Not that phones with services do not cost a lot of money, but let's use the nacho rule here: If they are stuck together, they count as one.
To be fair, Apple is selling this device as a phone not as an iPod. It may have iPod features, but it's primarily intended to revolutionize the phone industry (whether or not it actually will do this is a separate debate, but that's clearly Apple's vision at any rate).
It would not be in Apple's interests in how they're positioning the product to have a bunch of people running around with what would essentially be crippled iPhones, and you know there are a lot of people out there who would spend the money on this device just for its iPod features.
If DEactivating the phone causes these features to be lost, that's another story entirely. At this point, however, I suspect that the whole activation and contract requirement is equal parts Apple and AT&T.... Apple because they want to make sure people see and use this as a phone and get the full experience out of it, and AT&T because they want to recoup any investment they've made in back-end hardware to make this all work (in addition to Visual Voicemail, they've obviously had to tie their billing system into iTunes in some way, which is another investment on their part).
Stop crying bitches. It's a one time deal. functionality doesn't turn off once you no longer have service. When the radio is off, the phone doesn't know if it's activated or not, but it will still function as an ipod. The just dont want people buying them initially to use as just an ipod. So, activate it once and then cancel your service. SIMPLE
says the "Anonymous Tipster" lol
yeah... lets ignore the written infor on the AT&T website and take the Anonymous Tipster's word for it! lol
You Apple Zealots crack me up.
The wireless plans for this say they come with unlimited data. Does this still count against your airtime minutes?
data with at&t is just that, no minutes are ever involved
Love the wishful thinking- if I sign up for the required 2 year lease, even if I don't keep paying the service plan I'll still be able to use the iPod features.
I think AT&T IS probably involved. They are giving up a revenue stream telcos have traditionally controlled- all additional service content. In exchange, they're making it quite unappealing to cut the 2 year lease short- a $175 kill fee and now the dumbing down of the iPhone. Better believe once the monthlies aren't paid, the capability won't be there. It also completely supports Apple's position as well. What better way to lock a person in to your technology than to control basic functionality? The iPhone as an iPod serves iTunes. Synergy.
Oh please stop.... it's a damn PHONE! You can't use a freaking phone without PHONE SERVICE. Who in thier right mind is going to spend $600 and not activate the freaking thing? Or let thier service expire? I cannot think of one person I have ever known that has gotten a cell phone, ANY cell phone, let thier service expire, yet still wanted to use the other features.
Just one more doomsday scenario for the Apple Haters.... or are you suggesting that this device rocks so hard that $600 is still worth it just for the non-phone features?
"Oh please stop.... it's a damn PHONE!"
Why is so hard for you to understand the distinction that's it's not ONLY a phone, it's also an iPod? An iPod that has features that aren't available at the moment with any of the standalone iPods? Some people want access to those iPod features now and don't need or want the phone service. Consequently, they don't want to have to jump through the hoops of signing up for AT&T phone service, which btw obliges them to undergo a mandatory credit check, simply to have to cancel the phone service later (I assume you can still cancel during the trial period without paying the ridiculous termination fee). Now, what is so hard to understand about that? If I go to a drugstore to buy some soda, am I gonna be happy when the checkout clerk says I also have to buy some aspirin with that? Does it help if the clerk says I can return the aspirin anytime within 15 days for a full refund? Even so, I'd still think it was ridiculous but that's what's going on here with the mandatory AT&T signup. In effect, you must undergo a credit check to use an iPod! You have to question the wisdom of a policy that leads to such a dumb result.
As usual, the reason for this forcing you to jump through all these hoops is money. The real revenue stream for both Apple and AT&T isn't from the sale of the iPhone but the monthly recurring subscription. So everyone is forced to sign up with AT&T even if you don't want it in the hopes that some people will end up keeping the service instead of canceling.
I think that has to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard. You're pulling one arcane, unlikely scenario out of your rear end so you can sit there and complain about "The man" sticking it to the little guy.
Apple is selling a phone, with a phone plan attached to make the phone useful. This is what every single phone maker on the planet does. If you don't want the package, go buy another product. Apple is not obligated to sell you a partial package just because YOU want it. And I'm sure if there was some huge untapped market of people who wanted iPhones without the phone part they would address the issue.
As far as your soda/asprin analogy, it doesn't fly. You don't need asprin to get full functionality from soda. You DO however need a rate plan to get full functionality from an iPhone. Big difference.
Boy, you are thick. The iPhone is doesn't need cell service to be "useful"; it is plenty useful as an iPod without cell service. It is an full-fledged iPod all by itself. In fact, it has features that no other standalone iPod has yet. So yeah, it's not a small minority of people who are interested in this device just for its iPod capabilities. Just the number of posts on this threads demonstrates there are plenty of people who are interested in this as an iPod only. What so if Apple wants me to sign up for cell phone service? I'll grant you that the iPhone would be more useful with the cell service but if I don't want or need it, why should I have to sign up for it? Your answer is: because Apple wants me to? That's insane. Are people allowed to have their personal preference for how they want to use their possessions without being dictated to how they SHOULD use it? I hope you realize the cell service is not - I repeat, NOT - necessary to use the iPod features. Therefore, why should you be forced to sign up for cell service? Simple question. Your answer - because Apple wants you to sign up for cell service - is paternalistic and ludicrous.
The problem I have with your argument Peter is that you make it sound like you have some great God given right to buy and use this product any way you like. My point is, you don't.
No company is under any obligation to provide you with any specific set of features just becasue you stomp your feet really hard. This is not "paternalistic" behavior. It's called business. They are providing a product/service offering that they think people will want to pay for. Will people want to pay for what Apple is offering? Apparently they think so. Time will tell.
But it's not UNFAIR. There is no fair or unfair, right or wrong. It's simply a product offering. Take it or leave it.
If I can recall Jobs " It's a phone (oooh)..its an iPod (oooh)..its REAL internet (ooohh aaah)"
I tell no lie..if Jobs and co hadd
1. made an unlocked version (and that would be your $600) and locked version for difft networks(sub $400)
2. avoided AT&T like the plague rather than this 5 year monopoly
3. offered network features like visual voicemail on the networks that agreed and forget it as an integrated feature (it really doesn't exist w/o AT&T does it)
4. skipped the function activation fee - for the phone part perfectly understandable..for the wifi, iPod, calendar etc WTF?!
I shall truly keep my treo and await version 3.0 when all these "details" have been ironed out!
he would sell all of these in one day. As it stands its risky business.
Ah thats why its called iphone.....and i was wondering why they never named it as newton!!!
hey, what's with all the apple news in the no-apple RSS feed ?
FILL IN THE BLANK POST FOR EVERY i-PHONE HATER
Another iPhone post, every time I log onto engadget looking for __________, I have to wade through these dang posts.
What a wast of money the iphone is. I can't believe it doesn't come with ______ feature. I use that all the time on my _____, and it is ridiculous that such a hyped phone wouldn't have it.
All I know is I bought a _________ from ________ service provider. I cracked it open and added some lasers and flame thrower. I also taped a digital camera to the back. SO my phone can do everything the iPhone does for only $_____ dollars per month.
Madlibs!
FILL IN THE BLANK POST FOR EVERY i-PHONE HATER
Another iPhone post, every time I log onto engadget looking for PEANUT BUTTER SANDWICHES, I have to wade through these dang posts.
What a wast of money the iphone is. I can't believe it doesn't come with EROTIC feature. I use that all the time on my CAT, and it is ridiculous that such a hyped phone wouldn't have it.
All I know is I bought a G-STRING from A MASSAGE service provider. I cracked it open and added some lasers and flame thrower. I also taped a digital camera to the back. SO my phone can do everything the iPhone does for only $10 dollars per month.
If you cancel service, just shut off the radio..jeez. The real issue would be if the iphone contacts Apples and/or Attingulars servers when ever you hook it up to itunes. I give it a week before someone captures the data that is sent to the iphone at activation and forms a hack to activate any iphone without service.
my thoughts exactly...
seriously engadget should get a nobel price to do so much of research about iphone...
subscription for my music?
Napster re-invented!
Cingular (now ATT) tried to convince me that I had to pay for wifi on my pocketpc phone. Although I kept arguing that it was a hardware feature, they almost wouldn't let me leave the store without signing a 30$/month contract. What dicks.
Where does it say that it will inactivate the iPod features if you cancel service? All it says is that you will need to sign up for service with a 2 year agreement to ACTIVATE all the features of your device. This has been stated many times before. If you don't plan on using it as a phone, wait for the next generation iPod.
Are there really that many people planning to buy a $500-$600 iPhone and NOT use any phone features???
In the UK we dumped activation fees 100 years ago. The America mobile phone network is so dated and draconian. Yet they judge everyone against their standards.
Come to Europe and Asia to see truly advanced phones we have been using for years. The mobile internet and the music phone is old news.
are you serious? we know Europeans and Asians are light years ahead of us in phone technology...where do you get your statements from?
This from the nation that has a "television License Fee" in order to watch broadcast TV in your own home. A fee collected on each tuner in the home. With "detector vans" and the implied consent to search your home for unlicensed TVs. I love the UK, but they have some stupid laws concerning watching TV.
Actually there's one license fee per home whether you have 100 or 1 television tuners in there. Detector vans are a myth and would probably be inadmissible in court (we like due process over here unlike the US and it's internment camps (Gitmo, WW2)) and there's no implied consent if anyone comes a calling to search your home. They need to give you a warrant.