MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Apr 03, 09 - 02:20 pm Comment from: anypats

You know Skype customers should take what they can get because all Apple has to do is stop the application from being distributed on their app store. Enjoy the wifi and quit complaining about what you can't have.

"Advocacy Group."

We are learning to pay attention to media crap, right?

I am perfectly happy with the fact that I can send and receive calls over WiFi.

get it while you can. Wouldn't be surprised if these "consumer advocates" wind up driving ATT to remove Skype from the app store all together. (Remember the fate of the tethering app?)

I agree with the dissenters. Sorry. For one Apple cannot prevent Skpe from the app store. Anything they do to block it would land them in court. It's a internet app, pure and simple and a free one at that. Personally I think Apple would be happy if AT&T;would step aside on this and the tethering issue. It'd sell more iPhones.

Secondly it's At&T;that's blocking Skype's 3G access issue and it's in conflict to their "Unlimited Internet Access" advertising. If they are going to charge me for U.I.A. then that's what I should get. I don't buy for one second it's a "technical issue". Otherwise we'd also have the same issues with anything that accessed the network at all.

Using this reasoning AT&T;could also block any app with any sort of Instant Messaging options as it conflicts with the $5-10 extra they charge for unlimited IM.

Regarding that Tethering app (or other similar ones)...

I would be very surprised if Apple does not have a agreement with AT&T;that they assume all legal liability from Apple when they forcibly remove a app like that from the App Store.

In another post yesterday on this same subject, I bagged on liberal-socialist interest groups who think everything should be handed to them for free, that profit is bad, and that corporations are evil. This is a perfect case in point: a bunch of sniveling uber-liberals who think a corporation like AT&T;is evil for not wanting to allow a company like Skype (which is part of eBay) access to the AT&T;cellular network. I am no fan of AT&T;, and think Skype is pretty cool. But here, I think the telcos have a legal point. Allow me to explain my reasoning.

If liberals want Skype to be able to have unfettered free access to AT&T;'s telephone lines, this incurs significant bandwidth load and added maintenance costs for AT&T;. Skype would get all this for free, at AT&T;'s expense. It would be akin to allowing liberals to crash on your couch, mount your girlfriend and eat your food, while expecting nothing from them in return. After all, information wants to be free. Besides man, AT&T;is big, so they can pay for this, right?

Wrong. Fair is fair. Why should the government compel a company to open its lines to a competitor, so that the competitor can steal business from the telco at the telco's expense? If a competitor to AT&T;, or any other telco for that matter is to be granted access to its lines, it is reasonable for that competitor to be assessed a fee for access, bandwidth use, maintenance and the necessary staffing to support all of the above.

Obviously, the hippies in this previously-uknown liberal interest group had ever worked for a living, they would understand how important it is for any business to profit. Like I said, I am no fan of telcos; abusive business practices and arrogance by them is well documented. But that notwithstanding, companies have a right to profit, and to defend themselves within legal bounds against competitors. To force them to have a competitor leech off of them is socialism, plain and simple.

I'd like to see every other corporation in America be forced to let their competitors use their existing infrastructure to compete against them.

If successful, I'm sure AT&T;will also get slapped with more lawsuits regarding the quality of their 3G service after they're forced to allow Skype, tethering, video streaming and everything people want included over 3G.

But trust me, if AT&T;loses this battle, their plans will be re-priced to make up any lost revenue. And I'm glad - the government should not set business plans for companies. If AT&T;tries to screw too many people, people will leave them and things will work themselves out. And I'm not going to get reduced raises and possibly laid-off because my employer is losing revenue to the competition.

If Skype really wants to, perhaps they can approach AT&T;for a deal. But in the end, why should they get to provide a competing service while piggybacking on AT&T;'s equipment.

AT&T;, the NEW Verizon... lol.

Apr 03, 09 - 04:41 pm Comment from: anypats

@ Driver

Apple can block Skype from the app store if so desires. The user agreement for the SDK makes this well known. Apple analyzes every app that comes through and can allow or deny the app to be in the store. They have specific restrictions including, but not limited to, pornographic apps, apps in poor taste, or competing apps. Apple has denied many apps and has removed apps and I doubt they have had to consent because of a threatening lawsuit.

Ultimately Skype is a competing product and it was only allowed on the app store with restrictions. Apple can remove it if they wish and Skype will not be able to do anything about it other than maybe plead and beg. Lawsuits will mean nothing. It would be the same if Nordstom's didn't want to carry Wrangler jeans. Wrangler can't sue to force the sale of their product in Nordstrom's.

Last of all, just because you are given U.I.A. does not mean that you are guaranteed every aspect of the internet. You are currently unable to view any flash pages, you are unable to download most things, you are unable to use a file sharing application, you are unable to make changes to Google docs, etc., etc., etc.

fuck off one more time

anypats: Who the fuck died and made you king motherfucker? What's that? "quit complaining about what you can't have"

I am paying for the motherfucking service, motherfucker, and I'll complain as much as I motherfucking want to. Who the fuck are you to tell me what to do eh?

Maybe you like getting fucked up the ass by AT&T;but I don't. So fuck off and die.

And fuck you on top of that.

And fuck you again.

Apr 03, 09 - 07:32 pm Comment from: twilightmoon

lynx

Assuming you're an iPhone user. When Apple released the SDK a little over a year ago, they made it clear back then that VoIP would be allowed, but limited to WiFi, and that "bandwidth hogging" apps would not be allowed in the store.

Now if you really think in the real world that ATT has or even should be expected to have enough wireless data bandwidth to handle every single iPhone customer maxing out their 3G data bandwidth on their iPhones permanantly 24/7, then you're an insane motherfucker.

And go fuck yourself, too.

I think the biggest problem is people have this mistake of thinking wireless networks are somehow the same as the interest you have at home.

at&t;and every other major carrier have invested billions in the airwaves and frequencies they provide to subscribers for a monthly fee. Where did this entitlement come from that all this bandwidth should be unlimited and free?

Now I don't agree with charging extra for tethering and nickel - diming over cetain content consumption but as other posters have stated. Wireless is a business. What business stays around giving stuff away?

Apr 04, 09 - 12:48 am Comment from: anypats

@ lynx

Wow, because of your beautiful use of the f-word, I have a great respect for you. Good luck getting anywhere in life.

Apr 04, 09 - 12:57 am Comment from: anypats

Oh, and one last thing, my comment about "quit whining about what you can't have" was more meant to tell people, enjoy what has been given to you. You have Skype over wifi, enjoy it. It's like the little kid that begs and begs for a sucker and when mom finally gives in he wants two. That is how a lot of the teens react in our world today. Because mommy ended up giving them the two suckers, they still think there is an entitlement and they are "owed" something. They never look at what they do have, only what they don't have.

OMG! I've just been "told" by twilightmoon. What a beautiful name. What imagery! Oh, he said "fuck". That's telling me dude!

Anypats on the other hand, took my very savage and nasty email and was quite eloquent in his reply.

So, to anypats:

My email was very brutal. I know. However, something about your post reminded me (in a very negative way) about the slowly eroding civil rights war we are facing in this country today.

And I mean something along the lines of:

Hey, there are cameras watching our every move.
A: Quit bitchin'. It's for our own protection.

Hey, whatever happen to competition among internet/cell-phone providers.
A: Quit bitchin' consolidation is for your own good. It protects the carriers.

Hey, my internet connection is being monitored/throttled, etc.
A: Quit your goddamn bitchin' already.

Well, you get my drift.

The point is, I am already paying for AT&T;'s service and it is a lot of money. Yes, I signed the agreement. I did because I wanted to be an iPhone developer, because I thought it was a nice platform.

What I did not sign for was AT&T;squeezing every last drop of blood from me, mostly by using threats and legal mumbo-jumbo.

So, my alternative reply to your original comment (minus the fuck you's)

anypats: Look man. I appreciate your AT&T;stand of appease and apologize but that's not for me. I don't like being told: "If you don't like this country get out".

I am more of the "I like this country and I will stick around to change it for the better".

Agree of disagree, that's my take on this argument.

I do apologize for my initial blog-post-rage but not for the intent behind it.

Peace.

twilightmoon: Suck my dick and die, bitch.