
I Quit The iPhone - terpua
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/31/i-quit-the-iphone/
======
jsz0
I think there's a lot more to this situation than we know right now. Apple
hasn't commented officially on the situation yet. Has Google? I read some
(second hand) reports that AT&T denied any role in the removal of the Google
Voice applications which makes sense since they offer various models of Google
Voice capable BlackBerries. This leads me to wonder if Apple isn't working on
a deal with Google to officially support Google Voice in the iPhone OS. It
certainly makes more sense than Apple making this huge anti-competitive strike
against a company they are otherwise friendly with over a product that is
invite-only and not even a blip on the radar to Apple. A deal between the two
companies opens a lot of interesting possibilities especially when you
consider Apple is looking beyond carrier exclusivity and is rumored to be
launching an iPod Touch with a built in microphone -- along with the rumored
tablet device. Until both Apple & Google release a statement on this I'm
convinced they're working on a deal. Apple has been known to withhold
information for PR purposes even if it's causing them bad PR. (ie, copy &
paste in iPhone 3.0. They could have just said yeah, we're working on it --
but instead they refused to comment)

~~~
maryrosecook
Apple and Google working on a deal doesn't fit. If that were the case, why
would Apple spit in Google's eye by rejecting their app? If that were the
case, why would Google develop and submit their app in the first place?

~~~
jsz0
That is a mystery. It doesn't really make any sense either way does it?

------
imgabe
I can't help but feel that if you consider your phone just a phone, rather
than a defining characteristic of your personality, you're less likely to be
so outraged at its shortcomings.

~~~
troels
Maybe it's neither. Maybe it's just that some people consider their device as
a hybrid personal computer / phone. Then it becomes rather annoying that you
can't control what's installed at it.

~~~
imgabe
You may consider it part personal computer, but the people owning the network
it needs to function don't. They made this pretty clear when you bought it,
and the cell phone industry in America has behaved this way since it's
inception. It really shouldn't be a surprise.

I agree it would be _desirable_ to have a hybrid personal computer / phone
that would give me as much freedom of software as my desktop, but the iPhone
isn't that, nor did it claim to be.

I also can't install whatever software I want on the cable box I got from
Comcast. Nobody's ranting about that though.

~~~
nuclear_eclipse
_I also can't install whatever software I want on the cable box I got from
Comcast. Nobody's ranting about that though._

You also did not pay to _buy_ that box from Comcast either. You're leasing it
from them, with full expectation from Comcast that you will give it back
if/when you terminate service, and from you that Comcast will replace it at no
charge if/when it breaks or stops working.

With the iPhone (or any cell phone for that matter), you have _bought_ the
phone, and it becomes your own personal property. You do not have to return
the phone if you cancel service, and the provider is under no obligation to
replace the unit if it breaks (unless you paid extra from the start for a
warranty).

That is why nobody rants about their unit from Comcast.

~~~
imgabe
It depends. If you agreed to a 2 year contract along when you bought your
iPhone, you haven't yet completely paid for it.

Also, if you cancel your contract before it's up, you DO have to return the
iPhone.

If you paid extra for an unlocked iPhone, then yes you have a point. But then
you also have the freedom to go to another network without those restrictions.

------
easyfrag
Steven Frank "quitting" the iPhone is a bigger deal. If the rumours are to be
believed then Arrington is about to be a competitor to Apple (in the tablet
space). That plus his history of histrionics kind of tempers my interest in
his opinions of the iPhone.

~~~
zackattack
Who is Steven Frank?

~~~
jcl
He's an independent developer of Macintosh (but not iPhone) software.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Frank_(developer)>

(I didn't recognize the name, either, but I remembered his startup -- Panic --
from an earlier story about how they almost got bought by Apple:
<http://www.panic.com/extras/audionstory/>)

~~~
adamhowell
This is a nit, but Panic's not a startup. They're just a top-notch Mac
development shop who's been around forever.

------
lallysingh
I'm feeling pretty disillusioned about my iPhone recently. I'm basically
waiting for a sufficiently-captivating Android device. I'm curious to see what
the Hero will be like, once I have a chance to hold it and they've had a
chance to smooth out (and speed up) the software stack.

~~~
kirse
I've owned my trusty Nokia N95 (8gb) since late '07 - before the original
iPhone came out, and it's been funny to watch the evolution of comments on
HN... It's like a bunch of people bought into the iPhone hype and have slowly
come to realize they're left with a subpar phone that provides poor service.
Not to mention the iPhone has actually gotten _better_ since it's initial
release, so that tells you even more.

And here I am, still taking 5 megapixel pictures and quality VGA video with my
2-year-old N95-8gb, something the iPhone _still_ can't do. Sure, it's a bit
thicker, but I get 3G, crystal-clear reception with AT&T, and get my Google
Voice.

All one has to do is browse GSMArena or PhoneScoop to realize how far behind
the iPhone is to the majority of phone manufacturers. Apple does UI extremely
well, but they've largely proven that they're really just the next Motorola
RAZR... A cutsey little fashion phone that breaks often, performs poorly, and
hardly gives the end-user what they're really looking for.

Just looking at phones like the Samsung i8910 (which does _720p HD_ video)
helps one realize how far behind Apple is on the phone-tech curve:

[http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_i8910_omnia_hd-
review-380.ph...](http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_i8910_omnia_hd-
review-380.php)

~~~
dkarl
What the iPhone taught me is to ignore cell phone reviews that dedicate most
of their space to listing specs and features. Whoever wrote this review is not
experiencing the phone the way I would, or the way any typical user would.
Does he really need to tell us that the calculator has "a very limited set of
functions" but that "Luckily, you can find third-party alternatives?" What
kind of readers does this guy have that he's not afraid of losing them to
boredom at this point?

Another case in point: I found the section about the web browser buried on
page six underneath a larger section devoted to audio quality, which includes
frequency response graphs and a table of audio measurements. And when it comes
to the web browser, it says it "would have used somewhat more user-friendly
interface" and "could certainly use a bit of fine tuning." It describes how to
bypass the "unresponsive" and "slow" zoom feature by tapping a text section to
zoom it but notes that it "is sometimes a hit and miss thing as the web
browser fails to fit the text on screen." If you ask me, you don't want to use
this review to illustrate that Apple is "behind" on cell phone technology.

~~~
kirse
_What kind of readers does this guy have that he's not afraid of losing them
to boredom at this point?_

The kind of readers this "guy" has are the 2+ million unique people that visit
per month (see compete.com chart) who are actually interested in every nook
and cranny, pro and con, detailed form and function, and in-depth overview
they need to make an logic-based, informed, $700 decision. First-version
phones can be notorious for having major problems, and those issues need to be
discovered before blowing a grand buying one.

All the iPhone taught you to do is ignore the negatives of balanced phone
reviews, because the majority of your comment is

1) attacking the layout of the review and

2) restating a few pre-release issues of which the iPhone had _plenty_ itself

What do you expect from a review? That it'll hide all the problems and only
tell you the positive features of the phone? I certainly wouldn't trust a
review website that does that.

As I said before, I bought a Nokia N95 back in _2007_ that had 8gb, GPS, 3G
support, Google&Nokia Maps, music player, FM radio, 5 megapixel camera, and
VGA video support. I also get Google Voice, and while there aren't as many
Symbian apps in total, let's just say I don't feel like I need iFart Mobile.
Oh yeah, did I forget to mention I can easily take my phone to any GSM carrier
I want? I think I also forgot to mention I can do basic tasks you'd expect a
phone to do, like MMS and choosing the sound for your alarm clock.

If there's any phone that's behind on tech, it's the iPhone. Not only do you
get subpar performance, you're also locked into a little cage where Apple
decides what you get to do, and to me that's not a phone for a hacker.

~~~
OmarIsmail
If you're willing to hack around in a phone, then a jailbroken iPhone offers
very similar software functionality. At that point your tradeoff is polished
user interface versus a better camera and FM radio.

~~~
kirse
Being a mobile nerd, I fully agree with you =)

However, dkarl is arguing his point from _"the way any typical user would"_ As
a "typical user", if he's easily annoyed by how an in-depth phone review is
structured, I could hardly imagine the litany of complaints he would come up
with when the _typical user_ was subjected to the mess of software and hacks
required just to enable a few basic features that one can get from a $20
candybar.

I think the majority of our disagreement comes from the difference in the type
of users we are. I'm a power user and have owned 7 phones prior to my N95 in
the past 5 years. Dkarl seems to just want a basic fashion-phone and does not
really care about having a bleeding-edge mobile device.

~~~
Skeuomorph
Except the “typical user” will never succeed at typically using those
supposedly basic features on that $20 candy bar.

Your mom can and will use every feature on the iPhone.

~~~
dkarl
Even worse, users like me who do figure out how to use the features may not
want to. Personally, I'm the kind of user who walked around for years saying,
"I wish I had a web browser on my cell phone," when I did in fact have a web
browser on my cell phone. It was just too crappy to be worth using. Apparently
sometime when I wasn't paying attention "power user" was redefined to mean
"feature freak," but given that definition I won't dispute my non-power user
status.

------
niyazpk
Michael Arrington does know how to keep things interesting. Even if we resist,
somehow articles from TechCrunch reach the front page of HN. Not that I have
any real problem with it, but can we somehow filter the front page to contain
a maximum of 5 or so sensationalist articles?

------
terpua
This Google Voice fiasco by Apple and/or AT&T is slowly mushrooming into a
nuclear cloud. I wonder when CNN, BBC et al will start picking it up...

When this hits mainstream, who knows what kind of public backlash will ensue.

~~~
tedunangst
Public backlash ensues when there's the possibility of something affecting
them. How many people actually have (or care to have) a Google Voice number?

------
wglb
This is a little petulant, but the plot over why kill GV is interesting. Since
skype is on the iphone, and GV is on other phones with AT&T, it is curious why
GV was rejected.

------
pstinnett
Just thinking through this problem some, I had a quick thought that would be
neat to see: "Carrier Apps". These apps would have lower level access to the
iPhone and to allow true background processes (listening for calls, texts,
setting a data connection). You would download a carrier app and it would
"install" itself as a preference pane. Basically I would like to see carriers
treated more like preferences/apps than partners. I know this couldn't happen
until after AT&T exclusivity came to an end. I think it makes sense: Apple
could then converge the iPod touch/iPhone into one product. Don't want a cell
service? Don't install the app. Makes room for the tablet to be dropped in for
use with a 3G provider or just as a wifi device too. Just a thought. I'm sure
there are plenty of holes in it.

------
czstrong
I'm not sure exactly how the tech works, but if GV works over the data
network, similar to skype, I'm concerned the quality, connection time, and
amount of dropped calls would be worse than a regular call. The iPhone drops
enough calls as it is, I imagine it could get much worse if the phone had to
open an app, third-party or not, and place calls over the data network.

And what about SMS? For me to use GV full time, I need the ability to send
SMS's from my GV number. MMS as well. I hope this functionality will be built
into the app, if one ever makes it to the device.

~~~
stanleydrew
GV only uses the data network to initiate the call. All the actual calling is
done over the voice network. And SMS is free with GV.

------
mrshoe
I think Arrington is bluffing here and I'm calling his bluff.

I would probably do the exact same thing in his position. There's no way I
would quit the iPhone, and I bet he won't either. He's just using his powerful
voice to put more heat on AT&T and Apple to reverse this decision.

And I'm glad he is. I hope it works.

~~~
axod
No, he's using his 'powerful voice' to get more hits to his website.

------
teeja
I'd only own a phone for the computer/WiFi part. And I won't have some
freaking manufacturer telling me what software I can and can't run on MY
computer.

That HTC Hero that's in the pipeline looks awesome. (Price??) I saw an advert
& review for it yesterday for the first time. (It runs Flash! uses SD card.)

~~~
teeja
OK, I can answer my own question: Price: 435 Pounds, SIM-free. Ouch.

------
10ren
Voice transcription sounds pretty cool (in Google Voice). It's speech
recognition, but the nice thing about this particular application is that it
doesn't matter if it's not real time.

~~~
kingkawn
They've got quite a lot of bugs to work out of it before its ready. I've had
google voice for about a month and have yet to get a single transcription that
was useful.

~~~
blasdel
It's pretty good for recognizing telemarketers and wrong-number collections
calls at a glance, and then banning their numbers.

------
rimantas
The title should be "I quit AT&T".

~~~
alaskamiller
Should have titled it "Fuck You, AT&T." I would have done it. The company
deserves no sympathy, not just for cell phone coverage.

~~~
zackattack
I hate most phone companies, I hate most credit card companies, and I hate
most banks. Evil corporations.

Edit: Love the groupthink voting against my relevant comment. Keep it up
please!

~~~
silentOpen
I hate those things too but why do we care if you do? Maybe provide some
substance and stop whining about groupthink?

~~~
zackattack
Fair enough.

I hate them because they bait and switch, and are deceptive about the value
they provide.

------
joubert
I'll take your iPhone then.

------
medianama
I Quit TechCrunch!

~~~
jeremymims
This reaction doesn't make any sense to me. I think it's become fashionable
(especially on HN) to bash on the startup world's "paper of record" with
pretty poor evidence.

So we end up with comments that start with:

"I hate Tech Crunch as much as anyone else but," "Arrington pushes startups he
invested in" "Everything's about twitter" "I don't read Tech Crunch because of
their focus on x but," "Tech Crunch doesn't break real news" "Tech Crunch
needs a real editor" "Tech Crunch only does favors for friends" "Tech Crunch
only wrote this as linkbait"

And now, with no relevance whatsoever to a meaningful discussion about the
article, we get a knee jerk, play to the haters, "I quit Tech Crunch!".

In this community, I feel there needs to be a base line of respect for
entrepreneurs and the people that help them. And make no mistake, Michael
Arrington is both. If you have a legitimate gripe, write something
constructive. There is little or no value, however, to reinforcing this idea
that everything Tech Crunch does is wrong or bad.

~~~
jm4
Ok, I'll take a stab at this. I know basically nothing about Arrington. I
don't know what he's invested in or who he's friends with, nor do I care.

What I do know is that TechCrunch publishes utter trash. It's a tabloid that
caters to the geek crowd. The articles are poorly written and even more poorly
researched. Some of them are based on sources as flimsy as a single sentence
fragment of a tweet if not a complete fabrication or speculation.

What is purported to be news is heavily editorialized. What is purported to be
analysis is the kind of tin foil hat stuff one could expect to see in the
typical Slashdot comment. Simply put, the TechCrunch writers are lousy
journalists- if you can even use the word "journalist" at all.

In my opinion, some of the people at TechCrunch have questionable ethics.
Revealing a company's internal documents in piecemeal over the course of a
week to give readers some little voyeuristic thrill while raking in the
advertising dollars is wrong. It would be one thing if they were blowing the
whistle on something illegal or immoral that was going on there, but those
documents revealed nothing of real value. It was simply a peek behind the
curtains.

TechCrunch is not in the business of information and certainly is not the
"paper of record" for startups and entrepreneurs. They are in the business of
selling controversy where it doesn't necessarily exist. It is for this exact
reason that they often have a headline designed to stoke the nerd rage fire on
top of an article that is little more than some asshole's opinion or wild
guess about how something is going to play out. When TechCrunch actually does
publish something newsworthy there are usually several other sources with
better coverage and better writing.

I will continue to flag TechCrunch submissions.

~~~
jeremymims
This is precisely the problem. My suspicion is that you should be flagging
individual articles, not sources. That's no better than my grandfather
ignoring any hard news reporting that comes from the New York Times because it
has a "liberal bias".

In the case of Twitter's internal documents, the reason you saw nothing of
"real value" is precisely because Tech Crunch drew a line between releasing
information that could be damaging to individuals and the company and things
they could report that were relatively benign. They received much more
information than they ended up publishing. Tech Crunch could have made more in
ad dollars had they just published everything. They painstakingly satisfied an
obligation to share information with the public and protect companies and
individuals who they saw as having done nothing wrong. Whatever side they
ended up on, they certainly tried to be transparent about it.

As for the opinion part of reviewing startups and their software, I don't see
any other way to go about it. Most small startup companies that are covered in
Tech Crunch are based on a few facts (company name, founders, employees,
location, backers) and then a review of their product or service. This is
inherently an opinion. There just aren't that many "facts" about startups at
the beginning. There are beliefs and perceptions. You can disagree with the
opinion or analysis, but I don't see how you could avoid having one.

~~~
anatoly
According to your logic, we should put exactly the same trust in an article in
NYTimes vs an article in the National Enquirer, only "flagging individual
articles", that is, ignoring the well-deserved reputation of either source.

That's not how people normally treat news sources or opinion sources. New York
Times worked hard to establish the quality of its reporting. Tech Crunch
worked hard to show its reader s that quality takes n-th place in its
reporting to sensationalism, sleazy behavior, unsubstantiated rumors, heavily
biased reporting, etc. etc. Both publications should enjoy the fruit of their
labors.

It's an unfunny joke to call Techcrunch "a paper of record" for anything. I'm
not saying it's the National Enquirer of the startup world, but it's much
closer to that than to being the New York Times of the startup world.

Since Techchrunch now has zero credibility with me, and I think its articles
should be treated as untrusted and biased by default, it's a waste of time for
me to dig through a heap of garbage to find an occassionally honest and
informative piece. Thus the strategy of flagging all Techcrunch submissions is
a sound one; the only reason I don't is that I'm too lazy to remember to.

~~~
jeremymims
I'll quote pg from a few months ago:

"A fine, ringing denunciation. But let's consider performance. Do you learn
more about startups from TechCrunch or the New York Times? I learn much more
from TechCrunch. By the time the NYT gets around to writing about a startup,
the news is usually pretty old. And they often get the story wrong, despite
their supposedly greater professionalism, because they don't understand the
domain as well as TC's writers do.

If you think there's a better source of information about startups than
TechCrunch, what is it?"

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=500780>

------
warrior
I Quit HN!

------
TweedHeads
So he's been using the perfect phone for two years then a new service comes
and gets rejected and he drops the best mobile computing platform ever?

I know everybody is milking the GV fiasco, but this borders on stupidity.

~~~
jonknee
He's got a phone that drops calls, doesn't work well in his home and can't run
the apps he wants to run. Stupidity eh?

~~~
axod
>> "a phone that drops calls"

This whole "The iPhone drops calls" thing it like blaming Ferarri because your
car keeps skidding on the dirt track roads in your country. If you want a
telephone system that works, don't live in the US.

~~~
jonknee
Except it drops calls significantly more than other phones on the network.
This isn't an issue confined to AT&T. They have released some firmware updates
to help which is further evidence that it's not just the network.

~~~
axod
All I know is that it never drops calls in the UK, and my experience of
cellphones and landlines in the US has always been absolutely abysmal.

------
keltecp11
Has anyone elses 3G Iphone SLOWWWWWED down like 10 fold?

------
lpgauth
Boohoo! Cry me a river Arrington...

------
jasongullickson
If I understand correctly...he's "quitting the iPhone" because it's an
unsatisfactory VOIP handset...

Of all the things Apple claims the iPhone to be, I don't think this is one of
them; so I'd say that the problem has more to do with his purchasing choices
than anything Apple and AT&T are up to...

~~~
ben_straub
Google Voice ain't VOIP. Here's what it is:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4Q9MJdT5Ds>

------
amjith
Wow! There is a pretty strong reaction against Apple. OSNews released an
editorial yesterday that promises to publish news for the next 1984 days that
works against Apple's PR.
[http://www.osnews.com/story/21918/The_Camel_s_Back_Broke_198...](http://www.osnews.com/story/21918/The_Camel_s_Back_Broke_1984_Days_of_Bad_PR_for_Apple)

------
tybris
How dare they stop our Google overlords from collecting even more information
on us.

------
bonsaitree
Looks like Mikey is looking for some filler for a slow end-of-week news cycle.
Plus, he can continue to add more follow-up "content" on Pre & Android
experiences.

Just more "jurinal"-istic pablum. Next.

------
jasongullickson
I have loved the Automobile, but now I am quitting the Automobile.

This is not an easy decision.

I was there in January 2007 when it was announced and I bought the first
Automobile as soon as it was available. I happily bought the Automobile 3G a
year later. I’ve proudly yelled “I Am A Member Of The Cult Of Automobile.”
I’ve been an unabashed cheerleader for this mode of transportation to all
who’ll listen. And I’ve scoffed at drivers who said they’d abandon the
platform.

But I’m not going to upgrade to the Automobile 3GS. Instead, I’m abandoning
the Automobile and DOT. I will grudgingly pay the $175 DOT unregitration fee
and then I will move on to another mode of transportation.

What finally put me over the edge? It wasn’t the routinely congested highways,
something you can only truly understand once you have owned an Automobile (and
which drove my friend Om Malik to bail). I’ve lived with that for two years.
It’s not the lack of parking spaces at home. I’ve lived with that for two
years, too. It certainly isn’t the lack of a feed bag, that has never bothered
me. No, what finally put me over the edge is the speeding debacle.

Most of you won’t know what I’m talking about, so I’ll explain.

Speeding is a way to get where you're going faster than everyone else. Here’s
an overview of the service if you aren’t familiar with it.

I’ve always wanted to use speeding but there’s a big switching cost - crashing
your automobile and dying. Too many roads are not built well enough to operate
an automobile at sustained high speeds and are too dangerous to use for
speeding.

But now Firestone is planning on rolling out a new line of tires that are
supposed to handle well at high-speed, so I can drive as fast as I want no
matter what condition the road is in.

Or so I thought. Chevrolet and the DOT are now making speeding illegal. Why?
Because they absolutely don’t want people doing exactly what I’m doing -
driving as fast as they want and using their roads as a racetrack.

So I have to choose between the Automobile and speeding. It’s not an easy
decision. Except, it sort of is. Firestone isn’t forcing the decision on me,
Chevrolet and the DOT are. So I choose to work with the company that isn’t
forcing me to do things their way. And in this case, that’s Firestone.

So what mode of transportation will I use next? Well, that decision is easy,
too. I’d move to the goat because I believe it is the best vehicle out there
other than the Automobile 3GS. But Firestone hasn’t created a tire for the
goat yet, just motorcycle and bicycles. So for now I’m going to use the new
bicycle speeding tires. As soon as something better comes out, or Firestone
makes an tire for the goat, I’ll switch. And keep on speeding. No long commute
to work for me.

And Chevrolet, if you ever decide to put the hammer down on DOT and do the
right thing for your loyal customers, I’ll consider switching back. In the
meantime, I’ll just use one of many go-karts parked in the garage to test out
new roads.

~~~
jasongullickson
I knew I'd take a beating on this comment, but I think it's a valid point, and
I'm willing to bleed for it.

~~~
krschultz
Valid point? It looks like you played mad libs, I don't see your argument.

~~~
jasongullickson
If you own a device that relies on a shared resource you should expect there
to be rules to ensure the resource is shared safely and fairly among all who
use it. In the case of a cellular network, the resource must also generate
enough revenue to maintain it's own operation, so users shouldn't be surprised
when limits are placed on activities that compromise this revenue-generating
ability.

I'm not saying that what AT&T and Apple are doing is right; I don't think
anyone knows enough to say for sure, but I think allot of people complaining
about it should take a wider look.

