[benjaminrsmith]

If Apple wanted AT&T to offer lower fees for data access, then they could have accomplished it by threatening to take the iPhone 3G to a different exclusive carrier. So to say Apple doesn't control the data plan price is not exactly completely true. It's astounding that the iPhone is tied to a particular plan though. If you get a Win Mobile or Blackberry device (somewhat comparable smartphones in terms of price/features/etc), you can choose if you want to pay for unlimited data or pay as you go. As far as AT&T trying to recoup their subsidy of the iPhone, why isn't that the case for any other comparable smartphone?
Also, the unsubsidized iPhone is still not unlocked. You have to jailbreak it, which Apple is trying to prove violates the DCMA.

[butlerwm]

First; I've owned three other smartphones (2 HTCs and a Motorola) under the Cingular/AT&T banner. My iPhone 3G is the fourth under them. The unlimited data plan for all of the other smartphones was the same $30/month. So... there's no difference than with any other smartphone on the same carrier. To imply that Apple has some persuasive power over AT&T (the company that was once so big that the federal government saw fit to "break them up") is, at best, naive and at worst, willfully blind to the truth of the business world.

Second; if you think you can get away "on the cheap" with a pay as you go data plan, you better think again. The per megabyte rate is so high that you'd burn through $30 of usage before an hour's up. If you plan on using so little data that you won't suck up $30 worth, then you really have no use for a data plan in the first place and putting out the money for a smartphone is equally as unreasonable. If all you want is a phone, then get a phone. If you need a smartphone, it's because it has data capabilities not found on voice-only phones.

Lastly: as to the "I'm a college student and can't afford it", well, I've got two kids in college. One has an iPhone (that's going on 2 years old, without any problems) and the other an HTC smartphone (and had a Blackberry before that). They both work and have no problem paying their respective $30/month data fees. Oh... and the one with the HTC is buying an iPhone later this month... because it does more and does it better than the HTC.

[cystarkman]

@mdg1019

LOL

Glad you got some spirit.

I don't agree that the USA has a second rate internet infrastructure. Only a second rate mobile network.

Now where I live in Australia, we have a third rate internet infrastructure and a first rate mobile network.

We also pay with our first born for the privilege.

$30 a month for a shaped unlimited sounds like gold. I pay $10 a month for 150 meg, don't even ask about the per meg fees after that.

We ain't got much, but we do have an amazing mobile network.

[cystarkman]

@stapenella

Actually over here in Australia each of our states is about a fifth the size of the USA. Actually some of our cities are the size of a european nation.

We also have less than 1/10 the USA population spread out over that space.

CDMA got switched off a year ago. 3G all the way here, up to 21Mbit (unlikely) download now, but not on a current generation iPhone.

WiFi is excellent, I tend to move from place to place, it is not uncommon for each place to have WiFi. Thankfully due the fantastic 3G network the iPhone is quite powerful even when out bush.

CDMA is an early 90's technology, 2G and 2.5G (EVDO) are mid to late 90's, 3G started rolling out here in about 02 if I recall. We already have a nation wide (population wise) 3G network using the latest protocols for impressive performance and range with 2 more independent 3G networks being rolled out.

[Intrepid781]

Well I'm sure Apple could've specified some stuff for better plans in their talks, but they knew that everyone under the sun would buy the pos regardless of the plan, so they just smiled and started raking in money. When you compare how many people bend over and take the high plan prices to the people that complain and won't get an iphone because of them...well we're the minority, by alot I'm sure.

[AverageBob]

First of all, the $30 plan that AT&T charges is not something that was designed to screw over Apple iPhone users. AT&T will charge you $30/month regardless of what smartphone you have. You get a Blackberry and want a data plan from AT&T. That's $30/month. Windows Mobile from AT&T? That's $30/month. Apple may ask for a cheaper plan or more options but really it's not their business relationship. You implying that "they just smiled and started raking in money" is just a slight at Apple even though there are no different than any company like Motorola, Samsung, RIM, etc. They make the device. AT&T supports it on their network.



Second, AT&T is not alone in charging you lots of money for a data plan and not giving you lots of options. Sprint charges $40/month for unlimited data w/2 yr and $50/month with 1 yr. T-Mobile charges anywhere from $40/month to $60/month depending on the phone for unlimited data. Verizon is the only with options. A limited data plan is $15/month and the unlimited plan is $30/month. And by the way, on all new smartphones from Verizon, you have to get the $30 plan. The pay-as-you-go data plan? Verizon stopped offering those after November 2008.

[mdg1019]

Odd, I remember reading numerous times when the first iPhone came out and then when the 3G came out that Apple does confer (collude, probably a more accurate word) on what AT&T does or does not charge for iPhone service. These are not posts in forums I'm talking about, but legitimate news reports at the time. I can't remember the details, but to say that the ball is entirely in AT&T's court is totally without basis in fact. How much influence Apple had in the end, I really don't know, but it's very clear that they did influence how much you pay for your iPhone and the continuing data charges. That was clearly evident when Apple and AT&T brokered their deal. Not only does Apple make money on every iPhone sold, they also get a cut in the action of the monthly data charges. If they'd really, really wanted to save iPhone owners money on the monthly data charges, I'm sure it would have happened. So I don't know why so may people are insisting now that it didn't happen.

[mdg1019]

cystarkman wrote:@mdg1019
"I don't agree that the USA has a second rate internet infrastructure. Only a second rate mobile network."

From what I've read, the US has a pretty second rate infrastructure compared with most other industrialized nations. Here's a good quote that pretty much sums it up:



Communication Workers of America president, Larry Cohen:
bq. We have pathetic speeds compared to the rest of the world. People don't pay attention to the fact that the country that started the commercial Internet is falling woefully behind.
bq.
Unfortunately, that pretty much says it all

[AverageBob]

"Odd, I remember reading
numerous times when the first iPhone came out and then when the 3G came
out that Apple does confer (collude, probably a more accurate word) on
what AT&T does or does not charge for iPhone service. These are not posts in
forums I'm talking about, but legitimate news reports at the time. I
can't remember the details, but to say that the ball is entirely in
AT&T's court is totally without basis in fact. How much influence
Apple had in the end, I really don'tknow, but it's very clear that
they did influence how much you pay for your iPhone and the continuing
data charges."



You say that Apple must be colluding with AT&T but how do you explain that AT&T charges the same amount for the iPhone as they do for the Blackberry for a data plan. The voice plan is also exactly the same pricing.



"That was clearly evident
when Apple and AT&T brokered their deal. Not only does Apple make
money on every iPhone sold, they also get a cut in the action of the
monthly data charges. If they'd really, really wanted to save iPhone
owners money on the monthly data charges, I'm sure it would have
happened. So I don't know why so may people are insisting now that it
didn't happen.'



Apple has some influence but you are singling out Apple for not getting a cheaper data plan for their users when the other cellphone makers do not. Is that really a fair critique? By that logic, RIM should ensure that AT&T users pay less for their data service too. Also they should make Verizon not force new Blackberry owners to pay the full $30 a month for data access and reinstate pay-as-you-go data access. By the way, RIM also gets a cut of monthly fees so this is not a new thing invented by Apple:



http://www.thestar.c.../article/233390



"RIM also receives a significant cut – estimated by analysts to be
between 10 per cent and 40 per cent – of the carrier's monthly
subscriptions in exchange for handling the email traffic and providing
customer support."

[mdg1019]

No, I'm just saying that it's naive to think that Apple didn't have a say in the prices that AT&T charges for the iPhone service. It's a simple matter of supply and demand. Apple had a product that there was no real competition for at the time. That made them a monopoly supplier. They had many options as to who would be the carrier for the iPhone. So who do you really think had the upperhand in the negotiations? AT&T, not hardly. What do you think AT&T gave up in order to get their exclusive contract? Nothing? Not hardly. It's called paying Apple a significant share of the revenues that we pay to use our iPhones. Nobody knows the details of what really took place, because both Apple and AT&T have kept their agreement secret. Which is certainly their right to do. BUT, a little common sense should tell anybody that Apple came way out ahead in the deal. They had all of the bargaining chips, AT&T had none.

Somebody in a previous post compared the AT&T of today to the AT&T of yesteryear. That's an uttlerly absurd comparison. The old AT&T could have dictated terms to Apple, but the current incarnation is not a legal, natural monopoly and doesn't have the power to dictate to anybody. The two companies share the same name, but that is it. I have no idea how old the poster is, but obviously he/she isn't old enough to remember the old AT&T and how they had almost total control over all sectors of the telecommunications market in this country. Mr. Jobs would have come begging the old AT&T to market his phone, because without AT&T the iPhone would have never reached the market if they didn't want it to. The old AT&T had that type of power, the new AT&T is just one of many players in the game.

Apple was the one who came to the bargaining table with the monopoly position, not AT&T. Therefore, we pay our fees according to the way Apple saw fit in the end not necessarily the way AT&T might have wanted it. That's not to say AT&T would have been any more benevolent had they been in a stronger bargaining position, but all this crap that Apple is like Santa Claus and AT&T is Satan in the mix is just a load of baloney.

[AverageBob]

"No, I'm just saying that
it's naive to think that Apple didn't have a say in the prices that
AT&T charges for the iPhone service."



My point is Apple can ask but considering that it's the same price regardless of the phone, if they did ask, they didn't get the concession they wanted.



"It's a simple matter of supply
and demand. Apple had a product that there was no real competition for
at the time. That made them a monopoly supplier. They had many options
as to who would be the carrier for the iPhone. So who do you really
think had the upperhand in the negotiations? AT&T, not hardly. What
do you think AT&T gave up in order to get their exclusive contract?
Nothing? Not hardly. It's called paying Apple a significant share of
the revenues that we pay to use our iPhones. Nobody knows the details
of what really took place, because both Apple and AT&T have kept
their agreement secret. Which is certainly their right to do. BUT, a
little common sense should tell anybody that Apple came way out ahead
in the deal. They had all of the bargaining chips, AT&T had none"



That's a bit of revisionist history. AT&T had Windows Mobile and Blackberry at other smartphones that they carried. The iPhone was new and a gamble; there was no guarantee that it would be a success. The rumors where they went to Verizon and others first. Only Cingular was willing to take their terms. But Cingular could have declined it. Thus no iPhones for anyone until Apple changed their terms. Apple didn't hold all the cards. They may have gotten a lot of things from their deal but I hardly think they can dictate to AT&T what AT&T should charge for AT&T's data plans.

To show you how much sway Apple has over carriers, Rogers Wireless in Canada charges an outrageous $60 Canadian for a measly 1GB of data on the iPhone 3G with no unlimited data options. Apple was unhappy with it. They only bargaining chip they had was not to ship as many units to their Canadian stores when they released the iPhone 3G. Rogers' data plan hasn't changed to this day. Apple is still selling iPhones in Canada. So which company has more control here?

http://www.digitaljo.../article/257126

"Somebody in a previous post compared the AT&T of today to the
AT&T of yesteryear. That's an uttlerly absurd comparison. The old
AT&T could have dictated terms to Apple, but the current
incarnation is not a legal, natural monopoly and doesn't have the power
to dictate to anybody. The two companies share the same name, but that
is it. I have no idea how old the poster is, but obviously he/she isn't
old enough to remember the old AT&T and how they had almost total
control over all sectors of the telecommunications market in this
country. Mr. Jobs would have come begging the old AT&T to market
his phone, because without AT&T the iPhone would have never reached
the market if they didn't want it to. The old AT&T had that type of
power, the new AT&T is just one of many players in the game."

None of which I even mentioned nor is relevant to my points. Does any other company tell AT&T what they should charge nor have influence on AT&T? Judging by the fact it's $30/month regardless of phone, I would say no. No other company has been able to change that part of their relationship with AT&T. Why should you hold Apple to a higher standard than say RIM. Both companies get money from the monthly charges from AT&T. Both are in the smartphone category.



"Apple was the one who came to the bargaining table with the
monopoly position, not AT&T. Therefore, we pay our fees according
to the way Apple saw fit in the end not necessarily the way AT&T
might have wanted it. That's not to say AT&T would have been any
more benevolent had they been in a stronger bargaining position, but
all this crap that Apple is like Santa Claus and AT&T is Satan in
the mix is just a load of baloney."

If Apple has SO much control over the fees AT&T charges why is the rate the same as the Blackberry? This completely destroys your conspiracy theory. If the data plan on the iPhone was $45/month and everybody else was $30/month, you might have a point. Apple might have more sway than other carriers because the phone is popular, they don't hold all the cards.





I'm not saying AT&T is Satan and Apple is Santa Claus. I'm saying griping at Apple for AT&T pricing is targeting the wrong company. I don't complain about my car manufacturer when gas prices were $4/gallon. Why? Because it is not up to my car manufacturer to dictate to the oil companies how much to charge for gas. If my car is a gas guzzler, I seriously have to think about getting another car, but I knew the mpg when I bought the car.

[mdg1019]

"My point is Apple can ask
but considering that it's the same price regardless of the phone, if
they did ask, they didn't get the concession they wanted."

In a couple of places in your response, you're putting words in my mouth. I did say that I have no way of knowing what Apple did or did not ask for. Unless you work for either Apple or AT&T and have access to the contracts then neither do you. My point was (and if I didn't make it well, then I apologize), that "I believe" Apple had the superior bargaining position. That's pretty fundamental, microeconomic supply and demand theory. If Steve Jobs went to the negotiating table with that in mind, then Apple came out ahead. If he didn't, then AT&T came out ahead. Neither of us will ever know, but my money is on Mr. Jobs. Obviously, it was a win-win situation for both sides or the deal wouldn't have happened. It's also just as obvious (at least to me) that one way or another all of AT&T customers bills have been affected by the deal.

We both have our opinions. We'll never really know who is right or wrong. I feel that I've supported mine in a reasonable and logical manner. You've supported yours in the same fashion. You did make some excellent points in your response. I still don't agree with you, but I'll concede you could certainly be right in what you say. Maybe neither of knows what we're talking about. :)

Tell you what, if the contracts are ever made public then who ever was closest buys the other a beer. :)

[butlerwm]

Don't know if any of you remember but when the iPhone was originally released (pre-3G), the cost was significantly higher and the all-you-can-eat data plan was only $20. It was only after two price drops, including the release and reduced price of the 3G model that the data plan went to $30. That brought the iPhone data plan in line with all of AT&T's other smartphone offerings. It seems to indicate AT&T's subsidy amount went up and that was passed on to customers in the form of the higher data rate.

As for the concept that AT&T is just "one of many" telecoms... hmm... I think I'd beg to differ with that. While not nearly the mega-multi-national monster that was their former glory, they have managed to suck up a large part of their former child companies and branch into nearly every sector of the telecommunications market (cable TV, internet ISP, wireless, local phone, long distance phone, etc.). As I said, I agree they aren't what they used to be. Prior to the break up AT&T was prohibited by law from making their own computers. To circumvent the prohibition they created data entry and retrieval devices (a computer by any other name would smell as sweet) and the original Unix operating system to drive it. After the break up, the restriction fell away and AT&T immediately entered the PC market. Bell Labs also created the standard RJ-11 and RJ-45 modular phone jack (one used to connect phones, the other continues to be used from ethernet cables). Bell Labs became Lucent and broke away from AT&T but was eventually re-acquired by the new AT&T. How many remember that Cingular bought AT&T's wireless branch. Cingular was subsequently acquired by some perverse joining of Southern Bell and some other wireless provider (but if memory serves me, it was also one of the old baby-bells). They retained the Cingular name for the wireless portion of that merger. Then AT&T entered the picture again and re-acquired Cingular and thus brought another part of their old family back into the AT&T realm of influence.

Like I said, you could hardly argue that AT&T is the same beast as the former entity. However, the telecommunication's giant of today is anything but "just another player" in the market. Nationally, there are currently three telecommunication giants. AT&T numbers among them. Never let it be said that with that status, they don't have power in the market place. While that may not make them a larger player than Apple, it at least places them in the same league, which means it's highly unlikely that Apple dictated AT&T's pricing place for services on the iPhone. I'll go along with a "mutual accord", but nothing beyond that. Rather than a meeting of good and evil, it would be more like a meeting of the two evils. Some, however, would argue that it's just "business" as usual.

[JoshD]

The reasoning behind two separate plans (voice and data) is that there are people out there who choose only the voice and strictly use a wifi connection for internet. Saves money for them. Granted, without the 3G access they're more limited to where they use the internet, but for those who have networks at home and the office, it works out quite well. If they kept everything in one plan, it would be more costly for everyone and thoses who don't need the 3G access wouldn't have the option