AppleT&T faces twin texting suits Apple and AT&T are facing a pair of strikingly similar class-action lawsuits charging that the companies misrepresented the iPhone's ability to send and receive MMS messages when upgraded to iPhone Software 3.0. Reports of the first lawsuit, filed in the US District Court in the Eastern District of Louisiana, began crowding …
if AT&T's GSM/MMS set up is anything like anyone else's, then they need to set a flag to say "this subscriber can receive MMS messages". Indeed, there are reports all over the interwebs that other AT&T customers already send and receive MMS just fine.
So it sounds more like a mass re-provisioning issue (and, working out how they're going to charge/fleece their iPhone subscribers: O2 deduct 4 from the SMS allowance for every MMS, or somewhere around 25p. Ouch... and to think people were complaining that the iPhone couldn't support MMS, and that email with pictures was not acceptable!)
The question is, what is Apple doing differently from all the other manufacturers. I'm on AT&T and have been able to send MMS messages for years now. It is not the infrastructure issue. MMS was introduced with GSM Release '97; this release also provided GPRS. So, the bigger question, why did it take three generation of phones to support something that was 12 years old and the first iPhoney supported GPRS.
And MMS isn't the only feature left out -- voice dialing is non-existent on the 3G without a 3rd party app. Crappy little Samsungs have been doing this for what...a decade? These intentional oversights are a slap in the face to anyone (like myself) who has bought the iPhone. I would like these features, but I'm not holding my breath. Futhermore, I REFUSE to be one of those people who sit around reading Apple's overpromising/underdelivering press releases.
Get your head in the game Apple -- stop trying to get NEW customers; focus on the ones you have.
That's what the suit seems to be about - the specs seem to have lied.
Hardware and raw capability wise, I consider the iPhone to probably be the current "best phone". What AT&T and Apple have done to this beautiful hardware should have the fuckers who made these decisions castrated, cut into small little bits, jumped on, set on fire, then hurt in really horrible ways. Its for that reason I'll probably never get one.
I have been on AT&T/Cingular for seven years now, and have been sending and receiving MMS messages for at least five years of that period (after I obtained MMS-capable phones.)
I cannot understand how a modern, sophisticated, practical mobile device can be worth its salt without features offered by just about every other mobile phone on the market. If I am going to plonk down $300, $400, $500, whatever on a phone, the requirements are BASIC FEATURES + more features. Criteria at which the iPhone has apparently failed.
"ooohhh... touch screen, gestures, browser. But no fekkin' MMS?! Christ on a skateboard!"
May sound ridiculous, but a number of my friends and family supplement communications with MMS, and I would go well without if I did not have the capability as well. Much the same as why I had to bite the bullet and set up a Facebook account. (Peer pressure has nothing on familial pressure!)
Paris, plus more features.
"Apple introduced the iPhone 3GS and iPhone Software 3.0 at Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference on June 8th and revealed that AT&T wouldn't support MMS until "later this summer.""
So they publicly announced at the conference and on the website that it would come later. How the fuck is there a case to answer?
( I'm ignoring the other folk here who say they've had MMS with AT&T for ages - I don't understand that either).
You septics need to sort out your legal system. Mind you, at least you don't have to deal with a system that lets the police who shoot innocent electricians get away with it...
Oh wait...
Why did I buy an iPhone? I needed a new phone, and I was either going to get a $20 piece of junk or a smartphone. It turns out I like smartphones, as much as I have bashed them in the past.
Yes, I did my homework, for the most part. I always do. However, I did not delve into those Apple Rumor forums deep enough to realize the extent to which the device's software is cripples such obvious. standard features. It is a very capable device -- but in the end, it's just a thing. My life does not revolve around it. Maybe it's jailbreak time!
Bottom line is that it has to be ATT which is at fault: MMS has worked since day one after upgrading to OS 3.0 here in the UK on O2.
As for charging, re: "working out how they're going to charge/fleece their iPhone subscribers: O2 deduct 4 from the SMS allowance for every MMS, or somewhere around 25p. Ouch... and to think people were complaining that the iPhone couldn't support MMS, and that email with pictures was not acceptable!"
Actually O2's MMS pricing is pretty much par for the course for contracts, and unless you're on the absolute cheapest contract tariff you've got 500 texts per month to go at, so who cares? And email isn't a suitable alternative when you're in an environment where nearly everyone has MMS on their phones and not many have email, if you want to send something to someone else's phone.
So other AT&T customers in the USA can use MMS.
And Apple iPhones in the UK work with MMS
What on earth can be the reason for the mess in the USA. The network handles the stuff. The phone handles the stuff. Maybe they do have limited network capacity, but surely that already affects existing users.
Very small print notices on web pages are not the way to explain what seems to be a temporary restriction. This case does look a bit contrived, but if the sales info said the phone supported MMS, and they tried to hide that the network currently didn't, Apple/AT&T deserve to lose.
"the iPhone OS 3.0 upgrade was FREE for iPhone users ($10 for iPod Touch)"
thats a point i tride to make a while back.... why do they charge for a update for the ipod touch? surely, if the update includes even one very small bugfix it must be given free....
mines the one with the nokia in the pocket...
It's something to do with US corporate law (Sarbanes Oxley?) which prevents them doing free updates for the Touch - they can do it for free on the iPhone as the handset subsidy makes it count as a subscription service, or something like that. So not actually Apple's fault.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
