take your iPhone abroad, pay $4800

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I'm certainly not a fanboy, and have given the iPhone a few solid
>> knocks where I felt it deserved it, but please- how is this
>> "sucker's" experience different from anyone who takes their world-
>> band smartphone overseas and doesn't disable data? The guy next to
>> him on the cruise with a Blackberry or Treo is getting hit with the
>> same charges.
>
> No, the guy next to him on the cruise with the BB or Treo can turn his
> phone OFF, as in all the way off. The iPhone, no such way exists,
> apparently.
>
> The guy next to him can ALSO take the ****ing BATTERY OUT to MAKE SURE
> he doesn't get socked with a $4800 phone bill for roaming with it
> overseas.
>
Elmo please check the facts before posting. It is easy to tell the device to
check manually. Read page 50 of the manual.

---

› See More: take your iPhone abroad, pay $4800

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 10 Sep 2007 09:16:18 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>This was an unfortunate case of user ignorance, not a failure
> of phone design.
>
While I personally am a reasonably technologically astute person, I believe
most people expect "plug n play" operation out of their new sophisticated
electronics gadgets. Most people probably don't want to become "experts" in
the operation of those gadgets.

That said, to have the iPhone default to a setting by which the average user
can get financially hurt in that way is not acceptable practice to me. "User
ignorance" is a rather arrogant term to use to categorize the average user.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Gordon Burditt) wrote:

> >>This was an unfortunate case of user ignorance, not a failure
> >> of phone design.
> >>
> >While I personally am a reasonably technologically astute person, I believe
> >most people expect "plug n play" operation out of their new sophisticated
> >electronics gadgets. Most people probably don't want to become "experts" in
> >the operation of those gadgets.
> >
> >That said, to have the iPhone default to a setting by which the average user
> >can get financially hurt in that way is not acceptable practice to me. "User
> >ignorance" is a rather arrogant term to use to categorize the average user.
>
> *DID* the iPhone default to automatic mail checking? I thought that
> had to be turned on manually.
>
> I think the manuals ought to explicitly state things like what
> operations (e.g. turning on and off automatic mail checking) restart
> the term of your contract. And the manual needs to reflect your
> situation even if the carrier exercises its option to change the
> terms of the contract.
>
> And it wouldn't hurt to have an option that causes a warning every
> time you take an action that will cost money and tells you how much
> it's going to cost (per minute or whatever). This would take into
> account your current minutes of various types, etc.

This is not beneficial to ATT so they will not do it.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Gordon Burditt) wrote:

> >>This was an unfortunate case of user ignorance, not a failure
> >> of phone design.
> >>
> >While I personally am a reasonably technologically astute person, I believe
> >most people expect "plug n play" operation out of their new sophisticated
> >electronics gadgets. Most people probably don't want to become "experts" in
> >the operation of those gadgets.
> >
> >That said, to have the iPhone default to a setting by which the average user
> >can get financially hurt in that way is not acceptable practice to me. "User
> >ignorance" is a rather arrogant term to use to categorize the average user.
>
> *DID* the iPhone default to automatic mail checking? I thought that
> had to be turned on manually.

It does have to be turned on. It is off be default.

>
> I think the manuals ought to explicitly state things like what
> operations (e.g. turning on and off automatic mail checking) restart
> the term of your contract. And the manual needs to reflect your
> situation even if the carrier exercises its option to change the
> terms of the contract.
>
> And it wouldn't hurt to have an option that causes a warning every
> time you take an action that will cost money and tells you how much
> it's going to cost (per minute or whatever). This would take into
> account your current minutes of various types, etc.

--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm

Tim Adams wrote:

>
> It does have to be turned on. It is off be default.

Immaterial. I have turned things on in my phone because it seemed like a
good idea at the time, only to find out later, I shouldn't have done
that. Good thing my "Oops" didn't cost me money and why should it? I'm
on a prepaid phone and it tells me exactly how much money I'm spending.
This is "too complicated" for contract phones?

At 16 Sep 2007 13:32:37 -0400 Carl wrote:

> While I personally am a reasonably technologically astute person, I
> believe most people expect "plug n play" operation out of their new
> sophisticated electronics gadgets.

Fair enough. However, having said that, I probably chewed some poor
T-Mobile rep's ear off for 20 minutes one day before I first traveled
abroad with a T-Mo phone, just to be sure I knew what I'd be charged
if I made a call, took a call, let the phone ring and not answer,
etc. A similar call might have alerted the family in the story,
rather than simply assuming "if I don't answer the phone, I won't get
charged anything..."

> Most people probably don't want to become "experts" in
> the operation of those gadgets.


Probably, but unfortunately, the situation proved users have some
responsibility to learn how to use their gadgets.

> That said, to have the iPhone default to a setting by which the
> average user can get financially hurt in that way is not acceptable
> practice to me.

As others have stated (personally I don't have an iPhone, but a WinMo
phone) the iPhone doesn't check e-mail periodically by default- the
user has to override the default setting of "check manually."
Therefore, the user in the story DID set his phone to check e-mail
automatically and apparently didn't realize what that costs overseas.

> "User
> ignorance" is a rather arrogant term to use to categorize the
> average user.

Hardly. You're assuming I'm using "ignorance" the same way a
schoolboy would; as a taunt. Ignorance is simply the state of
unknowing. It's not an insult, Nor was it intended as one.

I'm not unsympathetic to the family in the story the OP cited. What
I took issue with was the fact that the OP was claiming it was a
deficiency of the iPhone, where in reality, that guy would've run up
a $4000 bill with ANY smartphone he forgot to disable data on during
his cruise.



--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote
> Carl wrote

>> While I personally am a reasonably technologically astute
>> person, I believe most people expect "plug n play" operation
>> out of their new sophisticated electronics gadgets.

> Fair enough. However, having said that, I probably chewed some poor
> T-Mobile rep's ear off for 20 minutes one day before I first traveled
> abroad with a T-Mo phone, just to be sure I knew what I'd be charged
> if I made a call, took a call, let the phone ring and not answer, etc.

You shouldnt have to do that with a device like the iphone,
it should provide that info to the user itself, and it shouldnt
need you to read the manual to work that out either.

> A similar call might have alerted the family in the story, rather than simply
> assuming "if I don't answer the phone, I won't get charged anything..."

See above.

>> Most people probably don't want to become
>> "experts" in the operation of those gadgets.

> Probably, but unfortunately, the situation proved users
> have some responsibility to learn how to use their gadgets.

All it proved is that the iphone is badly designed.

Its perfectly technically feasible for the iphone to work out that
that enabling of auto checking is going to incur a big cost when
its used in that situation, outside the country, and its perfectly
possible to warn the user about that and check that they want
to incur that very high cost by having that enabled.

Not a shred of rocket science whatever required.

>> That said, to have the iPhone default to a setting by which the average
>> user can get financially hurt in that way is not acceptable practice to me.

> As others have stated (personally I don't have an iPhone, but a WinMo
> phone) the iPhone doesn't check e-mail periodically by default- the
> user has to override the default setting of "check manually."

And the user should be warned about the downside of enabling
that, not just when its manually changed from the default, but
when the phone notices that its doing that auto checking while
roaming and that is going to cost the user a hell of a lot.

> Therefore, the user in the story DID set his phone to check e-mail
> automatically and apparently didn't realize what that costs overseas.

And the user should have been warned by the phone about that.

>> "User ignorance" is a rather arrogant term to use to categorize the average user.

> Hardly.

Fraid so.

> You're assuming I'm using "ignorance" the same way a
> schoolboy would; as a taunt. Ignorance is simply the state
> of unknowing. It's not an insult, Nor was it intended as one.

Sure, but its still rather arrogant. Few average users arent ignorant
about some aspect of any device as complex as that and the device
should be designed to protect them from incuring costs as high as that
due to that ignorance. Its trivial to warn the user what that cost will be.

> I'm not unsympathetic to the family in the story the OP cited.
> What I took issue with was the fact that the OP was claiming
> it was a deficiency of the iPhone,

Corse it is, its trivial to warn the user what that cost will be.

> where in reality, that guy would've run up a $4000 bill with ANY
> smartphone he forgot to disable data on during his cruise.

And users should be assisted on that sort of forgetting with a device thats
perfectly capable of doing that without adding anything to the cost of the device.

Rod Speed wrote:
> Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote
>> Carl wrote
>

Post this trash on iPhones where it is immediately OT.