Next Up - The iPhone in China

In article <[email protected]>,
David Friedman <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > mainly mac cities have open wireless pretty much everywhere since you
> > can't break into macs / osx.
> >
>
> So far as I know, there aren't any "mainly mac cities." And I live not
> far from Cupertino.
>
> Nor have I ever observed "open wireless pretty much everywhere." Could
> you give an example of such a place?

Manhattan comes pretty close. Not through any organized scheme (though
there is some municipal WiFi in parks and a few other places), but
simply as a result of density. Walking around with an iPhone makes one
just aware of how many wireless networks are around. On any random
street corner there will be three or five access points, one or two of
which will generally be open.

--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006

---

› See More: Next Up - The iPhone in China

David Friedman wrote:

> You love Apple because they want the city to make it illegal for private
> developers to bid against them for land they want to use for office
> space? Do you also think they should get the state to make it illegal
> for other firms to try to hire away their employees, or bid against them
> for RAM and CPU chips, or ... ?

The city is not making anything illegal. The land is not zoned for
housing. It is zoned for commercial, which is much better financially
for the city, as commercial brings in more money without impacting
services, especially schools.

The developers see that housing is hot (or was hot) and rush in begging
for rezoning so they can tear down commercial buildings, and throw up
some cheaply constructed condos that will sell for $1,000,000 or more
each, but the property tax revenue to the city is far less than what
would be generated by businesses, either commercial or retail, and has
much less impact in terms of services that must be provided.

You can't fill an entire city with housing, just because a recession has
temporarily hurt the commercial market. San Jose has also been grappling
with this, as city council members try to pay back the developers that
own them, the planning department is fighting to maintain a balance of
commercial and residential, because commercial pays the bills.

The developers are free to build anything on their land that the land is
zoned for. What they can't do, anymore, is to easily get the zoning
changes that result in huge windfall profits for them at the expense of
the rest of us.

As to Apple, they could have run off to an area with plenty of low-cost
empty land in an industrial park, resulting in long commutes for their
employees. In fact they had purchased such land in South San Jose but
sold it, and abandoned plans to move when they encountered problems in
the 1980's and 1990's. When they recently announced plans for a second
campus in Cupertino, Steve Jobs showed up at a city council meeting to
inform the city of their decision, making it clear that they could have
left for cheaper pastures, but that they were willing to spend the extra
money to stay. Right now they are scattered around scores of leased one
story buildings, and they want to consolidate these into a second
campus. Ironically, the city made it more expensive for them to do this,
as part of the land they bought had already been rezoned for condos,
which increased the cost to Apple for the land.

In article <[email protected]>,
SMS éz‰⁄ï∂• ⃠<[email protected]> wrote:

> David Friedman wrote:
>
> > You love Apple because they want the city to make it illegal for private
> > developers to bid against them for land they want to use for office
> > space? Do you also think they should get the state to make it illegal
> > for other firms to try to hire away their employees, or bid against them
> > for RAM and CPU chips, or ... ?
>
> The city is not making anything illegal. The land is not zoned for
> housing.

Or in other words, I should have written "because they want the city to
keep it illegal for ... " instead of "make it illegal for." My error,
but I don't see how it affects the argument.

> It is zoned for commercial, which is much better financially
> for the city, as commercial brings in more money without impacting
> services, especially schools.

On the whole, I think what is better for people is more important than
what is better for the city government. If, absent zoning, developers
who want to use the land for housing can outbid firms that want to use
it for office space, that provides at least some evidence that the land
is actually more valuable to the eventual users in the former use.

And in any case, whether or not the policy is good for the city
government, Apple is advocating it, as I think your post makes clear, as
a way in which it can benefit at the expense of (ultimately) people who
would like to live in places where Apple would like to have office space
and land owners who would like to sell their land at as high a price as
possible. I can't see that as admirable behavior, whether or not you
like the ultimate result.

And I'm an Apple stockholder, so presumably benefit by it.

....

> You can't fill an entire city with housing, just because a recession has
> temporarily hurt the commercial market.

On the whole, I think landowners can be trusted to figure out how to
make as much money as possible by selling their land--which includes
figuring out whether they are better off selling it for housing now or
waiting for the commercial market to improve and selling it for more
next year. At least, their incentive to get the calculation correct is
considerably stronger than the incentives of the politicians deciding on
zoning rules.

....

> The developers are free to build anything on their land that the land is
> zoned for. What they can't do, anymore, is to easily get the zoning
> changes that result in huge windfall profits for them at the expense of
> the rest of us.

Insofar as a zoning change produces a windfall, it's for the owner of
the land, not the firm that develops it. Do you think the city is
obligated to compensate landowners when it goes the other way--when
zoning is changed in ways that reduce the value of their land?

> As to Apple, they could have run off to an area with plenty of low-cost
> empty land in an industrial park, resulting in long commutes for their
> employees.

Preventing housing from being built near their present location also
results in longer commutes for their employees.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now

David Friedman wrote:

> Or in other words, I should have written "because they want the city to
> keep it illegal for ... " instead of "make it illegal for." My error,
> but I don't see how it affects the argument.

Because using the word "illegal" is not being honest. The land is not
zoned for housing, so housing cannot be built on that land.

> On the whole, I think what is better for people is more important than
> what is better for the city government. If, absent zoning, developers
> who want to use the land for housing can outbid firms that want to use
> it for office space, that provides at least some evidence that the land
> is actually more valuable to the eventual users in the former use.

The problem is that "housing is forever," as the Apple spokesman duly
noted. A temporary downturn in the business climate results in
developers and landowners crying to the city that they can't make any
money leasing office space, and begging for rezoning so they can tear
down their buildings to build housing. If they succeed, there is no way
that housing development will ever be converted back to commercial, as
it will now have hundreds or thousands of owners that would have to be
bought out. Then you have a shortage of commercial and retail space, and
it's commercial and retail that pays for essential services.

> And in any case, whether or not the policy is good for the city
> government, Apple is advocating it, as I think your post makes clear, as
> a way in which it can benefit at the expense of (ultimately) people who
> would like to live in places where Apple would like to have office space
> and land owners who would like to sell their land at as high a price as
> possible. I can't see that as admirable behavior, whether or not you
> like the ultimate result.

No, there are no individuals clamoring to rezone that land to build
housing. It's landowners like HP (that tried to sell to Taylor-Woodrow
but couldn't when the rezoning was overturned) or Vallco. In fact, it's
the current residents that are happy to have more housing, as long as
the developers include schools, parks, and traffic improvements as part
of their plans--which the developers are loathe to do.

> And I'm an Apple stockholder, so presumably benefit by it.

No you don't. Financially, they would have been better off moving to
Coyote Valley or Fremont where the tilt-up office buildings are
plentiful and cheap. Fortunately or unfortunately, Jobs decision on this
was supported, or at least not questioned, by the board.

Contrast Apple to HP. Apple makes their money by developing and selling
products. HP runs around selling off real-estate to boost their
earnings. They did this in Mountain View with the old Mayfield Mall.
They did this in Cupertino, trying to sell off a large parcel to
Taylor-Woodrow for condos. They sold their beautiful campground near Big
Basin, which was heart-breaking to their employees. Sooner or later
they'll run out of real-estate to sell.

In article <[email protected]>,
SMS éz‰⁄ï∂• ⃠<[email protected]> wrote:

> David Friedman wrote:
>
> > Or in other words, I should have written "because they want the city to
> > keep it illegal for ... " instead of "make it illegal for." My error,
> > but I don't see how it affects the argument.
>
> Because using the word "illegal" is not being honest. The land is not
> zoned for housing, so housing cannot be built on that land.

Hence it is illegal to build housing on that land. I can't see anything
dishonest about saying so.

The only thing that keeps people from building housing on that land is
that doing so is against the law, illegal, because of the zoning. Your
"cannot" makes it sound as though it's a law of nature instead of a law
made by a government.

> > On the whole, I think what is better for people is more important than
> > what is better for the city government. If, absent zoning, developers
> > who want to use the land for housing can outbid firms that want to use
> > it for office space, that provides at least some evidence that the land
> > is actually more valuable to the eventual users in the former use.
>
> The problem is that "housing is forever," as the Apple spokesman duly
> noted. A temporary downturn in the business climate results in
> developers and landowners crying to the city that they can't make any
> money leasing office space, and begging for rezoning so they can tear
> down their buildings to build housing. If they succeed, there is no way
> that housing development will ever be converted back to commercial, as
> it will now have hundreds or thousands of owners that would have to be
> bought out. Then you have a shortage of commercial and retail space, and
> it's commercial and retail that pays for essential services.

You seem to assume that landowners are stupid--stupider than either you
or the city. If the land is going to be worth much more next year as
commercial real estate than it is this year as residential, that's a
good reason for the landowner to wait until next year to sell it, or to
sell it to a speculator who will hold it empty until next year, when he
can sell it for a higher price.

> > And in any case, whether or not the policy is good for the city
> > government, Apple is advocating it, as I think your post makes clear, as
> > a way in which it can benefit at the expense of (ultimately) people who
> > would like to live in places where Apple would like to have office space
> > and land owners who would like to sell their land at as high a price as
> > possible. I can't see that as admirable behavior, whether or not you
> > like the ultimate result.

> No, there are no individuals clamoring to rezone that land to build
> housing.

Similarly, there are no, or at least few, individuals clamoring to have
the land made available to Apple so that Apple can develop new gadgets
for those individuals to buy a few years down the road.

Apple's demand for the land ultimately reflects their estimate of what
individual consumers will want from them--using the land as one
input--in the future. Similarly, the people who would buy the land for
residential purposes reflect their estimate of what the individuals who
will eventually occupy those residences will want.

> It's landowners like HP (that tried to sell to Taylor-Woodrow
> but couldn't when the rezoning was overturned) or Vallco.

They can't sell unless someone wants to buy. What the buyer will pay
ultimately reflects what he thinks people will pay him to own or rent
the land, which reflects the desires of individuals.

> In fact, it's
> the current residents that are happy to have more housing, as long as
> the developers include schools, parks, and traffic improvements as part
> of their plans--which the developers are loathe to do.

It isn't the current residents who are made worse off by zoning
restrictions, it's the people who would live in the housing that the
restrictions prevent from being built. If anything, current homeowners
benefit by the restriction, since keeping land off the housing market
tends to increase the value of existing housing, and they might some day
want to sell and move elsewhere. The cost is born by renters, future
residents, and landowners.

> > And I'm an Apple stockholder, so presumably benefit by it.
>
> No you don't. Financially, they would have been better off moving to
> Coyote Valley or Fremont where the tilt-up office buildings are
> plentiful and cheap. Fortunately or unfortunately, Jobs decision on this
> was supported, or at least not questioned, by the board.

From which I conclude, assuming that Jobs and the board are doing their
fiduciary duty, that they thought Apple, and its stockholders, would be
better off staying--especially if they could get the city government to
keep on restrictions that made land their cheaper for them and
unavailable for housing.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now

In article <[email protected]>,
ZnU <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> David Friedman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <[email protected]>,
> > Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > mainly mac cities have open wireless pretty much everywhere since you
> > > can't break into macs / osx.
> > >
> >
> > So far as I know, there aren't any "mainly mac cities." And I live not
> > far from Cupertino.
> >
> > Nor have I ever observed "open wireless pretty much everywhere." Could
> > you give an example of such a place?
>
> Manhattan comes pretty close. Not through any organized scheme (though
> there is some municipal WiFi in parks and a few other places), but
> simply as a result of density. Walking around with an iPhone makes one
> just aware of how many wireless networks are around. On any random
> street corner there will be three or five access points, one or two of
> which will generally be open.

I had my iPhone this week around Tokyo. WiFi was everywhere, sometimes
10 at a time.

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

Kurt <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> ZnU <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> David Friedman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > In article
>> > <[email protected]>,
>> > Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > mainly mac cities have open wireless pretty much everywhere since
>> > > you can't break into macs / osx.
>> > >
>> >
>> > So far as I know, there aren't any "mainly mac cities." And I live
>> > not far from Cupertino.
>> >
>> > Nor have I ever observed "open wireless pretty much everywhere."
>> > Could you give an example of such a place?
>>
>> Manhattan comes pretty close. Not through any organized scheme
>> (though there is some municipal WiFi in parks and a few other
>> places), but simply as a result of density. Walking around with an
>> iPhone makes one just aware of how many wireless networks are around.
>> On any random street corner there will be three or five access
>> points, one or two of which will generally be open.
>
> I had my iPhone this week around Tokyo. WiFi was everywhere, sometimes
> 10 at a time.
>

Great news for the .001% of the US population that would travel to Tokyo
enough to find this to be an advantage. For the rest of us.....<yawn>.

At 24 Nov 2007 12:05:09 -0800 Kurt wrote:

> I had my iPhone this week around Tokyo. WiFi was everywhere, sometimes
> 10 at a time.

And if there was a VoIP client available for it, you could've actually
made phone calls on it! ;-)

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> At 24 Nov 2007 12:05:09 -0800 Kurt wrote:
>
>> I had my iPhone this week around Tokyo. WiFi was everywhere, sometimes
>> 10 at a time.
>
> And if there was a VoIP client available for it, you could've actually
> made phone calls on it! ;-)
>
>

He wont get one unless Lord Jobs decides he can.

In news:[email protected],
Titus Pullo <[email protected]> typed:
> "Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> At 24 Nov 2007 12:05:09 -0800 Kurt wrote:
>>
>>> I had my iPhone this week around Tokyo. WiFi was everywhere, sometimes
>>> 10 at a time.
>>
>> And if there was a VoIP client available for it, you could've actually
>> made phone calls on it! ;-)
>>
>>
>
> He wont get one unless Lord Jobs decides he can.


That probably will not happen as long as the iPhone is tied to cell phone
service providers who give a percentage of the monthly service charge to
Apple.

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007, Kurt wrote:
> I had my iPhone this week around Tokyo. WiFi was everywhere, sometimes
> 10 at a time.

How many of those WiFi networks (outside of your gaijin hotel) were open?

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Nov 2007, Kurt wrote:
> > I had my iPhone this week around Tokyo. WiFi was everywhere, sometimes
> > 10 at a time.
>
> How many of those WiFi networks (outside of your gaijin hotel) were open?
>
> -- Mark --
>
I hang with the Japanese. Was out in the countryside, too. Quite a few
free ones, and many were large networks that you could sign up by CC for
at airport for 500 yen a day ($4.75, or so).
I found one called Freeport at a couple road side rest stops.

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

At 24 Nov 2007 23:39:13 -0800 vic.healey wrote:

> > And if there was a VoIP client available for it, you could've actually
> > made phone calls on it! ;-)
>
> Any simpleton can do a quick web seaarch to verify that the above
> statement that one can not do VOIP using the iPhone is false.


Actually, the danger of "any simpleton" Googling information on topics
he's unfamiliar with is that he often gets his ears pinned back by
someone who does...

So, if you'll indulge me...

>
> Voip on the iPhone is possible through TruPhone

Perhaps it will be, someday.

TruPhone is not actually AVAILABLE for iPhone yet- the TruPhone people
made a "proof of concept" public demonstration in September, but haven't
actually released the finished app for iPhone users, nor even a public
beta. So it's unlikely Kurt, the OP, could've used Truphone in Tokyo a
week ago.

"To say the application isn’t yet ready for prime time would be a pretty
major understatement..." (http://us.blognation.com/2007/09/25/bn-
exclusive-truphone-to-launch-voip-client-on-iphone)

> and Talkety

Well, any simpleton could do a quick Google search and realize Talkety
(for iPhone) ISN'T A VOIP APP, but a callback service that connects your
iPhone to VoIP via a CELLULAR phone call- exactly the situation one uses
VoIP to avoid when overseas, to avoid roaming charges:

"Then just tap one of the contact’s phone numbers (if there is more then
one to choose from) and TALKETY WILL CALL YOU BACK instantly to initiate
your call!"
(http://www.talkety.com/pages/iphone)

They call you back on your iPhone's AT&T number, of course, which
certainly won't avoid roaming charges!

And while "any simpleton" was Googling THAT, that simpleton might also
check if the iPhone could even roam on Japan's cell networks, to use a
callback service like Talkety in the first place, assuming you still
wanted to, despite it's inability to save you any money when roaming.
(And that simpleton, of course, would then discover, NO, only 2100MHz 3G
phones can roam in Japan, which leaves out the iPhone, and any of it's
callback services.)


> so he
> could go to China and call the USA for free using iPhone WiFi if he
> wanted to.


Yes, if he used his time-machine first, to launch himsElf into a future
world where a VoIP client was actually available for a jail-broken
iPhone, but not today, and certainly not with Talkety or ShapeServices
(another VoIP callback service, this one for Skype, that your simpleton
search apparently missed.)


> TruPhone is a paid service for most cellphone-to-cellphone calls, but
> it allows free dialing and SMS messaging of other Truphone users, as
> well as free calls to landlines in countries such as Canada and the
> US.

And works on a variety of Symbian-based Nokia phones, but not, as of yet,
on the iPhone.

> The company is technically not the first to try VoIP on the
> iPhone; Talkety launched a compatible service shortly after the iPhone
> itself was released, the difference being that Talkety is entirely web-
> based, requiring no hacking.

No, it's not "entirely web-based"- it uses the web to initiate a
callback, which is ENTIRELY CELLULAR-BASED. Callback services have been
around for cellphones for years, long before the iPhone was imagined.
(www.kall8.com springs to mind, but there are dozens.) Typically,
callbacks can be initiated over the web, via an "uncharged" phone call
(dial the callback provider's number and hangup before being charged for
the call, generating a callback that prompts you for your destination
call,) via WAP, or by an SMS trigger. Callback use is based on the idea
that you'll use a local prepaid SIM at your destination that has free
incoming calls, AT&T roamers get no benefit from callback services since
incoming and outgoing calls generally cost the same.


So, has this "simpleton" explained the current iPhone VoIP situation
clearly enough for your clearly superior intellect to comprehend?

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, Kurt wrote:
> I hang with the Japanese. Was out in the countryside, too. Quite a few
> free ones, and many were large networks that you could sign up by CC for
> at airport for 500 yen a day ($4.75, or so).
> I found one called Freeport at a couple road side rest stops.

Free, or pay? I find lots of pay networks in Japan, but not many free
open ones other than the occasional residential AP that the owner didn't
know enough to secure.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

In article
<alpine.WNT.0.99999.0711271306150.6024@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washignton.EDU>,
Mark Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, Kurt wrote:
> > I hang with the Japanese. Was out in the countryside, too. Quite a few
> > free ones, and many were large networks that you could sign up by CC for
> > at airport for 500 yen a day ($4.75, or so).
> > I found one called Freeport at a couple road side rest stops.
>
> Free, or pay? I find lots of pay networks in Japan, but not many free
> open ones other than the occasional residential AP that the owner didn't
> know enough to secure.
>
Quite a few free ones. As it turns out all the major highway rest stops
have free ones. Found a few driving around in the city.

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