Chris Ullrich over at LAist decided to talk about making the switch to the iPhone when it comes out. He spends most of the article going over reasons why you might not want to jump on board right away. Even though we here at MyiPhone are excited about it’s release, we feel that it is just as important to point out the negative aspects of making the switch.
Image courtesy of duncandavidson
The first point that everyone jumps to is the price, and for good reason. The iPhone is pretty salty at $499 and $599, but a lot of us tend to justify that cost because we really want it. But what about the other costs? Chances are, if you’re not with Cingular/ATT, you’re going to have to break your contract, which can end up costing you several hundred dollar. If you are a Cingular/ATT customer, don’t worry, you’ll most likely just have to wait until the initial rush is over to get yours.
One of the other good points is the network. The iPhone has great features that can take advantage of a fast internet connection. Only in reality, that connection won’t be that fast. With the Cingular/ATT EDGE network, you’ll be getting little better than dial-up speeds. It does have Wi-Fi, so if you’re near a hotspot, you’ll be great, otherwise, you’re out of luck.
Don’t fret, there are still plenty of good reasons to pick one up in June, but unless you want to be on the bleeding-edge, it wouldn’t hurt to weigh the pro’s and con’s.
Ask the MACist — Should I Get an iPhone? [via laist]
The photo above is a Creative-Commons BY-NC-ND licensed photo whose Copyright is owned by James Duncan Davidson. The Creative Commons license the photograph is distributed under requires attribution and does not allow derivatives (such as cropping). You can read more about the Creative Commons license for this photo at:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/
You can easily snag a copy of the photo that meets these requirements, as well as links back to the photo on Flickr, by grabbing the provided HTML on the following page:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=354638930&size=s
That’s a crop of Duncan Davidson’s photo. So not only are you violating the license by not crediting, you’re violating the no derivatives part too.
Smooth.
Dude, not a good way to launch a website. You should remove the photo or replace it with the legit version detailing DD’s (c). You are about to get dugg, but for the wrong reason!
Way to go, shitheads.
Nice photo, shame you stole it…
Now Gruber’s Jackassed you! Change that photo now.
You know, the photo used without permission, but perhaps the greater crime is how poorly it’s recompressed.
Please remove the photo that you illegally used—and altered—from James Duncan Davidson’s work. That’s just not how to run a website, and you probably ought to figure that out earlier rather than later.
Like all of the posts so far – DON’T STEAL NICELY LICENSED IMAGES!!!
Because you broke the CC license publishing this, the viral part of the Creative Commons is now in effect.
This entire website has now fallen into the public domain.
Sorry guys, we didn’t know where this image came from; this is the first we’ve heard of this.
It’s been circulating around (I think the last time I saw it was on consumerist). It’s our policy to give credit for everything we use on My iPhone.
So again, please accept our apologies for this.
Vincent
Apologies are not good enough. You’re still using the altered photo in violation of the license. Remove the photo.
It’s not enough to steal photographs and then give credit as if that makes everything all right. ALWAYS assume every photograph or artwork on the Web is owned and copyrighted by someone. ALWAYS track down the author and ALWAYS ask permission before re-publishing any image. When required, pay the appropriate licensing fees or keep your hands off someone else’s intellectual property.
And by the way, if you can’t find the time to do these things yourself, picture editing professionals will help publishers secure publication rights. If you don’t know these very basic requirements and you can’t take these simple steps, you have no business being in the publishing business.
PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.
I appreciate everyone’s feedback, and once again, this image came in as a tip sometime back without any source attached to it. So for the record, we didn’t make any alterations to the image and wasn’t aware of the source. The least that Mr. Davidson could have done was notify us of this wrongful usage of his image. The situation would have been corrected immediately.
We’ve apologized and have corrected the situation – so lets move on. Ok?
Sheesh, what a bunch of Pharisees. It was an innocent mistake made by someone who doesn’t consider himself part of “the publishing business.” Why not try to help educate the site owners instead of casting stones and condemning him? I’m sure none of you have ever made any inadvertent copyright infringements. No, you’re each willing to cast the first stone.
To you all on soapboxes bitterly complaining about the photo error….
Oh, so it’s ok to download licensed songs from the web and using them as we see fit without ensuring artist is paid accordingly, but it’s not alright to do the same with a photograph.
BTW, I am no fan of DRM and this post has nothing to do with that argument. Either stealing intellectual or artistic property is OK or it is NOT OK. You can not pick and choose depending on what you are stealing.
Give credit where credit is due. They made the change to story and corrected thier mistake.
I am the pharaoh AND I’m casting ALL the STONES!
Whoops! Due to so many links in Mr. Davidson’s comment, WordPress put on comment moderation and we didn’t catch it in time. Again very sorry about this.
“To you all on soapboxes bitterly complaining about the photo error….
Oh, so it’s ok to download licensed songs from the web and using them as we see fit without ensuring artist is paid accordingly, but it’s not alright to do the same with a photograph.”
No, neither is ok. I have no idea why you think there’s any connection.
There’s plenty of room on the soapbox to be angered by both.
Vincent: Thanks for making the fixes for credit and putting the uncropped version up. I appreciate it. We’re now square.
Nooooooooo! We want Internet BLOOD. We will NOT be DEFLECTED from OUR holy PURPOSE!
The original artist has turned on us! Traitor! We will NOT rest until WE achieve SATISFACTION!
No more photos! Ever! We demand ASCII-art!
Everyone re-f’n-lax. As stated, it wasn’t done on purpose.
Interesting website but you *really* need left margins; reading that text jammed against the margin is annoying.
Also, “it’s” is a contraction of “it is”; “its” is the possessive you wanted. “Pro’s and con’s” would indicate what professionals and criminals own; you want “pros and cons.”
But what a nice photo it is! No? Extremely eery, those looks. You’d think they were looking at kittens or beautiful people having sex, or babies (not having sex).
How does Ives do this? Kudos for the photographer.
Come on just because you innocently ‘find’ a photo doesn’t mean you can just use it. If you don’t have rights then you don’t have rights. That simple.
Hey Vincent, how ’bout giving proper photo credits to the photos you’ve posted in your gallery? I’ve sen several pictures in there that we all know you or your staff didn’t shoot.
iphoner, we’re more than happy to correct or source any images that needs to be sourced. Any particular that you’re aware of? You need to understand that these images come in through our tipline and/or uploaded by the visitors.
Speaking of intellectual property—I’d give this site about a week before Apple shuts it down for unauthorized use of the “iPhone” trademark.
http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/guidelinesfor3rdparties.html
See section “Unauthorized Use of Apple Trademarks” item no. 9.
TC, in case you hadn’t notice, Apple doesn’t own the trademark iPhone. Cisco owns the mark, and the two companies recently agreed to share it. You must be mistaken for iPod.