AT&T Smart Limits for Wireless is almost worthless

AT&T promotes their "smart limits for wireless" $5/month service to limit phone use for family plans.

It includes limits on texting -- except AT&T no longer cells a limited texting plan. It's only unlimited or .25/message. So this is really only useful if you want to disable texting, but you can call AT&T customer service and say you want administrative texting only -- for no charge.

The "smart limits" includes limits on data use -- except they don't work on a phone that might really use data:

Does Smart Limits for Wireless work for restricting all web browsing / data usage?We’re sorry, but Browsing Limits and Time of Day Restrictions will not block or restrict data usage through non-Media™ Net internet browsers. Certain data-centric devices such as BlackBerry® devices offer non-Media Net browsers. In addition, Browsing Limits will not block or restrict a user’s data usage if the user is also subscribed to DataConnect, LaptopConnect, Tethering (connecting a wireless device to a laptop) or Blackberry services, while the user is in WiFi mode, or while the user is using iPhone 3.0 software or later.

It also includes number blocking (could be useful) and "parental controls" which, I suspect, don't work on smartphones.

This service must be a money spinner, but, really, its obsolete. Not coincidentally, it's very hard to actually locate the link that allows one to configure this plan. We had it leftover from when it made sense; I was keeping it in part for the data limitation issues. Turns out that was a mistake.

Since this plan doesn't limit iPhone data, it means if you're purchasing a minimal 200MB/month data plan for a child with an inherited smartphone you have no way to prevent them going over their data limit and running up major fees. The best you can do is disable access to Safari, YouTube and the AppStore (AppStore allows video views). Note when App Store is disabled you can't install or update Apps!

See also:

• Gordon's Tech: Giving your old iPhone to your kid: working around AT&T's mandatory data plan
• Gordon's Notes: AT&T and the mandatory iPhone tax - even out of contract phones must pay

XWiki - Open source, LGPL, WYSIWYG

A colleague pointed me to XWIKI. I really want to know how I missed this, version 1 was 2008 but it has roots back to 2003. I've been looking for an open source wiki with rich text editing. In some ways it's the OpenOffice replacement for Sharepoint.

It's LGPL, and sold into the enterprise. Good wikipedia discussion.

Giving your old iPhone to your kid: working around AT&T's mandatory data plan

This is the season for corporate evil. First Google nukes my memory, then AT&T Wireless messes with our family mobile phone plan.

So I'm replacing Google Reader share and my kids phone plan at the same time. So much for my cognitive surplus.

The boys iPhone use had been working out well. They've been using battered old iPhone 3G and 3GSs inherited from Emily and I. Added to our family plan each kid costs us are $12/month with no data and $7.50/month text [2]. The phones are parental controlled - so no browser access, but when there's wifi they get email. They also get Navigon for GPS (no data needed), lots of apps [3], music, tv shows [4], movies, etc.

That just changed. AT&T whacked us with an automatic $30/month mandatory data plan on a phone that has never used cellular data [5]. (and, coincidentally, knocked out the texting service when cellular data was disabled). I won't go through the sordid details here, but do follow the link if you're interested. If you're in MN, feel free to do like me and submit a complaint to our AG.

Supposedly the fee has been reversed [6]. Now I need a plan B.

We can rule out paying a monthly data fee in the absence of a contract. That's what AT&T is lusting after. With a subsidized iPhone they have to send part of that fee to Apple, with an 'bring-your-own-iPhone' (BYOI) they keep the whole thing. This is what they live for.

So the options are some combination of:

1. Sell the old 3Gs/3GS and use the money to buy two refurbished iPod Touchs. Buy cheap dumbphones for the kids. One guy uses his voice/text so little we could drop his coverage.
2. Study other vendors and see what their BYOI policy is. Consider switching next summer/fall and pay the exit cost for Emily's 4S.
3. Get an iPhone 4s and an iPhone 4 under contract. I take the 4s. Sell my iPhone 4 and the brand new iPhone 4 and accept the minimal AT&T data fee $15/month. Dump the text plan, have AT&T turn off texting for the kids, and use Facebook messenger. (since Emily and I can use Apple's messenger service).
4. Drop our family plan altogether. Kids use Paygo SIMs, maybe with jailbreaking. Emily and I go single with separate discounts and cheaper LOS. Could save significantly.
5. We're paying $30/month for family messaging unlimited with mobile-to-mobile calling. I think AT&T snuck that one in during a recent service change. They're good at being bad. If we do a minimal data plan for the kids, and I put iOS 5 on my phone, we can drop this money sucking item.
6. Jailbreak and use with T-mobile paygo

Hmm. There are some good options in here. I might start with #5 for now -- since the costs are about the same. Then I'll look at the other options.

Maybe I can make AT&T pay for making me think about this. And if I can help others, then they'll pay some more.

- fn-

[1] List $10/month plus another $2 in unlisted fees. In general true base charges from AT&T are 20% higher than listed charges. [2] Unlimited family plan/4.  [3] Because FairPlay allows kids apps and any media to be shared, and iPhone games are inexpensive, an iPhone is the world's cheapest game console by a large margin. [4] The 12yo spends his chore money on Dilbert cartoons for $2/apiece.  [5] Curiously when they did this they also disabled SMS/MMS. So SMS/MMS works without a data plan, but when a data plan exists it is used. Feels like a bit of a scam.  [6] AT&T gets about $5,500 from our family every two years. In other words, our mobile plan costs rival the costs of operating a car. That may be why they reversed. Or not; we are small in their eyes.

See also:

• Dear Aunt TUAW: What is this cheap iPhone data plan you speak of? An easy option for the 3GS and possibly a very good fit for the kid that has the 3GS. This deserves careful study.
• PwnageTool - Wikipedia
• Use an iPhone on T-Mobile with Jailbreak - 2010/9/22
• Port your number into Google Voice FAQ - Google Voice Help: it costs $20 to port a number, but local numbers are hard to get. Plus losing numbers is very expensive for AT&T. So this is a cheap bit of revenge.
• Gordon's Tech: AT&T Smart Limits for Wireless is almost worthless: This makes a paygo plan particularly appealing. There's nothing to stop a young person from running up huge fees.
• H2O Wireless Unlimited - Prepaid Wireless SIM Card (Best Buy): sometimes these work in some iPhones in some regions - voice and text only. Worth an experiment

Update 11/4/2011: I bought a $15 data plan for one child, put the other's SIM in a dumbphone and discontinued worthless SmartLimits. So I'm behind $10/month for now. I'm concerned about tracking data usage even with YouTube, Safari and iTunes locked out. I'm planning to test a H2O Wireless SIM Card (no jailbreak or unlocking for AT&T phones, voice/text only) then test an AT&T PAYG SIM (voice/text). I'm also testing Facebook Messenger and looking to SMS alternatives. If I take the boys off the family plan I'll port their numbers to Google Voice (take that AT&T!).

Although the H2O website doesn't say anything at all about iPhone users, there's a MyH2O app on the App Store. However the H2O wireless cards expire after 30 days, so they're better suited to a heavy voice/data user than to our guys; there's really no saving over our family plan.

I still don't understand the AT&T PAYG plans. Their web site isn't too helpful. Is it really $30/month minimum, or is that somehow an initial payment with an expiration > 30 days? Consumer Reports tells us ... "AT&T's prepaid Go Phone service was among the lowest-scoring no-contract services in our Ratings."

BTW, Google search is a complete failure on this topic. The spammers have won.

Update 11/30/2011: How it ended. Victory! Lots of links to related strategies.

Fixing OS X Cmd-H problem (hide windows)

In OS X the keyboard shortcut Command + H (Cmd-H) hides the current app windows.

Mac OS X keyboard shortcuts: "Command-H Hide the windows of the currently running application"

This is a very old behavior. It made sense in Multifinder days; it's worse than useless in Snow Leopard -- it is inconsistent with Expose and Spaces. In Lion it's not quite so bad, but my fingers long ago mapped Cmd-H to "show history" in all browers.

I'm always hiding Safari, and having to unhide.

Grrr.

Today I realized I could do something about this. In keyboard shortcuts I mapped Cmd-H to Help, a system wide command. That's still a problem, but at least I don't hide my windows when I try to access history.

Next I'll try to remap the Safari shortcut for history to cmd-H, but even this is a big help.

Update: If I map Cmd-H to a system action like help file, it trumps mapping it to an app-specific menu item like Safari history. I decided to go with cmd-H for Safari, but outside of Safari it doesn't currently do anything. I might be able to use it for other app-specific menu actions. This will help!

After the fall of Google Reader: Posterous, Tumblr and Zootool with Twitter on the side

When a character in Charles Stross' Accelerando loses his prosthetic brain he's almost helpless; effectively amnestic. It's the future equivalent of not knowing anyone's number because it's all in your iPhone.

That's how I feel after Google amputated my Google Reader shares. I've got phantom prosthetic memory syndrome -- I keep trying to access a store that no longer exists.

On the bright side, it turns out I have 3 children, 1 wife and 1 dog. Who knew?

On the dark side, for a tech company being stupid is worse than being evil, but being evil AND stupid is even worser. (See, Google really has lobotomized me.)

Bad stuff, but it is time to move on. I've written my Dear Google letter, deleted the G+.app from my iPhone, switched my default search engine to Bing, and installed Firefox on my work machine. I'll work on remembering what was good about Google; we had some good times in Google's glory days.

So what replaces Google Reader social? [1]

At first, I thought it would be Twitter. So I stared using Twitter.

Wow. Martin is right - Twitter is a big step down from GR Shares. I'm sure I'll figure ways to use Twitter, especially after I go to iOS 5.0+, but it's no GR Share.

So what is out there to replace GR? Candidates include Posterous, Tumblr, and Zootool - though none of those seem to be true Reader Share contenders. The original GR team was wonderful.

I'll be looking around in future posts. I'll end this post with a list of what I'm looking for ...

1. Bookmarklet that generates posts with title, url, excerpt and annotation.
2. Must have an RSS feed.
3. Must have a business model that involves me paying for services received.
4. Either I have control over the data store or there's a way to create a read-only repository I can keep.
5. Reeder.app support, so I can use Reeder.app for IOS and Reeder.app for Mac, avoid Google's miserable UI, and prepare for migration to another OPML store.
6. Twitter integration so it tweets shares for those who are good with Twitter's limitations.

See also:

• Posterous vs. Tumblr: A Head to Head

[1] I just bought Reeder.app for Mac to reduce the pain of Google's mangling of the GR's most basic feed reader functions.

Update: Curiously, the GR shares still exist. My old share page is up: http://www.google.com/reader/shared/jfaughnan, it still has a feed, and items shared in 3rd party apps (Reeder.app, etc) are added there. The share links is simply missing in the redesigned GR UI. I can't consume this feed in GR because it hides it from me, but other people can subscribe to it.

Update 11/3/11: This is a hot topic on, ironically, G+. That's the best source for non-google ideas. Tumblr w/ secondary Twitter reposts seems to be the default choice (more on that to come), but other that are showing up ...

• Netvibes - Dashboard Everything: aimed at megacorp, but has a free option (freemium)
• Ditching Google Reader after the changes? This site makes it easy to use Twitter instead - The Next Web: Go hard to Twitter
• A Parallel Universe In Which Google+ Enhances Google Reader: Ok, so this isn't a fix. Barring brane traversal.

Former Google product manager on the trashing of Google Reader

A former Product Manager for Google Reader shares my feelings about Google's act of mass data destruction (emphases mine. I resisted the impulse to use blinking bold fonts the color of arterial blood.) ...

Reader redesign: Terrible decision, or worst decision?

Google released the previously announced set of changes around G+ integration and UI updates today, and boy is it a disaster. Since the general changes were pre-announced last week, most of us were prepared for the letdown, but actually seeing how it works end to end has made several flaws abundantly clear. Let's start with the obvious...

... When you log into Reader, what the hell do you think your primary objective is? Did you answer "stare at a giant header bar with no real estate saved for actual reading"? Congrats, here's your prize:

Reader is a product built to consume information, quickly. We designed it to be very good at that one thing. G+ is an experience built around browsing (similar to Facebook) and socializing. Taking the UI paradigm for G+ and mashing it onto Reader without any apparent regard for the underlying function is awful and it shows.

The only thing left with any color of consequence it the obscenely red subscribe button in the top left, which in keeping with the spirit of prioritizing the exactly wrong thing -- you don't even need to use very often.

Ok, before we get started - let me be very clear about one thing. I think integration with G+ should happen. Reader friends should be managed in the same place you manage G+, with the same metaphors (whether you think they're flawed or not). Sharing should utilize the same infrastructure and plumbing that G+ does. I am not objecting to any of these things. Google has clearly made its bets with G+, and Reader should be part of those plans.

The frustrating thing is that these pitfalls could have been avoided through a more thought out integration. As Kevin Fox has already pointed out, Google could have easily made it so that sharing was pushed through G+ (therefore giving providing content on G+, and gaining all the benefits of an integration), but also replaced shared items from People You Follow with a Reader-specific Circle.

It's almost as if Google wants to demonstrate that, yes, they don't really get platforms. Instead of improving the G+ API to support Reader as a fully functional 3rd party client (a la Twitter), they've instead crippled the product under the guise of improvements.

Google has long neglected Reader as a product. (Hey can someone fix Recommended Items? Please?) Reader was fortunate to have a passionate team that was trying to do the right thing for their users by continuing to innovate and build on the experience, but it's not hard to tell from the official blog that core updates died down a long time ago.

Reader never achieved the massively popular status of Gmail or Google News. But it did develop a fanatical following of users, and was one of the few places that Google was able to experiment with and learn about social features.

After I left Google in July, I heard that there was renewed effort around the project and that a new team was bringing some much-needed attention to the product. I expected them to give the product a facelift, and integrate G+ -- both things that needed to happen.

But killing off functionality that could have easily been built on top of G+, and missing the mark by so much on the UI... and then releasing them under the guise of improvements?...

The comment on "Google doesn't get platforms" is a reference to a famous "we don't get platforms" internal Google rant that was accidentally shared worldwide.

It's just astounding. It as though Google is trying to be a bizarro version of Apple. They're now making some of the mistakes Apple makes, but they've vastly uglier and the mistakes are much bigger. It reminds me of Windows 7 ridiculous imitation of OS X Spotlight replacing the imperfect but superior Windows Search 4 interface. Except this is much worse.

I had all the same reactions as Brian Shih, so I appreciate his doing the posting work for me. Google did need to integrate Reader with G+, but they chose an almost perfectly disastrous route. Their culture is broken.

This Google decision does have an upside. I'm learning Twitter, Posterous, Bing, Firefox ...

PS. Did I mention that the Blogger redesign is almost as bad? Label selection is one bad aspect among many.

Update 11/2/11: A former Google senior designer has offered to help salvage GR.

The end of Google Reader shares and the rebirth Gordon's twitter feed

(cross posted to Gordon's Notes and Gordon's Tech)

Google Reader shares are gone.

I'm not going to switch to sharing via G+.

I will, however, be sharing via Twitter: John Gordon (jgordonshare) on Twitter.

That Twitter stream used to consist of feed-generated tweets from GR shares. Now it's the closest thing I have to an archive of those shares.

Now it will be the primary place I share -- with the help of the Twitter share bookmarklet.