Apple predicted to sell 7M iPhones as 3GS availability improves

[AppleInsider]

With supply of the iPhone 3GS finally catching up with strong demand from consumers, a new analysis predicts that Apple will sell 7 million phones during the September quarter.

If true, the numbers from Gene Munster, senior research analyst with Piper Jaffray, would be an improvement from the 5.2 million handsets sold last quarter, and the 6.8 million iPhones shipped in the fourth quarter of 2008. When the iPhone 3GS first launched, supply constraints led to store managers recommending the $99 iPhone 3G over the higher end models. But a recent check of various stores found that the trend is no longer in effect.

"Our checks indicate store managers are increasingly recommending the 3GS, and we believe this is driven by improved availability of the 3GS at most AT&T stores," Munster wrote. "Overall, the iPhone remains the best selling device and our August checks indicate the iPhone took share from BlackBerry, the Nokia E71x, and most other competitor products."

The report states that all models of the iPhone, including the iPhone 3G, are reporting strong sales. But increased sales of the iPhone 3GS in particular are seen as a "positive indication" for iPhone sales during the third quarter.

Munster has reiterated his prediction that Apple will ship 7 million handsets in the September quarter. He has maintained an overweight rating for AAPL stock and has a $186 price target.

The senior research analyst expects to see the stock's price dip Wednesday after the scheduled iPod event. He said based on historical averages, the price will drop about 1 percent following the announcements. Munster does not believe that Apple will reveal any unexpected products Wednesday, but will introduce a new iPod touch, iPod nano and iPod classic. He also expects Apple co-founder Steve Jobs to be present to make the announcements.

[Dr Millmoss]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

The senior research analyst expects to see the stock's price dip Wednesday after the scheduled iPod event. He said based on historical averages, the price will drop about 1 percent following the announcements.

Well, he's probably right in gross historical terms, if Apple doesn't announce anything unexpected. But 1% is such a relatively small movement for a stock like AAPL, any reaction to the announced products could easily be masked by the direction of the entire market for the day.

[MacTripper]

They would sell a lot more if they lowered the price, chose other carriers and force the carriers to compete based upon their service and price instead of locking a much desired phone to just one carrier.

The FCC should mandate that any phone that is capable and not a threat should be allowed on any carriers network.

In other words, get the carriers back to being carriers and not device sellers and manipulators.


Now that AT&T has their own 3G netbook, what's is stopping them from hampering, discouraging or disallowing other companies from doing the same?

Is the world going to end up having carrier supplied phones?

[parky]

Originally Posted by MacTripper

They would sell a lot more if they lowered the price, chose other carriers and force the carriers to compete based upon their service and price instead of locking a much desired phone to just one carrier.

The FCC should mandate that any phone that is capable and not a threat should be allowed on any carriers network.

In other words, get the carriers back to being carriers and not device sellers and manipulators.


Now that AT&T has their own 3G netbook, what's is stopping them from hampering, discouraging or disallowing other companies from doing the same?

Is the world going to end up having carrier supplied phones?

It is called business.
Who mandates that games for PS3 have to run on XBoxes - No one.
Who mandates that Windows Applications have to run on OSX - No one.

[NasserAE]

Originally Posted by MacTripper

They would sell a lot more if they lowered the price, chose other carriers and force the carriers to compete based upon their service and price instead of locking a much desired phone to just one carrier.

The FCC should mandate that any phone that is capable and not a threat should be allowed on any carriers network.

In other words, get the carriers back to being carriers and not device sellers and manipulators.


Now that AT&T has their own 3G netbook, what's is stopping them from hampering, discouraging or disallowing other companies from doing the same?

Is the world going to end up having carrier supplied phones?

I guess we quickly forgot how the industry operated before the iPhone. This article reminded me and I am sure it will remind you too.. If you don't remember, it used to be much worst
Oh, and the FCC should fight for consumer rights not interfere with how business is done.

[al_bundy]

Originally Posted by MacTripper

They would sell a lot more if they lowered the price, chose other carriers and force the carriers to compete based upon their service and price instead of locking a much desired phone to just one carrier.

The FCC should mandate that any phone that is capable and not a threat should be allowed on any carriers network.

In other words, get the carriers back to being carriers and not device sellers and manipulators.


Now that AT&T has their own 3G netbook, what's is stopping them from hampering, discouraging or disallowing other companies from doing the same?

Is the world going to end up having carrier supplied phones?

fcc can mandata anything they want, but they can't make apple build a CDMA iphone since it will probably raise their costs. not like the USA is all GSM.

iphones already cost the same or less than comparable cell phones from HTC, and other brand x makers

[mpw]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

With supply of the iPhone 3GS finally catching up with strong demand from consumers, a new analysis predicts that Apple will sell 7 million phones during the September quarter...

Is there really a shortage? maybe it's just in the US, 'cause I've been in 3 stores today that would've sold me my choice of 3G/S 8/16/32GB White/Black iPhone from stock.

Originally Posted by al_bundy

...iphones already cost the same or less than comparable cell phones from HTC, and other brand x makers

In the US maybe, but an HTC Hero can be bought for £380 vs a 3G £475 in the UK

[anonymouse]

Originally Posted by parky

It is called business.
Who mandates that games for PS3 have to run on XBoxes - No one.
Who mandates that Windows Applications have to run on OSX - No one.

Bad analogies, completely inapplicable to the situation.

Better analogies would be:

1. Multiple types of roads where a) only certain cars could operate on each type, and b) certain cars were not allowed on the roads even though they would operate. If you don't have the right kind of car, there are places you can't go because the roads for your car don't go there.

2. ISPs providing service only to people using their hardware, instead of using standard Ethernet connections. For example, Comcast offers service in your area, but you can only connect to their network with a ComNet adapter and cable, which of course they will supply you, inside a computer they sell, which runs a stripped down version of OS/2 that they licensed cheap from IBM. If you want to switch to Time Warner, you'll need a computer with a TWNet adapter, which you can only buy in a computer for them.

This second analogy is actually somewhat weak, because no one actually mandates that ISPs provide standard Ethernet connectivity. But, I don't think those who say, "that's businees," or, "the government has no business dictating what companies do," would find this acceptable. "Sorry, no Macs, Windows or Linux on our network, you can only use our ComOS/2 computers. Too bad for you we're the only ISP in town."

However, it is mandated that your car meet certain standards so that it can operate safely on the standard highways. I think that's working out pretty well for us, isn't it?

[parky]

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Bad analogies, completely inapplicable to the situation.

Better analogies would be:

1. Multiple types of roads where a) only certain cars could operate on each type, and b) certain cars were not allowed on the roads even though they would operate. If you don't have the right kind of car, there are places you can't go because the roads for your car don't go there.

2. ISPs providing service only to people using their hardware, instead of using standard Ethernet connections. For example, Comcast offers service in your area, but you can only connect to their network with a ComNet adapter and cable, which of course they will supply you, inside a computer they sell, which runs a stripped down version of OS/2 that they licensed cheap from IBM. If you want to switch to Time Warner, you'll need a computer with a TWNet adapter, which you can only buy in a computer for them.

This second analogy is actually somewhat weak, because no one actually mandates that ISPs provide standard Ethernet connectivity. But, I don't think those who say, "that's businees," or, "the government has no business dictating what companies do," would find this acceptable. "Sorry, no Macs, Windows or Linux on our network, you can only use our ComOS/2 computers. Too bad for you we're the only ISP in town."

However, it is mandated that your car meet certain standards so that it can operate safely on the standard highways. I think that's working out pretty well for us, isn't it?

Actually your are very poor as they don't relate to technology as mine do.

It is just the same with the iTunes App Store.
No one can force Apple to sell anything in the App Store if they don't want to, they can refuse to sell any App for what ever reason they like. It is their store, they can choose.

Just the same as the physical Apple Stores, do you see Apple being forced to sell Dell computers there or products that they don't feel enhance the Apple product like - NO, they chose, just as they can chose where to sell the iPhone that they make and what network it operates on.
The reason why - because there are many alternatives to buying an iPhone. It is NOT a right that you can buy an iPhone and use it on any network.

[christopher126]

I can see both sides of the argument....

Remember ATT had the foreskin, err, foresight to see the advantages of making expensive changes to their systems to accommodate Apple's vision of what a cellphone should be. Verizon stupidly, passed and has regretted it ever since. ATT should be and has been rewarded for taking the risk with Apple.

Having said that, my only complaint with the iPhone is ATT and the expense of the data plan...I can't wait for the iPhone to be available on Verizon. If it wasn't for the rollover minutes, I would switch in a heartbeat. Hopefully the competition between the two providers will bring the price down.

I don't think Apple should be 'commanded' to supply a CDMA phone but I do agree over the long term exclusive contracts hurt the consumer. Again, hopefully this will remedy itself when the iPhone is available via Verizon sometime next year.

[anonymouse]

Originally Posted by parky

Actually your are very poor as they don't relate to technology as mine do.

Sorry, but yours don't relate to the technology in question at all. Just because you used technology examples, doesn't make them good analogies. To be good analogies, the situations have to be analogous.

[cmf2]

Originally Posted by parky

Actually your are very poor as they don't relate to technology as mine do.

It is just the same with the iTunes App Store.
No one can force Apple to sell anything in the App Store if they don't want to, they can refuse to sell any App for what ever reason they like. It is their store, they can choose.

Just the same as the physical Apple Stores, do you see Apple being forced to sell Dell computers there or products that they don't feel enhance the Apple product like - NO, they chose, just as they can chose where to sell the iPhone that they make and what network it operates on.
The reason why - because there are many alternatives to buying an iPhone. It is NOT a right that you can buy an iPhone and use it on any network.

I think you missed his point. Your analogies are poor because you listed things that are imcompatible with each other due to differences in hardware architecture. A PS3 game can't play on an Xbox because an Xbox is 1. incapable of even reading the disk 2. the code is unrecognizable to it and 3. the game was designed for different hardware components. Those are called technical limitations. The cellular industry is imposing arbitrary limitations. There are networks operating the same cellular technologies and using the same frequencies but some phones are restricted from utilizing a compatible network. Just because your analogy included technology doesn't make it relevant, in fact analogies do not have to be about similar topic at all, all that matters is the circumstances, and the ones you present are not similar at all.

If you want an accurate analogy involving technology, I'll provide one (it still isn't perfect, but it is close enough to show how dumb this system is). This would be like you buying an Acer computer with the same specs and operating sytem as a HP computer, but you couldn't play certain games because you had an Acer, not a HP.

[samab]

Originally Posted by christopher126

Remember ATT had the foreskin, err, foresight to see the advantages of making expensive changes to their systems to accommodate Apple's vision of what a cellphone should be. Verizon stupidly, passed and has regretted it ever since. ATT should be and has been rewarded for taking the risk with Apple.

Verizon's share price has held up better than AT&T's share price since June 2007. Trust me, they are not regretting it a bit.

[NasserAE]

Originally Posted by cmf2

I think you missed his point. Your analogies are poor because you listed things that are imcompatible with each other due to differences in hardware architecture. A PS3 game can't play on an Xbox because an Xbox is 1. incapable of even reading the disk 2. the code is unrecognizable to it and 3. the game was designed for different hardware components. Those are called technical limitations. The cellular industry is imposing arbitrary limitations. There are networks operating the same cellular technologies and using the same frequencies but some phones are restricted from utilizing a compatible network. Just because your analogy included technology doesn't make it relevant, in fact analogies do not have to be about similar topic at all, all that matters is the circumstances, and the ones you present are not similar at all.

If you want an accurate analogy involving technology, I'll provide one (it still isn't perfect, but it is close enough to show how dumb this system is). This would be like you buying an Acer computer with the same specs and operating sytem as a HP computer, but you couldn't play certain games because you had an Acer, not a HP.

Well, there are some technical limitation with the iPhone in the US. The only other compatible carrier for the iPhone in the US is T-Mobile and their network does not support the iPhones 3G frequencies. With T-Mobile your iPhone will work but you will be limited to EDGE unless Apple modify their designs. So there is somehow a technical limitation.
A better analogy to your example is PC games not working correctly with your PC because you use incompatible Video card from different manufacturer, which is common. However, he was not referring to technical limitations. His analogies are correct, XBoX can be ported to other platforms such as PS3 and Wii and vice versa but no one is forcing them to.

[anonymouse]

Originally Posted by NasserAE

Well, there are some technical limitation with the iPhone in the US. The only other compatible carrier for the iPhone in the US is T-Mobile and their network does not support the iPhones 3G frequencies. With T-Mobile your iPhone will work but you will be limited to EDGE unless Apple modify their designs. So there is somehow a technical limitation.

Yes, well, the question is, should the FCC allow carriers to introduce and maintain these sorts of incompatibilities using a resource that belongs to the public -- i.e., radio spectrum -- as a means of locking customers in with technology, or should the FCC mandate that the wireless information highways be compatible with each other, just as our physical highways are compatible with all the cars sold in this country.

I think it's ludicrous that we allow wireless carriers to run incompatible networks, on publicly owned radio spectrum. If the FCC mandated common technology, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now and there wouldn't be any issues of Apple having to produce different hardware for different carriers. I mean, how crazy is that!?

Samab from Qualcomm will be along to argue the contrary with bad examples related to 3G rollouts in Europe, but his arguments have historically misrepresented these issues, and I doubt he has anything new to say.

[christopher126]

Originally Posted by samab

Verizon's share price has held up better than AT&T's share price since June 2007. Trust me, they are not regretting it a bit.

With all due respect, I think Verizon knows they really missed the boat on this one, irrespective of their share price compared to ATT!

[mark2005]

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Yes, well, the question is, should the FCC allow carriers to introduce and maintain these sorts of incompatibilities using a resource that belongs to the public -- i.e., radio spectrum -- as a means of locking customers in with technology, or should the FCC mandate that the wireless information highways be compatible with each other, just as our physical highways are compatible with all the cars sold in this country.

I think it's ludicrous that we allow wireless carriers to run incompatible networks, on publicly owned radio spectrum. If the FCC mandated common technology, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now and there wouldn't be any issues of Apple having to produce different hardware for different carriers. I mean, how crazy is that!?

Samab from Qualcomm will be along to argue the contrary with bad examples related to 3G rollouts in Europe, but his arguments have historically misrepresented these issues, and I doubt he has anything new to say.

Conceptually, I have some agreement with you. But given the Government's track record at picking technologies, it would've mandated something way behind the times, and your tax dollars would be doled out to help companies try to implement it.

[NasserAE]

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Yes, well, the question is, should the FCC allow carriers to introduce and maintain these sorts of incompatibilities using a resource that belongs to the public -- i.e., radio spectrum -- as a means of locking customers in with technology, or should the FCC mandate that the wireless information highways be compatible with each other, just as our physical highways are compatible with all the cars sold in this country.

I think it's ludicrous that we allow wireless carriers to run incompatible networks, on publicly owned radio spectrum. If the FCC mandated common technology, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now and there wouldn't be any issues of Apple having to produce different hardware for different carriers. I mean, how crazy is that!?

That's the point. If the FCC start mandating that phones need to work on all networks then what will stop them from requiring that all phones must have physical keypads, video call cameras, or a compass for example. The first thing the FCC need to look at are the carriers contracts and policies with consumers and then they need to start looking at exclusive carrier and manufacturers agreements.

[noexpectations]

Originally Posted by MacTripper

They would sell a lot more if they lowered the price, chose other carriers and force the carriers to compete based upon their service and price instead of locking a much desired phone to just one carrier.

The FCC should mandate that any phone that is capable and not a threat should be allowed on any carriers network.

In other words, get the carriers back to being carriers and not device sellers and manipulators.


Now that AT&T has their own 3G netbook, what's is stopping them from hampering, discouraging or disallowing other companies from doing the same?

Is the world going to end up having carrier supplied phones?

There is so much that is wrong with what you said that I don't know where to begin. First, the government should just let companies make their own decisions and they should not be telling any company who/what/where/why/how they should run their business. No thank you, FCC....keep out.

Second, carriers are not manipulators.....cell phone makers are. The cell phone makers are the ones who desire and initiate exclusive contracts with carriers so that they can receive higher subsidies.

Third, believe it or not, the Apple-AT&T contract has actually created more competition. Just look at Palm-Sprint, Blackberry-Verizon, and whatever the one that T-Mobile sells . Companies will take more risks (spend more money) if they can reap the awards. Would all of these other smart phones been offered by Sprint, Verizon, and T-Mobile had they been selling the iPhone as well? Marketing a new phone takes $s and risks. Competition is good....we now have several viable smart phones on the market now.

Fourth, AT&T does not have their own 3G Netbooks. All they do (just like Verizon) is sell someone else's netbook at a discount if you sign up for a service contract.

[anonymouse]

Originally Posted by NasserAE

That's the point. If the FCC start mandating that phones need to work on all networks then what will stop them from requiring that all phones must have physical keypads, video call cameras, or a compass for example.

That doesn't follow in any way at all. In the first case, we are talking about ensuring that the underlying network technology is compatible across carriers. This is much the same as multiple ISPs using TCP/IP protocols to carry data. (OK, it's not exactly the same, but it's analogous.) In the second case, you are talking about what in this analogy would be specific features of, or programs on, a computer that uses TCP/IP networking.

In the first case there's a public interest served in making sure that the underlying technology is compatible. In the second case, the issue of the public interest is not involved. The FCC doesn't have an unlimited mandate, nor will Congress give them one, to regulate the sort of things you are talking about. Raising a point like this is simply sowing FUD, intentionally or not.

[samab]

Originally Posted by christopher126

With all due respect, I think Verizon knows they really missed the boat on this one, irrespective of their share price compared to ATT!

They are a for-profit company --- money is the only thing that matters. Everything else is conspiracy theories.

Steve Jobs knows that he missed the boat killing Palm --- if Apple partnered with Verizon and launched the Verizon iphone in 2007, Palm would have never been rescued in 2007 by private equity firms.

[anonymouse]

Originally Posted by noexpectations

First, the government should just let companies make their own decisions and they should not be telling any company who/what/where/why/how they should run their business.

Right, because that approach has historically worked so well on, say, Wall Street.

[cmf2]

Originally Posted by NasserAE

Well, there are some technical limitation with the iPhone in the US. The only other compatible carrier for the iPhone in the US is T-Mobile and their network does not support the iPhones 3G frequencies. With T-Mobile your iPhone will work but you will be limited to EDGE unless Apple modify their designs. So there is somehow a technical limitation.
A better analogy to your example is PC games not working correctly with your PC because you use incompatible Video card from different manufacturer, which is common. However, he was not referring to technical limitations. His analogies are correct, XBoX can be ported to other platforms such as PS3 and Wii and vice versa but no one is forcing them to.

I had to look it up since I'm not familar with the American carriers, but it looks like you are correct is this particular instance as the iPhone doesn't support t-mobiles 1700Mhz 3G band. I have no problem with a carrier not having a phone if the is a limitation that would detract from the user experience, but quite often that is not the case. For example the original iPhone being edge only would have worked fine on t-mobiles network, but was still AT&T exclusive. Iguess you could argue the visual voicemail point but there are plenty of phones out there that have zero technical limitations out there that are not allowed on compatible networks. I think the fact that the xbox analogy has any relevance is just luck. He just selected a bunch of technological items that can't be used together and used them as a reason why the iPhone can be exclusive without considering why the iPhone is exclusive or why those technologies are exclusive.

[samab]

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Yes, well, the question is, should the FCC allow carriers to introduce and maintain these sorts of incompatibilities using a resource that belongs to the public -- i.e., radio spectrum -- as a means of locking customers in with technology, or should the FCC mandate that the wireless information highways be compatible with each other, just as our physical highways are compatible with all the cars sold in this country.

I think it's ludicrous that we allow wireless carriers to run incompatible networks, on publicly owned radio spectrum. If the FCC mandated common technology, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now and there wouldn't be any issues of Apple having to produce different hardware for different carriers. I mean, how crazy is that!?

Samab from Qualcomm will be along to argue the contrary with bad examples related to 3G rollouts in Europe, but his arguments have historically misrepresented these issues, and I doubt he has anything new to say.

It's ludicrous to believe that any bureaucrat can foresee the future in technology and make a correct decision on technology choices.

The Japanese government mandated a Japan-only 2G network that nobody in the world uses. The Korean government mandated a Korea-only mobile API on every cell phone in Korea that nobody in the world uses. The Korean government is still pushing wibro (korean version of wimax). The Chinese government is still pushing their home-grown 3G standard (which hasn't worked well enough beyond prototypes) when the rest of the world is migrating to 4G networks.

For every success like GSM, there are going to be littered with dozens of cell phone technology failures. That's how the high tech world works. If one carrier picks the wrong technology, that one carrier suffers financially alone. If one country picks the wrong technology --- the whole country suffers.

Somehow, Qualcomm's CDMA is the wrong technology --- yet Qualcomm is the largest mobile technology company by market capitalization in the world. Somehow, Verizon Wireless picked the low-volume, high-cost CDMA technology, and Verizon Wireless ended up with the highest profit margin in the US. Somehow, AT&T with its user-friendly GSM standard has the lowest consumer satisfaction rate and Verizon with its consumer-choice sucking standard has the highest consumer satisfaction rate.

[christopher126]

Originally Posted by mark2005

Conceptually, I have some agreement with you. But given the Government's track record at picking technologies, it would've mandated something way behind the times, and your tax dollars would be doled out to help companies try to implement it.

That's it right there! Most astute observation/post today!

'Government's track record at picking technologies...'

Betamax vs. VHS, GSM vs. CDMA. Imagine if the Government had 'picked' Windows over Apple's OS!

[christopher126]

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Right, because that approach has historically worked so well on, say, Wall Street.

Agreed, we allowed Wall Street to be in charge over our 401K's, crunch!

We've allowed the 'fortress five,' (large banks) to be in charge of mortgages, crunch! (side note: You see the media reporting, 'home values have decreased 30% in the last year.' The more important fact is that most homeowner's equity has been reduced by 60%-70%)

Yeah let's just have the insurance companies run our health care and oh, yeah, let ATT and Verizon run our cell phone service without any oversight.

I'm all for a 'fair/free market.' But it has to be 'free' and 'fair' first!

[noexpectations]

Originally Posted by christopher126

Agreed, we allowed Wall Street to be in charge over our 401K's, crunch!

We've allowed the 'fortress five,' (large banks) to be in charge of mortgages, crunch! (side note: You see the media reporting, 'home values have decreased 30% in the last year.' The more important fact is that most homeowner's equity has been reduced by 60%-70%)

Yeah let's just have the insurance companies run our health care and oh, yeah, let ATT and Verizon run our cell phone service without any oversight.

I'm all for a 'fair/free market.' But it has to be 'free' and 'fair' first!

Wrong again. You were in charge of your 401k.....you chose to contribute...and you chose the investments....all the Gov did was define what a 401k was.

The large banks got large because customers chose them. Consumers had a choice....not a mandate from the government. If you don't want choice and you want the government to control everything, go to Russia.....I hear they have a thriving economy and a technology sector that the world envies .

[anonymouse]

Originally Posted by christopher126

That's it right there! Most astute observation/post today!

'Government's track record at picking technologies...'

Betamax vs. VHS, GSM vs. CDMA. Imagine if the Government had 'picked' Windows over Apple's OS!

Well, so far, no one seems to be complaining too much about the switch to HDTV broadcasting. And that whole Internet thing everyone is so wild about was invented by a government program: DARPA.

And, most of the things you mention are not equivalent to GSM vs. CDMA: it's the only one of your examples that uses a publicly owned resource.

[brucep]

Originally Posted by MacTripper

They would sell a lot more if they lowered the price, chose other carriers and force the carriers to compete based upon their service and price instead of locking a much desired phone to just one carrier.

The FCC should mandate that any phone that is capable and not a threat should be allowed on any carriers network.

In other words, get the carriers back to being carriers and not device sellers and manipulators.


Now that AT&T has their own 3G netbook, what's is stopping them from hampering, discouraging or disallowing other companies from doing the same?

Is the world going to end up having carrier supplied phones?

Have no fear .

Apple with go carrier-less soon enough.
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article...icleid/3429483


topic here
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=102053


M V D O system looks real good on paper . Seems like who ever has the best 3g/4g network would win the day .

9

[samab]

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Well, so far, no one seems to be complaining too much about the switch to HDTV broadcasting. And that whole Internet thing everyone is so wild about was invented by a government program: DARPA.

And, most of the things you mention are not equivalent to GSM vs. CDMA: it's the only one of your examples that uses a publicly owned resource.

The Japanese government bet on analog HDTV and lost that one as well --- suddenly the Korean companies own the tv market and Samsung becomes the largest tv manufacturer in the world.

[anonymouse]

Originally Posted by samab

The Japanese government bet on analog HDTV and lost that one as well --- suddenly the Korean companies own the tv market and Samsung becomes the largest tv manufacturer in the world.

And why is that? Could it be because the U.S. is the largest consumer economy in the world and our choices insured the success of digital HDTV?

The idea that a standard wireless technology in the U.S. could somehow cause us to be left out is, frankly, a bit silly.

[noexpectations]

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Well, so far, no one seems to be complaining too much about the switch to HDTV broadcasting. And that whole Internet thing everyone is so wild about was invented by a government program: DARPA.

And, most of the things you mention are not equivalent to GSM vs. CDMA: it's the only one of your examples that uses a publicly owned resource.

Yeah....it only took them 60 years to go from SDTV to HDTV....that was fast, government, thank you! HDTV was demonstrated in the 1980s !!!! On top of that, they couldn't even get that right as they delayed the cutover date over and over again.

[anonymouse]

Originally Posted by noexpectations

Yeah....it only took them 60 years to go from SDTV to HDTV....that was fast, government, thank you! HDTV was demonstrated in the 1980s !!!! On top of that, they couldn't even get that right as they delayed the cutover date over and over again.

Interesting math: 2009 - 1980 == 60 (And, of course, demonstrated and ready for deployment are not the same thing.)

And, part of the reason the HDTV switch was done over such a long period was that it was designed to not be backward compatible, so, to avoid disrupting TV service to large parts of the population, they basically had to wait until all the parts were in place. I think all the evidence actually indicates that they did indeed "get that right".

It's amazing how the FUD starts to fly when something good for consumers is suggested.

[samab]

Originally Posted by anonymouse

And why is that? Could it be because the U.S. is the largest consumer economy in the world and our choices insured the success of digital HDTV?

The idea that a standard wireless technology in the U.S. could somehow cause us to be left out is, frankly, a bit silly.

And the American choice for their cell phone service is CDMA --- where they have more than 50% of the market share in the US.

It's an Amreican invention --- the US government loves that.
It's good for the American consumer --- Verizon Wireless has the highest consumer satisfaction rate.
It's good for the American carriers --- Verizon Wireless has the highest profit margin in the US.

[anonymouse]

Originally Posted by samab

And the American choice for their cell phone service is CDMA

Well, you're the only one here expressing your vested interest in a particular technology. Although, to say that Americans chose CDMA, or any other technology, is misleading. I didn't choose the iPhone so I could be on a GSM network, it's just what I got.

I don't really care what is chosen, as long as something is chosen, and the insanity of the wireless industry in this country is ended. It's not like I can take my iPhone to Europe and use it anyway, given what it would cost me to do so.

On the other hand, if the larger markets agreed on a standard, that would very likely push most of the rest of the world to follow.

[samab]

Originally Posted by anonymouse

I don't really care what is chosen, as long as something is chosen, and the insanity of the wireless industry in this country is ended. It's not like I can take my iPhone to Europe and use it anyway, given what it would cost me to do so.

So you would be fine if the US government chose the chinese home-grown 3G technology (TD-SCDMA) or wimax as the next cell phone network standard.

Then what? The TD-SCDMA standard is a complete bust.

[Logisticaldron]

Originally Posted by cmf2

I had to look it up since I'm not familar with the American carriers, but it looks like you are correct is this particular instance as the iPhone doesn't support t-mobiles 1700Mhz 3G band. I have no problem with a carrier not having a phone if the is a limitation that would detract from the user experience, but quite often that is not the case. For example the original iPhone being edge only would have worked fine on t-mobiles network, but was still AT&T exclusive. Iguess you could argue the visual voicemail point but there are plenty of phones out there that have zero technical limitations out there that are not allowed on compatible networks. I think the fact that the xbox analogy has any relevance is just luck. He just selected a bunch of technological items that can't be used together and used them as a reason why the iPhone can be exclusive without considering why the iPhone is exclusive or why those technologies are exclusive.

All of NasserAE’s comment were apt. The lock-in is the only arbitrary limitation and it’s done across the entire cellular industry in the US, especially with CDMA phones. Everything else is just straight up network incompatibilities. Even the 3G and 3GS iPhones will work with T-Mobile USA, but of course only on EDGE.

[Logisticaldron]

Originally Posted by samab

So you would be fine if the US government chose the chinese home-grown 3G technology (TD-SCDMA) or wimax as the next cell phone network standard.

Then what? The TD-SCDMA standard is a complete bust.

Note that the China Mobile choose TD-SCDMA to avoid the high license fees from Qualcomm.

[samab]

Originally Posted by Logisticaldron

Note that the China Mobile choose TD-SCDMA to avoid the high license fees from Qualcomm.

You have to spend money to make money. Being cheap in the short run, hurt them in the long run.

[Logisticaldron]

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Well, you're the only one here expressing your vested interest in a particular technology. Although, to say that Americans chose CDMA, or any other technology, is misleading. I didn't choose the iPhone so I could be on a GSM network, it's just what I got.

I don't really care what is chosen, as long as something is chosen, and the insanity of the wireless industry in this country is ended. It's not like I can take my iPhone to Europe and use it anyway, given what it would cost me to do so.

On the other hand, if the larger markets agreed on a standard, that would very likely push most of the rest of the world to follow.

If we go by data usage on a mobile phone, America has clearly chosen GSM which accounts for at least 66% of all mobile traffic. We know this because the iPhone is GSM and accounts for 66% of all mobile traffic.

I’m quite glad that I can be on a call and use cellular data at the same time with a GSM-based 3G phone.

PS: Would Verizon had allowed WiFi on the iPhone. They didn’t seem to keen on it with the first BB Storm. The iPhone seems to have changed that.