Apple more likely to produce Verizon iPhone with 4G

[AppleInsider]

Although his company snubbed Apple on the first go-round, Verizon's chief executive Ivan Seidenberg now says the chances of an iPhone on his network will be greater once a 4G cellular network is in place.

The CEO explained to the Wall Street Journal on Thursday that Apple is 'more likely' to want to work with Verizon due to the wider distribution of the 4G standard it will use to supplement, and eventually replace, its 3G network.

According to Seidenberg, Apple was never likely to create an iPhone suitable for Verizon's existing network simply because its choice of the CDMA standard for phone calls limited what could be done. While CDMA and its matching EVDO data format are very popular among carriers in North America and are shared with Alltel, Bell, Sprint and Telus (among others), the standards have very little reach outside of the continent. Choosing CDMA may have forced Apple to make a second iPhone model just to accommodate the rest of the world, which has settled on the more popular GSM and HSPA protocols.

That problem goes away with Verizon's choice of Long Term Evolution (LTE) for 4G. Unlike the artificial split between North America and the rest of the world today, a large number of both domestic and international carriers plan to move to LTE within the next few years, including AT&T and T-Mobile USA. The switch will let Apple build iPhones that stay with one core technology but which could be used worldwide with no real compromise and on the majority of US carriers.

Whether or not the network is truly the sticking point Seidenberg claims, however, remains up for debate. Neither Apple nor Verizon has ever discussed it in public, but Verizon is believed to have snubbed Apple early on because it didn't see the viability of the iPhone when it was still far from completion. Just after the introduction of the first iPhone, the carrier spun its apparent loss by claiming that Apple wanted too much control over sales and service. Observers have also speculated that Verizon objected to being denied a chance to customize the interface and choose which features to allow.

Verizon eventually showed signs it regretted the decision as it launched the iPhone-like BlackBerry Storm a year and a half later -- with support for both CDMA and GSM.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[mbarriault]

It greatly saddened me to leave Telus for Rogers when I got my iPhone, and I can guarantee that the day a 4G/LTE iPhone is available simultaneous with the under-construction Bell/Telus joint LTE network I will be switching back.

[LTMP]

Originally Posted by mbarriault

It greatly saddened me to leave Telus for Rogers when I got my iPhone, and I can guarantee that the day a 4G/LTE iPhone is available simultaneous with the under-construction Bell/Telus joint LTE network I will be switching back.

I was with Telus for years, and made the switch for the iPhone. I can't say that Telus was great, but Rogers is even worse.

I'm really hoping that AT&T, Verizon or T-mobile will offer an unlimited North American data plan to try to win business for the 4G. If they do, I'll probably opt for a US phone as I split my time between both countries.

[randythot]

I would imagine Apple will play whatever suits them best, which is what suits the iPhone best. Likely a better deal may come through an exclusive carrier in the U.S, but multi-carrier would help reduce jailbreaking for different carriers.

It seems like when Apple went the first round of negotiations, it was also posturing to look serious with Verizon in order to get a better deal with AT&T, although I'm sure they could have done CDMA if negotiations were really early in iPhone development. Perhaps it was also to see where to begin negotiations with AT&T.

[addicted44]

The Verizon CEO is just trying to save face. I bet there are several investors pissed by them missing the iPhone boat, and that fury will surface soon, when in the next few quarters Verizon will miss earnings due to the poor economy.

He is trying to lay down the story that the refusal wasn't his fault (and hence that shouldn't be used against him in considering firing decisions).

[Dlux]

It's encouraging that future network technologies are settling upon a single 4G standard, namely LTE (with the sole exception being Sprint, apparently), but what are the ramifications for handset makers of all the different radio frequencies used? How does that effect power consumption and internal antenna design?

[Virgil-TB2]

Originally Posted by mbarriault

It greatly saddened me to leave Telus for Rogers when I got my iPhone, and I can guarantee that the day a 4G/LTE iPhone is available simultaneous with the under-construction Bell/Telus joint LTE network I will be switching back.

None of the carriers are very good and the worst part of it is the monopoly which Canadians are notoriously lenient about to their disadvantage.

The good news for Canada is that both Telus and Bell announced recently that they are switching to the same tech as Rogers/fido. This means in something like a year and a half, Telus and Bell will be able to support iPhone, and Rogers will have actual competition on price much sooner than the switch to 4G networks outlined in the article.

Who wants to bet that the price goes down by about 50% fter this happens despite the fact that Rogers claims to be giving everyone a terrific deal now and pricing their stuff "as low as they can"?

[elroth]

Originally Posted by addicted44

The Verizon CEO is just trying to save face. I bet there are several investors pissed by them missing the iPhone boat, and that fury will surface soon, when in the next few quarters Verizon will miss earnings due to the poor economy.

He is trying to lay down the story that the refusal wasn't his fault (and hence that shouldn't be used against him in considering firing decisions).

I agree totally. When the iPhone was released, Verizon said they didn't think it was that great, and they didn't want to carry it. Funny to see them come back begging to Apple.

[merdhead]

I think it will be a long wait for LTE. Not only do people have to roll out a decent network, LTE chip implementations have to be small and efficient enough to fit into an increasingly small package.

[GregAlexander]

Originally Posted by Dlux

It's encouraging that future network technologies are settling upon a single 4G standard, namely LTE (with the sole exception being Sprint, apparently), but what are the ramifications for handset makers of all the different radio frequencies used? How does that effect power consumption and internal antenna design?

Nokia offers slightly different models for several of its 3G phones in Australia - one version will do 2100Mhz & 850Mhz, the other will do 2100Mhz & 900Mhz. If it was easy they'd support all 3 in one phone.

So it's likely to be an issue with future iPhones too. Hopefully, like GSM, the chipmakers will integrate as much as they can.

[TBell]

To say that is to suggest that Apple really would have went with it. Apple likely would not have. It was using Verizon to get a good deal from AT&T. Apple wanted to standardize on one type of hardware. That required Apple to go with T-Mobile or AT&T. Further, Steve Jobs already knew AT&T's CEO.

Besides being a horrible company in general, it's CEO didn't do anything to prevent it from getting the iPhone.

Originally Posted by addicted44

The Verizon CEO is just trying to save face. I bet there are several investors pissed by them missing the iPhone boat, and that fury will surface soon, when in the next few quarters Verizon will miss earnings due to the poor economy.

He is trying to lay down the story that the refusal wasn't his fault (and hence that shouldn't be used against him in considering firing decisions).

[carloblackmore]

I think this is just posturing in response to AT&T's recent hints that they want to extend their exclusive service with Apple.
As narrow-minded and dim as they were, I don't think anyone blames Verizon too much for missing the iPhone the first time around. Apple is a hard partner to satisfy. But if they were to miss out on the iPhone a second time - that would be inexcusable.

[dagamer34]

Verizon's CEO says 2010, but it won't be until 2011/2012 that Apple bothers sticking in a 4G chip into it's phones simply because of chipset maturity (same argument with the original iPhone not having 3G). Plus, they'd also probably not want to open negotiations with Verizon until AT&T also has a usable 4G network.

If anything though, the sooner Verizon switches to LTE nationwide, the sooner the US can come out of the cellphone dark ages and get a truly competitive mobile landscape where carriers must start competing more with prices and services than just phones alone.

[Roos24]

Who knows what the cell phone landscape will look like in five, or even three years from now.

The way I see it is that both Apple and AT&T took a bit of a gamble which turned out just swell for both parties. Now that the iPhone is established as the envy of every smart phone maker, Apple doesn't need to play it so hard any more. It will be interesting to see where this leads. Didn't Steve Jobs himself say something like "We don't know what the future holds, but that makes it so interesting"?

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by randythot

It seems like when Apple went the first round of negotiations, it was also posturing to look serious with Verizon in order to get a better deal with AT&T, although I'm sure they could have done CDMA if negotiations were really early in iPhone development. Perhaps it was also to see where to begin negotiations with AT&T.

I understand that Verizon is just postulating Apple's actual intent, but I am relived that this idea has finally being solidified in an article as I've had that theory for 2 years now.

PS: If true, which game theory/ies would this fall under?

[GregAlexander]

Originally Posted by Roos24

Who knows what the cell phone landscape will look like in five, or even three years from now.

The way I see it is that both Apple and AT&T took a bit of a gamble which turned out just swell for both parties. Now that the iPhone is established as the envy of every smart phone maker, Apple doesn't need to play it so hard any more.

I find it interesting that Apple has deals in something like 70 countries, but only with 30 carriers. That means they've largely found carriers who represent multiple countries. That's an interesting choice for Apple, and I wonder what that says for future US deals.

Verizon is half owned by Vodafone. T-Mobile already has a deal in Germany and elsewhere. etc.

[mechengit]

Blackberry Storm sure left some bad taste in Verizon's mouth. The user interface is not redesigned for touch experience. The SurePress touchscreen, which hinders the advantage of touch screen typing experience just for the sake of physical click, is totally a joke. Let alone the bugs when it first debut. Blackberry Storm had tons and tons of obvious bugs when it first made its debut, even the notorious iPhone 2.0 had much less bugs than the Blackberry Storm.

[macologist]

With all the buzz for a new iPhone coming this Summer, 2009, I wonder if it would work with 4G! Same Q applies to 1st 2 iPhones! Similarly, I wonder if Snow Leopard will run on my Powerbook G4, 1.67, GB RAM... There is gonna have to be a cut off for some hardware...

If the answer is yes, as far as 4G, at least for the new iPhone coming this Summer, 2009, then it would work worldwide, right?

And if so, on what basis would the carriers compete? Seems like the price only! Why? Cause, if they all are 4G Compliant, wouldn't that mean the same speed with each carrier?

There would be no such thing as roaming, right? Total reciprocity?

4G Cards for Laptops, anywhere worldwide Internet?

Makes me grin, when I see today's noise about Sling TV, when all that stuff is coming, with Video Conferencing on the go etc.

So, on what basis would the carriers compete? How would they differentiate themselves!

I can't wait for the Unification on One Worldwide Standard, with a Backward Compatibility, same speed access for every OS, on every phone! Then, let the best OS, and hardware win!!!

But, I suspect that it won't be that simple, cause there will be attempts to divide the world markets, in order to control prices, and force customers into hardware upgrades!

And the governments in some cases will try to control features, as seems to be the case in China!

And then there are Android, Symbian, Windows Mobile, Palm Pre! I wonder if there will again be Alliance Wars, Coalitions between OS + hardware + carriers, with their own Exclusive Clubs to trap customers in?!

Can't wait for someone to address my Q's. TIA!

[hillstones]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Verizon objected to being denied a chance to customize the interface and choose which features to allow.

Typical Verizon. More specifically, Verizon wants to control what features to charge their customers, like Bluetooth. Verizon would love to charge extra for all the standard iPhone features.

[hillstones]

Originally Posted by randythot

I would imagine Apple will play whatever suits them best, which is what suits the iPhone best. Likely a better deal may come through an exclusive carrier in the U.S, but multi-carrier would help reduce jailbreaking for different carriers.

It seems like when Apple went the first round of negotiations, it was also posturing to look serious with Verizon in order to get a better deal with AT&T, although I'm sure they could have done CDMA if negotiations were really early in iPhone development. Perhaps it was also to see where to begin negotiations with AT&T.

Jailbreaking has nothing to do with different carriers. You are referring to unlocking a phone. Jailbreaking allows you to install unauthorized applications on a phone.

Verizon told Apple to stick it because they didn't think Apple could build a phone.

[teckstud]

Who's phone has bloat wear?
Can't wait and now I will wait.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by hillstones

Typical Verizon. More specifically, Verizon wants to control what features to charge their customers, like Bluetooth. Verizon would love to charge extra for all the standard iPhone features.

Not at all- don't be upset just because you're stuck with the crappiest carrier.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by carloblackmore

I think this is just posturing in response to AT&T's recent hints that they want to extend their exclusive service with Apple.

AT&T =the PATCH NETWORK?!?

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by TBell

To say that is to suggest that Apple really would have went with it. Apple likely would not have. It was using Verizon to get a good deal from AT&T. Apple wanted to standardize on one type of hardware. That required Apple to go with T-Mobile or AT&T. Further, Steve Jobs already knew AT&T's CEO.

Besides being a horrible company in general, it's CEO didn't do anything to prevent it from getting the iPhone.

Right- that's why it (VERIZON) IS rated at the top of consumer reports and any other tech review - meanwhile AT&T is alway at the bottom or next to bottom.
Get over it- You are literally the only one who defends AT&T.

[bloggerblog]

Originally Posted by TBell

To say that is to suggest that Apple really would have went with it. Apple likely would not have. It was using Verizon to get a good deal from AT&T. Apple wanted to standardize on one type of hardware. That required Apple to go with T-Mobile or AT&T. Further, Steve Jobs already knew AT&T's CEO.

Besides being a horrible company in general, it's CEO didn't do anything to prevent it from getting the iPhone.

I don't think the hardware would be much different. The only things that would change are the signal reception/transmission chips, the actual iphone hardware would stay the same.

It should be relatively easy for Apple to produce both models of the same phone.

[Ten]

Originally Posted by TBell

To say that is to suggest that Apple really would have went with it. Apple likely would not have. It was using Verizon to get a good deal from AT&T. Apple wanted to standardize on one type of hardware. That required Apple to go with T-Mobile or AT&T. Further, Steve Jobs already knew AT&T's CEO.

Besides being a horrible company in general, it's CEO didn't do anything to prevent it from getting the iPhone.

I have used Sprint/Nextel, Verizon, & then CellularOne which was bought by AT&T. I wouldn't call AT&T a "horrible" company. That is a completely subjective statement and could mean anything. Please, quantify what exactly you mean?

I'll give you an example, my experiences on the East Coast:

Nextel: High priced. Poor coverage, though sound was great when you did have coverage. Phones had awful battery life, and drained in 1/2 day, and faster when in poor coverage areas. Terrible customer service.

Verizon: High priced, though probably more plan varieties. Great coverage. Good sound quality. Terrible customer service.

Cellular One: Dirt Cheap plans (I had $45 unlimited anytime minutes). Great Coverage competitive with Verizon. Oversold bandwidth, so sound quality was at times wanting, as well as dropped calls..... but hey, Dirt Cheap, and great coverage made up for that. Customer service was excellent.

AT&T: When AT&T bought Cell One, we were able to keep our existing great plans with regular phones. I did notice, that over all, AT&T seemed to have greater variety and flexibility with plans, and especially liked the rollover minutes. Of course, that didn't matter, since I went for the Unlimited iPhone plan for business, and kept the existing cheap ones for the family. Once Cell One was fully assimilated as AT&T, I noticed that coverage got better, voice quality got way better, and customer service rocks. I've never waited long on hold, if at all, and always been treated like a king. At the stores, we've always been fortunate to have pro's that knew what they were doing and very helpful.

Of course, Apple wants their iPhone customers to have a premium experience, and I'm sure they do what they can to push the carrier to better customer treatment.

To end- PLEASE, don't just say a certain carrier is crap or great, tell us what is liked & what is not, and where you live, so we can put it all into context. Further, was your experience recent, or was it like 10 years ago, and you just hold a grudge? Get my drift children?

[aaarrrgggh]

Originally Posted by macologist

I wonder if it would work with 4G! Same Q applies to 1st 2 iPhones!

no. .

[Ten]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Right- that's why it (VERIZON) IS rated at the top of consumer reports and any other tech review - meanwhile AT&T is alway at the bottom or next to bottom.
Get over it- You are literally the only one who defends AT&T.

It really does irritate me that you guys don't add context to your statements.

Verizon's call quality was excellent for me. But you know what? Customer service? You had to wait on hold forever. Further, they treated me (a long time loyal customer) like dirt, as if like they were the only player in town and had me over a barrel.

Though I would indeed say that Verizon's call quality is excellent (and probably the best), I can't really complain about AT&T's. Their coverage is on par, and their customer service has been top notch. Bottom line: At&T has our business because it has the iPhone. Everything else being relatively even, that really makes it the best, IMO.

Verizon has been snobbish, thinking they are the be all to cellular service.... AT&T comes along, partners with Apple, and is putting it's money where it's mouth is. We call this good competition!

[Mr. Me]

Originally Posted by Ten

... CellularOne which was bought by AT&T. ...

Read and be wise.

[Splinemodel]

Originally Posted by merdhead

I think it will be a long wait for LTE. Not only do people have to roll out a decent network, LTE chip implementations have to be small and efficient enough to fit into an increasingly small package.

I was at CTIA two weeks ago. LTE is here in a big way, and all the major silicon groups were advertising the hell out of it. The chipsets are here, even though almost everyone in the industry calls it 3.9G, and they have already been put in some pretty compact handsets.

[winterspan]

AT&T exclusivity is definitely starting to hurt the iPhone, and I don't see a compelling reason to continue it. I would imagine seeing millions more sales if they introduced it onto Verizon and/or Sprint, not to mention all of the here-to-fore-left-out cellphone operators around the world.


1) It doesn't make sense to NOT create a CDMA model of the iPhone 3G, and to not otherwise open the iPhone to all American (and international) carriers.

Based on the 3GPP2/CDMA development trade group (http://www.cdg.org/worldwide/cdma_world_subscriber.asp), there are over 450 MILLION CDMA (CDMA2000 1xRTT/EV-DO) customers worldwide in over 50 countries, and over 112 MILLION customers using EV-DO 3G. Why in hell wouldn't Apple spend the relatively small resources required to create a CDMA compatible iPhone.

Even just considering the USA, Verizon's LTE network is going to take years to reach the coverage area of their existing CDMA network, and Sprint is going in another direction. Combined, you are talking about nearly 100 MILLION CDMA subscribers and there are obviously millions of customers on these two networks just chomping at the bit for an iPhone 3G and who will NOT switch to AT&T for a variety of reasons.

2) If for whatever reason Apple didn't want to spend the resources developing two distinct models of iPhone (even if it makes sense economically), there is a relatively simple solution. [U]There are dual-mode baseband chips that can work with both GSM/EDGE/UMTS *AND* CDMA/1xRTT/EV-DO networks already in use by other manufactures.. including certain Blackberry models [\U]There is no reason why Apple couldn't make the next generation iPhone use one of these universal chips.

[RichL]

The problem for Verizon is that even when they move to LTE, they will still need to maintain their CDMA network as fallback.

How long has it taken for the US carriers to switch off their analogue networks? 15 years after GSM was introduced? Verizon's LTE coverage isn't going to be perfect for a very long time and any LTE phone released on Verizon will need to include a CDMA-compatible modem, just like how current UMTS/HSDPA phones still support GSM.

Apple will need to develop an iPhone model specifically for Verizon even when they do move to LTE.

[Steven R Wilson]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Right- that's why it (VERIZON) IS rated at the top of consumer reports and any other tech review - meanwhile AT&T is alway at the bottom or next to bottom.
Get over it- You are literally the only one who defends AT&T.

Ok, I'll bite. Lets see some of this evidence you're slinging around?

I was a nearly 10 year customer of Verizon before switching to ATT, along with my mom, my dad, and my brother.

Customer service from Verizon was horrid, I mean literally some of the worst customer experiences I have ever seen by any company. Not just 1 incident, multiple from multiple members of my family. Bad in store, bad on the phone, bad experiences with managers.

My mom normally does not have trouble dealing with people, she's lobbied in both Sacramento the state capitol and in US congress for educational issues, dealt with thousands of people, and she was steaming mad after one of these incidents and there's no way she'd go back with Verizon.

So from our personal (anecdotal) experiences, Verizon was bad. Really, offensively bad.

What about ATT? Fantastic. Want examples? They had the store open during the iPhone launch day 2 years back, they handled people that weren't there for the iPhone separately, took them in the store took care of them and sent them on their way, no problem.

Prior to the iPhone coming out we switched and they gave us free phones that we didn't even have to pay extra for that we were only going to use for a few months.

In the 2+ years since we've been customers, we've had numerous examples of good in-store and phone service from ATT, not one example of bad service, rudeness or difficulty. Examples include traveling with roaming charges, and having the issues cleared up efficiently and courteously, and in our favor. In our numerous examples of service from both companies there was a huge gap.

So I'd have an extremely difficult time believing Verizon has better customer service scores than ATT.

So network? That's regional but ATT works good where we are, no worse than Verizon. You get dropped calls from any carrier depending on where you go, that's an unfortunate issue with cell phones in general. Perhaps that's what you are claiming Verizon has over ATT, but that's a marginal argument, and very situational.

Lastly, technology, Verizon really stunk. I mean they had bad phones, that were way behind what I could get from other carriers, and what they did have they crippled by turning off standard Bluetooth so you could *only* use the Bluetooth adapters from Verizon, and on and on. Making you pay *per picture* to send pictures off your phones camera and not having any way to get them directly off with a cable. And forget about any Mac support for anything they sold.

So technology, Verizon is very easily the worst carrier in the nation by far.

Score:

Service: Verizon bad, ATT good.
Network: Mixed bag, about an even tie, depends where you live.
Technology: Verizon awful, ATT ok.

Unless you have other criteria you'd like to discuss, this is pretty much a slam dunk for ATT over Verizon. This of course assuming ATT has good coverage where you live. If not, well then that pretty much ends the discussion, but the same would be true in reverse.

[fezzasus]

3G isn't working anywhere close to it's full potential. I'd rather be using a phone on a mature 3G network rather than an over-saturated, capped 4G network, which is exactly what will happen.

[elliots11]

Originally Posted by RichL

The problem for Verizon is that even when they move to LTE, they will still need to maintain their CDMA network as fallback.

How long has it taken for the US carriers to switch off their analogue networks? 15 years after GSM was introduced? Verizon's LTE coverage isn't going to be perfect for a very long time and any LTE phone released on Verizon will need to include a CDMA-compatible modem, just like how current UMTS/HSDPA phones still support GSM.

Apple will need to develop an iPhone model specifically for Verizon even when they do move to LTE.

You said it perfectly. The broadcast tech needs to be established which takes time. Doesn't make sense to not use the well-established, perfectly fine network. Sure there'll be issues. People will deal with it to have the iPhone.

If Verizon's talking about waiting for 4G then someone in charge isn't flexible enough to work with Apple to get the iPhone. Very disappointing. When my family switched we'd have gone with Verizon if they had the iPhone, now we're with AT&T and it's acceptable. The iPhone makes up for shortcomings and the network here in LA is better than Tmobile.

[al_bundy]

Originally Posted by winterspan

AT&T exclusivity is definitely starting to hurt the iPhone, and I don't see a compelling reason to continue it. I would imagine seeing millions more sales if they introduced it onto Verizon and/or Sprint, not to mention all of the here-to-fore-left-out cellphone operators around the world.


1) It doesn't make sense to NOT create a CDMA model of the iPhone 3G, and to not otherwise open the iPhone to all American (and international) carriers.

Based on the 3GPP2/CDMA development trade group (http://www.cdg.org/worldwide/cdma_world_subscriber.asp), there are over 450 MILLION CDMA (CDMA2000 1xRTT/EV-DO) customers worldwide in over 50 countries, and over 112 MILLION customers using EV-DO 3G. Why in hell wouldn't Apple spend the relatively small resources required to create a CDMA compatible iPhone.

Even just considering the USA, Verizon's LTE network is going to take years to reach the coverage area of their existing CDMA network, and Sprint is going in another direction. Combined, you are talking about nearly 100 MILLION CDMA subscribers and there are obviously millions of customers on these two networks just chomping at the bit for an iPhone 3G and who will NOT switch to AT&T for a variety of reasons.

2) If for whatever reason Apple didn't want to spend the resources developing two distinct models of iPhone (even if it makes sense economically), there is a relatively simple solution. [U]There are dual-mode baseband chips that can work with both GSM/EDGE/UMTS *AND* CDMA/1xRTT/EV-DO networks already in use by other manufactures.. including certain Blackberry models [\U]There is no reason why Apple couldn't make the next generation iPhone use one of these universal chips.

CDMA iphone means a more complicated inventory system, another assembly line to assemble them, and lower margins because of the extra costs. Apple doesn't work this way. They have 3 models of laptops, 2 PC and 1 workstation. in all cases you can only configure minor things like RAM.

they will take a simpler manufacturing system and higher margins over incurring the extra costs and risks of more models

[iReality85]

Originally Posted by Mac Rumors

Mr. Seidenberg also addressed the notion of Apple Inc.'s iPhone ever coming to the Verizon Wireless network, saying it is more likely that Apple would be willing to work with the carrier under the fourth-generation, or 4G, network, which follows the same technology standard as AT&T Inc.'s 4G plans. He said Apple never seriously considered making a CDMA version of the iPhone because it didn't have as wide a distribution opportunity.

I took this quote from the same article over at Mac Rumors, as I find it very interesting. I'm confused on the actual facts of what went down 2 years ago, though. Did Apple seriously approach Verizon Wireless about a CDMA iPhone? I repeated hear in the mac community that they did, but Seidenberg is apparently stating otherwise here. This begs the queston then, if Apple was interesting in Verizon Wireless, why? Especially given that the iPhone had yet to be released, had no market share, thus GSM networks would have been the better alternative for Apple to enter the market with their nascent product (which it was), also as Seidenberg suggests. The alignment of statements and posturing by the two companies just don't add up to me. I find Seidenberg's mentioning of "Apple would be more willing to work with us" (paraphrasing) also intruiging, as this suggests that Apple did not really approach Verizon Wireless at all, and that it was Verizon Wireless who was interesting in carrying the iPhone. Verizon Wireless then became miffed by Apple's lack of interest, then the snubbing insued. Hmmm. Of course, it could be the reverse as commonly believed. Weird.

[Jsyedinak]

I agree with this sentament. I know Verizon Wireless and they seem to continue to feel that they can play their own game. They need to wake up and realize that it would benefit them and their customers to team with Apple to provide the iPhone....as quickly as possible.

Originally Posted by addicted44

The Verizon CEO is just trying to save face. I bet there are several investors pissed by them missing the iPhone boat, and that fury will surface soon, when in the next few quarters Verizon will miss earnings due to the poor economy.

He is trying to lay down the story that the refusal wasn't his fault (and hence that shouldn't be used against him in considering firing decisions).

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Steven R Wilson

So from our personal (anecdotal) experiences, Verizon was bad. Really, offensively bad.



Lastly, technology, Verizon really stunk. I mean they had bad phones, that were way behind what I could get from other carriers, and what they did have they crippled by turning off standard Bluetooth so you could *only* use the Bluetooth adapters from Verizon, and on and on. Making you pay *per picture* to send pictures off your phones camera and not having any way to get them directly off with a cable. And forget about any Mac support for anything they sold.

So technology, Verizon is very easily the worst carrier in the nation by far.

Score:

Service: Verizon bad, ATT good.
Network: Mixed bag, about an even tie, depends where you live.
Technology: Verizon awful, ATT ok.

Unless you have other criteria you'd like to discuss, this is pretty much a slam dunk for ATT over Verizon. This of course assuming ATT has good coverage where you live. If not, well then that pretty much ends the discussion, but the same would be true in reverse.

So pompous of you to think you end the discussion.
That's you own personal opinion and can't negate the fact of what's been documented over and over. And the networks are not even- Verizon wins hands down. It doesn't depend upon where you live- it's fully covered. AT&T in NYC sucks - and if it sucks here than - well you fill in the dots.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Jsyedinak

I agree with this sentament. I know Verizon Wireless and they seem to continue to feel that they can play their own game. They need to wake up and realize that it would benefit them and their customers to team with Apple to provide the iPhone....as quickly as possible.

Apple needs to wake up and get its own lawyers to break this choke holding exclusive conrtrract with AT&T - coming up to over 2 years already. iPhone should be available not only with Verizon but the other carriers as well- just like any Blackbery etc.
It behooves Apple to act promptly to break the AT&T chains. AT&T keeps promoting and offering all kinds of 3g phones constantly thus clogging all the iPhone customers Apple has provided to them.