Apple happy with AT&T, indicates no plans for CDMA iPhone

[AppleInsider]

Asked Wednesday about his company's exclusive relationship with AT&T -- cited by some as a barrier to further iPhone penetration -- Apple interim chief Tim Cook responded by praising the carrier as 'the best wireless provider in the US,' explaining that its GSM foundation gels with Apple's goal of providing 'one phone for the entire world' while rival CDMA technology 'doesn't really have a life to it.'

Speaking during Apple's second-fiscal quarter conference call, Cook reiterated that Apple chose AT&T (then named Cingular) as its exclusive partner in the US because of its support for GSM, the mobile networking standard in use worldwide by the majority of cellular phone providers. That enabled Apple to launch and sell one unit globally.

The second generation iPhone 3G added support for UMTS service, the third generation mobile network standard that all GSM providers are moving toward. Development of UMTS is managed by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) organization.

While many phone makers sell versions of their handsets for both GSM/UMTS worldwide and Qualcomm's rival CDMA mobile network technology operated by Sprint and Verizon Wireless in the US, doing so requires twice the development effort. Taking on that extra effort is becoming increasingly less attractive as CDMA providers make plans to transition to the next generation of mobile networks.

"CDMA doesnt really have a life to it after a certain point in time," Cook said during the call, dashing any fantasies of the iPhone becoming available to Sprint and Verizon users in the next few years. Cook was referring to the entire Qualcomm CDMA stack in comparison with 3GPP GSM/UMTS specifications, as UMTS actually uses a related W-CDMA carrier technology as opposed to GSM's TDMA signaling.

For Verizon, the primary competitor to AT&T in the US, the next generation mobile network means Long Term Evolution (LTE). That future specification is sometimes referred to as 4G, but is really the next stage of 3GPP development. AT&T currently operates a 3GPP Release 5 network now being upgraded to incorporate newer improvements in the 3GPP specifications; LTE is simply a name attached to the forthcoming 3GPP Release 8.

Once LTE networks are built out over the next several years, Verizon's CEO told the Wall Street Journal that an LTE version of the iPhone would make Apple "more likely" to want to work with Verizon in addition to AT&T. If all goes according to plan, at some point early in the next decade both Verizon and AT&T will operate compatible networks, just like all the providers in Europe.

However, AT&T has already stated that it plans to upgrade its existing network incrementally, which is a much easier path toward LTE than Verizon's plans to completely replace its CDMA/EVDO network with LTE. During that time, AT&T will also be able to continue to advertise a faster mobile network, and Apple will be able to leverage global support for 3GPP mobile networks to release increasingly faster versions of the iPhone.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[Postulant]

I don't know about being the best wireless provider in the US, but att is certainly the best provider in my area. I switched to att in 2001 and I'm very satisfied.

[dagamer34]

The article needs to be changed. A non-CDMA iPhone dashes all hopes for Sprint (as far as I know, they'll be using WiMax as their 4G tech) and Verizon until they switch to LTE.

Common sense dictates that Apple wasn't going to bother with a CDMA phone, especially when carriers are openly switching away from that technology. Since it's also obvious that Apple doesn't have ready an LTE iPhone right now, they were bound to deny any inkling of talking to Verizon.

Rest assured, in two years when LTE chipsets are mature and Verizon and AT&T's 4G LTE networks are up and running, that's when Apple will seriously begin talking to Verizon about potentially supporting the iPhone. Until then "iPhone on Verizon" rumors aren't even rumors, they're fantasies.

Also, do we know if the bands AT&T and Verizon are using for LTE will even be compatible? I thought that during the FCC Wireless auction they got separate bands. Did they get exclusive rights to the portion of spectrum they won? What about the what bands the rest of the world is using? All of this is pretty important information in terms of inter-compatability in trying to build a "world phone" that's a lot easier to manufacture.

[sflocal]

I've been with CellularOne/Cingular/AT&T for as long as I can remember. I've never had any problems with them at all.

I think Apple made a good choice to go with AT&T for the U.S. Biggest GSM carrier in the US which also allowed Apple to market the same hardware to other countries using GSM. Good move. Sprint/Verizon on the other hand won't be going anywhere outside the U.S. so not much point to make separate hardware to satisfy them.

I wonder what the CEO of Verizon thought of after his comments from a few days ago. I guess he's a bit red at the moment.

[mdriftmeyer]

Originally Posted by dagamer34

The article needs to be changed. A non-CDMA iPhone dashes all hopes for Sprint (as far as I know, they'll be using WiMax as their 4G tech) and Verizon until they switch to LTE.

Common sense dictates that Apple wasn't going to bother with a CDMA phone, especially when carriers are openly switching away from that technology. Since it's also obvious that Apple doesn't have ready an LTE iPhone right now, they were bound to deny any inkling of talking to Verizon.

Rest assured, in two years when LTE chipsets are mature and Verizon and AT&T's 4G LTE networks are up and running, that's when Apple will seriously begin talking to Verizon about potentially supporting the iPhone. Until then "iPhone on Verizon" rumors aren't even rumors, they're fantasies.

Getting an iPhone to be LTE ready isn't the problem. Getting the backbone to be LTE ready is the problem. What smart person would wait 2 years from today and plan for another carrier when your current carrier was on a wiser spec with a broader world acceptance, especially when your goal is to sell this phone to the globe, not just to the United States? I'd prefer AT&T incrementally updating to the standard than wait for an entire rip out and replace by Verizon.

[Inkling]

Wanting to be GSM-only only doesn't explain why Apple hasn't made a deal with T-Mobile. In cities like Seattle, service would be better. I know people with jail-broken iPhones who use T-Mobile because even with a data plan it costs them less. An a lot of us aren't on the go enough to justify $70 or more a month for AT&T's pricey package.

[TenoBell]

Blu-ray is having a banner year? Does that mean it finally cracked 10% of DVD sales?

Originally Posted by teckstud

That's why Blu-Ray is having a banner year this year. The snobbery of Apple sometimes is baffling.

[iluomo]

Originally Posted by sflocal

I've been with CellularOne/Cingular/AT&T for as long as I can remember. I've never had any problems with them at all.

Where do you use your phone in SF? It seems inconceivable that you use it around the city much. It's astonishing to me how bad AT&T coverage is. I know the difference because I was on Verizon before. Maybe you think it's good because that's all you've known. But I curse AT&T nearly every day. I never go longer than a day or so without a dropped call or some sort of lacking in service. And this is in my car or outside, not in a building.

Yesterday, for example, I drove from Potrero Hill all the way to the Marina and did not have 3G coverage until I got there. I know because I wanted to buy a song and couldn't because, while I had bars, I had no 3G or even Edge the whole way over. I finally got a 3G signal outside the Apple Store on Chestnut. By then it didn't matter because I had WIFI. How ludicrous is that?

The iPhone with all its intensive network functions was in development for quite a while prior to release. AT&T knew the onslaught was coming. Why the hell didn't they start improving their network to handle it? They bill for it, so they should have built it.

It is only a testament to how much I love the iPhone that I don't dump AT&T and go back to Verizon.

[Sojourner]

I don't know about it being the best carrier. I switched over to AT&T from Verizon (which I NEVER had any dropped calls from) because of the iPhone. I can understand why Apple would want to have a phone they can use for the rest of the world, however, I think AT&T's service is very shoddy at best. Dropped calls, inability to make calls is very frustrating. As much as I love my iPhone for its abilities, I can't stand AT&T's service...which is not just in my area (because I travel a lot), it's poor in many places.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by Inkling

Wanting to be GSM-only only doesn't explain why Apple hasn't made a deal with T-Mobile. In cities like Seattle, service would be better. I know people with jail-broken iPhones who use T-Mobile because even with a data plan it costs them less. An a lot of us aren't on the go enough to justify $70 or more a month for AT&T's pricey package.

With T-Mobile's limited coverage–great roaming though–I can't see that they are any less than anybody elses. Unless you can differentiate the data plans (http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/Package...d=myFavesPlans)

[bloggerblog]

dunno... Apple might be happy with AT&T but many users aren't.

[Splinemodel]

GSM is pretty much gone from the developed world: what ignoramuses call 3G GSM is in fact a variant of CDMA (W-CDMA) . The 3G iPhone already works with W-CDMA, and the W-CDMA world is converging with the CDMA2000 world via LTE.

So consider the facts:
1. We know that Apple will release an LTE phone, perhaps as early as June.
2. Sprint and Verizon will almost certainly be faster to the draw with implementing LTE across their network than ATT will. AI's assumption that an incremental upgrade is easier is full of shit! ATT is still struggling with getting up to 3G standards due to their legacy GSM base. CDMA in any flavor is an easier upgrade to LTE than GSM is, for a plethora of reasons.

By 2010 we can expect that an iPhone will be workable over non-ATT US carriers, either through "open" iPhone sales or by agreement.

[ajmas]

Why would Apple need to spend money on a CDMA phone, since:
- it add to development costs
- it is already making enough money as it needs to
- if providers are moving to GSM 4G, then the cost is already delegated.

[gbran]

I live on the edge of the Kansas City metro area that ATT just doesn't cover. Therefore, I can't get an iPhone. If I lived 20 miles north, no problem -- but where I've chosen to raise my family, no dice. I can get Verizon there, and I can get T-Mobile. I would gladly switch to ATT if it was an option, but it's not. Opening up the iPhone to T-mobile would be an option that I would gladly welcome.

[mentalward]

I'm a little dissappointed (but not surprised) to hear the iPhone is seemingly staying with AT&T, because they themselves are the barrier for entry to me: No native network coverage in Montana. My iPhone options are a choice between getting a jailbroken one and using it on CellularOne's GSM network here, or getting one from Spokane WA or somewhere and risking getting the boot for excessive off-network usage. The lack of coverage seems to be the case for folks in many midwestern/northwestern areas (It was reported in the news here that there is no native AT&T coverage at all in Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, or South Dakota), and is the reason that I take issue with Cook's assertion that AT&T is "the best wireless provider in the US."

I've read reports that AT&T wants to buy Alltel's divested network here and convert it. A glimmer of hope?

This comes with living in Montana, in any case. I choose access to Glacier National Park over access to AT&T!

[Gyokuro]

Originally Posted by bloggerblog

dunno... Apple might be happy with AT&T but many users aren't.

I partially agree with this statement, however, if people are SO upset with the phone service, why is iPhone so successful? Why are Apple making billions including apps, etc? I see it as the best phone/portable device ever created and most people are willing to look beyond its obvious flaws.

[TenoBell]

Your facts are pretty well short on facts.

GSM is used by over 3 billion people around the world.

Apple won't have an LTE phone in June, there aren't any LTE chips available for phones yet.

Sprint won't go LTE at all they are using WiMax as their 4G network.

Exactly what are the reasons you think it will be easier for Verizon to completely switch wireless standards, than for AT&T to continue an extension to its existing wireless standard?

Verizon doesn't even expect to have its LTE network fully up and running by 2010, I'm not sure why you expect it to.

Originally Posted by Splinemodel

GSM is pretty much gone from the developed world:

So consider the facts:
1. We know that Apple will release an LTE phone, perhaps as early as June.
2. Sprint and Verizon will almost certainly be faster to the draw with implementing LTE across their network than ATT will. AI's assumption that an incremental upgrade is easier is full of shit! ATT is still struggling with getting up to 3G standards due to their legacy GSM base. CDMA in any flavor is an easier upgrade to LTE than GSM is, for a plethora of reasons.

By 2010 we can expect that an iPhone will be workable over non-ATT US carriers, either through "open" iPhone sales or by agreement.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by Inkling

Wanting to be GSM-only only doesn't explain why Apple hasn't made a deal with T-Mobile. In cities like Seattle, service would be better. I know people with jail-broken iPhones who use T-Mobile because even with a data plan it costs them less. An a lot of us aren't on the go enough to justify $70 or more a month for AT&T's pricey package.

T-Mobile is the 4th largest carrier in the US, they have less coverage than the top 3 and their 3G network was literally non-existent when the original iPhone hit. On top of that, since building up their 3G network they have had to use a different 3G spectrum than AT&T and most of the world on GSM/UMTS-based 3G. They just weren't a good choice for many reasons. In Germany, T-Mobile makes perfect sense.

Originally Posted by iluomo

It seems inconceivable that you use it around the city much. It's astonishing to me how bad AT&T coverage is.

I'd say that my worst AT&T coverage was in SF and Oakland areas. Sometimes it would literally fluctuate on the handset every few seconds. It's been about a year so I hope things have improved.

[dagamer34]

Originally Posted by Splinemodel

GSM is pretty much gone from the developed world: what ignoramuses call 3G GSM is in fact a variant of CDMA (W-CDMA) . The 3G iPhone already works with W-CDMA, and the W-CDMA world is converging with the CDMA2000 world via LTE.

So consider the facts:
1. We know that Apple will release an LTE phone, perhaps as early as June.
2. Sprint and Verizon will almost certainly be faster to the draw with implementing LTE across their network than ATT will. AI's assumption that an incremental upgrade is easier is full of shit! ATT is still struggling with getting up to 3G standards due to their legacy GSM base. CDMA in any flavor is an easier upgrade to LTE than GSM is, for a plethora of reasons.

By 2010 we can expect that an iPhone will be workable over non-ATT US carriers, either through "open" iPhone sales or by agreement.

Wow, there are so many things wrong with what you wrote, it's gonna take forever! But I'll dive in anyway!

1) "GSM is pretty much gone from the developed world:" - GSM is what everyone uses when W-CDMA (3G) isn't available. The only CDMA carriers I'm aware of are the 2 in North America and a few in Korea, maybe 1 in Japan. That's a far cry from the other 80% of the world that uses GSM as their base technology (3G isn't everywhere). And while CDMA and W-CDMA both have "CDMA" in the name, that doesn't mean they are the same. In face, the correct name for the technology that Verizon and Sprint use is CDMA2000.

2) "Sprint and Verizon will almost certainly be faster to the draw with implementing LTE across their network than ATT will" - partially true. First, Sprint will be using WiMax, not LTE as their 4G standard (how can you make that slip-up?). Second, Verizon has already stated their LTE rollout will be publically available mid-2010, whereas AT&T will have theirs ready mid-2011. I'll leave defending AT&T for delaying their network by a year to someone else.

3) "ATT is still struggling with getting up to 3G standards due to their legacy GSM base" - I don't see how upgrading a network will be harder than building a new one as Verizon has to do with LTE.

4) "CDMA in any flavor is an easier upgrade to LTE than GSM is, for a plethora of reasons." - I don't see how CDMA would be easier to upgrade, considering that LTE is an evolution of GSM, not CDMA.

5) "By 2010 we can expect that an iPhone will be workable over non-ATT US carriers, either through "open" iPhone sales or by agreement." - Apple is unlikely to use immature chipsets for any phone they produce. See Steve Jobs reasoning for not including a 3G chipset in the original iPhone, plus the decrease in battery life in the iPhone 3G.

I'd prefer if people use facts when making arguments. Sensational fanboyism really irks me.

[cameronj]

Originally Posted by ajmas

Why would Apple need to spend money on a CDMA phone, since:
- it add to development costs
- it is already making enough money as it needs to
- if providers are moving to GSM 4G, then the cost is already delegated.

Unfortunately, none of those is a valid reason for not doing it. Fortunately, the only reason that matters is the contract between ATT and Apple, and Apple won't be making a CDMA iPhone.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by gbran

I live on the edge of the Kansas City metro area that ATT just doesn't cover. Therefore, I can't get an iPhone. If I lived 20 miles north, no problem -- but where I've chosen to raise my family, no dice. I can get Verizon there, and I can get T-Mobile. I would gladly switch to ATT if it was an option, but it's not. Opening up the iPhone to T-mobile would be an option that I would gladly welcome.

Just whereabout is it not covered? http://www.wireless.att.com/coverage...585&sci=6&3g=t

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by bloggerblog

dunno... Apple might be happy with AT&T but many users aren't.

Yep. And they are all right here.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

Yep. And they are all right here.

[TenoBell]

Specifically Verizon is planning to launch LTE in 2010, but it will be limited to its first markets. It will expand over time. How long is over time we don't really know.

AT&T will gradually speed its HSPA network and can naturally evolve up to LTE.

Originally Posted by dagamer34

Second, Verizon has already stated their LTE rollout will be publically available mid-2010, whereas AT&T will have theirs ready mid-2011. I'll leave defending AT&T for delaying their network by a year to someone else.

[filburt]

Originally Posted by Splinemodel

GSM is pretty much gone from the developed world: what ignoramuses call 3G GSM is in fact a variant of CDMA (W-CDMA) . The 3G iPhone already works with W-CDMA, and the W-CDMA world is converging with the CDMA2000 world via LTE.

So consider the facts:
1. We know that Apple will release an LTE phone, perhaps as early as June.
2. Sprint and Verizon will almost certainly be faster to the draw with implementing LTE across their network than ATT will. AI's assumption that an incremental upgrade is easier is full of shit! ATT is still struggling with getting up to 3G standards due to their legacy GSM base. CDMA in any flavor is an easier upgrade to LTE than GSM is.

Although many in developed countries have migrated to UMTS and beyond, GSM is still widely in use there for legacy customers. And that is not the point. 3G is very confusing and poorly defined in general. In fact, you have some of the facts wrong.

GSM (2G) has evolved to GRPS (2.5G), EDGE (2.75G) and to UMTS (3G) which is sometimes referred to as WCDMA. UMTS is broken down into HSPA (HSDPA and HDUPA) and will evolve to HSPA+. Instead of calling it UMTS or WCDMA, however, many call it 3G GSM to indicate its origin (particularly to distinguish the use of SIM card)

cdmaOne (2G), which is often incorrectly but more commonly referred to as CDMA, has evolved to cdma2000 (1xRTT =2.5G, EV-DO = 3G -> EV-DV). cdma2000 is often incorrectly referred to as WCDMA.

Many players (e.g., AT&T, Verizon) are looking at/rolling out LTE for 4G. But some (e.g., Sprint) are looking at/rolling out WiMax and other technologies. But as to when LTE will be deployed well enough for mass consumption is a big question. AT&T still has marginal coverage of 3G in many areas, for instance.

That said, I think Apple should make EV-DO/EV-DV phone. I don't think it will cost a whole lot in terms of development and market share gain (see Blackberry) will be big enough to offset any cost. AT&T is giving Apple what it wants to delay/prevent the release of EV-DO/EV-DV iPhone and Verizon isn't.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by TenoBell

Specifically Verizon is planning to launch LTE in 2010, but it will be limited to its first markets. It will expand over time. How long is over time we don't really know.

AT&T will gradually speed its HSDPA network and can naturally evolve up to LTE.

Funny how "launch" has become "full nationwide coverage" and how there is not one LTE EC34 or USB card for notebooks at this time, but people will be upset when the next iPhone doesn't have it.

Even when Verizon's LTE is setup like their CDMA2000 is today Apple will still have to make a second model for CDMA-based markets for when LTE is not available. GSM/UMTS/LTE and CDMA/CDMA2k/LTE would be two different models, but somehow we are to expect CDMA2k and UMTS to simply pop out of existence. Although, by the time LTE is well optimized for mobile phones we might see some very sleek UMTS/CDMA2k combo chips that may work, but I think that will all depend on the size and how well the developing countries with CDMA-based networks are coming along with 3G and how they would receive the iPhone.

[winterspan]

This doesn't make sense from any sort of logical business perspective.

As I posted before,

1) CDMA 3G is going to maintain widespread use on many CDMA carriers for sometime. Widespread use of LTE and in particular full, widespread service coverage is not going to be available for at least 18-24 months, and that's an incredibly ambitious timeline. Depending on many factors, including the DTV transition and economy, it could be even longer.

2) Even when widely deployed, many providers are expected to use dual-use devices that use LTE AND CDMA. Thus they are going to have to become familiar with the technology on a deep level anyways.

3) MOST PERSUASIVE is the fact that the United States is easily the largest market for the iPhone based on total cellphone subscribers and the very favorable reception and general opinion of the iPhone. With Tmobile being a minor carrier and not even having a nationwide 3G network, Verizon and Sprint combined represent the vast majority of the ~100 million cellphone customers left in the nation after accounting for AT&T users, and they are all running on CDMA.

AT&T is going to run out of steam and the only for large growth is by opening up to CDMA carriers. Based on surveys, there are still some customers who would consider switching to AT&T for a new iPhone, but there are MILLIONS more that are NOT going to leave their preferred carrier that are very interested in purchasing an iPhone on their existing network.


Economically, there is no way you could convince me that the potential market of the 100 Million CDMA subscribers in the iPhone-receptive United States (and the ~400 million worldwide) is not enough to recoup the resources spent on creating an CDMA EV-DO iPhone.

[Anthracite]

A few years ago before ATT and Cingular merged, I had ATT cell phone service. I live on a very high hill 2 miles from our state capitol. ATT service was terrible. It sometimes took 3 attempts to finish one conversation given the persistent dropped calls. I dropped them and switched to a Verizon family plan which, for our area, is superior.

I recently acquired an enterprise iPhone 3G from work and the ATT connections have been very good. Calls still get dropped occasionally, but their service is much improved from a few years ago. Not sure if it’s the iPhone hardware or an improved network. I'd like to think both.

We've kept our Verizon family plan, and we'd certainly buy at least 2 iPhones for personal use if Verizon offered them.

[dagamer34]

Originally Posted by winterspan

This doesn't make sense from any sort of logical business perspective.

As I posted before,

1) CDMA 3G is going to maintain widespread use on many CDMA carriers for sometime. Widespread use of LTE and in particular full, widespread service coverage is not going to be available for at least 18-24 months, and that's an incredibly ambitious timeline. Depending on many factors, including the DTV transition and economy, it could be even longer.

2) Even when widely deployed, many providers are expected to use dual-use devices that use LTE AND CDMA. Thus they are going to have to become familiar with the technology on a deep level anyways.

3) MOST PERSUASIVE is the fact that the United States is easily the largest market for the iPhone based on the total subscribers and the very favorable reception and general opinion of the iPhone. With Tmobile being a minor carrier and not even having a nationwide 3G network, Verizon and Sprint combined represent the vast majority of the ~100 million cellphone customers left in the nation after accounting for AT&T users, and they are all running on CDMA.

AT&T is going to run out of steam and the only for large growth is by opening up to CDMA carriers. Based on surveys, there are still some customers who would consider switching to AT&T for a new iPhone, but there are MILLIONS more that are NOT going to leave their preferred carrier that are very interested in purchasing an iPhone on their existing network.


Economically, there is no way you could convince me that the potential market of the 100 Million CDMA subscribers in the iPhone-receptive United States (and the ~400 million worldwide) is not enough to recoup the resources spent on creating an CDMA EV-DO iPhone.

You seem to be thinking that all of Apple's potential customers live in the US. They do not. In fact, the biggest market Apple can tap into is China, and they don't use CDMA.

It's never been about maximizing profits or there are a plethora of markets that Apple could get into an conceivably do well (netbooks, sub-$1000 laptops, non-Mac Pro tower PCs, etc..). But it goes against the companies core philosophy of keeping things simple. Once you start down that slippery road, it becomes all to easy to ship out crud to the market simply because it will make money.

[TenoBell]

OS X doesn't need the marketshare as badly as Blu-ray does.

Originally Posted by teckstud

Yeah- kinda like the way usage of Mac OS web browsing finally cracked 10% in 2008.

[SpamSandwich]

Originally Posted by Gyokuro

I partially agree with this statement, however, if people are SO upset with the phone service, why is iPhone so successful? Why are Apple making billions including apps, etc? I see it as the best phone/portable device ever created and most people are willing to look beyond its obvious flaws.

The obvious flaws are inherent to at&t. The iPhone remains a best in class device.

[iBill]

Good. Verizon can pound sand.

[cameronj]

Originally Posted by winterspan

Economically, there is no way you could convince me that the potential market of the 100 Million CDMA subscribers in the iPhone-receptive United States (and the ~400 million worldwide) is not enough to recoup the resources spent on creating an CDMA EV-DO iPhone.

You are, of course, correct. But that's because you leave one factor out of the equation - payments or other non-monetary remuneration made to Apple in exchange for keeping the iPhone off Verizon and other CDMA networks.

Apple would surely profit (if all such exclusive contracts were removed from the equation) by making an iPhone they could sell to Verizon. The engineering costs would be minimal compared to the huge market opportunity. But ATT is making up for that with its payments to Apple. Those payments are not reflected in profit and loss statements, but go straight to Apple's balance sheet as one time items.

[terun78]

Originally Posted by Gyokuro

I partially agree with this statement, however, if people are SO upset with the phone service, why is iPhone so successful? Why are Apple making billions including apps, etc? I see it as the best phone/portable device ever created and most people are willing to look beyond its obvious flaws.

In my opinion, I think a lot of it has to do with people simply complaining. I have the iPhone 3G on AT&T and a verizon phone that I carry for my job. I get great reception with them both, very few dropped calls. True, you are going to have some areas where reception will be spotty, but that's with any carrier. I've been with AT&T for 5 years and they aren't as bad as people make them out to be from my experience.

[cameronj]

Originally Posted by dagamer34

You seem to be thinking that all of Apple's potential customers live in the US. They do not. In fact, the biggest market Apple can tap into is China, and they don't use CDMA.

It's never been about maximizing profits or there are a plethora of markets that Apple could get into an conceivably do well (netbooks, sub-$1000 laptops, non-Mac Pro tower PCs, etc..). But it goes against the companies core philosophy of keeping things simple. Once you start down that slippery road, it becomes all to easy to ship out crud to the market simply because it will make money.

Nah, that's crap.

Making a CDMA iPhone would not add any user complexity (which is all Apple cares about - I don't understand why you think it cares about manufacturing or design complexity). It's ALL about maximizing profits. And given the world the way it IS, not the way we wish it would be, being with one carrier in the USA maximizes profits better than being with both bigs because of the large subsidies and because of ATT's willingness to give Apple tons of control and cash in return for not making a Verizon iPhone.

[bsenka]

Originally Posted by dagamer34

the biggest market Apple can tap into is China, and they don't use CDMA.

That doesn't jive with what I've been reading on the telecom news sites. What I've been seeing is CDMA is widely used in China, and is actually increasing. Carriers there are seeing that they get better bang for their buck in terms of signal strength, audio quality, and transition to LTE from CDMA, and are moving away from GSM.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by bsenka

That doesn't jive with what I've been reading on the telecom news sites.

China is well mixed like the US. there largest carrier is CDMA-based.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecom...ecom_operators

[sflocal]

Originally Posted by solipsism

I'd say that my worst AT&T coverage was in SF and Oakland areas. Sometimes it would literally fluctuate on the handset every few seconds. It's been about a year so I hope things have improved.

That's just odd... I live/work in San Francisco and work a lot in Richmond across the Bay. Reception for me is excellent in all the areas except for one dead spot in Richmod near San Pablo. Go figure.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by sflocal

That's just odd... I live/work in San Francisco and work a lot in Richmond across the Bay. Reception for me is excellent in all the areas except for one dead spot in Richmod near San Pablo. Go figure.

It's been a year, and that is a long time for AT&T to get things more covered. I was in Walnut Creek area around Christmas this past year and had EDGE with one to two bars, as did the AT&T Palm Treos, in a nice neighborhood. Makes no sense sometimes.

[gbran]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

Just whereabout is it not covered? http://www.wireless.att.com/coverage...585&sci=6&3g=t

The area in orange with the diagonal stripes. I live in Miami County (specifically southern Miami County) and work in downtown Kansas City. If I was in Johnson, I'd be okay, but, alas, I'm not.