Apple and Verizon said in talks for 2010 iPhone

[AppleInsider]

Once believed to have blown its first chance at the iPhone, Verizon is now claimed to be in discussions with Apple for its own version of the iPhone in 2010.

Pointing only to anonymous people familiar with the negotiations as its sources, USA Today explains that Verizon reportedly entered serious talks before Steve Jobs' hiatus and has been continuing those talks even with Jobs temporarily sidelined for medical reasons.

Other than a 2010 target release window, little else is divulged by the apparent insiders.

Although not explicitly stated, the newspaper infers that the phone would be a CDMA device compatible with Verizon's existing network and therefore using EVDO for its 3G Internet access. Such a move would give the phone broad coverage but directly contradicts Apple COO Tim Cook's own dismissal of CDMA last week: when discussing iPhone expansion plans, the executive justified the absence of a CDMA model by arguing that a single, GSM phone model is easier to produce than building a separate version for a relatively small batch of customers. Cook also sharply criticized CDMA by asserting that it has no future, as most CDMA carriers plan to phase out the calling technology in favor of the same 4G standard that will be used on GSM networks.

More likely is a direct leap to a 4G. Verizon chief executive Ivan Seidenberg recently explained that a deal is more likely for a phone with the advanced networking technology as it would let Apple continue making one phone but still service North American carriers that are for now off limits. Verizon plans to officially launch its commercial 4G network in early 2010 and would therefore have at least some of its network ready for an iPhone by the time AT&T's exclusivity term ends, which is likely for the same year.

However determined Verizon may be to land an iPhone of its own, AT&T may topple those ambitions through its own discussions. Separate rumors have the incumbent iPhone carrier pushing Apple to extend its US exclusivity until 2011 -- enough to stall any Verizon deal until AT&T's own 4G network is ready.

Any successful deal, no matter the network type, would likely be a serious blow to AT&T, which credited much of its ability to weather the ongoing economic crisis to iPhone sales and the resulting spike in data revenue. Aside from reducing incentives to launch massive, special upgrades to the network, a Verizon model would let those dissatisfied with AT&T' s 3G coverage or its customer service defect to Verizon without giving up Apple's handset.

[iBill]

Verizon can pound sand.

AT&T forever!

[randythot]

Looks like more FUD and ball-breaking negotiation tactics coming from Apple.
After the 1st Verizon rejection, I wouldn't be surprised to see Jobs personally snub them this second time, all the while, negotiating an even better deal with AT&T, and make 4G available to Verizon once AT&T's 4G network debuts.
I love how Apple is working over the carriers to help profits, innovate, and protect the iPhone platform. If the App Store keeps growing, their leverage does too.

[dagamer34]

Unlikely to be in 2010, more like 2011. Apple will cite chipset immaturity and wait for lower-power chipsets. Look at the reasoning behind the original iPhone not having 3G and the *apparent* decrease in battery life in the iPhone 3G.

Plus, there's no reason for Apple to jump on the LTE bandwagon on an unproven network infrastructure. Not when you have your image at stake.

[randythot]

Does anyone know if 4G will sound better than AT&T and Verizon's current voice quality? I've always found the CDMA standard chosen for Sprint and Verizon slightly better than GSM 3G.

[iBill]

Originally Posted by randythot

I love how Apple is working over the carriers to help profits, innovate, and protect the iPhone platform.

I agree, Apple is playing one carrier off against another. Considering how pathetic all the carriers are in the states, can you blame them? Can you give them credit?

I do.

Give them credit, that is..

[randythot]

Originally Posted by dagamer34

Unlikely to be in 2010, more like 2011. Apple will cite chipset immaturity and wait for lower-power chipsets. Look at the reasoning behind the original iPhone not having 3G and the *apparent* decrease in battery life in the iPhone 3G.

Plus, there's no reason for Apple to jump on the LTE bandwagon on an unproven network infrastructure. Not when you have your image at stake.

Do you have any particular data about Apple's 4G development that might support your 2011 late date (other than before the 3g)?

I agree that the power is a major issue for Apple to decide, but aren't launch date and the unproven network issues really dependent upon testing on a 4G network pilot? I think AI had an article about AT&T getting Apple on theirs soon.

If there is any way it will work, good power/chipset, 4G infrastructure rollout, and iPhone 4G development timeframe, Apple would take the early window to leverage competitive advantage. But, big if!

[solipsism]

The comments about being happy with partners is typical lip service. No viable company would publicly state that they aren't happy until after the split has occurred.

Originally Posted by randythot

Looks like more FUD and ball-breaking negotiation tactics coming from Apple.
After the 1st Verizon rejection, I wouldn't be surprised to see Jobs personally snub them this second time, all the while, negotiating an even better deal with AT&T, and make 4G available to Verizon once AT&T's 4G network debuts.
I love how Apple is working over the carriers to help profits, innovate, and protect the iPhone platform. If the App Store keeps growing, their leverage does too.

The best tactic is for Apple to keep all negotiations open. One, they need to have a fall back plan. Two, regardless of your partnership if you are for-profit company you need to try to get the best deal possible. Letting AT&T think they are the only real choice in the US isn't good for Apple's business, regardless of the fact that they the best choice in the US for a single phone.

Originally Posted by dagamer34

Unlikely to be in 2010, more like 2011. Apple will cite chipset immaturity and wait for lower-power chipsets. Look at the reasoning behind the original iPhone not having 3G and the *apparent* decrease in battery life in the iPhone 3G.

Plus, there's no reason for Apple to jump on the LTE bandwagon on an unproven network infrastructure. Not when you have your image at stake.

2011 is still way too soon. Verizon will start to roll out LTE in 2010. First we'll have 4G USB and EC/34 cards for notebooks where size and battery usage isn't as big of a concern. Then we'll get smaller and smaller components, but it's not Apple modus operandi to be the first on the block with new, unproven HW. Especially when their phones are considerably smaller than the competition in most cases. I don't expect a decent LTE network until a 2013, but unless Verizon is going to LTE in every single area that CDMA is present any phone on their network using LTE will also need CDMA and CDMA2000 radios.

However, by the GSM/CDMA/UMTS/CDMA2000 combo chipsets may be small and power efficient enough to work. But even then I don't see that as an option unless Apple will also sees signs that the countries that are mainly CDMA-based would also see good iPhone sales. Though those countries tend to be poorer and less developed.

[TenoBell]

All Verizon can really do at this point is pull out the check book and ask how many zeros do they need to write.

[charlituna]

given all the issues with unlocking and such I am not buying that Apple would dump ATT and simply pick up someone else. a move to a carrier independent system where any company that supports the hardware could provide service seems more likely. and that hardware will, i suspect, stay GSM or more to whatever comes next, not add on a second CDMA setup.

[retroneo]

Dudes, an LTE version of the iPhone won't happen until 2011.

Following Infineon's roadmap if Apple adopts it aggressively. There will be an HSPA (7.2Mbit Downlink /5.8Mbit Uplink) version this year and an HSPA+ (21Mbit) version in 2010.

Infineon's LTE (150Mbit downlink / 50Mbit uplink) baseband will be ready for devices shipping in 2011.

If the agreement is reached in 2010, then that makes sense...

[iBill]

Originally Posted by TenoBell

All Verizon can really do at this point is pull out the check book and ask how many zeros do they need to write.

The other thing they can do is get over their obsession with locking out handset features. (maybe they already have).

[Dlux]

Originally Posted by solipsism

I don't expect a decent LTE network until a 2013, but unless Verizon is going to LTE in every single area that CDMA is present any phone on their network using LTE will also need CDMA and CDMA2000 radios.

That's the crux that most people ignore. The current GSM-based iPhone has a number of legacy networks to fall back on, whereas a Verizon/LTE iPhone will only work where there is LTE coverage. That is, unless Apple incorporates full CDMA capability as a stop-gap, and no engineer likes stop-gaps.

If Verizon's LTE network were a good three years away Apple might consider an interim GSM/CDMA chipset (assuming there is one that meets their design requirements), but right now they can play a stalling game and prod Verizon to accelerate their LTE rollout. It's quite a game of poker that we get to witness...

[randythot]

Originally Posted by Dlux

That's the crux that most people ignore. The current GSM-based iPhone has a number of legacy networks to fall back on, whereas a Verizon/LTE iPhone will only work where there is LTE coverage. That is, unless Apple incorporates full CDMA capability as a stop-gap, and no engineer likes stop-gaps.

If Verizon's LTE network were a good three years away Apple might consider an interim GSM/CDMA chipset (assuming there is one that meets their design requirements), but right now they can play a stalling game and prod Verizon to accelerate their LTE rollout. It's quite a game of poker that we get to witness...

hmmm...
Plus having us talking about this means Verizon is stuck trying to negotiate something not likely to happen to save face with stock holders, and refusal to negotiate means a hit to the stock. Real attempted negotiations also hurts AT&T for their renegotiation. Wow, I never thought the Bells would be over a barrel like this. Is this really just poker? More like a cage match?

[Foo2]

Originally Posted by randythot

Does anyone know if 4G will sound better than AT&T and Verizon's current voice quality? I've always found the CDMA standard chosen for Sprint and Verizon slightly better than GSM 3G.

Sound better? Maybe less background hiss, but more difficulty distinguishing F from S and distinguishing a drop-out from no input. IMHO that's worse.

[addabox]

I don't think it's anything at all.

AT&T and Verizon have a pretty clear idea when their 4G services will roll out, how quickly and how fast, and at what cost. So does Apple.

These are massively expensive, long term plans that have everything to do with the fortunes of these companies over the next ten years. A Verizon branded iPhone would be nice for Verizon, but not upend your business and technological plan nice.

I'm sure negotiations are ongoing, but they're within the context of the realities of what Verizon and AT&T are already doing, not creating a whole new Apple-centric world.

[winterspan]

I'm already written about this too many times, so i'll keep it short.

It would be an understatement to say that I am disappointed that Apple doesn't *already* have a CDMA iPhone. There is NO legitimate argument for not creating one (or using a dual-CDMA/HSPA chipset in the single model iPhone) as there are ~100 million CDMA customers in the United States --- easily the largest potential market for the iPhone so far based upon total cellphone users and the iPhone's extensive popularity among the public.
Although we don't know the details, this enormous potential market obviously overshadows any benefits from maintaining exclusivity with AT&T. It may have been necessary initially to enter the market, but now it is just a big ball and chain. Even if opening the iPhone to the Verizon and Sprint led to a reduced average subsidy, the potential doubling or more of unit sales would easily more than make up for the lower revenue per phone.

As an Apple enthusiast, device owner, stockholder, and especially as a fledgling software developer, I will be very upset if Apple continues this nonsense exclusivity.

[addabox]

Originally Posted by winterspan

I'm already written about this too many times, so i'll keep it short.

It would be an understatement to say that I am disappointed that Apple doesn't *already* have a CDMA iPhone. There is NO legitimate argument for not creating one (or using a dual-CDMA/HSPA chipset in the single model iPhone) as there are ~100 million CDMA customers in the United States --- easily the largest potential market for the iPhone so far based upon total cellphone users and the iPhone's extensive popularity among the public.
Although we don't know the details, this enormous potential market obviously overshadows any benefits from maintaining exclusivity with AT&T. It may have been necessary initially to enter the market, but now it is just a big ball and chain. Even if opening the iPhone to the Verizon and Sprint led to a reduced average subsidy, the potential doubling or more of unit sales would easily more than make up for the lower revenue per phone.

As an Apple enthusiast, device owner, stockholder, and especially as a fledgling software developer, I will be very upset if Apple continues this nonsense exclusivity.

So, and this is kind of my standard rejoinder to this kind of post, why do you think Apple hasn't made a CDMA phone? By your lights it's obvious, necessary and nothing but upside, yet, here we are.

So do you figure Apple is stupid, incompetent, corrupt, or all three?

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by winterspan

It would be an understatement to say that I am disappointed that Apple doesn't *already* have a CDMA iPhone. There is NO legitimate argument for not creating one (or using a dual-CDMA/HSPA chipset in the single model iPhone) as there are ~100 million CDMA customers in the United States --- easily the largest potential market for the iPhone so far based upon total cellphone users and the iPhone's extensive popularity among the public.

I just don't think that selling as many units as possible right out of the gate without getting control over the ecosystem is the best tactic for long term growth.

1) They are under contract so it's a no go until that is over. Sure, we don't know the exact details, but I think we can assume at least 2 years and probably the 1 year add on for going hte subsidization route on Apple's request.
2) How small and power efficient are these dual network standards chips? Remember, Apple has one of the smallest smartphones by volume.
3) Why do all other handset makers do exclusive deals with carriers if it limits their unit sales?


Even if Apple were to make a CDMA iPhone they would get more money and more control if they were to partner with Sprint. So the best way to get a better deal with a US CDMA-based carrier is to court Verizon to get Sprint to agree with pretty much anything anything that Apple wanted. How much did SPrint pay for the failed Samsung Instinct? How much are they paying for the Palm Pre? This strategy also works for getting more from AT&T.

[Gregg Thurman]

If memory serves me, Apple's current agreement with ATT doesn't expire until 2012. Any reports of Verizon discussions centering on a launch date prior to 2012 has to be suspect.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by Gregg Thurman

If memory serves me, Apple's current agreement with ATT doesn't expire until 2012.

That might be a memory, but it's a memory of an unsubstantiated rumour. After Apple announced the exclusivity with AT&T, Verizon's CEO came out and said that Apple came to them first with profit sharing, a 5 year deal and whole bunch of things they wouldn't agree too. Apple nor AT&T has ever spoken of the deal's duration.

[mdriftmeyer]

Originally Posted by randythot

Looks like more FUD and ball-breaking negotiation tactics coming from Apple.
After the 1st Verizon rejection, I wouldn't be surprised to see Jobs personally snub them this second time, all the while, negotiating an even better deal with AT&T, and make 4G available to Verizon once AT&T's 4G network debuts.
I love how Apple is working over the carriers to help profits, innovate, and protect the iPhone platform. If the App Store keeps growing, their leverage does too.

Exactly. When you have the leverage you must use it or lose it.

[baredd]

No idea if the US is the same as the UK, but anyone considered the fact of AT&T and Verizon sharing networks specifically for the iPhone? In times of need (now) businesses will do crazy things to get the edge or just stay afloat. If figures are correct and the reason AT&T are doing so well is due to the iPhone verizon might take the hit, and buy a large proportion of line time on AT&T's network to get the slice of the Apple "cake" so to speak. Even if it costs them now once you have people switched with the backup of AT&T's network connection all is well. Gives them enough time to fully role out 4G with the HSM network as a back bone.

Sorta happened in the UK, O2 (Apples Carrier here) is now sharing masts etc with Vodaphone, another large player in the industry.

I think AT&T and verizon is an option as from what Im hearing over here, AT&T coverage is poor whereas Verizon is good, however AT&T have the iPhone. Merge the two, both businesses can make more money - sell more iPhones, have a higher volume of network traffic etc but increase coverage and reduce outgoings while rolling out the 4G service my sharing masts. Once 4G is properly rolled out and the majority of the recession is over then they will start worrying about beating each other once again

[shadow]

Originally Posted by winterspan

I'm already written about this too many times, so i'll keep it short.

It would be an understatement to say that I am disappointed that Apple doesn't *already* have a CDMA iPhone. There is NO legitimate argument for not creating one (or using a dual-CDMA/HSPA chipset in the single model iPhone) as there are ~100 million CDMA customers in the United States --- easily the largest potential market for the iPhone so far based upon total cellphone users and the iPhone's extensive popularity among the public.
Although we don't know the details, this enormous potential market obviously overshadows any benefits from maintaining exclusivity with AT&T. It may have been necessary initially to enter the market, but now it is just a big ball and chain. Even if opening the iPhone to the Verizon and Sprint led to a reduced average subsidy, the potential doubling or more of unit sales would easily more than make up for the lower revenue per phone.

As an Apple enthusiast, device owner, stockholder, and especially as a fledgling software developer, I will be very upset if Apple continues this nonsense exclusivity.

I am with you. If you look and the worldwide picture, it gets worse. In many countries Apple is with the underdog for absolutely no technical reasons. For various reasons switching carrier just for a phone is not an option for the majority of the people there, more than in the US I guess.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by baredd

No idea if the US is the same as the UK, but anyone considered the fact of AT&T and Verizon sharing networks specifically for the iPhone?

They use completely different network types, GSM and CDMA-based, unlike most of Europe, which is GSM-based. Apple would have to use CDMA and GSM-based dual-standards radios to make this work. The only piggyback possibility wouldn't for several years once LTE is a go.

Originally Posted by shadow

In many countries Apple is with the underdog for absolutely no technical reasons. For various reasons switching carrier just for a phone is not an option for the majority of the people there, more than in the US I guess.

That is a solid argument as to why Apple will not engineer a CDMA-based iPhone just to service the US. Winterspan needs to ask himself, if almost all the countries that they do service are GSM-based why did they go with exclusive contracts in every country they could and make the legally required unlocked iPhones price prohibitive? Why did they team with the lesser, more desperate carrier by consumer base over the larger carriers in many countries? These are all long term business decisions. If they aren't going to open their device up to the rest of the GSM world in these countries they service why should we expect Apple to do that with a separate device altogether just for the US. It doesn't make sense.

[baredd]

Sorry, what I meant was Verizon use the 4G service they have rolled out but where there is not support they drop back onto AT&T's GSM network. Which the iPhone does currently support and assuming the new iPhone will support 4G then to keep its backwards compatibility it would be 4G verizon and GSM AT&T where there is no signal for 4G

Sorry I should have made that clearer

[ivan.rnn01]

want now the piece of action so badly! They just didn't think this new business model, having been reared by Apple, would be so successful. You don't want complainers to pay for their own mistake, do you?

[lantinian]

Remember back in 2005 when Steve Jobs announced that OS X has been living a secret double life for the last 5 years? Remember that "Just in Case" building in Cupertino?

I am absolutely certain that Apple has a working CDMA iPhone ready for the "just in case" scenario in which AT&T does not play nice. They are using the hardware as leverage to push AT&T to make their service better knowing that is they don't, Apple will just not extend that exclusivity contract for another year.

I also bet that Apple is using the demo iPhone in talks with Verizon to make them put a better offer than AT&T on the table.

However, I would agree with Tim Cook that CDMA has no future and that it would be wrong for Apple to release a CDMA iPhone now. For start, that would solidify the usefulness of the CDMA network and prolong the transition to LTE in both Verizon and AT&T.

So releasing a CDMA phone would just extend the Status quo and prolong the adoption of a unified mobile communication standard worldwide. As Apple is selling one type of products worldwide, this will not be in their best interest.

What Apple can and is probably doing is leveraging the success of the iPhone to make Verison adapt the LTE faster.

Its interesting. AT&T can go 4G via minor software and hardware upgrade in the existing towers. That would however compromise the coverage of existing 3G and 2G iPhones. Verizon on the other hand would be forced to instal a whole new types of antennas to go 4G but it has no installed base to worry about.

[Olternaut]

Originally Posted by dagamer34

Unlikely to be in 2010, more like 2011. Apple will cite chipset immaturity and wait for lower-power chipsets. Look at the reasoning behind the original iPhone not having 3G and the *apparent* decrease in battery life in the iPhone 3G.

Plus, there's no reason for Apple to jump on the LTE bandwagon on an unproven network infrastructure. Not when you have your image at stake.

Image at stake? I think it is more like they can't wait for 4G. Right now, AT&T's 3G network is making Apple look like bums when it comes to the actual cell phone part of the iphone. The reality is the iphone's utility as an actual phone is pretty limited....to put it as polite as possible.
I think Apple is using its negotiations with Verizon to force AT&T to accelerate their 4G network rollout plans.
Whatever happens in the negotiations its a win win win all the way around for Apple.

[aaarrrgggh]

Originally Posted by charlituna

given all the issues with unlocking and such I am not buying that Apple would dump ATT and simply pick up someone else. a move to a carrier independent system where any company that supports the hardware could provide service seems more likely. and that hardware will, i suspect, stay GSM or more to whatever comes next, not add on a second CDMA setup.

Actually, a dual-mode GSM/CDMA phone similar to the Blackberry Bold would make a lot of sense for the people like myself that are mainly pissed off about the iPhone being a SIM-Locked phone because of world travel. Going dual-mode, they can force you to use Verizon where available, and allow GSM anywhere it isn't.

Since almost half of the revenue from the iPhone seems to be from the US, that kind of strategy isn't completely half-baked. It adds cost (about $10/phone from what iSupply says), but it could just be for all the US (or North America) units and let international units be plain GSM.

The roaming fees for the iPhone mean that I will ditch it when my AT&T contract is up in June and switch to something else. Traveling now, and I have to say... my old Motorola V360 doesn't make that bad of a phone! The battery lasts a week still (after 4 years!). I love having a smart phone, but I'm not willing to pay $1k per year in roaming fees!

Good luck to Verizon!

[DanBa]

Originally Posted by retroneo

Dudes, an LTE version of the iPhone won't happen until 2011.

Following Infineon's roadmap if Apple adopts it aggressively. There will be an HSPA (7.2Mbit Downlink /5.8Mbit Uplink) version this year and an HSPA+ (21Mbit) version in 2010.

Infineon's LTE (150Mbit downlink / 50Mbit uplink) baseband will be ready for devices shipping in 2011.

If the agreement is reached in 2010, then that makes sense...

Thanks for this information.
It makes sense.

Do you have a link to the Infineon’s roadmap?

The upcoming iPhone should integrate the latest UMTS HSPA quad band capable Infineon baseband.
http://www.infineon.com/cms/en/produ...12d7390ad9000a

And hopefully the upcoming iPhone will include the winning band UMTS900 for the rest of the world, besides the current triple band of the iPhone 3G, (the winning) UMTS850 for America, UMTS1900 for America & UMTS2100 for the rest of the world.

Only the 850 MHz and 900 MHz bands enable real mobile broadband services by leveraging the advantages of lower frequencies.

[hiimamac]

Originally Posted by randythot

Looks like more FUD and ball-breaking negotiation tactics coming from Apple.
After the 1st Verizon rejection, I wouldn't be surprised to see Jobs personally snub them this second time, all the while, negotiating an even better deal with AT&T, and make 4G available to Verizon once AT&T's 4G network debuts.
I love how Apple is working over the carriers to help profits, innovate, and protect the iPhone platform. If the App Store keeps growing, their leverage does too.

Exactly. More smoke and mirrors from Apple so they can get a sweeter deal from AT&T and allow them to rape us with data and soon to be teether and worse, abomination of data plan for netbook.

[GregoriusM]

Originally Posted by TenoBell

All Verizon can really do at this point is pull out the check book and ask how many zeros do they need to write.

It's not just a factor of how many zeroes. It's also a factor of the number in front of the zeroes. No number in front, no sale. he he

In fact, it may not matter what number is at the front right now anyway, as is being discussed.

[GregoriusM]

Originally Posted by Olternaut

The reality is the iphone's utility as an actual phone is pretty limited....to put it as polite as possible.

I'm wondering why you think the iPhone is pretty limited as a phone? What are you talking about? I'm interested in getting one but the primary use is as a phone.

So, what are the problems? I'd really love to know.

Greg

[iReality85]

Originally Posted by randythot

Looks like more FUD and ball-breaking negotiation tactics coming from Apple.

After the 1st Verizon rejection, I wouldn't be surprised to see Jobs personally snub them this second time, all the while, negotiating an even better deal with AT&T, and make 4G available to Verizon once AT&T's 4G network debuts.

What was that old adage? Keep your friends close but your enemies closer.

There is another adage that comes to mind as well: business is business, business isn't personal. Fact is, it would not be a good strategic move for Apple to shut Verizon out of a potential deal, despite Verizon reportedly having snubbed Apple the first time around. Verizon is a large company just like AT&T, and just like AT&T, Verizon offers a huge customer pool. I can't tell you how many of my friends think my iPhone is awesome but won't switch to AT&T/buy one because of the network (sidenote: effective marketing on Verizon's part over the years; I really can't tell any difference in network quality where I live).

Of course, this is a ripe opportunity for Apple to extract concessions and deal sweeteners from AT&T (or Verizon) for the impending LTE launches. More power to them. IMO, a worthy competitor to the iPhone has yet to surface, so as long as this remains, Apple will use the time it has as #1 to its clear advantage.

[RichL]

Originally Posted by winterspan

There is NO legitimate argument for not creating one (or using a dual-CDMA/HSPA chipset in the single model iPhone) as there are ~100 million CDMA customers in the United States --- easily the largest potential market for the iPhone so far based upon total cellphone users and the iPhone's extensive popularity among the public.

The US is the largest market for the iPhone at present but it's certainly not the largest potential market. India and China are both far, far bigger cell phone markets even if Apple doesn't currently enjoy the same rock star status in Asia as it does in the English-speaking world.

Although we don't know the details, this enormous potential market obviously overshadows any benefits from maintaining exclusivity with AT&T.

Judging by the number of people willing to swap networks to AT&T, there's very minimal benefits in dropping the exclusivity.

The problem with creating a model for Verizon is that it would need a different modem as not even the best dual GSM/CDMA modems support all of the frequency bands required. The change it modem would mean a partial re-write of the iPhone software too as GSM and CDMA continue to work differently at the higher levels. R&D is expensive.

Add this to the "bag of hurt" CDMA licensing and it all becomes a very expensive venture to capture a relatively small*, dying market.

(* i.e. those customers who would want an iPhone but won't switch to AT&T)

If CDMA was so important then why do two out of the top three smartphone platforms not support?

[Galley]

Would a Verizon iPhone come with a tube of lubricant?

[retroneo]

Originally Posted by DanBa

The upcoming iPhone should integrate the latest UMTS HSPA quad band capable Infineon baseband.
http://www.infineon.com/cms/en/produ...12d7390ad9000a

And hopefully the upcoming iPhone will include the winning band UMTS900 for the rest of the world

The 2009 iPhone is likely to have the X-GOLD 616:

http://www.infineon.com/cms/en/produ...1a39470bb00555

It offers a 30% longer standby time, 7.2Mbit Downlink and 5.8Mbit uplink (perfect for sending videos).

UMTS900 is used by two of the networks selling the iPhone in Australia, in addition to UMTS2100. They have both rolled out large UMTS900 networks which I am sure they will have been requesting support from Apple. However I'm not sure the X-GOLD 616 supports UMTS900.

[kcrossley]

All I know is if Apple begins offering its iPhone through Verizon I won't be able to get to the Verizon store fast enough.

[BigPhotos]

Originally Posted by kcrossley

All I know is if Apple begins offering its iPhone through Verizon I won't be able to get to the Verizon store fast enough.

Here in the Heartland of the USA AT&T's signal is a total ZERO unless you are within 2 miles of I-80. If you turn off the interstate and get a flat tire - you'd better have a Verizon cell phone to call AAA.

I wish that Apple would do a deal with Verizon - and I could merge my cell phone and my iPod touch -- Or maybe AT&T could use some of the million$$$ they are making to put up some TOWERS out here.