or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's iPhone "wrecking" the cell industry
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's iPhone "wrecking" the cell industry - Page 5

post #161 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

I agree that AT&T must be receiving the greatest demand due to iPhones success and the plethora of low end3G phones AT&t adds monthly. What you are stating as far as the upgrade- has it been finished? If not now, when so? And more importantly where is it being done? A tower added out in Boise Idaho isn't gonna help me here. I would doubt it's been completed if this is the best they were able to accomplish- at least here in NY.

Your logic that a continuing upgrade path could ever be completed on a thriving carrier speaks volume for your lack of understanding on this matter.

Your definition that more towers, more 3G in ruraler areas, higher classes (read bandwidth via more antenees) of HSDPA and HSUPA, and a wider spectrum equates to a simple patch, not major upgrades, is also quite telling.

Tell us, what would be an upgrade if all those billions are just simple patches?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #162 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by triadone View Post

They could have easily had MMS and tethering up and running without an issue.

Really? And you know this because???
post #163 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Really? And you know this because???

The fact that they don't have it up and running tells us that they had issues.

I am running v3.1 Beta. MMS will be available on AT&T when it hits the update servers. I have deduced this because the option to add and send MMS is not locked out with the new profiles. However, in testing this the MMS fails server-side. I've been trying every day or two to an AT&T phone that can recieve MMS, it times out.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #164 of 211
Craig Moffett needs to better understand what he's talking about.

The issue that he surfaces is nothing more than a reflection of the mess in the US cellular industry. The rest of the world operates on one national or multi-national standard (typically GSM) and people purchase whatever phone they want.

The cellphone manufacturers sell phones through dealers or direct and the cellular operators provide service. Although you can purchase a cell phone outside a contract in the US, the rates you pay still contain a surcharge to recoup the discount the cellular operators incur on their phones. The result is higher than necessary rates, typically crap phones and limited competition.

This entire issue is nothing more than another mess created by the lack of standardization and the lack of competition within the industry. If Mr. Moffett would care to find something worthy to write about, perhaps he should read some of the comments on this site.
post #165 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by jblenio View Post

Has there ever been a situation where the product you purchased was absolutely stuck to one service provider? I can't think of one.

Phones are exclusive to carriers all the time. The most recent is the Pre with Sprint, but it's certainly not a new practice.

Quote:
On top of it, ATT's service is average at best. Dropped calls, high rates.

I don't get dropped calls, and I'm actually paying less with AT&T then I did with a Treo on Sprint. The real kicker? I use my iPhone ALLOT more then I used my Treo on Sprint - because it's actually useful!

Quote:
It's ridiculous.

Yes, there are pleanty of things in this thread that are ridiculous...

Quote:
They have iPhone lovers trapped and stuck with them, while there are other networks out there that are not as saturated.

What's to say that if other carriers got the iPhone they wouldn't have the exact same issues? Or have even worse issues? Data usage on the iPhone is unprecedented...

Quote:
Apple should just sell their iPhone and let customers use it on whatever network they want.

If they unlocked it and sold it open tomorrow, your choice would be TMobile. Sprint and Verizon are incompatible with the iPhone - the radios and cellular protocols are totally different.

Quote:
I feel like I am imprisoned by Apple and ATT. It's the best phone, but if I don't want to use ATT''s service, then I'm stuck. I have no options. That's anti-competitive.

Yup, if you want an iPhone in the US you are pretty much stuck with AT&T (or you can get a 1st generation iPhone and go with TMobile). But it's certainly not anti-competitive. There are plenty of other companies that are free to compete with the iPhone and invent something better. Just because you don't get exactly what you want, doesn't make the existing situation anti-competitive

Quote:
Sure, other service providers have lower prices, but I want the best handset...which I am willing to pay a premium for, and I want the lowest price, which is a choice I am not given.

Must suck to be you.

Egad, are people really this entitlement based these days? Do you routinely throw temper tantrums when you don't get exactly what you want?

Quote:
Antitrust, anticompetitive, and I see a class action in the future.

In your dreams, maybe. Will never happen because it doesn't exist.

Quote:
Shoot...I pay a crazy rate per month for my service, but I don't get any credits for dropped calls and spotty service.

If the dropped calls bother you that much, call customer service and get a service credit.

Quote:
It still amazes me how we made such an easy transition from land lines with virtually perfect service, to mobile lines with terrible service at a price waaaayyyyyyy higher.

This right here shows your total unrealistic expectations. Land lines didn't always have perfect service - Ma Bell started over 100 years ago, yet it wasn't the 1950's that they started becoming prevalent in rural areas - heck, even into the 70's party lines were common.

In the US, the wireless industry is in it's infancy comparatively. Primarily because we had an extensive land-line infrastructure. Look at countries like India that didn't have an extensive terrestrial infrastructure - wireless is much more prevalent.

It's market forces, not some grand conspiracy Look at how AT&T is upgrading their infrastructure post-iPhone. They are scrambling to keep up with demand, and doing better at it in some areas then others...

Quote:
It's jut not right.

What's not right are your over-inflated expectations and misguided sense of entitlement.

Unfortunately you aren't alone in your misgivings...
post #166 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by OC4Theo View Post

The truth is that US carriers like AT&T, Verizon and Sprint are very backward in technology compared to foreign companies. If it wasn't for Apple, we will still be dealing with Asian technology from 2-3years back. For years, the US government in other to protect STUPID Motorola, will not allow current phone offerings from Japan and Korea into the US. Since iPhone came, that barrier has been broken.

Americans should be grateful for Apple. If AT&T severs its relationship with Apple, their business will decrease up to 50% within 2 years. AT&T needs Apple more than Apple needs AT&T. And the same goes for any carrier out there. Right now, Apple is in the control seat and will dictate how this game will be played for a long time to come.

Japanese would never work in the US as they reverse the frequency as well as NTT Docomo's phones are all WCDMA 2100, which no carrier in the US uses. I lived in Sasebo for a few years and can tell you that the phones aren't cheap at all. Korean phones only work on Verizon's network or should I say did till Verizon stopped accepting Korean ESN's. The reason Verizon could use them is that they run on 1800 and I can tell you that a Korean handset will set you back more then any Japanese cellphone ever would. The US government is not protecting Motorola as they are a major player in the overseas markets and it is the carriers not moving those phones over as they would not be able to sell them. The carriers would have to subsidies the phones so bad they would not be making money back even with you locked in a contract. I will add a few pics of two of the phones I had when living in Japan.

/[img=http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/7470/photodld.jpg][/IMG]
post #167 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowededwookie View Post

1st Apple will never make a CDMA phone. Most of the world is on GSM so if Sprint and Verizon is wanting the iPhone the onus is on them to change their back end structure to GSM. It's simple as that.

Also AT&T definitely is the bad guy here. I live in New Zealand and I did nothing once the iPhone 3.0 software came to get tethering and MMS (which I never cared about anyway) bar reboot my phone. If an entire country with a population of just over half of the population of Los Angeles can have all of this then why can't a network with 15 times more customers than the entire country's population not provide the same service?

The only thing AT&T has that I want is Visual Voicemail.

CDMA carriers in the US as well as parts of Asia will get the iPhone once LTE is fully launched
post #168 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Being a standard and being implemented are two very different things. First of all, Verizon cant just flip a switch. Secondly, this needs to be tested and planned so its not going to magically be in place in under a year for the entire country. Then you have to consider that when LTE is well saturated there will still Verizons CDMA and CDMA2000 networks, which the iPhone doesnt support. Lets assume that the next iPhone supports GSM, CDMA, WCDMA, CDMA2000 and LTE all on the same chip. Who makes this chip? When will Apple get this chip to test? How much will it be? How large will it be? How power hungry will it be?

Even more pressing is the fact the normal radio development has not yet occurred for LTE. There are no LTE USB or EC/34 cards for notebooks that Ive read about. These are products that are not constrained in the same way by size and power usage like thin mobile phones. Where is are the other mobile vendors using or announcing their future use of these products? If youve read something please post a link.

Finally, LTE is not the next step, faster WCDMA is. We now only have 7.2Mbps downlink and 384Kbps uplink on the iPhone. We still dont have HSUPA in the iPhone despite my notebook USB card having a 14.4Mbps and 2Mbps HSUPA for about 2 years now. Then there is even faster HSUPA and then Evolved HSPA which no carrier can yet support. Verizons bolstering of supporting LTE and the mention of the iPhone was just a clever vapornet ruse to stop potential deserters from jumping to AT&T for the iPhone.

You will only find LTE network hardware right now and not handsets or network cards. Qualcomm Gobi uses CDMA/WCDMA right now and Im sure they could make a chip that would work with LTE as well.
post #169 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidm77 View Post

You people are hilarious. Bitching about being "gouged" by AT&T while also complaining that their network performance sucks because of too many people on it. Price is the only way that these services can be effectively rationed, and yet you want plans to be cheaper, when the networks can't even handle the customers it currently has.

Stop trying to inject objectivity into an emotional argument!

post #170 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

i wouldn't be so quick to say that. it is possible that the next iphone will be one that has the tech to open up to more networks, and LTE might be the new standard at that point. who knows.

we've all heard that ATT loses their exclusive contract in 2010 and nothing yet about getting an extension. so it is possible that Apple turned down that request and is planning to go open market. no more SIM locks, if the carrier can and wants to service the iphone, have at all. if they want to subsidize, great. but complain to them if you don't like their rules. you wanna buy it at the apple store, no activation, full price. no other game from Apple. thank you come again.

We've all heard a lot of things, and we have no reason to think that anything we've heard is accurate.
post #171 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by .:R2theT View Post

While I understand that you are referring to the quote you cited above, I would have to say that you are quite delusional to think that there isn't an "Apple Tax" on the iPhone.

Apple continues to make money on you, per the monthly contract that it gets a piece of, for at least 2 years. Maybe longer and we have no idea exactly how much. I would imagine they make more off the lifetime of the contract than they do off the $199/$299 for the device at the store.

False (all of it).
post #172 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judgegavel View Post

AT&T has the best phone service in my area, its actually the only carrier that gets full reception at my house. Bare in mind I'm in a densely populated borough of NYC. Sprint and Verizon are both awful here (T-mobile is not bad).

Still I cant see what Apple has done as wrecking the cell industry.

That amazes me because I'm in a borough of NYC and the AT&T service sucks. I get a very high percentage of dropped calls and in my apartment, which worked great with Verizon, I have to stand near the window for AT&T to work.

Having said that, if Apple were to switch to Verizon in the U.S., I have a feeling that especially in heavily populated cities, Verizon would have the same problems AT&T has had-- the network would be overwhelmed and web access would be very slow. And if it added enough subscribers, Verizon might start dropping calls as well.
post #173 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

By land mass Austrailia is smaller than the US. Other than that there are many differences that you don't consider.

AT&T's and Verizon's subscriber base is eight times Austrailia's entire population. The US is divided between GSM and CDMA. US carriers have many more people to serve and US infrastructure is divided between two different network technologies.

All Austrailian carriers use GSM. From what I understand the Austrailian government invests money into the wireless infrastructure. The US government does not directly invest money into wireless infrastructure.

The point is that these differences between Austrailia and the US make it much easier and cheaper to build an advanced network in Austrialia.

Not in a way that helps your New Zealand comment stand up. Also we were running dual networks, GSM and CDMA up until a year ago.

Also IF AT&T's user base is 8x that of the whole population of Australia THEN your claim becomes even weaker. With 8 times the revenue they can't manage to upgrade a network.

At times the government here tips some money in but usually it operates in reverse as such where the government forces the main Telco to provide service to small communities.

The ACTUAL problem TenBell is that Australia's first 3G class network starting rolling out in 2002 NOT 2007, now we have no less than 4 GSM-3G networks as opposed to between half and ONE.

It's got nothing to do with the size of the country

It's got nothing to do with servicing more or less customers

It's got to do with being 5-6 years behind the rest of the world, well India and third world nations are about on par with the USA cellular network so not quite the whole world.

5-6 years ain't bad, the USA stayed about 30-40 years behind in TV format and what is it now 60-100 years behind in measuring format.

They don't have an eye roll, so
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
post #174 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

False (all of it).

Just because you type the word doesn't make it so.

Apple is making more than the $199/$299 on the upfront iPhone sales.

How it gets the rest and how much seems to be between AT&T and Apple. Unless you care to share some inside information you have.
"Some of us are decent people who want to stay out of the emergency room, but still
blast through neo-gridlock traffic in residential districts whenever we feel like it....
For that we need fine...
Reply
"Some of us are decent people who want to stay out of the emergency room, but still
blast through neo-gridlock traffic in residential districts whenever we feel like it....
For that we need fine...
Reply
post #175 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

That amazes me because I'm in a borough of NYC and the AT&T service sucks. I get a very high percentage of dropped calls and in my apartment, which worked great with Verizon, I have to stand near the window for AT&T to work.

Having said that, if Apple were to switch to Verizon in the U.S., I have a feeling that especially in heavily populated cities, Verizon would have the same problems AT&T has had-- the network would be overwhelmed and web access would be very slow. And if it added enough subscribers, Verizon might start dropping calls as well.

Actually Verizon has one of the best networks out there and probably wouldn't have that issue. Verizon spent close to 6 billion a fear years ago in a complete upgrade and spends millions more a year in maintenance. I could careless which network is better I will follow the iPhone.
post #176 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post

Another year and I'll be with the iPhone pack. When Steve introduces the next generation iPhone (iPhone 4GL?) at next year's WWDC to work on Verizon's LTE network coming in the second half of 2010, I'm in. I actually hate both Verizon and AT&T, but Verizon is definitely the lesser of two evils.

AT&T is extorting people, but not like Verizon does
iPhone 4 32GB (black), iPod touch 32GB, iPad Wi-Fi + 3G 64GB, iPod classic 80 GB (white) 160GB (black), 2x 5th gen iPod 30GB (black + white), iMac 27", MacBook Pro 17", Time Capsule 1TB, Apple TV
Reply
iPhone 4 32GB (black), iPod touch 32GB, iPad Wi-Fi + 3G 64GB, iPod classic 80 GB (white) 160GB (black), 2x 5th gen iPod 30GB (black + white), iMac 27", MacBook Pro 17", Time Capsule 1TB, Apple TV
Reply
post #177 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by cy_starkman View Post

Not in a way that helps your New Zealand comment stand up. Also we were running dual networks, GSM and CDMA up until a year ago.

Also IF AT&T's user base is 8x that of the whole population of Australia THEN your claim becomes even weaker. With 8 times the revenue they can't manage to upgrade a network.

At times the government here tips some money in but usually it operates in reverse as such where the government forces the main Telco to provide service to small communities.

The ACTUAL problem TenBell is that Australia's first 3G class network starting rolling out in 2002 NOT 2007, now we have no less than 4 GSM-3G networks as opposed to between half and ONE.

It's got nothing to do with the size of the country

It's got nothing to do with servicing more or less customers

It's got to do with being 5-6 years behind the rest of the world, well India and third world nations are about on par with the USA cellular network so not quite the whole world.

5-6 years ain't bad, the USA stayed about 30-40 years behind in TV format and what is it now 60-100 years behind in measuring format.

They don't have an eye roll, so

OMG such a bash! I cant believe we only have one and a half 3G GSM network. Im sorry that CDMA is more popular here then anywhere besides SK. 5-6 years behind? Where do you get these numbers? AT&T is already moving towards HSPA+ and is looking at having LTE out in a year or two. Sprint Nextel already has one of the worlds first 4G networks and Verizon is looking to start deploying LTE in the next year. What are you talking about with the TV format? The US has always used NTSC(now ATSC) and so does all of North and most of South America.
post #178 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by .:R2theT View Post

Just because you type the word doesn't make it so.

Apple is making more than the $199/$299 on the upfront iPhone sales.

How it gets the rest and how much seems to be between AT&T and Apple. Unless you care to share some inside information you have.

Everyone knows that Apple makes the $99-299 + the AT&T subsidy ($300-400) based on the PAYG prices. No-one calling BS on your comments has suggested otherwise.
It is your implication that Apple is making $$s off the contract revenue that is being called False. If you are remembering anything, it was that Apple got a share of the contract revenue on the 2G iPhones when they were sold unsubsidized. That was officially ended when the 3G came out at a subsidized price.
Apple still accounts for iPhones over 24 months for its own purposes to supposedly "to enable free updates to iPhone users" but that is another thread.
post #179 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by cy_starkman View Post

Not in a way that helps your New Zealand comment stand up. Also we were running dual networks, GSM and CDMA up until a year ago.

Also IF AT&T's user base is 8x that of the whole population of Australia THEN your claim becomes even weaker. With 8 times the revenue they can't manage to upgrade a network.

At times the government here tips some money in but usually it operates in reverse as such where the government forces the main Telco to provide service to small communities.

The ACTUAL problem TenBell is that Australia's first 3G class network starting rolling out in 2002 NOT 2007, now we have no less than 4 GSM-3G networks as opposed to between half and ONE.

It's got nothing to do with the size of the country

It's got nothing to do with servicing more or less customers

It's got to do with being 5-6 years behind the rest of the world, well India and third world nations are about on par with the USA cellular network so not quite the whole world.

5-6 years ain't bad, the USA stayed about 30-40 years behind in TV format and what is it now 60-100 years behind in measuring format.

They don't have an eye roll, so

Really? If you and your brother had to start from scratch to install cell towers until you finished the job, and would only be paid once completed, would you rather spend years covering South Korea or many lifetimes attempting to cover the U.S.?

Regardless of what youve told yourself your whole life - size matters.

You also need to look at a topography map. Fewer cell signal obstacles in Australia VS. the U.S.

You might find it staggering that every nook and cranny of the U.S. has a population of cell phone users, from our rich populations to our poor populations. Top to bottom, side to side. China, like Australia, only has a coastal cell phone population, so their billion+ head count (most of whom are too poor to own a cell phone) doesnt make up the difference.

Covering the entire U.S. is a near impossible job. There is no other country in the world that compares for Land Area to Cell Phone Use Per Square Mile/Kilometer to the U.S.

Not even close.
post #180 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capnbob View Post

Everyone knows that Apple makes the $99-299 + the AT&T subsidy ($300-400) based on the PAYG prices. No-one calling BS on your comments has suggested otherwise.
It is your implication that Apple is making $$s off the contract revenue that is being called False. If you are remembering anything, it was that Apple got a share of the contract revenue on the 2G iPhones when they were sold unsubsidized. That was officially ended when the 3G came out at a subsidized price.
Apple still accounts for iPhones over 24 months for its own purposes to supposedly "to enable free updates to iPhone users" but that is another thread.

Actually my original post on this sub-topic was replying to somebody who said iPhone buyers were not paying an Apple tax for the phone. And I called BS on that. And said something to the effect of "I imagine" Apple is making money on the contract. I am happy to be wrong on the details as I do not follow these things that closely. But the original item being replied to was in reference to the denied Apple tax. So in that regard I I think "False (all of it)." does not quite hit the nail on the head. Apparently I didn't either, but a person can't deny we pay more because of the little apple on the back of these things.
"Some of us are decent people who want to stay out of the emergency room, but still
blast through neo-gridlock traffic in residential districts whenever we feel like it....
For that we need fine...
Reply
"Some of us are decent people who want to stay out of the emergency room, but still
blast through neo-gridlock traffic in residential districts whenever we feel like it....
For that we need fine...
Reply
post #181 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post

Another year and I'll be with the iPhone pack. When Steve introduces the next generation iPhone (iPhone 4GL?) at next year's WWDC to work on Verizon's LTE network coming in the second half of 2010, I'm in. I actually hate both Verizon and AT&T, but Verizon is definitely the lesser of two evils.


With the news coming out today that Verizon is going to build their own app store and that app store is going to be the only app store allowed to be installed on Verizon devices the Iphone will never go to verizon, there is no way Apple is going to bring a phone to Verizon that cannot have their own app store on it. If verizon sticks to this then there will never be an Iphone for Verizon, maybe T-mobile in 2010?
post #182 of 211
This is the explanation I was googling for last night and didn't find. Thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AjitMD View Post

It is important to keep in mind that the initial 3G tech that ATT uses called WCDMA/UMTS has been designed for widespread use of data on a sustained basis. It is essentially Wide Band CDMA that uses asynch tech. Voice and data packets travel over the same 5 MHZ channel. Voice has time sensitive QoS, while data can lag but maintain integrity. The problem is where there are too many data users, there is not enough room for voice transmission and voice calls drop. Furthermore, the size of the WCDMA coverage per tower shrinks as usage increases... so users at the edge can experienced dropped calls often. Power consumption control is also difficult.

The Verizon networks uses a more "primitive" tech called CDMA 2000 or 1X and EVDO. Basically the narrow band tech uses 1.25 MHz channel primarily for voice and is called 1X... it can also transmit data. However, the bulk of the data is transmitted over a separate data only EVDO 1.25 MHz channel. So voice and data do not interfere. Then there are frequency used issues as well.

The CDMA2000 tech is essentially controlled by an American company called QCOM. The WCDMA was pushed by the EU in an effort to take control of the tech from QCOM and dilute their influence and royalties. Again, it was not data friendly in practice.. new variations called HSPDA, will improve data performance. It will take a lot of money. Not sure of ATT will kick in the money.

However, ATT was the best way for Apple to max out its investment in the iPhone, since VZ did not want to play ball by Apple's rules.
post #183 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Two things here.

(snip)

Phone manufacturers have never before had the freedom to come out with so many features without first having to go through carrier vetting and approvals.

Fascinating insights as always, Mel.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #184 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by .:R2theT View Post

Just because you type the word doesn't make it so.

Apple is making more than the $199/$299 on the upfront iPhone sales.

How it gets the rest and how much seems to be between AT&T and Apple. Unless you care to share some inside information you have.

You dummy. It's not inside information. If you post crap and get called on it, changing what you said before doesn't make the original crap correct. Yes Apple makes $300-400 more than the retail price on each iPhone. But contrary to your very clear and very wrong post, they do not make any money off the monthly contract.

You spewed: "Apple continues to make money on you, per the monthly contract that it gets a piece of, for at least 2 years."
post #185 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by .:R2theT View Post

Actually my original post on this sub-topic was replying to somebody who said iPhone buyers were not paying an Apple tax for the phone. And I called BS on that. And said something to the effect of "I imagine" Apple is making money on the contract. I am happy to be wrong on the details as I do not follow these things that closely. But the original item being replied to was in reference to the denied Apple tax. So in that regard I I think "False (all of it)." does not quite hit the nail on the head. Apparently I didn't either, but a person can't deny we pay more because of the little apple on the back of these things.

If only you weren't posting on a message board where what you said wasn't recorded. I did you the favor of posting what you said that was 100% wrong in my original reply. Here, I'll do it again for you. If you really think the below text can be translated to "Apple makes more than $199 off an iPhone sale" then you're delusional.

"While I understand that you are referring to the quote you cited above, I would have to say that you are quite delusional to think that there isn't an "Apple Tax" on the iPhone.

Apple continues to make money on you, per the monthly contract that it gets a piece of, for at least 2 years. Maybe longer and we have no idea exactly how much. I would imagine they make more off the lifetime of the contract than they do off the $199/$299 for the device at the store."

Do you understand now?

Here, I'll say it for you in a language you can understand.

ALL OF THE MONEY THAT APPLE MAKES OFF THE IPHONE, IT MAKES AT THE TIME OF SALE. IT MAKES NO MONEY AFTER THE $600 OR SO THAT GETS PAID BY THE PHONE COMPANY WHEN THAT PHONE COMPANY BUYS THE PHONE FROM APPLE SO IT CAN RESELL IT TO YOU.

Understand now?
post #186 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

I agree that AT&T must be receiving the greatest demand due to iPhones success and the plethora of low end3G phones AT&t adds monthly. What you are stating as far as the upgrade- has it been finished? If not now, when so? And more importantly where is it being done? A tower added out in Boise Idaho isn't gonna help me here. I would doubt it's been completed if this is the best they were able to accomplish- at least here in NY.

AT&T's said that they have a long way to go. I don't doubt it.
post #187 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Prepare for disappointment.

Loser. You probably don't even own an iPhone.
post #188 of 211
I have no problems with the iPhone or AT&T, so the analyst can go suck it!
post #189 of 211
"wrecking" the wireless industry? He means "wrecking" the ridiculous, innovation-stifling, anti-competitive status quo where carriers have complete control over which devices can be used on their network and what software can be used on those devices.
post #190 of 211
Previous poster: [ATT could have had tethering and MMS easily]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Really? And you know this because???

Because 3rd world countries have it right now as we speak. With the iPhone 3G and over the next few months iPhone 3GS

Ah, everyday I sit back an enjoy my MMS and tethering. Actually, MMS is nonsense for me but tethering is a real bl**dy lifesaver. Evil locked or expensive pay-by-hour Wi-Fi networks! You shall not pass!
post #191 of 211
+1 rep point for you for attempting to use the word highlighted in red below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Your logic that a continuing upgrade path could ever be completed on a thriving carrier speaks volume for your lack of understanding on this matter.

Your definition that more towers, more 3G in ruraler areas, higher classes (read bandwidth via more antenees) of HSDPA and HSUPA, and a wider spectrum equates to a simple patch, not major upgrades, is also quite telling.

Tell us, what would be an upgrade if all those billions are just simple patches?
post #192 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

+1 rep point for you for attempting to use the word highlighted in red below.

There was nothing grammatically wrong with the spelling, except for that minor issue of it not actually existing as a word, yet.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #193 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Plus, consider that Apple is locking horns in China for certain control for over 2 years now when they could have had the iPhone selling to the 58 Trillion (slight exaggeration) Chinese mobile phone users so I dont think that the 50M potential Verizon users are going to make them relinquish their control of the iPhone. I think will Apple stick with carriers it can control and dominate.

Solipsism, you are behind the times on your comment. China Mobile never had any intention to sign up with Apple, they just held the 'carrot' for long enough that they can release their own handset - they announced the Ophone and Mmarket about a month ago.

http://deancollinsblog.blogspot.com/...marketcom.html

Cheers,
Dean Collins
www.Cognation.net
post #194 of 211
Why would China Mobile need to have false negotiations with Apple to then release their own handset and never sign a deal for the iPhone?

Sounds like a convoluted Bond villan plot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dean.collins View Post

Solipsism, you are behind the times on your comment. China Mobile never had any intention to sign up with Apple, they just held the 'carrot' for long enough that they can release their own handset - they announced the Ophone and Mmarket about a month ago.
post #195 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Previous poster: [ATT could have had tethering and MMS easily]

Because 3rd world countries have it right now as we speak. With the iPhone 3G and over the next few months iPhone 3GS

OK, but let's look at usage. Half of all iPhones sold are in the US - the rest are distributed throughout the entire world.

That's a huge load on AT&T.

So yes, I'm sure they could flip a switch and turn on MMS and Tethering. And then watch their network totally collapse.

That would make everyone happy though, right? Because at least they would have MMS and Tethering? No way to use it mind you, but the geek checklist box would be checked and all would be right with the world.



Seriously, is anyone really paying attention other then obsessively repeating "I want I want I WANT"?!?!?
post #196 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Sounds like a convoluted Bond villan plot.

Or a ploy to pimp your blog \
post #197 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by dean.collins View Post

Solipsism, you are behind the times on your comment. China Mobile never had any intention to sign up with Apple, they just held the 'carrot' for long enough that they can release their own handset - they announced the Ophone and Mmarket about a month ago.

http://deancollinsblog.blogspot.com/...marketcom.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Why would China Mobile need to have false negotiations with Apple to then release their own handset and never sign a deal for the iPhone?

Sounds like a convoluted Bond villan plot.

The only way that such talks would help China Mobile is to keep China Unicom from getting the iPhone before the Ophone arrives, but as TenoBell stated it’s very convoluted way of doing things.

The most pressing issues I see here are that…


• Such a victory would be very short lived
• Unicom would be more likely to give Apple what it wants if the Ophone is imminent
• There is no reason that China Mobile could not have both the Ophone and iPhone in their arsenal of handsets
• Ophone is not an iPhone, which has been shown to be important as a status symbol with the number of expensive imports despite the knock offs available.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #198 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

The only way that such talks would help China Mobile is to keep China Unicom from getting the iPhone before the Ophone arrives, but as TenoBell stated its very convoluted way of doing things.

Not to mention that it presumes that Apple doesn't have the ability to negotiate with more than one partner at a time. Makes you wonder how they managed to launch the phone in 30+ countries (or whatever the number is now).
post #199 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Why would China Mobile need to have false negotiations with Apple to then release their own handset and never sign a deal for the iPhone?

Sounds like a convoluted Bond villan plot.

They kept all options open . They may still sell the iphone and there own Branded phone .
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #200 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by dean.collins View Post

Solipsism, you are behind the times on your comment. China Mobile never had any intention to sign up with Apple, they just held the 'carrot' for long enough that they can release their own handset - they announced the Ophone and Mmarket about a month ago.

http://deancollinsblog.blogspot.com/...marketcom.html

Cheers,
Dean Collins
www.Cognation.net

Have a lot of shorts on Apple stock, perhaps?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's iPhone "wrecking" the cell industry