or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple expected to offer iPhone on new U.S. carriers within a year
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple expected to offer iPhone on new U.S. carriers within a year - Page 2

post #41 of 78
Steve played this one very very well...

In order for Apple to build the phone they REALLY wanted to build required (some) changes to the way providers ran their networks... Lets face it, going back to the year BEFORE the iPhone was introduced the concept of Apple dictating network changes to the carrier was all a preposterous notion at the very least.

So Apple did the next best thing and made a deal with a carrier 'product virtually unseen'. Now that I think about it I'm sure I read (somewhere) that a comment similar to that being said by the AT&T CEO.

I'm sure the contract was something to the effect that Apple would build a smartphone like no other and in return AT&T would make the necessary changes to its network to enable some of the phones unique features. In addition Apple would make AT&T its exclusive for X number of years. AT&T also must have had some kind of escape clause if the phone didn't deliver what Steve was promising.

So Apple gave into an exclusive agreement so it could have some say as to how the providers cell network operates. An alien concept to say the least. Previous to this it was the providers who told the cell phone makers what to include and what not to include.

So fast forward to today...

Apple is truly in the cat bird seat...

It's contract with AT&T is winding down and the rest of the US market is Apples to take if they so choose.

Imagine if tomorrow Apple went to Verizon and Sprint and offered them a non-exclusive deal on the iPhone what do you think will happen?

1 - They'd all but jump at it making whatever network changes they need to so the iPhone works as advertised.

2 - The drop most/all of the 'other' smartphone TV ads and flood primetime with ads boasting they too have the hottest phone the world has ever seen.

I mean really, do you think Verizon or Sprint would be featuring an Andriod phone as its #1 smartphone if they had the ability to offer its customers the iPhone instead?

Yea... Steve hit this one clear outta the park.

And despite how I feel about their tyrannical control over what Apps I can run on my iPhone and iPod touch I gotta give the man credit when credit is due.

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #42 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roc Ingersol View Post

Do people really think that Verizon's data network isn't going to crumble just like AT&Ts did? They dramatically oversold their capacity, just like ATT, based on usage patterns for crap phones.

The earliest adopters are going to proclaim VZW the greatest thing since sliced bread.
But give it a few months of selling like gangbusters and service is going to crap in the major markets.

Maybe so, but people are still going to line up for that phone...self included. Network issues just can't be helped in the short term when considering a product like the iphone. I'd like to know how many people will leave att.
post #43 of 78
from the above article seems to be the following:

Munster said. "In France, the company now enjoys dramatically higher market share (in the 40 percent range

That's remarkable. The iPhone has above 40% of the smartphone market in France?!?
post #44 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtdunham View Post

paxman: I agree the iTunes content is woeful.

anonymouse: examples of phones marketed with multiple radio chip choices?

me: does imminent verizon technology mean a verizon iPhone would have the same international usefulness the ATT phone has?

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I think your question is mistaken in being directed to me. But, a quick search turns up this,
http://blogs.zdnet.com/cell-phones/?p=1433 so, it would seem not an entirely outlandish idea.

Yes, Verizon has had Blackberry phones for some time now that had a 2nd GSM radio, in addition to the CDMA, for international travel. However, I don't think the phones would switch to GSM if you were in the US in an area with no Verizon CDMA signal as that would require a roaming agreement with US GSM carriers.

So if you are talking about a 4th generation, LTE-capable phone, you are probably going to need to support 3 standards, vs the 2 the referenced Blackberry supports: LTE, CDMA (for use in the US in areas where LTE isn't yet available), and GSM (for roaming outside of the US until other country's LTE networks are built out). The space and power requirements to support all three may be prohibitive.

The only other option for a LTE phone would be for Verizon to sign a roaming agreement with a US GSM carrier and have a phone with only LTE and GSM, but I wouldn't see them doing that until their LTE network is substantially built out because too much of their customer's calls and data would then be traveling over another carrier's network.

Of course they could just go with a CDMA/GSM phone like the Blackberry, but then why would Verizon rush to deploy their LTE network?
post #45 of 78
If the only iPhone I could have was pink, with orange glitter and neon green tassels, and a permanent screen picture of Perez Hilton French kissing a poodle in order to be with a carrier other than AT&T, I'd stand in line to do it.

You have to take crap customer service or poor product functionallity with a grain of salt these days. Especially with any tech. based company. There's no way to make everyone happy all the time, and all of us will have a pissed off moment at some point with one of them.

But I have never experienced a company like AT&T that has absolutely nothing good about them. Not their customer service, their product, not their internet user interface. To call them pathetic would be an insult to pathetic people.

I have had my cell phone account with AT&T for over 15 years, and internet service for over ten, and have come to the point, that as soon as I am able, I will switch to other carriers for both. By the time my wireless account agreement, (the two years I had to get despite being a 25 year customer,) is up Android should be up to speed.

I dig my iPhone, would hate to get rid of it, have had Apple computers since the IIGS, and will continue to have their products. But if it means switching to something else to get away from AT&T I'll do it in less than a heartbeat.

I hope that revolutionary gorilla freedom fighters tear down their cell towers. Gandalf The Good turns their data lines into over-cooked spaghetti. Has Neo infiltrate their infustructure from within and turn it into a smoldering carbon slag-heap of William Gibson after-thought.
post #46 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roc Ingersol View Post

Do people really think that Verizon's data network isn't going to crumble just like AT&Ts did? They dramatically oversold their capacity, just like ATT, based on usage patterns for crap phones.

The earliest adopters are going to proclaim VZW the greatest thing since sliced bread.
But give it a few months of selling like gangbusters and service is going to crap in the major markets.

Most of the people I know with iPhones aren't techno-nerds like those of us on these forums. And the complains those folks have with their iPhones are problems with the voice, not with data: dropped calls, bad connections, calls going straight to voice mail, etc. I'm sure they suffer the occassional issues with the data network, but that's not what the compain about.

Since Verizon's voice vs data networks operate differently, as long as they can maintain the quality of the voice connections, any data network issues may not be as big a deal for customers.
post #47 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

Steve played this one very very well...

In order for Apple to build the phone they REALLY wanted to build required (some) changes to the way providers ran their networks... Lets face it, going back to the year BEFORE the iPhone was introduced the concept of Apple dictating network changes to the carrier was all a preposterous notion at the very least.

So Apple did the next best thing and made a deal with a carrier 'product virtually unseen'. Now that I think about it I'm sure I read (somewhere) that a comment similar to that being said by the AT&T CEO.

I'm sure the contract was something to the effect that Apple would build a smartphone like no other and in return AT&T would make the necessary changes to its network to enable some of the phones unique features. In addition Apple would make AT&T its exclusive for X number of years. AT&T also must have had some kind of escape clause if the phone didn't deliver what Steve was promising.

So Apple gave into an exclusive agreement so it could have some say as to how the providers cell network operates. An alien concept to say the least. Previous to this it was the providers who told the cell phone makers what to include and what not to include.

So fast forward to today...

Apple is truly in the cat bird seat...

It's contract with AT&T is winding down and the rest of the US market is Apples to take if they so choose.

Imagine if tomorrow Apple went to Verizon and Sprint and offered them a non-exclusive deal on the iPhone what do you think will happen?

1 - They'd all but jump at it making whatever network changes they need to so the iPhone works as advertised.

2 - The drop most/all of the 'other' smartphone TV ads and flood primetime with ads boasting they too have the hottest phone the world has ever seen.

I mean really, do you think Verizon or Sprint would be featuring an Andriod phone as its #1 smartphone if they had the ability to offer its customers the iPhone instead?

Yea... Steve hit this one clear outta the park.

And despite how I feel about their tyrannical control over what Apps I can run on my iPhone and iPod touch I gotta give the man credit when credit is due.

Dave

the fanboys already have their iphones. there are a lot of good phones shipping or will come out soon that the carriers don't have to give in to apple. they will just grab the customers like myself who don't worship any product and switch to whatever is the good one at the time.
post #48 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarsOnly View Post

If the only iPhone I could have was pink, with orange glitter and neon green tassels, and a permanent screen picture of Perez Hilton French kissing a poodle in order to be with a carrier other than AT&T, I'd stand in line to do it.

Hmmm, in that case, I think I might stick with AT&T.
post #49 of 78
This is where hostility and misunderstanding come from. People from the world, where iPhone is still the luxury, can't understand those from countries, where iPhone is just ordinary phone.

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #50 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

Apple should stay the hell away from India. Those people are struggling to survive and they sure as hell don't need iPhones nor even be tempted by them. The people that can afford iPhones in India should just buy them on the black market and save Apple the trouble of making deals with any carriers. Those people in India were griping that the iPhone was too expensive. Why the heck were they even considering buying them if they don't have the money? Let Nokia, Samsung, LG or whoever the heck makes those really cheap phones and just turn them loose on that place. India should be the domain of Tracfone and Net10.

Apple should just target the richest countries in the world with the iPhone and provide the best quality and service they can possibly offer. If Apple could just capture just 20% of the world smartphone market and grab 40% to 50% of profits, they'd be sitting pretty.

What is your point? People who can afford one, or choose to buy one, can get one. People who cannot afford to get one or choose to save their money will not. It is, well, a little sick for you to think they shouldn't have that choice out of... what... pity?
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
post #51 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Do any networks/stations "broadcast" in 1080? (I don't think so.) So what would be the point in Apple going 1080 in Apple TV? (Well, maybe I'm wrong and there is a point, in which case I am eager to be enlightened.)

Stations around here broadcast in uncompressed 1080i over the air, and many cable stations have compressed 1080i. I don't believe anyone does 1080p. FWIW, over the air HD is better than cable/sattelite HD because it's uncompressed.
post #52 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

the fanboys already have their iphones. there are a lot of good phones shipping or will come out soon that the carriers don't have to give in to apple. they will just grab the customers like myself who don't worship any product and switch to whatever is the good one at the time.

I disagree...

There are quite a number of people who very much want to own an iPhone but realize that AT&T is not a strong carrier in their area and in the end if you can't even get a reasonable signal then having the iPhone is of little consolation.

Do you actually think the other carriers would turn down a non-exclusive contract that would allow them to offer a iPhone to its customers??? Really??

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #53 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01 View Post

This is where hostility and misunderstanding come from. People from the world, where iPhone is still the luxury, can't understand those from countries, where iPhone is just ordinary phone.

Not sure what you're trying to say or to who, but I like your comment that the iPhone is just ordinary phone...

If this was true then why would such an ordinary phone have 40% of the French smartphone market? Doesn't sound so ordinary to me.

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #54 of 78
I just think it is funny how these "reports" come out every other month yet nothing has changed and probably will not change.

These reports have been comming out since day 1 of the iPhone yet the iPhone is still on ATT.
post #55 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarsOnly View Post

If the only iPhone I could have was pink, with orange glitter and neon green tassels, and a permanent screen picture of Perez Hilton French kissing a poodle in order to be with a carrier other than AT&T, I'd stand in line to do it.

So you registered with this forum for the express purpose of posting this rant. Well played.

I still can't see Apple coming out with a CDMA version of the iPhone. When have they ever invested money in technology that has already plateaued and will clearly be in decline over the next 5-10 years? That, and I can't see VZW giving in to Apple and not pushing VCast down potential iPhone customers' throats.

T-Mobile would be a logical second choice in the US since they also use GSM, but they utilize different frequencies than ATT, so Apple would still have to come up with a different chipset that handles both sets of GSM frequencies.

Our best hope for better network coverage is AT&T's rollout of GSM over the 850MHz frequency, which is ongoing. The higher frequencies currently being used just don't travel very far, nor do they penetrate into buildings very well.
post #56 of 78
Someone may have stated this before...but just because Apple gave iPhone exclusively to ATT does not mean they will now give it exclusively to Verizon by taking it away from ATT. I think Verizon would like to have the iPhone even if it meant that ATT was still offering it.

This arrangement would be best for Apple and for us consumers...Apple's reach/profits would go up with the iPhone available on both carriers and their would be price competition that would reduces costs for us consumers, eg., data plans!

Better future iPhones and better future feature/plan pricing!
post #57 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

I disagree...

There are quite a number of people who very much want to own an iPhone but realize that AT&T is not a strong carrier in their area and in the end if you can't even get a reasonable signal then having the iPhone is of little consolation.

Do you actually think the other carriers would turn down a non-exclusive contract that would allow them to offer a iPhone to its customers??? Really??

Dave

people want the iphone because it's still the best phone and offers features in one package others don't but it's also missing features that other phones have. Nokia N900 and the Pre are looking good. Android depends on the phone manufacturer.
post #58 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roc Ingersol View Post

Do people really think that Verizon's data network isn't going to crumble just like AT&Ts did? They dramatically oversold their capacity, just like ATT, based on usage patterns for crap phones.

The earliest adopters are going to proclaim VZW the greatest thing since sliced bread.
But give it a few months of selling like gangbusters and service is going to crap in the major markets.

Sprint sucks. Verizon does not exist to me as a brand (they are the worst company I have ever come across in my entire existence on this planet). AT&T has been awesome. I have not had a single dropped call on my 3GS.

When Apple opens it up to other carriers AT&T will have to drop extra services fees (ie texting) so consumers will win and I bet a lot of folks will not end up leaving after all.
post #59 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

Steve played this one very very well...

In order for Apple to build the phone they REALLY wanted to build required (some) changes to the way providers ran their networks... Lets face it, going back to the year BEFORE the iPhone was introduced the concept of Apple dictating network changes to the carrier was all a preposterous notion at the very least.

So Apple did the next best thing and made a deal with a carrier 'product virtually unseen'. Now that I think about it I'm sure I read (somewhere) that a comment similar to that being said by the AT&T CEO.

I'm sure the contract was something to the effect that Apple would build a smartphone like no other and in return AT&T would make the necessary changes to its network to enable some of the phones unique features. In addition Apple would make AT&T its exclusive for X number of years. AT&T also must have had some kind of escape clause if the phone didn't deliver what Steve was promising.

So Apple gave into an exclusive agreement so it could have some say as to how the providers cell network operates. An alien concept to say the least. Previous to this it was the providers who told the cell phone makers what to include and what not to include.

So fast forward to today...

Apple is truly in the cat bird seat...

It's contract with AT&T is winding down and the rest of the US market is Apples to take if they so choose.

Imagine if tomorrow Apple went to Verizon and Sprint and offered them a non-exclusive deal on the iPhone what do you think will happen?

1 - They'd all but jump at it making whatever network changes they need to so the iPhone works as advertised.

2 - The drop most/all of the 'other' smartphone TV ads and flood primetime with ads boasting they too have the hottest phone the world has ever seen.

I mean really, do you think Verizon or Sprint would be featuring an Andriod phone as its #1 smartphone if they had the ability to offer its customers the iPhone instead?

Yea... Steve hit this one clear outta the park.

And despite how I feel about their tyrannical control over what Apps I can run on my iPhone and iPod touch I gotta give the man credit when credit is due.

Dave

I agree with this, but with one revision. Every place you mention ATTs network changes, substitute "change the relationship between the carrier and the handset manufacturer." Apple's great achievement with the iPhone was not it getting ATT to support visual voice mail. It was getting them to keep their hands off the design of the phone itself. The whims of the carriers have done more to restrict innovation of cell phones than any lack of talent on the part of the manufacturers.

The new phones we are starting to see are the result of the carriers allowing the manufacturers a little more freedom to innovate. What will be interesting is that Apple has now shown the willingness to compromise the iPhone and remove wi-fi from the Chinese version. Will that be used against them if/when they try to negotiate with Verizon or other carriers who may see that as a sign that Apple is willing to give up some control to gain marketshare?
post #60 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post

Stations around here broadcast in uncompressed 1080i over the air, and many cable stations have compressed 1080i. I don't believe anyone does 1080p. FWIW, over the air HD is better than cable/sattelite HD because it's uncompressed.

Actually, even broadcast HD is compressed about 50 to 1. It's just that each broadcast channel is allocated a specific chunk of the spectrum, and typically compresses their signal just enough to fit. Cable companies have a specific amount of bandwidth available for *all* of their channels, and typically will re-compress the signal further, to make room for more channels.

So, over-the-air HD will often be better quality than cable or sattelite, but not because it's uncompressed, but just compressed less.

And 1080p can't be broadcast over the air, it's not part of the ATSC spec, and the FCC would not appreciate it if anyone tried to broadcast it. Cable and satellite providers can ignore the spec as long as all the settop boxes can work with the signal, so they can do 1080p if they want.
post #61 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptysell View Post

I just think it is funny how these "reports" come out every other month yet nothing has changed and probably will not change. These reports have been comming out since day 1 of the iPhone yet the iPhone is still on ATT.

Someone needs to refrain from making up such absurd exaggerations. It doesn't do your image any good.

And to as a question I know you can't possibly answer, what reports from 'day 1'?!?! When the iPhone was introduced it was made very clear, crystal clear in fact that AT&T had the exclusive US contract for a specific number of years... nobody attempted to state otherwise. Nobody in their right mind anyway. I mean the CEOs of both companies were on the stage both saying they had an exclusive contract for x number of years.

Why are we seeing the reports this year? Well it's quite simple we are nearing the end of the contract that AT&T has with Apple so its quite natural to see these types of stories now.

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #62 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Hmmm, in that case, I think I might stick with AT&T.

Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #63 of 78
Munster is talking out of his ass.

There are other countries where the iphone is basically sold by every carrier in the country --- like Australia and Italy. For sure, if the iphone was capturing 40% of the Australian smartphone market --- we would have heard and read about it (especially because Australians are English speaking).

Secondly, in every single news report about the iphone sales in France --- they are on par with UK and Germany sales (since they have about the same population size). Even if Munster is right that the iphone is capturing 40% in France's smartphone market --- it only means ONE thing, the French smartphone market is vastly smaller than every single industrial country in the world.

It is very simple math --- for example, if both UK and France both sell 2 million iphones and they both have the approx the same population size ---- and the iphone has only a 15% market share in smartphone in UK but 40% market share in smartphone in France. Then there is only ONE math solution --- the French smartphone market is much smaller than UK and the rest of the industrial world.
post #64 of 78
At this point I would continue to give AT&T their spot in the limelight for a bit longer as the other carriers transition in.

AT&T certainly has gone through growing pains, but so will all of the other carriers.

The bigger the share of "smartphone" users, the more natural incentive their is to keep the network robust and feature rich. So it seems one or two carriers would naturally dominate the market anyway. It's probably a little expensive to maintain these networks.

It's also natural that, following exclusivity (due to co-development) Apple would induce competition in the provider market by allowing all service competitors access to the device and now you've got the service providers fighting to prove who does the job better of matching their service to Apple's device.

That's a really good position for Apple to be in.

Regarding Apple TV, the biggest stigma is definitely a question of, why pay for a cable bill and Apple TV downloads? Find a way to make deals with producers/ networks to make a "subscription" option and allow people to replace their cable service. GO big, more movies, more TV, more content are what my friends say. (I fantasize about not having to go to the theater at all some day LOL I really do love my home theater )

Apple has done a great job with TV but their movie library is pretty dated and thin. Most people don't want to pay a premium to own everything they watch or not watch things they don't want to own. Sports and News are 2 things that need to be addressed as well.

I don't watch allot of TV (So I guess that's why I don't have cable and just have an ATV) although I am occasionally frustrated by the delivery of certain shows only after the DVD launches or a week or two after the show airs the service is reliable and most shows are quite prompt to deliver.

There is definitely room for improvement, but ATV is a killer platform. Personally I'd also like to see casual gaming added to the lineup of new features. My other "brain-drain" fantasy is to have Audio Surf on my ATV with my iphone/ tablet controller.
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #65 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

I agree with this, but with one revision. Every place you mention ATTs network changes, substitute "change the relationship between the carrier and the handset manufacturer." Apple's great achievement with the iPhone was not it getting ATT to support visual voice mail. It was getting them to keep their hands off the design of the phone itself. The whims of the carriers have done more to restrict innovation of cell phones than any lack of talent on the part of the manufacturers.

The new phones we are starting to see are the result of the carriers allowing the manufacturers a little more freedom to innovate. What will be interesting is that Apple has now shown the willingness to compromise the iPhone and remove wi-fi from the Chinese version. Will that be used against them if/when they try to negotiate with Verizon or other carriers who may see that as a sign that Apple is willing to give up some control to gain marketshare?

This is exactly true, the reason peoples' experience with phones is really bad is because all the Carriers think they know what is best for their customers and they want the ability to charge extra for each and every feature. Therefore that do not allow the cell phone companies to truly innovated. Also because of this, every cell phone companies have various versions of their phones to support all the different carries so you can image the mess this create making sure it all works with all the different carries.

However, you have one version of the iphone worldwide so it one plateform Apple have to make sure works verse hundreds of versions.
post #66 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

Yes, Verizon has had Blackberry phones for some time now that had a 2nd GSM radio, in addition to the CDMA, for international travel. However, I don't think the phones would switch to GSM if you were in the US in an area with no Verizon CDMA signal as that would require a roaming agreement with US GSM carriers.

So if you are talking about a 4th generation, LTE-capable phone, you are probably going to need to support 3 standards, vs the 2 the referenced Blackberry supports: LTE, CDMA (for use in the US in areas where LTE isn't yet available), and GSM (for roaming outside of the US until other country's LTE networks are built out). The space and power requirements to support all three may be prohibitive.

The only other option for a LTE phone would be for Verizon to sign a roaming agreement with a US GSM carrier and have a phone with only LTE and GSM, but I wouldn't see them doing that until their LTE network is substantially built out because too much of their customer's calls and data would then be traveling over another carrier's network.

Of course they could just go with a CDMA/GSM phone like the Blackberry, but then why would Verizon rush to deploy their LTE network?

I have absolutely no technical knowledge of cell phone networks, but my memory tells me that before cell phones became popular, there WERE several multi-network phones you could choose from to use on the network you had. These 3 system phones weren't subsidized and not cheap like today, but they existed. So my question is why isn't this form factor feasibly possible to day?
post #67 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by starsonly View Post

if the only iphone i could have was pink, with orange glitter and neon green tassels, and a permanent screen picture of perez hilton french kissing a poodle in order to be with a carrier other than at&t, i'd stand in line to do it.

You have to take crap customer service or poor product functionallity with a grain of salt these days. Especially with any tech. Based company. There's no way to make everyone happy all the time, and all of us will have a pissed off moment at some point with one of them.

But i have never experienced a company like at&t that has absolutely nothing good about them. Not their customer service, their product, not their internet user interface. To call them pathetic would be an insult to pathetic people.

I have had my cell phone account with at&t for over 15 years, and internet service for over ten, and have come to the point, that as soon as i am able, i will switch to other carriers for both. By the time my wireless account agreement, (the two years i had to get despite being a 25 year customer,) is up android should be up to speed.

I dig my iphone, would hate to get rid of it, have had apple computers since the iigs, and will continue to have their products. But if it means switching to something else to get away from at&t i'll do it in less than a heartbeat.

I hope that revolutionary gorilla freedom fighters tear down their cell towers. Gandalf the good turns their data lines into over-cooked spaghetti. Has neo infiltrate their infustructure from within and turn it into a smoldering carbon slag-heap of william gibson after-thought.

+1+1+1
post #68 of 78
With Sprint's announcement of the Touch Pro 2 being $350, the iPhone 3GS is looking MUCH more tempting (my contract's up in November.)

I wonder if AT&T's price will drop to stay competitive or if the $200 3GS will be found on other carriers as well.
post #69 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

I disagree...

There are quite a number of people who very much want to own an iPhone but realize that AT&T is not a strong carrier in their area and in the end if you can't even get a reasonable signal then having the iPhone is of little consolation.

Do you actually think the other carriers would turn down a non-exclusive contract that would allow them to offer a iPhone to its customers??? Really??

Dave

I couldn't agree more! I'm one of those people.
post #70 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post

I have absolutely no technical knowledge of cell phone networks, but my memory tells me that before cell phones became popular, there WERE several multi-network phones you could choose from to use on the network you had. These 3 system phones weren't subsidized and not cheap like today, but they existed. So my question is why isn't this form factor feasibly possible to day?

It's totally possible, but it's all about getting your money. That's just how the world works and it sucks.
post #71 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

It's totally possible, but it's all about getting your money. That's just how the world works and it sucks.

I agree with your analysis with one exception. I'd replace "the world" with the "greed of capitalism" AND add the unfortunate consumer apathy, that exist, to do anything about it.

People really do have the power to change the way the world works, when it comes to buying and selling. Don't buy it and the seller will adapt. As it stands now the sellers have the upper hand because they know how to use our apathy against us.

Dealers know their addicted users will buy their wares at any price and there's always those people who will rationalize the greed against the masses, wether illogically or for personal gain. The tobacco companies have been playing this game for years.
post #72 of 78
In defense of AT&T, I have not experienced any problems with AT&T at all. No dropped calls, internet speeds are great, email response fast and texting good.

Maybe AT&T just has good coverage here in the Dallas / Ft. Worth area, I don't know. My only complaint is minor @ this point & is not being able to text picts & video but I take AT&T @ their word that it will come soon.

Uverse has also been great. Any problems I have had have been fixed the same day or the next. The people I've dealt with have been courtious, proffessional and seem interested in making me happy.

Again maybe it's just the Dallas / Ft. Worth area, your milage may vary.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #73 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat View Post

Hopefully Apple does support CDMA, or hopefully we get 4G. I know here in Canada, Telus and Bell are CDMA networks upping their 4G coverage in hopes of picking up the iPhone. I'm eagerly waiting myself - I want an iPhone but hate Rogers - what to do.

Telus is telling their customers that they are getting the iPhone for sure. No official announcement until October, but they claim it is a done deal.
post #74 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

I don't know. AT&T has never been very good when it comes to infrastructure.

Really? Just look at the web browser stats - the iPhone outpaces desktop Linux! That's an unprecedented amount of mobile data.

In the comments of previous articles talking about Verizon and coverage, a few people have pointed out as an advantage that CDMA has greater range which translates into fewer towers for Verizon. Well, that's an advantage until you get a new device on your system that increase the load by several orders of magnitude! In that circumstance, fewer towers just make such congestion issues even worse.

Unlike AT&T, Verizon has the luxury of seeing just how much data the iPhone generates - whether they can adjust in time to avoid the problems AT&T has had will be interesting to see. Hard infrastructure like cellular towers and backhaul circuits don't just fall out of the sky. Being former Bells, Verizon and AT&T (and remember, it's really SBC - not the AT&T people traditionally think of when you say AT&T) have a leg up on other carriers (like TMobile) when it comes to circuits.

But it's still not gong to be easy. I don't think we will see the iPhone on Verizon until the 4G stuff is more widespread, and that isn't going to be for another year - at a bare minimum. I just don't see them pumping significant resources into shoring up their CDMA network - it's not worth it in the long term. And for the effort they would have to expend they might as well just build out their 4G network. So if you are looking for an iPhone on Verizon, I wouldn't be holding my breath - I don't see it happening for another year. At least.

If anything, I see Apple doing a WiMax phone (hello Sprint!) next if you are looking for something with a new radio. WiMax at least is being deployed outside the US in several large markets, and the fight between the GSM 4G stuff and WiMax is far from over - despite what some would try to have you believe. Wimax is out there now - my friends in Las Vegas have it use it for their home Internet. It's not too far away from me in Maryland. I would love to ditch the cable co...
post #75 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

If this was true then why would such an ordinary phone have 40% of the French smartphone market? Doesn't sound so ordinary to me.
Dave

Because Apple have excellent marketing team. And because Apple's marketing people do extraordinary outstanding job, selling iPhones.
They bring home 70% of the success of this phone. And they don't hope on features or on some special quality of the product (which are just solid enough to support their efforts) while they're getting it go like hot cakes.

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #76 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Do any networks/stations "broadcast" in 1080? (I don't think so.) So what would be the point in Apple going 1080 in Apple TV? (Well, maybe I'm wrong and there is a point, in which case I am eager to be enlightened.)

Braodcaster use 720P and 1080i, personally, on my HDMI 24" computer glossy monitor, I can tell instantly what a broadcaster are using. The 720p actually looks sharper then 1080i.
post #77 of 78
I'm out the minute that the phone is open to other networks. I have frequent dropped calls and a very poor data network coverage. I don't live in a metro area, so just getting basic coverage is important for me. While I'm sure that getting 3G service in some metro area's is exciting for a lot of people, I'd really just like to see a strong voice network where I live. I know, they're trying to help the most people at a time with each upgrade, but I'd still like to be able to make a call on my phone in my house that sits in their preferred coverage area.
post #78 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by chwhale View Post

... I'd still like to be able to make a call on my phone in my house that sits in their preferred coverage area.

ditto that. i'm a mile from a billboard that touted "more bars in more places". Not in my place, and the local ATT store is very familiar with the small poor-signal zone. But in two years there's been no improvement, despite numerous reassurances from att's tech support. I can't conduct calls inside my home here in florida without a $300 signal booster. Then it's fine. But I shouldn't have to pay that to get adequate service.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple expected to offer iPhone on new U.S. carriers within a year