or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › AT&T defends its iPhone network via YouTube outreach
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AT&T defends its iPhone network via YouTube outreach - Page 4

post #121 of 211
Apparently AT&T is also faltering in their service for Blackberries:

AT&T yanks BlackBerry Bold visual voicemail software update

I guess it's the iPhone's fault.
post #122 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

But the Finns also have to deal with iphone data plans with 100 MB, 250 MB and 1000 MB per month allowance.

http://www.sonera.fi/Puhelin+ja+liit...plen+iPhone+3G

http://www.sonera.fi/Puhelin%20ja%20.../iPhone+hinnat

Sonera Finland did not initiate the caps (which are not enforced) on data, but they came from Telia Sonera Sweden. These figures are for show. I have friends that do not even have hardlines in their house and use exclusively mobile data and constantly succeed the "data" caps on a monthly basis. If they enforce the caps in your location. Oh well....
post #123 of 211
Any way you look at it tAT&T has committed fraud. They advertised that several additional functions would be available when the 3G & 3GS came out but here we sit paying for these extras but getting nothing. This is just another example of a multi-Billion dollar company getting away with things that many of us would be sued over & maybe jailed. If I as a small business owner advertised & secured customers by promising things that i can't deliver I'd be out of business in no time at all.
So unless the millions of AT&T customers get off their collective asses & demand compensation through the legal system you'll continue to be taken advantage of. I've been amazed from day one that a class action case hasn't been brought against AT&T. I'm even more amazed that millions of customers have continued to pay At&T's Absorbent rates without any compensation for extra's they've not had for months.
post #124 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

So what do you want AT&T to do?

(1) charge you $60 a month for a datacard plan because all the iphone users in the US used about as much data as a datacard subscriber.
(2) charge you $30 a month for a 1 GB data allowance per month.

I am just going to throw this out there. I know it will sound radical and may upset some. You may even call me crazy for suggesting such a concept.

They should sell only what they are capable of providing. If they don't have it, then they shouldn't be selling it.


Outlandish and unexpected, I know.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #125 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

Sonera Finland did not initiate the caps (which are not enforced) on data, but they came from Telia Sonera Sweden. These figures are for show. I have friends that do not even have hardlines in their house and use exclusively mobile data and constantly succeed the "data" caps on a monthly basis. If they enforce the caps in your location. Oh well....

Normal people don't go out of their way to test the willingness of their carrier to enforce the rules. So the average Fins will use a lot less data per month on their iphone than the average American.

And I think Sonera has officially limit the 3G iphone speed to 512 kbps. Numerous survey has put the 3G speed of Finland vastly slower than the US --- US being twice as fast as Finland.

http://testmyiphone.com/country/FI

http://testmyiphone.com/country/US

So now you are going to tell me how American carriers are crap --- but instead the Fins got a 100 MB data allowance with their 3G speed artificially crippled.
post #126 of 211
I heard that ATT was even coming in on Saturdays to get this problem solved.
post #127 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by liltechdude View Post

I don't agree with the notion that the other networks such as Verizon or Sprint would have had the same issues as ATT. Verizon, for example, has also seen a massive smartphone boom on their network, and they have upgraded their technology to cope with the increased workflow.

I don't think you get just how much data the iPhone generates. The iPhone accounts for more web browsing then desktop Linux - all other smartphones combined don't even come close.

Mainly because the iPhone has the first practical web browser - people actually use it! Nevermind the applications and other stuff the iPhone also excels at.

Quote:
That's why they are deploying LTE so quickly

Uh, no - Verizon is deploying LTE so they have a world compatible cellular standard and can get handsets like the iPhone.

Quote:
The point I'm trying to make is that the iPhone isn't the root of the problem with ATT right now. They simply aren't putting enough resources into building and maintaining their network to support the entire wireless ATT population.

Citation please. Your premise is weak and shows your fundamental ignorance...
post #128 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by domerdel2 View Post

why is AT&T investing this much in 3G? By this time next year, Verizon is planning LTE (4G)

1) They could start tomorrow and 4G will be in very few places. 4G rollout is going to take years - it's not as simple as flipping a switch. It will also be interesting to see how Verizon handles the increased tower requirements of 4G vs. CDMA 3G - that's not going to be quickly resolved either.
2) Since Verizon is switching fundamental technology, they will have to have phones that can span 4G and CDMA 3G. It's doubtful Apple would make such a phone - if they were going to make a CDMA phone in any market, why wouldn't they have one now?
3) Higher end 3G is just as fast as lower end 4G . AT&T won't be hurting for some time. 4G is critical for Verizon as it gets them on a world standard. AT&T doesn't have that issue, so 4G is less of an issue for them.
post #129 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Much like how Apple was kicking and screaming with bluetooth.

Kicking and screaming or maturing their stack?

Verizon has a history of being overly restrictive ("future blackberries will have wifi - we promise!")

Apple, OTOH, set the industry on it's ear.

Yup, I know which one is acting more in my interests
post #130 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post


There is also no evidence that Verizon won't have these problems either.

AT&T completely dominates the west coast and their service is great when I travel To CA far better than Verizon. On the east coast though AT&T has had a harder time competing with Verizon who owns most of the towers in the area. NYC straight through most of the Hudson Valley corridor is dominated by Verizon towers.

my Iphone works just fine and even better when I travel. AT&T isn't great and Verizon is no better. Stop "gilding the lilly" and acting like you know what you are talking about and focus on the issue at hand, which is not "Steve the Blogger". They are both large corporations that want to maximize profits at the users expense and neither cares about your user experience. I doubt that Apple will be for long either. especially once Steve is gone.

I am focusing on the issue. I've personally had Verizon...have you? Verizon's service is far better. Period. Many fewer dropped calls. Better coverage. The list goes on. I can't speak for the West Coast. Maybe it's different out there...I don't know. It does me no good as someone from PA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

I agree that Verizon's network would also be overloaded, no doubt about that.

You have no idea if that's true much less "having do doubt." Please.

Quote:

Verizon's rejection of the iphone has nothing to do with visual voicemail, they rejected the iphone deal because Apple demanded revenue sharing and choice of distribution partners. The interview was given a few days after the Jobs keynote speech, but 5 months before the actual iphone launch --- so Verizon wasn't monday morning quarterbacking.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm

2 years after the iphone has been launched, independent AT&T agents still can't sell the iphone --- makes those agents mad as hell.

I've heard it was both the visual voicemail thing and the revenue sharing. They also wanted control of the apps. Verizon has its own effort going on there.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #131 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Kicking and screaming or maturing their stack?

Verizon has a history of being overly restrictive ("future blackberries will have wifi - we promise!")

Apple, OTOH, set the industry on it's ear.

Yup, I know which one is acting more in my interests

Apple makes a lot of money on licensing fees for third party ipod and iphone docks --- that's why it took forever to get the bluetooth working.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...y/4229530.html
post #132 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I've heard it was both the visual voicemail thing and the revenue sharing. They also wanted control of the apps. Verizon has its own effort going on there.

Considering that AT&T didn't even get to see much of the iphone prototype tells you that it's highly unlikely for Verizon to reject the iphobe because on technical stuff.

And considering that apps didn't even come into the iphone until 1 year after the iphone was launch tells you that this theory is even further off.
post #133 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by slapppy View Post

Really. If Verizon or Sprint took on the iPhone, their infrastructure would have imploded.

Agreed. I don't think anybody could have anticipated such a successful take off. Unfortunately everyone has to point fingers at AT&T when it would have happened to any one of the carriers. Yes, if it were released on several carriers at once then it might not have been a problem.

The fact is that AT&T has the iPhone, for the time being, and whats done is done. They've exceeded their network, didn't see it coming! So, now they're trying to fix it. According to the article they spent $38 billion in the past 2 years upgrading their network and people are bitching about them just now starting to fix the network? .....please..... read the article again.

MMS is something that should have been ready for 3GS launch and I think they've dropped the ball there, but supposedly it takes quite a bit of time to calibrate the network

I don't think there is going to be that large of an increase in MMS because many people like myself see it just as easy to send a picture or video thru email.\
Reply
Reply
post #134 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Considering that AT&T didn't even get to see much of the iphone prototype tells you that it's highly unlikely for Verizon to reject the iphobe because on technical stuff.

And considering that apps didn't even come into the iphone until 1 year after the iphone was launch tells you that this theory is even further off.

Everything SDW2001 stated sounds reasonable to me. Apple could easily have drawn up contracts that allow them to control this or that aspect without having a physical device to show Verizon. As for apps, the iPhone came with apps like Google Maps, YouTube and QuickTime streaming via Safari, etc. that Verizon, of all carriers, would likely have not wanted to be included for free without Verizon’s oversight. His statement didn’t state 3rd-party apps, but it seems silly to think that iPhone SDK announced only a few months after the iPhone’s release was not something well planned in advance. I think it’s likely that any contract that Apple would have drawn up would have included control of future offerings, like an app store, where previously such things were controlled by the carrier. I also recall reading that Verizon didn’t like the idea of Apple controlling the call center and repairs of the iPhone.
post #135 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

I also recall reading that Verizon didn’t like the idea of Apple controlling the call center and repairs of the iPhone.

Yes, those reasons were also given in January 2007 interview that I cited earlier.

The only concrete evidence that you can rely on is that Verizon interview in Jan 2007 --- it was given a week after the keynote speech and 5 months before the actual iphone launch. There was no monday morning quarterbacking.

All the other stuff that SDW2001 mentioned are just speculations and rumors --- without a single evidence to back them up. Remember that Apple approached Verizon in 2005 --- many many years before the app store, before Google even announced Google Maps, hell before youtube was even founded. That is some revisionist retelling of Apple's intention to put in a bunch of these partner apps onto the iphone.

That Verizon Jan 2007 interview provided no non-sense, no revisionist evidence.
post #136 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Yes, those reasons were also given in January 2007 interview that I cited earlier.

The only concrete evidence that you can rely on is that Verizon interview in Jan 2007 --- it was given a week after the keynote speech and 5 months before the actual iphone launch. There was no monday morning quarterbacking.

All the other stuff that SDW2001 mentioned are just speculations and rumors --- without a single evidence to back them up. Remember that Apple approached Verizon in 2005 --- many many years before the app store, before Google even announced Google Maps, hell before youtube was even founded. That is some revisionist retelling of Apple's intention to put in a bunch of these partner apps onto the iphone.

That Verizon Jan 2007 interview provided no non-sense, no revisionist evidence.

In his defense, he did qualify it with Ive heard and it doesnt sound like he was stating it as fact. Even the Verizon statement should be taken with a grain of salt as any decent company would spin any such thing to favour themselves.

As for Google Maps and YouTube, you have a point about specifics, but this is Apple butting heads with Verizon. Id imagine Apple had a pretty vague contract that was all inclusive of such things, sans things that didnt affect voice revenue directly like VoIP. Something that Id imagine Verizon would laugh at Apples hubris right off the bat. Id love to have seen these negotiations in play with both companies arrogantly scoffing at the other.
post #137 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

In his defense, he did qualify it with “I’ve heard” and it doesn’t sound like he was stating it as fact. Even the Verizon statement should be taken with a grain of salt as any decent company would spin any such thing to favour themselves.

As for Google Maps and YouTube, you have a point about specifics, but this is Apple butting heads with Verizon. I’d imagine Apple had a pretty vague contract that was all inclusive of such things, sans things that didn’t affect voice revenue directly like VoIP. Something that I’d imagine Verizon would laugh at Apple’s hubris right off the bat. I’d love to have seen these negotiations in play with both companies arrogantly scoffing at the other.

Of course, Verizon senior vp is going to spin it in favor for themselves as much as possible. But it doesn't mean that there is no concrete points in them --- especially when Verizon's statements were confirmed to be correct later on.

Revenue sharing was confirmed, AT&T corp store and Apple selling iphone only (i.e. shafting carrier distribution partners) was confirmed, Apple handling warranty and support was confirmed.

Tell me a single thing in the Verizon interview that was confirmed to be false later on.
post #138 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Tell me a single thing in the Verizon interview that was not confirmed to be false later on.

I dont recall Apple confirming or denying anything Verizon stated about their negotiations. My comment was to say that everything SDW2001 speculated didnt sound far fetched

Ill even speculate that any good negotiation will involve tactics of courting competitors even when you have no interest in them. Apple has had plenty of opportunities to offer an iPhone in countries that are CDMA-based and will be using CDMA for a long time to come and yet they seem to want to stick with GSM-based networks. Is this just a coincidence or could the courting of Verizon, AT&Ts biggest rival, have been done to gain a more favorable from AT&T? (This is just speculation, not a statement of fact, and so it shouldnt be read that way)
post #139 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

I don’t recall Apple confirming or denying anything Verizon stated about their negotiations. My comment was to say that everything SDW2001 speculated didn’t sound far fetched

I’ll even speculate that any good negotiation will involve tactics of courting competitors even when you have no interest in them. Apple has had plenty of opportunities to offer an iPhone in countries that are CDMA-based and will be using CDMA for a long time to come and yet they seem to want to stick with GSM-based networks. Is this just a coincidence or could the courting of Verizon, AT&T’s biggest rival, have been done to gain a more favorable from AT&T? (This is just speculation, not a statement of fact, and so it shouldn’t be read that way)

Don't need Apple to confirm or deny anything by interviews. They were confirmed by SEC filings (revenue sharing) and actual events (3rd party AT&T agents still can't sell the iphone 2 years later and Apple handling warranty/support).

Apple not signing with Verizon was the biggest mistake by Steve Jobs.

Palm went through several restructuring and selling source code to a Japanese firm in 2005-6. There were constant rumors that they were going to go under. In June 2007 (the same month that the original iphone was launched by AT&T), some private equity firm rescued Palm by buying 25% of Palm shares.

If Apple signed Verizon, Palm wouldn't have been rescued and we would have never seen the Palm Pre. As those credit card commercials said it best --- wiping out a competitor is priceless.
post #140 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Apple not signing with Verizon was the biggest mistake by Steve Jobs.

I dont know about that. If that means having Verizon control the repairs, replacements, the call center, the apps, and even aspects of the OS and HW that is accessible on the device then I dont think the iPhone would have made the impact that it did or change the way cellphone vendors look at phone HW, the OS and SW, and the way the carriers look at services and pricing structures. Nothing would have changed if Verizon would have gotten the iPhone the way they wanted to get it. They werent on the ropes and nothing to lose. Look at the carriers that Apple has mostly teamed with around the world. Its the one that is struggling more and more likely to play ball with Apple to get an edge.

Quote:
If Apple signed Verizon, Palm wouldn't have been rescued and we would have never seen the Palm Pre. As those credit card commercials said it best --- wiping out a competitor is priceless.

Wiping out healthy competition is not good for the consumer. WebOS has taken the influence of the iPhone OS X and have improved on it in a few areas. Im hoping that Apple takes some cues from Palm and include some aspects of WebOS.
post #141 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

I dont know about that. If that means having Verizon control the repairs, replacements, the call center, the apps, and even aspects of the OS and HW that is accessible on the device then I dont think the iPhone would have made the impact that it did or change the way cellphone vendors look at phone HW, the OS and SW, and the way the carriers look at services and pricing structures. Nothing would have changed if Verizon would have gotten the iPhone the way they wanted to get it. They werent on the ropes and nothing to lose. Look at the carriers that Apple has mostly teamed with around the world. Its the one that is struggling more and more likely to play ball with Apple to get an edge.

Wiping out healthy competition is not good for the consumer. WebOS has taken the influence of the iPhone OS X and have improved on it in a few areas. Im hoping that Apple takes some cues from Palm and include some aspects of WebOS.

It means what --- you might actually had turn-by-turn nav apps like VZ Navigator on the original iphone in June 2007. That's a plus for consumer instead of waiting until July 2009 for AT&T to release AT&T Navigator for the iphone. You still didn't get full bluetooth use until June 2009, so Verizon couldn't have done worse.

I never said that wiping out healthy competition is good for the consumer, I said that it was good for Apple.
post #142 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

It means what --- you might actually had turn-by-turn nav apps like VZ Navigator on the original iphone in June 2007. That's a plus for consumer instead of waiting until July 2009 for AT&T to release AT&T Navigator for the iphone.

Possibly, but I don’t think that is win for the consumer if it means that Google Maps or 3rd-party App Store mapping software would have a chance. At $10/month i think that any of these services are rip off. I thought we were past month service charges for GPS. I certainly won’t pay for it.

We don’t know what would have happen, but we do know that Verizon was least desperate carrier at the time (still is despite not having the iPhone) and the least likely to give in to any changes to the status quo that Apple wanted to change. Despite AT&T royal frak up of so many things I don’t think Verizon would have been the best option for the consumer.


PS: I’m sitting by the pool, eating BBQ and enjoying this civil debate.
post #143 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

Possibly, but I dont think that is win for the consumer if it means that Google Maps or 3rd-party App Store mapping software would have a chance. At $10/month i think that any of these services are rip off. I thought we were past month service charges for GPS. I certainly wont pay for it.

We dont know what would have happen, but we do know that Verizon was least desperate carrier at the time (still is despite not having the iPhone) and the least likely to give in to any changes to the status quo that Apple wanted to change. Despite AT&T royal frak up of so many things I dont think Verizon would have been the best option for the consumer.

PS: Im sitting by the pool, eating BBQ and enjoying this civil debate.

3rd party turn-by-turn nav apps are available on Verizon phones on the GIN store --- like AAA Mobile Navigator. So you could have multiple turn-by-turn apps available on the Verizon iphone in 2007, instead of 2009.

Least desperate means that Verizon would have forced Apple into dropping many of these idiotic ideas from day 1 --- like $600 iphone with a 2 year contract, like revenue sharing... That would have been a big plus for consumers. All those first gen "revolutionary" iphone ideas --- turned up to be idiotic and quickly drop.

PS: I am watching the US Open on the big screen and my laptop has US Open's website to show scores and stats from all the other matches. Federer just won his 4th round match.
post #144 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Least desperate means that Verizon would have forced Apple into dropping many of these idiotic ideas from day 1 --- like $600 iphone with a 2 year contract, like revenue sharing... That would have been a big plus for consumers. All those first gen "revolutionary" iphone ideas --- turned up to be idiotic and quickly drop.

Were obviously going to have to agree to disagree here, but revenue sharing was a great idea that I wish had worked. It meant that the vendors responsibility extended past the initial sale. Imagine a workd where the cellphone vendor cares more about the consumer continuing to find a use for the device youve already bought instead of coming out with a new device every couple months for you to buy with very slight HW and OS changes, while leaving your old device in the dust.

We know have the original iPhone all the way back from 2007 with v3.0 of the OS. I dont know of another cellular vendor that has done that, for free or for a charge, outside of minor bug updates. Even the T-Mobile G1 isnt going to get any more Android updates. Now that revenue sharing has stopped, Apple didnt have to do that, but I think they did it as a way of tipping the cellular market more to their favour by knocking everyone else off a little more. It wasnt so much for consumers as it was to make the others look bad in comparison or have them waste money and resources trying to compete with so many rich updates for a business model that only works when you have a very limited number of devices. Otherwise, its just not a profitable move as the App Store and iTunes Store were already a part of the device with v2.x.
post #145 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

Were obviously going to have to agree to disagree here, but revenue sharing was a great idea that I wish had worked. It meant that the vendors responsibility extended past the initial sale. Imagine a workd where the cellphone vendor cares more about the consumer continuing to find a use for the device youve already bought instead of coming out with a new device every couple months for you to buy with very slight HW and OS changes, while leaving your old device in the dust.

We know have the original iPhone all the way back from 2007 with v3.0 of the OS. I dont know of another cellular vendor that has done that, for free or for a charge, outside of minor bug updates. Even the T-Mobile G1 isnt going to get any more Android updates. Now that revenue sharing has stopped, Apple didnt have to do that, but I think they did it as a way of tipping the cellular market more to their favour by knocking everyone else off a little more. It wasnt so much for consumers as it was to make the others look bad in comparison or have them waste money and resources trying to compete with so many rich updates for a business model that only works when you have a very limited number of devices. Otherwise, its just not a profitable move as the App Store and iTunes Store were already a part of the device with v2.x.

Instead of keeping your original iphone past the 2 year mark with the v3.0 OS, you could have bought a new phone with a new OS. And many of the v3.0 improvements are not available for the older iphones (even the newer 3G iphone) as hardware requirements are different.
post #146 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Instead of keeping your original iphone past the 2 year mark with the v3.0 OS, you could have bought a new phone with a new OS. And many of the v3.0 improvements are not available for the older iphones (even the newer 3G iphone) as hardware requirements are different.

I’m aware of the HW changes of the 3GS. I have bought each new iPhone that has come out, but I’m not worried about paying a few extra hundred a year for a phone that does more and does it faster than the previous model, especially when I’m paying $100/month for the cellular service. I like my tech!
post #147 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Apple makes a lot of money on licensing fees for third party ipod and iphone docks --- that's why it took forever to get the bluetooth working.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...y/4229530.html

Interesting article except the iPhone is not an iPod. The iPhone came with BT from day one. Apple has upgraded BT connectivity on all iPhone's as they have upgraded the OS.

Plus you don't need a license to create headphones for the iPod so I retract my interesting comment, it's actually a pretty stupid article if I think about it more.

But hey, conspiracies are more fun and certainly generate more web clicks. No motivation for exaggeration there either
post #148 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Apple not signing with Verizon was the biggest mistake by Steve Jobs.

Really? So your saying he should have acquiesced to Verizon's demands and maintained the status quo of the cellular industry?

No thanks.

And what makes you think Verizon's network would have fared any better the AT&T's? Weren't the pro CDMA people bragging about how with CDMA you didn't need as many towers? That would just exacerbate a data overload/capacity problem.

Quote:
If Apple signed Verizon, Palm wouldn't have been rescued and we would have never seen the Palm Pre. As those credit card commercials said it best --- wiping out a competitor is priceless.

I don't think Apple has anything to worry from Palm. Even still I'm glad there are at least a few competitors like Palm that if nothing else will help keep Apple on their toes.
post #149 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

It means what --- you might actually had turn-by-turn nav apps like VZ Navigator on the original iphone in June 2007. That's a plus for consumer instead of waiting until July 2009 for AT&T to release AT&T Navigator for the iphone. You still didn't get full bluetooth use until June 2009, so Verizon couldn't have done worse.

The API's in the phone simply didn't exist until 3.0 to support turn by turn, so carrier doesn't matter their.

Bluetooth is an apple responsibility, not a carriers.

Verizon or AT&T would have had no effect on either of your (poor) examples.
post #150 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

3rd party turn-by-turn nav apps are available on Verizon phones on the GIN store --- like AAA Mobile Navigator. So you could have multiple turn-by-turn apps available on the Verizon iphone in 2007, instead of 2009.

Really, you can run apps from other phone architectures on the iPhone? That's amazing!

/sarcasm

Really, you should try to understand stuff you are commenting on better...

Quote:
Least desperate means that Verizon would have forced Apple into dropping many of these idiotic ideas from day 1 --- like $600 iphone with a 2 year contract, like revenue sharing... That would have been a big plus for consumers. All those first gen "revolutionary" iphone ideas --- turned up to be idiotic and quickly drop.

Really? Well, Apple did get it and they made a ton of money. And AT&T has had positive growth and customer retention as well. And two years is "quickly"?

Are you sure you don't work for Verizon?
post #151 of 211
OK, I know you work for Verizon now...

Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

And many of the v3.0 improvements are not available for the older iphones (even the newer 3G iphone) as hardware requirements are different.

Two 3.0 features are hardware specific - compass and voice recognition.

Two features is hardly "many"

Don't you ever get a backache from over-reaching so much?
post #152 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

...Don't you ever get a backache from over-reaching so much?

I've lost the plot on this thread... I *was* going to make a reacharound joke...
post #153 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Interesting article except the iPhone is not an iPod. The iPhone came with BT from day one. Apple has upgraded BT connectivity on all iPhone's as they have upgraded the OS.

Plus you don't need a license to create headphones for the iPod so I retract my interesting comment, it's actually a pretty stupid article if I think about it more.

But hey, conspiracies are more fun and certainly generate more web clicks. No motivation for exaggeration there either

Yeah, but you couldn't do much with that bluetooth with the iphone originally --- like playing music with it. You can do a phone call with bluetooth, but that was it.

Money is money. If you think that there are other reasons why for profit companies do certain things (other than money) --- then those are really conspiracies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Really? So your saying he should have acquiesced to Verizon's demands and maintained the status quo of the cellular industry?

No thanks.

And what makes you think Verizon's network would have fared any better the AT&T's? Weren't the pro CDMA people bragging about how with CDMA you didn't need as many towers? That would just exacerbate a data overload/capacity problem.

I don't think Apple has anything to worry from Palm. Even still I'm glad there are at least a few competitors like Palm that if nothing else will help keep Apple on their toes.

What would Apple would have to give up? Allowing the carrier to subsidize the iphone. Not trying the idiotic revenue sharing.

I never said that Verizon would have fared any better with the iphone launch --- in fact, in this thread alone, I have repeated stated that Verizon would have been hit by increased traffic just like AT&T.

Doesn't matter whether Apple has to "worry" about Palm or not --- killing a competitor outright is always better, for financial reasons. Unless you were Microsoft and had to keep Apple afloat 10 years ago for anti-trust reasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

The API's in the phone simply didn't exist until 3.0 to support turn by turn, so carrier doesn't matter their.

Bluetooth is an apple responsibility, not a carriers.

Verizon or AT&T would have had no effect on either of your (poor) examples.

If Apple started with Verizon, then every single first gen iphone would have all the A-GPS set-up in hardware --- which would have pushed Apple to implement those API's earlier.

I never claimed that bluetooth is a carrier responsibility --- I only replied to comments about Verizon would be a "bad" partner on the consumer point of view (and these people used bluetooth as an example of Verizon badness). Well, Verizon couldn't have done worse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Really, you can run apps from other phone architectures on the iPhone? That's amazing!

/sarcasm

Really, you should try to understand stuff you are commenting on better...

Really? Well, Apple did get it and they made a ton of money. And AT&T has had positive growth and customer retention as well. And two years is "quickly"?

Are you sure you don't work for Verizon?

Well, if only Apple allow java on the iphone --- but that's sarcasm.

Short term profit vs. long term profit of partnering with Verizon and wiping out Palm by never allowing Palm to get rescued in 2007. I'll take long term profit any day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

OK, I know you work for Verizon now...

Two 3.0 features are hardware specific - compass and voice recognition.

Two features is hardly "many"

Don't you ever get a backache from over-reaching so much?

There are also those 3D graphics that will keep a lot of games (which are the popular iphone genre) out of the hands of users with older iphones.
post #154 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajectory View Post

Apparently AT&T is also faltering in their service for Blackberries:

AT&T yanks BlackBerry Bold visual voicemail software update

I guess it's the iPhone's fault.

NO!!! It's ATnT's fault! ;0
post #155 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Considering that AT&T didn't even get to see much of the iphone prototype tells you that it's highly unlikely for Verizon to reject the iphobe because on technical stuff.

And considering that apps didn't even come into the iphone until 1 year after the iphone was launch tells you that this theory is even further off.

Verizon has had its own version of apps for years. They even have VCAST, they're "exclusive" video clip service. The iPhone came with apps and it didn't take a genius to figure out it would soon have many more. Everyone knew we'd have third party apps pretty quickly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Footloose301 View Post

Agreed. I don't think anybody could have anticipated such a successful take off. Unfortunately everyone has to point fingers at AT&T when it would have happened to any one of the carriers. Yes, if it were released on several carriers at once then it might not have been a problem.

The fact is that AT&T has the iPhone, for the time being, and whats done is done. They've exceeded their network, didn't see it coming! So, now they're trying to fix it. According to the article they spent $38 billion in the past 2 years upgrading their network and people are bitching about them just now starting to fix the network? .....please..... read the article again.

MMS is something that should have been ready for 3GS launch and I think they've dropped the ball there, but supposedly it takes quite a bit of time to calibrate the network

I don't think there is going to be that large of an increase in MMS because many people like myself see it just as easy to send a picture or video thru email.\

1. You don't know that it would have happened with other carriers. You simply don't know. AT&T had a smaller, technically inferior network to begin with. The fact is it MIGHT have happened to other carriers. But we don't know. What we do know is VZW's network was better to begin with (at least on the East Coast) and that multiple carriers would have split the load.

2. They should have seen it coming. They crossed their fingers that they could be ready. They were wrong. Now they are playing catch up. And all those billions ? It's not made a dent in my service quality.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

Everything SDW2001 stated sounds reasonable to me. Apple could easily have drawn up contracts that allow them to control this or that aspect without having a physical device to show Verizon. As for apps, the iPhone came with apps like Google Maps, YouTube and QuickTime streaming via Safari, etc. that Verizon, of all carriers, would likely have not wanted to be included for free without Verizons oversight. His statement didnt state 3rd-party apps, but it seems silly to think that iPhone SDK announced only a few months after the iPhones release was not something well planned in advance. I think its likely that any contract that Apple would have drawn up would have included control of future offerings, like an app store, where previously such things were controlled by the carrier. I also recall reading that Verizon didnt like the idea of Apple controlling the call center and repairs of the iPhone.

Well put.


Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Yes, those reasons were also given in January 2007 interview that I cited earlier.

The only concrete evidence that you can rely on is that Verizon interview in Jan 2007 --- it was given a week after the keynote speech and 5 months before the actual iphone launch. There was no monday morning quarterbacking.

All the other stuff that SDW2001 mentioned are just speculations and rumors --- without a single evidence to back them up. Remember that Apple approached Verizon in 2005 --- many many years before the app store, before Google even announced Google Maps, hell before youtube was even founded. That is some revisionist retelling of Apple's intention to put in a bunch of these partner apps onto the iphone.

That Verizon Jan 2007 interview provided no non-sense, no revisionist evidence.

I don't claim to "know" what happened, just what I've read and heard. My understanding is that AT&T was willing to do the deal VZW wasn't. They were willing to abide by Apple's restrictions on everything from sale price to subsidizing to proprietary features/apps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

In his defense, he did qualify it with Ive heard and it doesnt sound like he was stating it as fact. Even the Verizon statement should be taken with a grain of salt as any decent company would spin any such thing to favour themselves.

As for Google Maps and YouTube, you have a point about specifics, but this is Apple butting heads with Verizon. Id imagine Apple had a pretty vague contract that was all inclusive of such things, sans things that didnt affect voice revenue directly like VoIP. Something that Id imagine Verizon would laugh at Apples hubris right off the bat. Id love to have seen these negotiations in play with both companies arrogantly scoffing at the other.

That's what I think too. I think Apple approached VZW first with a list of demands. VZW told them to go pound sand.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #156 of 211
one day VZ will be able to sell the Jesus phone. if they make a statement like "at&t did not fulfill your service expectations and we'll provide a guide to help you leave them with no ETF", then this would be the end of at&t. this would change the marketplace from one of ETF fear, to a meritocracy. Here, VZ wins.
post #157 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by fulldecent View Post

one day VZ will be able to sell the Jesus phone. if they make a statement like "at&t did not fulfill your service expectations and we'll provide a guide to help you leave them with no ETF", then this would be the end of at&t. this would change the marketplace from one of ETF fear, to a meritocracy. Here, VZ wins.

AT&T controls that, not VZW. They could offer a credit towards the ETF, though. It really could be done with a month or two or free service. I killed my VZW contract 5 months early (maybe 6) and the fee was $95.00. I complained and they reduced it to $45.00. For most people they really could offer one free month...that would cover it and screw AT&T.

Edit: I don't think the above will happen. It will likely just go multi-carrier.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #158 of 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Apple makes a lot of money on licensing fees for third party ipod and iphone docks --- that's why it took forever to get the bluetooth working.

The dock connector and Bluetooth have little to do with each other. But if you want to continue that conspiracy. The iPhone can still do much more with the dock connector than it can do with BT.


Quote:
Apple not signing with Verizon was the biggest mistake by Steve Jobs.

Yes because VZW is known for selling phones that make people happy.

Quote:
If Apple signed Verizon, Palm wouldn't have been rescued and we would have never seen the Palm Pre. As those credit card commercials said it best --- wiping out a competitor is priceless.

Seeing as Apple provided webkit and pushes the HTML standards that enable the Pre to exist, I doubt crushing Palm is on Apple's agenda, and it would be bad for consumers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

It means what --- you might actually had turn-by-turn nav apps like VZ Navigator on the original iphone in June 2007. That's a plus for consumer instead of waiting until July 2009 for AT&T to release AT&T Navigator for the iphone. You still didn't get full bluetooth use until June 2009, so Verizon couldn't have done worse.

So you are arguing it would be better for consumers to have the option of paying VZW for VZNavigator or AAA Mobile Navigator, rather than having free Google Maps and the choice of several payed apps from the top GPS navigation software developers.

Quote:
If Apple started with Verizon, then every single first gen iphone would have all the A-GPS set-up in hardware --- which would have pushed Apple to implement those API's earlier.

If Apple did not feel it was ready to implement A-GPS as a hardware feature, how would it have benefit anything for VZW to force them to? You make it sound as if VZW is know for having excellent GPS navigation on its phones.

Quote:
I never said that wiping out healthy competition is good for the consumer, I said that it was good for Apple.

It would not be good for Apple, Apple needs competition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

3rd party turn-by-turn nav apps are available on Verizon phones on the GIN store --- like AAA Mobile Navigator. So you could have multiple turn-by-turn apps available on the Verizon iphone in 2007, instead of 2009.

Why are VZ Navigator and AAA Mobile Navigator the only options. Why doesn't VZW offer TomTom and Garmin navigation software?

Quote:
Least desperate means that Verizon would have forced Apple into dropping many of these idiotic ideas from day 1 --- like $600 iphone with a 2 year contract, like revenue sharing... That would have been a big plus for consumers. All those first gen "revolutionary" iphone ideas --- turned up to be idiotic and quickly drop.

Why are you so against revenue sharing? The carrier is paying Apple a premium either way it goes, they either pay it up front or over time. It seemed that AT&T did not mind paying the revenue over time.
post #159 of 211
We do know what VZW actively controls the amount of data that can be used on its phones. None of VZW phones offer sophisticated browsers. The best selling VZW phones have tiny screens that are not conducive to prolong web use. VZW doesn't offer many web services that encourage people to have extended data use. VZW limits its mobile broadband to 250MB and 5GB, it does not offer an unlimited option at all.

So Verizon is concerned with and control its network data usage.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You don't know that it would have happened with other carriers. You simply don't know. AT&T had a smaller, technically inferior network to begin with. The fact is it MIGHT have happened to other carriers. But we don't know. What we do know is VZW's network was better to begin with (at least on the East Coast) and that multiple carriers would have split the load.
post #160 of 211
Hi,

I have had two iPhones and am now using the 3GS. I love the phone but the biggest hassle for me is the constant dropped calls. I can't make/receive a call from my house, which drives me crazy. Driving on Hwy 101 from Santa Maria to Paso Robles, California, I encounter areas where one minute the phone shows five bars and the next minute there's only one bar. I don't even bother to answer calls I receive while driving, I just send them to voice mail as soon as the phone rings.

This summer my wife and I drove across country. She also has an iPhone, one of the original models. There were long stretches of road where there was simply no service for either of us, and this was while driving on both smaller state highways and the major interstates. ATT should be doing more to improve the basic service, though I do appreciate their taking the plunge/risk to go with Apple in the first place. One wishes for reliable basic service (fewer dropped calls, etc.), never mind all of the bells and whistles services. I'd be tempted to switch to Verizon if it were possible to do so.

Love the phone, though.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › AT&T defends its iPhone network via YouTube outreach