Verizon preparing for possible arrival of iPhone in 2010 - report - Page 3

More P.T. Barnum

apple will have law suits and investor revolts if verizon does not come on the iphone train soon
and black berry is knocking on apple door w/ a 10 mill unit sale 1/4 .

yes YES yes YES in every way possible verizon does an incredible job out hyperboling even ole ' PT BARNUM

verizom makes an on going non stop ad for its FIOS network for 70 dollars a month . think about its 3 services for 79 or 89 bucks a month tele broadband TV ..and my time warner bill is 169 a month for the same same
so why have i not switched ??
BBBBBBBBB EEEEEE CAAAAZZZZZZZZZ AFTER ALL THE F ing hype my real verizon triple play charge is 180 s month
how the f can VERIZON DO IT ?? they can;t its all hype

ATT does zippo for iphone promotion
verizon when it get the porter house steak of cell phones to chew on . will sell the shit out of the iphone .


yet soon the touch will triple iphone sales

P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum

is that enuff P.T. Barnum;s or you want more ???
big boy


in effect the iphone major market daily meltdown is a 3 hr window of heavy usage in 8 or 9 markets ny dallas san fram LA AND THE such .
ATT never ever had a good tower network in any market
verizon has had NYC FOR yrs upon yrs
i live in nyc so my verizon calls do go thru wall and sky scrapers
they have dozens of all types of towers boosters repeaters

ATT does not
sadly MR DR NO you are correct ABOUT the ATT IS GREAT ALL OVER except in the tall stacked buildings of the big apple of the hilly san fran

WHY sad because the rest of the country go f itself as far as cell phones go
IF you can't<< HOLD >> a call in N Y C . then you fail the country
AND IN nyc we are VERY LOUD AND VERY NASTY BUNCH TECKSTUD IS A PUSSY cat compared to irate ATT clients in the big apple with dropped CALLS .
we have no time to wait in line
we have a star bucks every 2 blocks cause we wont walk 3 to get coffee
get it MR DR NO ??

great post

Really? What incentive do you think Apple had to create the iPhone?

Do you think if they had to deal with Verizion's historic restrictive and draconian controls over handset design that Apple would have ever developed the iPhone? I don't think so. Through their exclusive deal with AT&T Apple was able to wrestle control away of the handset from the carrier and for the first time (in the US anyway) give it to the consumer!

AT&T's reward for this risk - exclusive distribution of the iPhone guaranteeing a growth of their customer base.

It's a quid pro quo - each party gets a benefit. That's how business is supposed to work. Lop sided deals are unpopular for a reason.

I love how the significant the power shift that the iPhone brought to the US cellular market is continually overlooked and marginalized by people such as yourself. Shows a pretty shallow grasp of the significance of the iPhone in the US cellular market by people who make such comments. To put it another way:

You would not have the Droid on Verizon without the iPhone

Pretty damn innovative to me!


For a darn good reason - they went totally out on a limb with a totally unknown player in the handset manufacturing space. That was their risk - the reward was exclusivity if the handset turned out to be compelling. It was and paid off in more ways then they expected


I dunno, the entire industry seems to already be chasing (and failing to catch) the iPhone with it just on AT&T.


Yes, because all the manufacturers were doing such a good job of driving Apple before the iPhone Actually they did drive Apple - their universally crappy products drove Apple to come out of no where and show them all up with Apple's very first entry. An entry, although universally derided by the tech industry for having "fatal" flaws, that managed to change the smartphone market literally overnight.

Your absolutely right - Apple needs the rest of the industry to drive them


Your mixing handsets and networks. Many "overseas" locations cover a fraction of the surface area of the United states, and several countries had abysmal land line infrastructures. Rather then upgrading them, they skipped to wireless - double benefit on that, lower capital costs on wired infrastructure combined with dramatically less square milage equals a much better mobile network.

As for handsets, no one has bested the iPhone and since all I am interested in is an integrated smartphone, the rest of the industry is pretty irrelevant for me. #2 contender is coming from Google, another US company. Yup, we are so behind the rest of the world. As for semi-smartphones like many of the Nokia semi-smart and feature phones or dumb phones from other makers - oh well. High volume, low profit. Like much of the PC industry. I doubt Apple cares much about capturing that market, just like they couldn't care less about the bulk of the PC market. Not enough reward (profit) for the hassle. For all the millions sold, Netbooks haven't done much positive for the PC vendors - in fact, it seems to have hurt their bottom line pretty significantly for companies like Dell, cannibalizing their profits of other models pretty hard. Nokia, for all it's market share, has seen it's revenue take a pounding. We are lucky that Apple doesn't focus on market share and instead focuses on the true measure that counts: revenue!

Here's the bottom line: Apple doesn't need Verizon

Some people want an iPhone on Verizon. Verizon (now) want's the iPhone. But looking at Apple's balance sheet, they are doing just fine with their current strategy.

Indeed, by keeping with AT&T, they can remain in the drivers seat, asking for features or accommodations that they wouldn't be able to get if they had no leverage like an exclusive agreement to use. If every carrier had the iPhone and Apple wanted to implement something like visual voicemail how would they be able to get the carriers to do it? Historically carriers haven't exactly been known for innovation - or if they do add a feature like visual voicemail it typically comes with a fee (hello Verizon)

So no, I'm pretty happy with the way things are, thank you. Despite your argument, the real innovation happened BECAUSE of the iPhone exclusivity. The iPhone currently exists because of Apple's original exclusive agreement with AT&T - and AT&T gets FAR too little credit for making a MAJOR break with how business was done in the US cellular market. If you don't like AT&T, then get on other companies to suck less then the iPhone (or radical thought, pass Apple).

But inane comments like "the iPhone should be legislated on every carrier" are just nuts. If a carrier want's the phone, they should have to pay for it, not just get it handed to them. Want to talk about stifling innovation - what if it was mandated that handsets had to be on all carriers? Would there be near this excitement over the Droid? Would people even care? Then you would have the equally inane whiners carrying on about Apple's "monopoly" (just like with the iPod)

Really? AT&T can and is upgrading their network.

Verizon is finding out it's much harder to duplicate the iPhone (three lackluster tries so far, still counting!)

Ever hear the saying "I may be fat but your stupid and I can diet?" Verizon has a significant problem right now. There is no reason why AT&T can't build out their network and by all accounts they are. These things don't happen over night - nothing about infrastructure moves quickly. Verizon has been laying fibre for five years in my area, and I'm still at least a year out from even being offered FIOS - which now is less appealing as they have changed their pricing to make it more expensive then the incumbent cable co


Someone is a tad defensive...


I dunno, sounds like it sucks to be you in NYC. Life is just fine where I am and your crappy experience in no way diminishes my awesome experience. Rant all you want, my iPhone works just fine (and not just where I live, in large parts of the rest of the country where I have been).

I'm glad there are people who want to live in big cities like NYC or densely populated areas like the Bay Area - and hopefully they stay there


Thank you

You shouldn't try to counter perceived myths with your own myths.

My former Verizon phone that I retired a few months ago was over 4 years old and had features that were absent on the iPhone until this: MMS, video recording, tethering (though via a cable), and support for several Bluetooth profiles beyond just the hands-free profiles that the iPhone supports.

Most of those missing Verizon phone features are things that only a handful of users are going to use such as disabled Bluetooth profiles. Or even wifi that you mentioned.


Nonsense. The Motorola Razr had massive sales for years but was a really terrible phone. It was the fashionable cell phone to have. Just like the iPhone has become (except being a better phone the Razr ever was). The iPhone is the "must have" cell phone du jour.


Please, it doesn't matter if AT&T builds out its network. There isn't going to be some mass exodus from Verizon in such an event as you're trying to imply. The smart phone market is a small segment of the cell phone market. There are plenty of people that still just want a phone and being able to browse the internet while sitting on the toilet at Starbucks isn't going to matter to them.

Wow...just wow. Um, I hope you enjoy the holiday break from 1st grade. Hope Santa brings you plenty of fun toys to play with.

My numbers come directly from the carriers' websites. AT&T doesn't even advertise their network to get to your supposed speed.

You are also comparing average speed with max speed.

There is nothing wrong with Apple's balance sheet --- it's the expectations of the Apple investors that is the BIG problem. Apple investors (and Wall Street analysts) expects Apple to go with Verizon in the next round.


It is a comparative exercise --- as long as Verizon sucks less than AT&T, Verizon will continue to be the "king" of the networks. And it isn't that hard because Verizon is already ahead right now, and staying ahead ain't all that difficult.

Verizon doesn't need a real iphone killer, period. AT&T is barely beating Verizon in retail net adds right now with the iphone --- buying market share by lowering margins. I don't know how Apple fans (who like to talk about Apple's fantastic profit margins with a single digit PC market share) would ignore the fact that Verizon wants to keep high margins.

The first half of your post is completely irrelevant to the point that was being made. Why Apple made a special iPhone for China doesn't matter. The point is that they were willing to make a special version of the iPhone, and it apparently didn't cause a devastating splintering of their manufacturing capacity. So people's notion that doing that would somehow break the economy of scale in manufacturing are incorrect.

The last part of your post claims that by having an iPhone on Verizon would somehow make the iPhone a commodity and seriously eat into Apple's profit margin. Please explain that leap of logic. Obviously, Apple isn't going to give away the iPhone for free if they make a Verizon phone. The two companies would need to come to a business agreement. But that then leads back to the only barrier being that Apple and Verizon need to agree to do it. There are no significant technical design, manufacturing, or stock management barriers that would prevent it from happening. Apple and Verizon would only need to come to an agreement. They may or may not be able to agree on a price...thus the BARRIER! (So basically, even though the last bit of you post was meant to contradict mine, it in fact supports it...thanks! )

People repeatedly ask for this, and I've never once seen a solid answer to this question.

Perhaps further down the thread.....

Replying to my own post may be seen to be in bad form, but I had to note that, yet again, there has been no data-based response from anyone on this issue.

Don't know why this information should me any more or less confidential than say, number of subscribers.

Hasn't most of the developed world already abandoned CDMA technology some time ago?

I know it's been dropped here years back. The network was just switched off, after a transition period, on a particular date that was widely publicised and things have never been better. At the same time, before that even happened, everyone could tell that handset makers lost interest in CDMA tech as any available CDMA phones were decidely old-tech. (The Droid clearly breaks the rule)

It would seem to defeat all of their usual logic for Apple to make a special handset to satisfy one, or a small number, of what might be called redundant networks.

There arent too many names I can use that will make the context understand on this forum.



Most dont use it, but its far from being completely abandoned. Many smaller, poorer countries will be using it for a long time now that its invested. Even Verizon and S. Korea while having either LTE or 3GSM, respectively, will also maintain their CDMA network for a very long time. Its paid for, low cost and works very well. I cant say that about GSMs audio codec.

There will be a lot CDMA-based phones in the future. Especially when you consider that Verizon and Sprint make up about 150M subscribers in a market that now wants consumer friendly smartphones. The Droid for Europe is the Milestone and of course is GSM/3GSM.

How come nobody talks about the fact that you can't do voice and data at the same time on the Verizon network? That's huge for the way I use the phone. Having had a 1st gen iPhone that was always a problem to be talking to somebody and not being able to answer a question on the net or send an email or picture etc.

I also like to stream pandora through my car stereo when driving. With verizon or edge you can't do that and be able to get phone calls. That's pure fail in my mind.


Sheldon

Its really comical that VZW has done more to get their network ready for the iPhone than ATT ever did and is only doing now 2 1/2 yrs later, and that's without a guarantee they'll get it. You guys keep forgetting that the ads attacking the iPhone are made by Motorola and not VZW. The ads attacking ATTs 3G is made by VZW. VZWs ads are aimed at people thinking about leaving VZW for ATT just to get the iPhone. I know several people that have and are sorry they did. You gotta give VZW some credit, they've softened their stance in restricting and/or turning off features on a phone. No the DROID is not a iPhone killer (I really hate that term) but its still a very good device.

Dude do you live in a cave? Both ATT and Apple have commercials about VZW phones not being able to go online during a phone. You can text and chat during one but no internet. There I spoke about it. Happy?

Where the hell, in the apple ads, do they mention about "vzw" phones?
Yeah, maybe AT&T ads.. But not on Apple.
Where do you live?

Well if the droid ads are targeting the iPhone, and Verizon isn't "paying" for it, and it's logos are on there, than why doesn't Verizon do anything about? Because it's totally making Verizon look bad.

And Talk & Text is 100% perfect for you, but you also gotta think about everyone else. If you want up to date technology at the moment, talking & browsing is a piece of art work. Now if everything was flipped around, & Verizon had talk & browse, and AT&T didn't, I would probably see you complaining about it.
BTW: we all aren't going anti-Verizon here, we're just speaking the truth, and what people want.

Its an overstatement to call it an expectation. An educated guess at best. The last analyst to make a prediction said they believed there was a 70% chance Apple would go to Verizon.

The analysts know that Apple has had some trouble keeping up with demand for the iPhone. As long as iPhone sales continue to increase Wall Street has nothing to complain about.


Back in January 2009, AT&T had 77 million subscribers - Verizon 72 million. Today AT&T has 81.6 million with no major acquisitions, Verizon has 89 million after acquiring 14 million. Verizon did not gain this lead through competition.

You continue to over play the argument that AT&T pays a high cost for iPhone subsidy, over the life of an iPhone contract AT&T will make back four to five times that subsidy.

Verizon isn't analogous to Apple, Verizon doesn't actually make anything. They provide wireless service.

Because cell phones are a disposible item --- people replace them every 18 months. It cost the handset manufacturers tens of dollars to buy these chipsets, not the billions of dollars that Verizon has to spend on building the network.

The problem is that the "expectation" of the growth rate envisioned by these apple bulls must have Verizon's participation in it. You double your sales every year --- so what, you are still screwed if investors expect you to triple your sales.

As I said specifically --- AT&T is buying market share at the expense of lower profit margin. Verizon is buying market share (by buying Alltel) --- at the cheap --- extracts billions of dollars in cost savings and profit margins stay high. It is a relative comparison --- Verizon can make the same kind of money, without relying on the iphone. And that makes AT&T's iphone subsidy very expensive.

You people keep on saying that Verizon dictating how their cell phones works/cripples --- well, that means that they do sell things. You can view Motorola as some unknown taiwanese ODM manufacturer making a Droid phone for Verizon.

Who's expecting Apple to triple sales?


That's just your pro-Verizon anti-AT&T spin you like to put on everything. It doesn't matter what VZW is doing. In the long run if you can have a four to five time revenue increase from an expense, then the investment is worth the expense


I said Verizon doesn't make anything (neither does AT&T). Motorola made the Droid, VZW just sells it.

Tripling sales is just an illustration, but my point stands.

Of course it matters what your competitor is doing.

You people thinks that VZW dictates every single function in every single cell phone that they sell. So VZW sets the price that they want to pay wholesale, dictates what functions each phone has --- then for all intents and purposes, they make the cell phones. And European carriers like Vodafone and 3 have their own branded cell phones --- which they contracted the manufacturing to some taiwanese firms.

How "much" has Verizon done to get their network ready for the iPhone?

How "much" did AT&T ever do "and is only doing now?"

Can you quantify any of this, or are you talking out of your butt?

Do you think any of this might be related the fact that Verizon has the benefit of 20-20 hindsight and now knows their network wouldn't be ready to handle the massive data increase and they would have been in exactly the same boat as AT&T had they been the exclusive iPhone carrier?

I can understand ATT being caught by surprise at the popularity of the iPhone. Someone didn't do their homework. Thank god they don't build bridges or airplanes because it wouldn't be calls they'd be dropping it'd be people. But they aren't totally to blame since Apple didn't let them see the iPhone until a month before they started selling it. Everybody claims that VZW turned down the iPhone. That's not exactly true. VZW wouldn't agree with Aplle's demands and vice versa. That decision hasn't really hurt them much now has it? They're doing quite well last I checked. Att is rolling out HSPA (3G+) while VZW is getting ready to open up boston and seattle with LTE and 30 or so markets in 2010. So yes we do know how much each company is doing.

Some may do this, but hardly everyone.

We are also talking about the iphone crowd who replaces their iphones every 12 months whenever Apple releases a new iphone model.

Apple is going to sell a 4th gen HSPA 14 mbps iphone next year and then a LTE iphone next next year --- you are going to buy both anyway. Who the hell cares if that CDMA is going to be phased out in x years when you are going to buy a CDMA iphone next July and then a LTE iphone next next July.

I think you may looking at things incorrectly as its only the original iPhone that didnt have the same contractual update penalty as the later iPhones. I certainly have bought a new iPhone each year, but I also buy a new car, new computers and other things* each year, too, but Im sure Im far from the typical customers. The only people I know who gets a new iPhone each year is my brother who gets my previous years model each year, everyone else I know with iPhones (which is a lot) are mostly still on the 3G due to contractual agreements.


* I like to update my girlfriends to newer, younger models even sooner than that but thats not for this forum.

The "iPhone crowd" is now tens of millions of people. The early adopters are probably the ones who must have each new model when it comes out, but that's a relative few. The vast majority just want an iPhone to use, they aren't trying to impress their friends.

Apple HAS to release either a new phone or an update yearly..i cant even begin to tell you how many people upgrade their phones yearly(to 18 months) its just the way cellphone cycles have become(with exception to the iphone) They grow tired and want more,an update, something new. The iphone DOES have a longer attention span to it but once apple brings out that new one it has people drooling and longing for it and makes a good amount of you want to..no..HAVEto upgrade.

Im hopeful for a dual mode phone with GSM/CDMA until VZW rolls out its LTE IN majority markets in mid 2011/2012 which in turn ATT will also slightly have its up then apple will have gone from there with a brand new iphone

The "penalty" isn't that bad --- compared to the Brits, who have to pay off the remaining parts of their 3G iphone contract, just to upgrade to a 3GS iphone.

Your comment about newer models of girlfriends --- is exactly the same as last week's Saturday Night Live Tiger Woods skit.


You didn't answer my arguments at all. Verizon ain't going to close their CDMA networks for years --- in the mean time, you are going to go through one or two generations of CDMA iphones. Why would Apple care if Verizon is going to close their CDMA networks in x years when the average consumer is going to buy and use the iphone in x months.

No, just that they were willing to work them out if necessary (or it was just baiting AT&T).

my god man
we peel the onion back and back

layer by layer

and still the plot thickens

i feel we are being played for the coming nano super phone

apples GNP is higher that over 70 percent of all nations

smoke screens abound when this happens \\\\]

verizon will merge and cross link its v-cast service to a new hyper super mega apple media market itunes


yes

Sure, Apple has to release new phones on a regular basis in order to remain competitive with the current technology, but that's a far cry from a claim that most or even a large plurality of owners upgrade every time Apple offers a new product. Most consumer electronics products are updated regularly for the same reason; that doesn't mean that everyone dumps their TVs, home theaters, computers, you name it -- every 12-18 months. I don't know anyone who does this.


Because I wasn't attempting to address that argument. I was simply answering the argument that everyone in the "iPhone crowd" upgrades every 12-18 months. I believe this "crowd" is now far too large for you to cover them with such a broad generalization.

I suppose you're going to be checking your posts from now on, as well?

But for most people with feature phones, when you sign a contract --- they give you a free phone. And you don't have to wait until the contract is over to buy a new handset with full subsidy --- carriers give you full subsidies 3-4 months before your contract is over.

In order to induce you to renew your contract for another two years. The phone is never free -- the price is simply spread out over the term of the contract. You can always keep your phone, and go month to month when the contract expires, which gives you the option of changing carriers whenever you wish. Lots of people do that.

You really didn't answer my questions. Te issue is bandwidth. If you're suggesting that Verizon has done more to increase their available wireless data bandwidth than AT&T the last 2 1/ years and is now better able to handle the same amount of data, I want some of what you're smoking.

i dont think verizon necessarily has a "fast network" but i have to wonder..i use a samsung omnia on their network and i download videos,surf, etc. with no problems its not like im waiting an eternity for a webpage, NOW... i know that there arent millions using the iphone on the network but i have to believe there IS a good percentage of people with a data capable phone using the network and it does run pretty good for its EVDO 3G network. As far as what their bandwith is...i guess we'll find out next year no?

If it does make the jump to VZW..you figure within a years 2010-2011 time they will have sold at least 500K-750K CDMA iphones(modest number) which isnt the millions on ATT so it shouldnt be SUCH a huge strain...right?

I mean you gotta remember we CANNOT talk and browse at the same time..so that is less strain on it