or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Rumor: Apple could announce end of AT&T iPhone exclusivity Wed.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumor: Apple could announce end of AT&T iPhone exclusivity Wed. - Page 3

post #81 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olternaut View Post

Is it true what they say about Verizon's network that you can't surf and talk at the same time?

Yes, this is a true statement. This has nothing to do with Verizon though. Rather, it's a CDMA issue. Voice calls on the CDMA network use the CDMA2000 circuit switched network (similar to GSM/EDGE 2G phone calling on GSM networks). EvDO, CDMA's version of 3G, does not handle voice communications (in fact, EvDO used to stand for Evolution, Data-Only until marketing got ahold of it. Now, it stands for Evolution, Data Optimized). As with GSM, when you are making calls on the 2G network, you cannot have simultaneous data. With GSM based 3G (UMTS/HSDPA/HSPA), both voice calls and data are routed on the same packet switched network. So, if you are using an AT&T 3G phone and start a call on the 3G network, you can talk and surf at the same time.

For many people, this is a severe limitation. For me, being both a Verizon and AT&T customer living in the Dallas/Fort Worth area (one of the most heavily congested areas for both networks), I actually prefer the way CDMA does it versus GSM. Since AT&T's network never seems to handoff 3G calls to 2G when I hit 3G dead zones, I deal with a TON of dropped calls, more so on my iPhone than with my BlackBerry Bold. With my Verizon Tour, I have far fewer drops (I have to loose signal completely to have a drop versus just loosing 3G). Even further, me working in IT, I know how critical QoS is. Part of the reason why there are so many dropped calls on AT&T is due to the fact that on the 3G network, calls are competing with data for bandwidth. With so many full-internet phones on their network (such as the iPhone and others that can fully access the internet without going through proxies), running out of bandwidth within your tower is a real possibility. When this happens, you drop as well. For me, having a separate network for voice and data is critical, even if it means that I can't surf while talking (unless I'm on a Wi-Fi network, which the majority of the time, I am).
post #82 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

So then when I get a call and it starts in 3G and ends up in GPRS, what does that mean? There have been many calls where my 3G indicator ended up as a small circle when I was done.

GPRS isn't Edge. Think of Edge as 2.5G. GPRS is 2G. For some reason, AT&T phones do not like to handoff from 3G to Edge. This is more of a problem in large metropolitan cities (such as the one that I live in) since the fallback from 3G is Edge. In smaller metropolitan areas or in areas where the Edge signal is weak, it will properly fall back from 3G to GPRS. Usually for me, the phone will go from 3G to Edge. About a second or two later, the call is dropped. On some cases, the phone will go all the way from 3G to GPRS (skipping Edge). When it does that, I can maintain my calls.
post #83 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

No.

The next-generation iPhone will be smaller than the current version.

No! Apple is keeping their size. If you're thinking and hoping for the iPhone Lite, than you're just listening to rumors. Apple built this phone to be bright and and a big widscreen iPod. And overall, it's an amazing and perfect size.
post #84 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeymantle View Post

with all of the rumored announcements, the show on Wednesday is going to last all day. and one more thing and one more thing, and oh yeah, one more thing.

Whatever happens, expect the stock to drop another $10-15... then buy AAPL like there's no tomorrow...

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #85 of 154
I find that the fact that Verizon supposedly has better coverage a lie. I live in area that Verizon shows having 3G coverage and when I was tried out Verizon I could not make a call from my home. I actually live on top of hill and we did not have any coverage.

So my son buys me for Christmas 2008 a 16G iPhone and I have solid and strong AT&T coverage where we are at. I was somewhat surprised how well the phone works here. They I found out why, my home is 1/2 mile away from the 3G AT&T cell tower that serves the freeway near us.

All carriers have dead spots but for Verizon can not even cover the area I am at only a mile and half from the freeway really is surprising. My phone has worked great and does what I want and AT&T has been fine at home and anyplace my wife and I have to go from 80 miles north of Seattle to Los Angeles.
post #86 of 154
The information in the article may be generally correct about exclusivity ending in the future, but I don't think we're going to get any specific information about cell phone carrier changes during this announcement. The tablet could have multiple carriers, but I think that'd be as far as it goes as far as discussing the matter.

I believe this simply because Apple has become hardcore about their focus and message. The news of iPhone going to Verizon significantly muddies the message, which is not ideal for a brand new product launch. They'll want all news coverage to be about the tablet and tablet alone.
post #87 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexhasfun28 View Post

No! Apple is keeping their size. If you're thinking and hoping for the iPhone Lite, than you're just listening to rumors. Apple built this phone to be bright and and a big widscreen iPod. And overall, it's an amazing and perfect size.

No, I am not thinking about iPhone Lite. I am thinking about a smaller next-generation iPhone.

My guess is that the overall mass of the device will not change. Simply that the height/width will slightly decrease and that the device might actually thicken slightly.

Again, this is mostly to accommodate peripheral components like an autofocus camera. These issues weren't a factor with a music-only iPod, but they are factors with a multi-function device such as the iPhone/iPod touch.
post #88 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

No, I am not thinking about iPhone Lite. I am thinking about a smaller next-generation iPhone.

My guess is that the overall mass of the device will not change. Simply that the height/width will slightly decrease and that the device might actually thicken slightly.

Again, this is mostly to accommodate peripheral components like an autofocus camera. These issues weren't a factor with a music-only iPod, but they are factors with a multi-function device such as the iPhone/iPod touch.

The current iPhone have autofocus camera and we all know Apple don't design their hardware to accommodate current peripherals. Apple usually wait for peripherals to fit their designs. We might never see a change in the current iPhone design (screen size and home button will not go away). The current screen size is perfect and no one complains about it. Why mess with perfect?

The same goes for the iPod Touch.
post #89 of 154
Seems like everybody has forgotten about the uproar that came when Apple first announced that the iPhone was coming to Cingular (which became AT&T). There were a lot of people that were really upset clear back in January 2007. It was because the AT&T network was crap already. Adding the mediocre radio in the iPhone, coupled with its heavy data load made the network that much worse.

It's funny how often we get long-term memory loss.
post #90 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

The current iPhone have autofocus camera and we all know Apple don't design their hardware to accommodate current peripherals. Apple usually wait for peripherals to fit their designs. We might never see a change in the current iPhone design (screen size and home button will not go away). The current screen size is perfect for touch.

The same goes for the iPod Touch.

Well, we'll see.

I am not an employee of Apple Inc. I have no idea what their future product line will contain. I'm just making wild-ass speculative guesses based on my own personal understanding of the current state of consumer electronics and the possibility of where the trends lie with a healthy respect for what is actually a conceivable shipping design.

That said, I believe that Apple would benefit in switching to a form factor that reduces length and width by giving up a bit of thickness for the iPhone/iPod touch, due to the severe restraints in component availability.
post #91 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

1)

2) I’d say the contract is likely up in the summer, after 3 full years on the market. Foolish for AT&T to make an agreement on a phone they never saw and have it start 6 months before it goes on sale.

I would obviously think this is ACTUALLY a 5 year deal, and that their 5 years are already up. Why? Because Apple and AT&T already signed a contract in 2005 and is now 2010. They signed it before there was an iPhone. But Apple keeps their word on a new product, even though it's not even built yet. That's why, in 2005 through 2007, they started working and building up any connections they needed to support the iPhone, which obviously would be a hassle to control by now. But other than that, I still don't believe that the Apple iPhone is going anywhere, anytime soon. Atleast not this year..
post #92 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by djdj View Post

Seems like everybody has forgotten about the uproar that came when Apple first announced that the iPhone was coming to Cingular (which became AT&T). There were a lot of people that were really upset clear back in January 2007. It was because the AT&T network was crap already. Adding the mediocre radio in the iPhone, coupled with its heavy data load made the network that much worse.

It's funny how often we get long-term memory loss.

It was already AT&T, not Cingular when the iPhone debuted 2.5 years ago.

Also, no one really predicted the wild popularity of the iPhone. The massive data demands of the device did not manifest until Apple released the 3G version a year later, which was exacerbated by the debut of the App Store.
post #93 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexhasfun28 View Post

I would obviously think this is ACTUALLY a 5 year deal, and that their 5 years are already up. Why? Because Apple and AT&T already signed a contract in 2005 and is now 2010. They signed it before there was an iPhone. But Apple keeps their word on a new product, even though it's not even built yet. That's why, in 2005 through 2007, they started working and building up any connections they needed to support the iPhone, which obviously would be a hassle to control by now. But other than that, I still don't believe that the Apple iPhone is going anywhere, anytime soon. Atleast not this year..

This makes no sense.

The contract would only cover the point when the device was offered to the public. Plus, various rumors indicate that the iPhone was offered to Verizon at least once.

There is no chance of the iPhone disappearing from the AT&T network. The only question is whether or not it would appear on the Verizon service. There is no logic to removing a carrier, especially a GSM carrier with huge subscription numbers. The logical advancement is to add additional network coverage and to increase points of distribution. Apple would gain nothing by 86-ing AT&T.
post #94 of 154
Try watching SlingBox at the airport while talking on the phone with your Verizon iPhone....

Suckers...
post #95 of 154
Damn, how much longer for my Verizon iPhone. Another 2 years until LTE is out? And having had followed and used 3G on both ATT and Verizon before the iPhone came out, I clearly remember ATT just rolling out 3G in little metropolitan patches when Vzw and Sprint pretty much had the bulk of the nation covered in EVDO. The original iPhone didn't even do 3G for that exact reason, it was EDGE only.

I really hope those dual-network Qualcomm chips pan out. I would love an unlocked world phone that worked on what currently is a more reliable network in the US. Sadly I don't think this will happen until VZW 4G.
post #96 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericblr View Post

good luck when you want to look something up on the web when your in a call...

Why do people say this? Whenever our phones drop from 3G to Edge, you cannot go online while on a call. Maybe not everyone experiences this, but we do.
post #97 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

Let the carriers compete!!


This whole thing where if you want the iPhone in the U.S you have to put up with just one carrier is wrong.

Phones are phones. As long as it works on a carriers network and meets the requirements of the carrier, it should be allowed to work.

It's in Apple's best interest to sell as many units as possible, to as many carriers as possible that is worth doing.

It's in the consumers interest to let the carriers compete on being carriers, not on what phones they have.

With competition we get lower prices and better quality, not this $100 a month rip-off we are experiencing now.


I couldn't agree more!! The huge response in other countries in the days after more carriers have been added to sell is a sign that those sad, sad exclusivity deals have been great for the carrier, but harmed Apple sales and consumers. I'm not exactly in the US, but I for one will be super happy when you guys can get an iPhone from any place you like (apple stores, telcos, best buy, the supermarket or wherever) and buy it whatever format you like (subsidised contract or outright and unlocked).
post #98 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by tezgno View Post

AT&T uses the world standard for 3G (UMTS/HSDPA with some HSPA showing up) that operate on the 850, 1900, and 2100MHz frequency bands (mostly 850 and 2100 from what I have seen). T-Mobile, on the other hand, runs on an exclusive and proprietary 1700MHz band.

That's not quite correct. The "world standard" for UMTS/HSDPA would be 1900/2100 MHz (paired spectrum, that means 1900 MHz upstream/ 2100 MHz downstream) which is used pretty much everywhere in the world, except for North (and partly South) America. So already AT&Ts frequencies 1900 (not paired with 2100 MHz!) and 850 MHz are somewhat special, while T-Mobile's 1700/2100 MHz pair (again, upstream/downstream) was indeed quite exclusive until recently.
post #99 of 154
"We don't remember hearing about AT&T's 'horrible network' before the iPhone--do you?"

Of course we didn't hear about AT&T's horrible network before the iPhone, they were still calling themselves Cingular even after the '04 merger, right up until '07. We heard about Cingular's horrible network before the iPhone!
post #100 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucep View Post

ATT IS DOING THEIR BEST AT LAYING WIRE
their problem is that they kept quiet about the data hogs slowing their already poor net works

ATT should have sold less phones
or merged their wired systems with other carriers and shared the load

If I remember correctly, AT&T bought a wireless network (Cingular) to be able to stay into the telephone business, because income from landlines was diminishing rapidly.

To attract customers for a network with almost no coverage (because Cingular was relatively new to the game too), they had to have a very special phone.

This made it possible for Apple to negotiate the very unique deal they did. A phone company that dictated the terms instead of the other way around. It also resulted in unique features (like visual voice mail) and incredible low prices for data in the US.

Apple didn't get a foot in the door with other mobile phone company's because they didn't need Apple, and were extorting customers just fine themselves.
I think several company's had a good laugh at Apples proposals.

Of course AT&T didn't believe the iPhone would be such a big hit, even Apple was surprised. But it made AT&T a big player in mobile and Apple a big player in mobile phones.
post #101 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by tezgno View Post

Yes, this is a true statement. This has nothing to do with Verizon though. Rather, it's a CDMA issue. Voice calls on the CDMA network use the CDMA2000 circuit switched network (similar to GSM/EDGE 2G phone calling on GSM networks). EvDO, CDMA's version of 3G, does not handle voice communications (in fact, EvDO used to stand for Evolution, Data-Only until marketing got ahold of it. Now, it stands for Evolution, Data Optimized). As with GSM, when you are making calls on the 2G network, you cannot have simultaneous data. With GSM based 3G (UMTS/HSDPA/HSPA), both voice calls and data are routed on the same packet switched network. So, if you are using an AT&T 3G phone and start a call on the 3G network, you can talk and surf at the same time.

For many people, this is a severe limitation. For me, being both a Verizon and AT&T customer living in the Dallas/Fort Worth area (one of the most heavily congested areas for both networks), I actually prefer the way CDMA does it versus GSM. Since AT&T's network never seems to handoff 3G calls to 2G when I hit 3G dead zones, I deal with a TON of dropped calls, more so on my iPhone than with my BlackBerry Bold. With my Verizon Tour, I have far fewer drops (I have to loose signal completely to have a drop versus just loosing 3G). Even further, me working in IT, I know how critical QoS is. Part of the reason why there are so many dropped calls on AT&T is due to the fact that on the 3G network, calls are competing with data for bandwidth. With so many full-internet phones on their network (such as the iPhone and others that can fully access the internet without going through proxies), running out of bandwidth within your tower is a real possibility. When this happens, you drop as well. For me, having a separate network for voice and data is critical, even if it means that I can't surf while talking (unless I'm on a Wi-Fi network, which the majority of the time, I am).

I have a BB Tour on VerizonWireless also. Call stability is excellent but as you say, you can't talk and tether at the same time. At least it gives you an option of taking an incoming call or not so you can choose whether you will disconnect or not.

My understanding, however, is there is a newer version of CDMA that will allow simultaneous voice and data but VerizonWireless hasn't adopted it. Don't blame them, though, with LTE coming soon.
post #102 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Ok... Can I get my iPhone officially unlocked now?!

Like mine? Sure you can. Move to Finland, get Sonera, and work for the State Department. Pretty easy.
post #103 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by tezgno View Post

Even further, me working in IT, I know how critical QoS is. Part of the reason why there are so many dropped calls on AT&T is due to the fact that on the 3G network, calls are competing with data for bandwidth. With so many full-internet phones on their network (such as the iPhone and others that can fully access the internet without going through proxies), running out of bandwidth within your tower is a real possibility. When this happens, you drop as well. For me, having a separate network for voice and data is critical, even if it means that I can't surf while talking (unless I'm on a Wi-Fi network, which the majority of the time, I am).

Good points but the new IN infrastructure networks can use QoS to route calls around congested cells. They can look at a particular cell and its BTS. If it is saturated, they can route calls via the BSC to another BSC and around the congestion.
post #104 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I believe you have that incorrect. I recall that a 3GSM connection can complete an inter-technology handoffs to GSM. If its a GSM call then it has no ability to handoff to 3GSM, thus requiring disco/reconnect to get on 3GSM. I dont think GSM has the dual-mode inherent to make the it possible, but 3GSM does. At least, that is how I remember it.

1000000% correct. 3G can hand off to GSM but no vice versa. I experience this daily in my commute into the office. If I start a call via 3G, I hit one spot in Helsinki where there is marginal 3G coverage and the phone switches over without incident. I have to hang up before it will reacquire the 3G network.
post #105 of 154
Somebody please give me explanation of How the iPhone user experience would be better on Verizon?

As if you were pitching this to Steve, I don't want to hear more coverage more speed as neither is true, or translates into something the user experiences.

All I see on Verizon is slower 3G, No rollover minutes, and no Data while on a call. Sorry but every single phone call I make is while using Data. Every one.

Anyone? Please?
post #106 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson1 View Post

I have a BB Tour on VerizonWireless also. Call stability is excellent but as you say, you can't talk and tether at the same time. At least it gives you an option of taking an incoming call or not so you can choose whether you will disconnect or not.

My understanding, however, is there is a newer version of CDMA that will allow simultaneous voice and data but VerizonWireless hasn't adopted it. Don't blame them, though, with LTE coming soon.

Don't blame them for saving their money rather than spending it on consumer satisfaction? No, I don't think so.
post #107 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psych_guy View Post

Actually, yes it does take more than year to put a new tower down, if at all. Sometimes the process can take up to 5 years and beyond. And that's not because the carriers want it that way, believe me. If they could, they would put one up the day after they apply.

Cities and counties DO NOT LIKE new towers. Swapping out antenna and equipment on existing towers isn't such a hassle, but to increase coverage in areas where there is none presently is a major hassle.

I, for one, would love to see AT&T's exclusivity end. If, for any reason, just to get all the whiners off the network and free up some bandwidth.

Wrong, or at least wrong where you are. I was part of the buildout for Mannesmann (now Vodafone) in Germany, E-Plus in Germany, and O2 in Germany, as well as Vodafone in Cairo, Egypt. A tower or more accurately BTS (base station) can be put in a matter of minutes. It is all about location. Many, operators use existing structures, i.e. building rooftops, the sides of buildings, leasing space on towers, etc... You get the picture. You inference is simply incorrect. You are correct about swapping out equipment. That tends to be no problem at all.
post #108 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

No.

The next-generation iPhone will be smaller than the current version.

Wrong.

It will be the same basic dimensions. So will the one after that.

How clueless re: Apple are some of you? Do you not understand that they got it right with the iPhone, and are not going to change the most basic aspects of it until there is a reason to. There is no reason to, and never has been.
post #109 of 154
Quote:
T-Mobile 3G operates on a unique 1700MHz spectrum. The iPhone is currently compatible with UMTS/HSDPA 3G connections at the frequencies 850MHz, 1900MHz and 2100MHz. It would be necessary, therefore, for Apple to build a new hardware model that supports T-Mobile's 3G frequency.

Not necessarily. Some chipsets can handle the 1700 spectrum with a firmware change. I don't know if these are used in the iPhone.
post #110 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by spezi View Post

That's not quite correct. The "world standard" for UMTS/HSDPA would be 1900/2100 MHz (paired spectrum, that means 1900 MHz upstream/ 2100 MHz downstream) which is used pretty much everywhere in the world, except for North (and partly South) America. So already AT&Ts frequencies 1900 (not paired with 2100 MHz!) and 850 MHz are somewhat special, while T-Mobile's 1700/2100 MHz pair (again, upstream/downstream) was indeed quite exclusive until recently.

I was meaning more of their frequency choices... not necessarily the frequency paring. Most AT&T 3G phones are capable of paring to the standards used world wide. AT&T, itself, uses frequency paring that are not necessarily used everywhere else (like you said, the 850MHz range, which is used primary for it's distance and penetration).
post #111 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson1 View Post

My understanding, however, is there is a newer version of CDMA that will allow simultaneous voice and data but VerizonWireless hasn't adopted it. Don't blame them, though, with LTE coming soon.

Yes. Last year, the CDMA Development Group announced CDMA2000 1X Advanced, which is supposed to be available sometime this year. There are several improvements to the standard that will allow for most CDMA networks to quadruple their capacity. One of the other enhancements that was announced was SVDO (Simultaneous 1X Voice and EvDO). This would allow for both voice and data to take place at the same time.

It is my understanding that the CDMA2000 1X Advance standard is an upgrade to CDMA2000 networks and does not necessarily require device upgrades to benefit. Essentially, companies like Verizon could perform the upgrade as well as push out device updates that would enable this functionality. This is based upon the fact that CDMA2000 1X Advanced does not give any performance gains (such as faster EvDO, etc), but, rather, it is a rather simple channel card infrastructure change to enable the features. The only thing, though, is that these changes are not expected to be available until the second half of 2010. With Verizon going LTE, as you said, it may not be worth their time and interest.
post #112 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

Somebody please give me explanation of How the iPhone user experience would be better on Verizon?

As if you were pitching this to Steve, I don't want to hear more coverage more speed as neither is true, or translates into something the user experiences.

All I see on Verizon is slower 3G, No rollover minutes, and no Data while on a call. Sorry but every single phone call I make is while using Data. Every one.

Anyone? Please?

I can make it simple for you. It depends on where you live and where you go. If I can't make a phone call what good is it? No one network is good for everyone. People should be able to choose the network that is best for them.

Exclusive contracts are bad for consumers as a concept. The only people who are in favor of them are AT&T stockholders.
post #113 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Do you remember saying this?

Yes. But I don't live in Lexington, although I do visit frequently.

And now that my wife has Verizon, I realize that I don't *have* to settle for edge service 90% of the time.

Where ATT offers 3g service, its been good IME. But not everyone lives in a major metropolitan area. Franakly I'm astounded at the Verizon service. My wife rarely *doesn't* have 3g service. It may technically be slower service (compared to ATT 3g service) but it doesn't feel slower. While I prefer my iPhone to the Droid Eris (that's a discussion for a different day) I envy her service.

I'm sorry but now having experienced Verizon, I can tell you that they have a better network.
post #114 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

Wrong, or at least wrong where you are. I was part of the buildout for Mannesmann (now Vodafone) in Germany, E-Plus in Germany, and O2 in Germany, as well as Vodafone in Cairo, Egypt. A tower or more accurately BTS (base station) can be put in a matter of minutes. It is all about location. Many, operators use existing structures, i.e. building rooftops, the sides of buildings, leasing space on towers, etc... You get the picture. You inference is simply incorrect. You are correct about swapping out equipment. That tends to be no problem at all.

you should come to the USA

in NYC buildings love cell phone towers. especially residential apartment buildings. they pay a lot of rent that reduces people's monthly bills.

in the burbs the idiots complain about no coverage but every time they try to put up a tower the same idiots complain it would ruin the view. so a lot of companies make their towers look like fake trees or put them on church steeples. the same idiots complain that it doesn't blend in. if they still don't get their way they sue.
post #115 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by hellokitty View Post

"HotHardware alleges, without any evidence to support the claim, that the iPhone doesn't handle the switch from 3G to EDGE connections well, and frequently drops calls when 3G access is lost."

No phone can switch a call between 3G and EDGE. If a call starts on 3G, in must end on 3G. Or, alternatively, end when 3G coverage vanishes. AT&T's 3G coverage gaps and insufficient network capacity are to blame.

There must be a problem with the US system then. Here in the UK, my phone frequently continues calls started in 3G areas on EDGE or GPRS.
post #116 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by djdj View Post

Seems like everybody has forgotten about the uproar that came when Apple first announced that the iPhone was coming to Cingular (which became AT&T). There were a lot of people that were really upset clear back in January 2007. It was because the AT&T network was crap already. Adding the mediocre radio in the iPhone, coupled with its heavy data load made the network that much worse.

It's funny how often we get long-term memory loss.

No. We have examined the comments here and network wasn't much of a particular issue with AT&T or anybody else at the time. Everybody was upset with dropped calls and poor connections on all the services.

In fact, prior to Apple announcing that they were going to get into the wireless area, Jobs had made it quite evident that this was one of his issues with cellular phones was that they didn't work, i.e., making phone calls.

The uproar, if any, (and it typically came from the same trollers we have here today) at the time of the announcement was the perceived prices that AT&T (because of the high data prices carrier were charging at the time) was going to charge for data on the new iPhone and this turned out to be a non-issue at launch.

And AH, keep in mind that it was only AT&T who came to the table and agreed to Job's condition to upgrade the network and lower data prices.

As for "adding a crap radio," what the hell is that about? AH
post #117 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

you should come to the USA

in NYC buildings love cell phone towers. especially residential apartment buildings. they pay a lot of rent that reduces people's monthly bills.

in the burbs the idiots complain about no coverage but every time they try to put up a tower the same idiots complain it would ruin the view. so a lot of companies make their towers look like fake trees or put them on church steeples. the same idiots complain that it doesn't blend in. if they still don't get their way they sue.

Not only that, but many European countries had such poor landline services relative to the US and in particular Canada, that wireless became the law. Dictated by their governments, paid for by the taxpayer and no regional bylaws to prevent it. And unlike North America, a single communication standard, i.e., GSM was basically adopted/enforced/became thenorm.

Some countries, like I have just seen on a recent trip to China, even have cell towers not only on the top of buildings but on street corners, about 10-12 feet off the ground.

And if anybody thinks it is that easy or why can't my cell phone work in a building, here is some good reading: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...iD9wvAK4GInkBA
post #118 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

you should come to the USA

in NYC buildings love cell phone towers. especially residential apartment buildings. they pay a lot of rent that reduces people's monthly bills.

in the burbs the idiots complain about no coverage but every time they try to put up a tower the same idiots complain it would ruin the view. so a lot of companies make their towers look like fake trees or put them on church steeples. the same idiots complain that it doesn't blend in. if they still don't get their way they sue.

I hear you dude. People do not realize that you need the BTS's to have coverage. 3G antennas do not have to be as high as normal GSM towers, but you still need the antennas. I did see some pretty cool designs to hide them though. I was in Kuwait and Egypt and the operators disguised the towers as really tall palm trees.
post #119 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

I hear you dude. People do not realize that you need the BTS's to have coverage. 3G antennas do not have to be as high as normal GSM towers, but you still need the antennas. I did see some pretty cool designs to hide them though. I was in Kuwait and Egypt and the operators disguised the towers as really tall palm trees.

http://www.baristanet.com/cell%20tower.jpg (not hidden)
http://www.macguys.com/wp-content/up...mCellTower.jpg (palm tree)
http://reynosawatch.org/minstrel/wp-...08/11/fake.jpg (windmill)
http://www.unplggd.com/uimages/unplg...08_sz_palm.jpg (palm tree)
http://blog.silive.com/latest_news/2...large_cell.jpg (I don’t know what is going on)
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #120 of 154
Quote:
"Inside of AT&T, we are hearing that the iPhone is causing more trouble than ever before," the report said. "On some level, having the iPhone is hurting AT&T's image. Because they are the only company to carry it, and it's such a data hog, it's largely to blame for AT&T's network troubles. We don't remember hearing about AT&T's 'horrible network' before the iPhone--do you?"

That's a particularly stupid statement, roughly akin to observing that that we don't remember hearing about potholes in the road before people started driving down it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Rumor: Apple could announce end of AT&T iPhone exclusivity Wed.