or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple stands by AT&T as an iPhone partner
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple stands by AT&T as an iPhone partner

post #1 of 109
Thread Starter 
Despite a howl of complaints and even lawsuits filed by some disgruntled iPhone users, Apple reiterated that it supports AT&T as a great mobile partner, despite rumored moves to expand its iPhone partnerships in the U.S.

During Monday's quarterly earnings conference call, Apple Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook also downplayed assumptions that Apple would inevitably embrace a multi-carrier business strategy in all countries where the iPhone is available. He said so far Apple has selected countries where the company believes a multi-carrier system would inevitably happen anyhow.

"I don't want to imply that would happen in every market or that we are headed that way in every market," Cook said.

Earlier in the call, analyst Gene Munster with Piper Jaffray inquired about the bad press AT&T has received as of late. "Can you remind us the benefits of sticking with a single carrier in the U.S.?" he asked.

In response, Cook avoided any criticism of its U.S. partner.

"First of all, AT&T is a great partner," Cook said. "We've been working with them since well before we announced the first iPhone. It's important to note they have more mobile broadband usage than any carrier in the world."

"We think iPhone customers are having a great experience from the research we've done," Cook added.

"AT&T has acknowledged they're having a few issues in a few cities and they're making plans to address these.Â*We've reviewed these plans and we're confident they'll make significant progress towards fixing them."

AT&T's exclusive mobile partnership with Apple is expected to end this year, with many observers expecting the company to begin working with Verizon Wireless and/or perhaps T-Mobile, either of which would require new iPhone hardware designed for those company's mobile networks.

AT&T itself has regularly announced mobile infrastructure progress and future plans to improve and expand its mobile network in the US in order to better support new and existing iPhone users. It also plans to eventually roll out its 3G MicroCell appliance which will allow customers to set up their own local 3G hotspots by using their existing Internet access, and has met competitive price cuts set by rivals.
post #2 of 109
So the rumours aren't true?
A reputation is not built upon the restful domain of one's comfort zone; it is made out of stalwart exposition of your core beliefs, for all challenges to disprove them as irrelevant hubris.- Berp...
Reply
A reputation is not built upon the restful domain of one's comfort zone; it is made out of stalwart exposition of your core beliefs, for all challenges to disprove them as irrelevant hubris.- Berp...
Reply
post #3 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Underhill View Post

So the rumours aren't true?

If you are referring to the rumor that Apple will add other US carriers for the iPhone, it is indeterminate from this quote. I don't think anyone expected Apple to stop selling iPhones through AT&T, and this quote seems to verify that.
post #4 of 109
Quote:
Can you remind us the benefits of sticking with a single carrier in the US?


Tim Cook didn't have a answer, but I'm sure millions of people sick and tired of AT&T's bullsh*t sure would like to have the choice of another major carrier.


Oh Jesus! I hope this new iPad thingy and the other roll-outs this years isn't going to require more AT&T contracts.

*begin screaming*
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #5 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

Tim Cook didn't have a answer, but I'm sure millions of people sick and tired of AT&T's bullsh*t sure would like to have the choice of another major carrier.


Oh Jesus! I hope this new iPad thingy and the other roll-outs this years isn't going to require more AT&T contracts.

*begin screaming*


millions? you are way off. do you know Verizon sucks in the area I live?
post #6 of 109
Why are t-mobile and verizon the only ones in the running?

Verizon would never work with an apple device because of the restriction they would want or the control they want with the device. For example, verizon won't let apple make billions of dollars on their itunes app store and not get a cut of it. At&t gets no money of app revenue, verizon would want some.

Has anyone ever talked about t-mobiles internet service??? Everyone has something to say about at&t, do you really think t-mobile is any better, if anything, worse.

Sprint has nationwide coverage, their EVDO internet is very large, and they are the first company with 4G internet that is rolling out nationwide in less than 5 months, and is already in a lot of places currents.

I think Sprint needs to get looked at also.
post #7 of 109
Nice try of smoothing it over, Tim.

Just that fact that AT&T has to roll out a microcell system shows that their network is like a dinosaur with a full, shitty diaper dragging behind him.

Even Sprint is rolling out its 4G network and AT&T can't even finish 3G. If AT&T had any vision of the future, they would skip 4G and go to 5, but they don't have any vision which is why they're falling behind the other networks.

You don't have to listen to Tim Cook spout off about how great AT&T is. All you need to do is read blogs of people having actual problems from all over the United States. All TIm sees is a chart with numbers.
post #8 of 109
Tim Cook is going to say that right up until Apple's contract with AT&T ends. Then he might start saying something else. For all you know, positive promotion is part of the contract.

As for the tablet, required wireless contract = no sale.
post #9 of 109
"AT&T is a great (DINOSAUR) partner."

They invest in what infrastructure, dial-up 14.4k lines?

At least Verizon deploys FIBER TO THE HOME!

AT&T refuses to -- kind of like iPhone TETHERING! Yea, EVENTUALLY roll-out Microcells -- WHEN?

AT&T just cannot deliver, due to poor investments in infrastructure, despite their claims to the contrary. They are instead focused on stockholder dividends, apparently.
post #10 of 109
Good luck finding 4G chipsets now... AT&T can't put money into 4G to solve 3G problems. 5G is 5+ years away at best.

AT&T actually owns fiber. Verizon Wireless does not. Don't confuse Verizon and Verizon Wireless...
post #11 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

AT&T's exclusive mobile partnership with Apple is expected to end this year, with many observers expecting the company to begin working with Verizon Wireless and/or perhaps T-Mobile, either of which would require new iPhone hardware designed for those company's mobile networks.

T-Mobile is GSM, same as AT&T. Other than SIM-locking phones to one carrier or the other, I can't think of any "new iPhone hardware" that would need to be "designed for" T-Mobile's network.
post #12 of 109
The New York Post ran a story this morning saying the iPhone is coming to Verizon. The story is titled Apple Turn Over.

Which would be a great name for the up coming tablet by the way.
post #13 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post

"AT&T is a great (DINOSAUR) partner."

They invest in what infrastructure, dial-up 14.4k lines?

At least Verizon deploys FIBER TO THE HOME!

AT&T refuses to -- kind of like iPhone TETHERING! Yea, EVENTUALLY roll-out Microcells -- WHEN?

AT&T just cannot deliver, due to poor investments in infrastructure, despite their claims to the contrary. They are instead focused on stockholder dividends, apparently.

What you're saying isn't exactly true.

First of all, AT&T does provide fiber to the home in all new developments. They just provide it to the node in areas where it's too expensive to do otherwise.

Verizon has substantially cut its fiber expansion. Why, because it's too expensive. It wants about 45% of all the people where they've placed fiber to sign up before they continue to expand there. They've stated that themselves.

We also don't know if Verizon will spend the money to adopt the new data/voice specs that came out last year for CDMA.

It's not as cut and dry as you want to believe.
post #14 of 109
Verizon is the company, wireless is a division...

Yes Verizon as a company is MUCH more of an innovator than AT&T. I would sign-up for fiber to the home TODAY, if I could. Guess what, AT&T won't do it, even if you pay extra. Verizon does.

Why would I care who owns the fiber, I want the company that will install fiber to my home!


Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

Good luck finding 4G chipsets now... AT&T can't put money into 4G to solve 3G problems. 5G is 5+ years away at best.

AT&T actually owns fiber. Verizon Wireless does not. Don't confuse Verizon and Verizon Wireless...
post #15 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by danbirchall View Post

T-Mobile is GSM, same as AT&T. Other than SIM-locking phones to one carrier or the other, I can't think of any "new iPhone hardware" that would need to be "designed for" T-Mobile's network.

T-Mobile, as is widely known, uses the odd 1700 MHz freq for its 3G service. This is a freq that no one else uses. Apple would have to get a radio that has that frequency. Not that simple. They, like other manufacturers choose the parts they do for various reasons.

Besides, for people who complain about AT&T, T-Mobile is FAR worse. Almost no 2G coverage, and even less 3G.
post #16 of 109
I am surprised no one asked about Google!
post #17 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

I am surprised no one asked about Google!

They did.

The answer was that they cooperate on some things and compete on others. That's all you could expect to get out of Cooke.
post #18 of 109
They would need to add another band for T-Mobile, but that's fairly trivial.

It's NOT just GSM, by the way, it's UMTS which is a bit different:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univers...cations_System

Quote:
Originally Posted by danbirchall View Post

T-Mobile is GSM, same as AT&T. Other than SIM-locking phones to one carrier or the other, I can't think of any "new iPhone hardware" that would need to be "designed for" T-Mobile's network.
post #19 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

They did.

The answer was that they cooperate on some things and compete on others. That's all you could expect to get out of Cooke.

That was an expected answer
post #20 of 109
Well,

I have past experience with AT&T and as a result I WILL NOT buy an IPhone until I can get it on another carrier...Period...
post #21 of 109
One would think that the radios on existing iPhones could be firmware updateable to enable the extra frequency, but that would be too much forward thinking, huh?! :-(

THIS is what I hate about Apple planned obsolescence...


Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

T-Mobile, as is widely known, uses the odd 1700 MHz freq for its 3G service. This is a freq that no one else uses. Apple would have to get a radio that has that frequency. Not that simple. They, like other manufacturers choose the parts they do for various reasons.

Besides, for people who complain about AT&T, T-Mobile is FAR worse. Almost no 2G coverage, and even less 3G.
post #22 of 109
Pay no attention to the conference call! Rumors are that Apple will announce immediate multi-carrier availability of the iPhone on Wednesday. Rumor begins with "R" and that stands for Right!
post #23 of 109
Well all I know is that after being with Sprint for 4 years (and loved it) I just finally signed a 2 year contract with AT&T last week and got an iPhone. Last thing I want to hear on Wednesday is that Apple's Tablet will be available for only Verizon.

For simplicity sake alone I can't see why Apple would put two different products on two different networks. Especially a network like Verizon which is CDMA and not the world standard GSM.

At MOST the tablet might include a radio capable of both and be available for BOTH networks.

But I really don't want two different accounts with two different wireless carriers.
post #24 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

Nice try of smoothing it over, Tim.

Just that fact that AT&T has to roll out a microcell system shows that their network is like a dinosaur with a full, shitty diaper dragging behind him.

Even Sprint is rolling out its 4G network and AT&T can't even finish 3G. If AT&T had any vision of the future, they would skip 4G and go to 5, but they don't have any vision which is why they're falling behind the other networks.

You don't have to listen to Tim Cook spout off about how great AT&T is. All you need to do is read blogs of people having actual problems from all over the United States. All TIm sees is a chart with numbers.

Sprint also has microcells.

All of the wireless carriers will roll out 4G at the same time....as network equipment standards/prices become stable and as new 4G devices are announced. Don't be fooled by Sprint's "we are first at 4G" campaign. How many 4G phones can you buy today? I believe that by the end of 2010, there will be a total of 2 for you to choose from.

There are a few spots where usage is so high that the network requires expansion. This is exaggerated by a few local NY based Blogsites.
post #25 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post

Verizon is the company, wireless is a division...

Yes Verizon as a company is MUCH more of an innovator than AT&T. I would sign-up for fiber to the home TODAY, if I could. Guess what, AT&T won't do it, even if you pay extra. Verizon does.

Why would I care who owns the fiber, I want the company that will install fiber to my home!

Verizon Wireless is a company that is co-owned by Verizon Communications (55%) and Vodaphone (45%).
post #26 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post

They would need to add another band for T-Mobile, but that's fairly trivial.

It's NOT just GSM, by the way, it's UMTS which is a bit different:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univers...cations_System

How do you get that it's trivial?

It's not. They would have to get a completely different radio. The phones on T-Mobile, for the most part, and possibly all of them, don't work on the other frequencies needed for AT&T.

If Apple uses radios that have functionality they need, but not a 1700 band, why would they change if getting it would eliminate other bands, or other features? It wouldn't pay.

It's very likely there are enough people defecting from T-Mobile to AT&T for the iPhone that it wouldn't pay for them. T-Mobile isn't adding subscribers. No growth. Why do you think?

Poor coverage, and no iPhone.
post #27 of 109
Call AT&T and ask for fiber to your home, you will hit a brick wall, with no path forward.

New developments would generally not be calling in to request fiber to the home, obviously home developers line things up in advance.

Too expensive is a copout! If I offer to pay, there should be NO AT&T concern. In example, I can pay the electric company to have an overhead power line buried in my yard from the service node.

What Verizon is doing with fiber, AT&T REFUSES to do, even if you offer to pay extra. AT&T is the dinosaur.

Who cares about CDMA, it's likely dead, as you can use it very few places outside the US. I don't want a phone that's a brick when I leave the country!


Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

What you're saying isn't exactly true.

First of all, AT&T does provide fiber to the home in all new developments. They just provide it to the node in areas where it's too expensive to do otherwise.

Verizon has substantially cut its fiber expansion. Why, because it's too expensive. It wants about 45% of all the people where they've placed fiber to sign up before they continue to expand there. They've stated that themselves.

We also don't know if Verizon will spend the money to adopt the new data/voice specs that came out last year for CDMA.

It's not as cut and dry as you want to believe.
post #28 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexpectations View Post

Verizon Wireless is a company that is co-owned by Verizon Communications (55%) and Vodaphone (45%).

And to add, Verizon Wireless is not run as a subsidiary, it is run as it's own company.

AT&T Mobility is truly a subsidiary of AT&T and has access to it's parent company's resources.
post #29 of 109
There are PLENTY of phones out there today with multi-band radios...



Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

How do you get that it's trivial?

It's not. They would have to get a completely different radio. The phones on T-Mobile, for the most part, and possibly all of them, don't work on the other frequencies needed for AT&T.

If Apple uses radios that have functionality they need, but not a 1700 band, why would they change if getting it would eliminate other bands, or other features? It wouldn't pay.

It's very likely there are enough people defecting from T-Mobile to AT&T for the iPhone that it wouldn't pay for them. T-Mobile isn't adding subscribers. No growth. Why do you think?

Poor coverage, and no iPhone.
post #30 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post

One would think that the radios on existing iPhones could be firmware updateable to enable the extra frequency, but that would be too much forward thinking, huh?! :-(

THIS is what I hate about Apple planned obsolescence...

You can't add a new frequency band using firmware. This isn't AM of FM radio from a users standpoint. These are transmitters and receivers that use frequencies built into the parts. They can't be field modified with firmware.

It's a ridiculous statement talking about Apple's planned obsolescence.

What about all the other phones out there that don't do it either? Did you conveniently forget about them? How about the Nexus One? That can't use AT&T's 3G. What about HTC and Google's planned obsolescence?
post #31 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post

Call AT&T and ask for fiber to your home, you will hit a brick wall, with no path forward.

New developments would generally not be calling in to request fiber to the home, obviously home developers line things up in advance.

Too expensive is a copout! If I offer to pay, there should be NO AT&T concern. In example, I can pay the electric company to have an overhead power line buried in my yard from the service node.

What Verizon is doing with fiber, AT&T REFUSES to do, even if you offer to pay extra. AT&T is the dinosaur.

Who cares about CDMA, it's likely dead, as you can use it very few places outside the US. I don't want a phone that's a brick when I leave the country!

Same thing with Verizon.
post #32 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post

There are PLENTY of phones out there today with multi-band radios...

And there are more that are not. How many use 1700? Very few.
post #33 of 109
What's with the BS article titles lately? FIrst there was, "Inside the multitouch FingerWorks tech in Apple's tablet" which barely ever even mentioned FingerWorks and certainly wasn't inside anything. Now this "Apple defends AT&T, downplays talk of multi-carrier inevitability" where I can't seem to find where Apple "downplays talk of multi-carrier inevitability." Verizon has been kicking the crap out of AT&T's reputation and by association the iPhone, so it's not exactly the most shocking news in the world that Apple is going to defend their (currently exclusive U.S.) partner.
post #34 of 109
That still makes it fairly trivial to add a radio that does.

IT would have made more sense to have used a radio that had that band in the first place, with it just disabled in firmware -- nothing like planning for future possibilities...


Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

And there are more that are not. How many use 1700? Very few.
post #35 of 109
Not if you are in their FIOS service area.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Same thing with Verizon.
post #36 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post

"AT&T is a great (DINOSAUR) partner."

AT&T refuses to -- kind of like iPhone TETHERING! Yea, EVENTUALLY roll-out Microcells -- WHEN?

I believe the features that you are asking for are short in coming. You may have noticed that the carriers have dropped their prices. I'm expecting them to add data plans that would bring the aggregate plan for both the Iphone and the tablet to remain about the same cost as the old contracts with just an iphone. Just a thought, but I have a feeling that some of these carrier issues have much to do with the development and release of new products.

As an example the Iphone itself...

3g is widely accepted internationally, so Apple chose AT&T first. It's pretty much that simple in my opinion. The first market intended for the iphone was obviously corporate and they need to travel abroad with their devices. With VZ's network you can't do it as easily. (I've had an iphone for quite a while now so correct me if I'm mistaken).

I can't use VZ because of that fact. Even though I'm moving to a rural area with good VZ coverage and bad ATT coverage. I'm with att since my job takes me out of the country about 6 months out of the year. So yeah I'm hoping for micro-cells as well.

Sure there are other issues that Apple had with VZ ( app sales and profit charing, simultaneous data and voice etc) but mostly it was about overall quality of service and generally ATT does in fact (sort of) do it better for the target audience of the first iphone. Didn't the earliest Blackberries run on Tmoblie first as well?

Things have changed allot, so I'm sure you'll get you VZ iphone very soon. Just keep in mind that all carriers are con artists and thieves and anything they do is simply about customer perception and not actually doing anything better than anyone else, except only to find their niche.

Choose the one that has the features that you need, but dropped calls, slow data rates etc etc are going to plague any and all networks for at least the next five or ten years. Even wired SP's are struggling with demand and generally don't care to offer anything remarkable. Rather in all cases they generally want o sell you old tech at bloated prices.
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #37 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post

That still makes it fairly trivial to add a radio that does.

IT would have made more sense to have used a radio that had that band in the first place, with it just disabled in firmware -- nothing like planning for future possibilities...

Trivial for someone such as yourself who's obviously never been involved with designing electronics, and dealing with the difficulties and expense (yes, I have).
post #38 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post

Not if you are in their FIOS service area.

About 2% of the country is now in the FIOS area. WOW!!!
post #39 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post

One would think that the radios on existing iPhones could be firmware updateable to enable the extra frequency, but that would be too much forward thinking, huh?! :-(

THIS is what I hate about Apple planned obsolescence...


You really don't know what you are talking about.
post #40 of 109
I don't see anything here that says AT&T will or will not remain exclusive. The comments sounded very guarded and general and Apple likes to play things very close to the vest. Need I mind anyone how they played up the PowerPC pretty much up to the day they switched to intel.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple stands by AT&T as an iPhone partner