Tense Apple-AT&T iPhone partnership nearly ended multiple times - Page 4

Originally Posted by NormM

I suppose this is an illusion: Steve Jobs at Oscars.

Originally Posted by freddych

AT&T wants nothing for their customers. Seems like Apple's the only one on our side.

Originally Posted by coolcat


Uhm.....wow...where do I begin?? How bout this.....How the hell can Jobs consider dumping AT&T for Verizon "as far back as 2007", when the iPhone came OUT in 2007. They tried to go with Verizon in the first place, but that deal fell through, hence they went to AT&T, but they didn't think about dumping AT&T for Verizon. Jesus...get your facts straight noob!

Originally Posted by stonefree

If true, this would further confirm Apple's disinterest in reception. Maybe I could make calls in 3G mode if San Francisco if Apple had used a better radio.

Originally Posted by ChristophB

You lost me when you got the the fiber; fiber; optic; verizon can run much of it thru it's fios network, stuffs. Immediately beneath every cell tower is a cable. Backbone capacity isn't the issue with AT&T - it's quite beefy.

-Chris

Originally Posted by Marvin

They do rent on occasions though:





That might be resolved with Verizon switching to GSM:

http://www.gsmworld.com/newsroom/pre.../2010/5105.htm

GSM is a far more prevalent network format so it makes more sense for Verizon to go GSM so that the same iPhone can work on both networks.

Originally Posted by kotatsu

You guys in the US really are in a mess with this while AT&T aren't you. Here in the UK the iPhone is on 5 carriers now, with the previous exclusive carrier (O2) having lost their exclusivity some time ago now. I gather many other countries also have a choice of carriers with the iPhone, so what's gone wrong in the US? Why are you stuck with only one choice? Is this an uncommon situation or are most phones locked down like this in the US?

Originally Posted by TBell

How about this?

Originally Posted by mstone

If you were on trial in front of a jury, would you wear a suit? Would you prefer that your lawyer wore a suit to court as well or would having him show up in t-shirt and sandals be just fine?

Originally Posted by shadash

Jobs is an exception to many rules. One of them is dress. Otherwise you get Phil Schiller up there on stage with Jobs, dressed in his hip, casual clothes, looking about as comfortable as I imagine Randall Stephenson would next to Jobs, dressed similarly.

Originally Posted by LonerATO

For the last time Verizon is not switching to GSM, but is adding/moving to LTE. LTE is based on OFDMA and not GSM.

Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton

You know what happened to the person who took that photo? They disappeared. Rumor has it they are now chained up in a Foxconn factory making iPhone in China. Every morning, some guy in a mask wakes them up by saying, "I want to play a game" over an intercom.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Interesting. For those who believe that Apple should merge with this or that company, stories like should give pause. Corporate culture is important and the differences can be difficult to overcome.

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

A new report detailing the relationship between Apple and AT&T, the exclusive carrier of the iPhone in the U.S., reveals that Apple CEO Steve Jobs allegedly considered dropping AT&T numerous times, and considered leaving for Verizon as far back as 2007.

The tense relationship between Apple and AT&T is detailed in this month's issue of Wired magazine. Though the article is not yet available online, it was summarized Monday by Jason D. O'Grady of ZDNet.

The article compares the relationship between AT&T and Apple as a loveless celebrity marriage -- one that went wrong quickly after the honeymoon ended. Apple was unwilling to restrict the Internet capabilities of the iPhone, while AT&T struggled to meet the overwhelming pressure the smartphone placed on its network.

An anonymous source told the magazine that Jobs discussed severing ties with AT&T at least a half-dozen times. At one point in 2007, Apple engineers allegedly visited the headquarters of Qualcomm to consider the prospect of creating a CDMA iPhone for the rival network. EVentually, the company concluded it would have to rebuild the phone from scratch to fit the new chips inside, making the prospect too costly and complicated.

The article also alleges that Qualcomm also began working on a chip that will allow the iPhone to work on both the AT&T and Verizon networks. Recent reports have alleged that Apple will offer a CDMA iPhone for the Verizon network in January 2011.

One of many spats between the companies was said to be regarding tethering: Apple wanted it to be included in the standard data plan charges, while AT&T wanted to charge extra. AT&T eventually won that alleged battle, as it now offers tethering via USB or Bluetooth for an extra $20 per month.

The report also said that AT&T took issue with the fact that the iPhone uses a radio from Infineon, a company that previously had been most widely used in Europe, where cell towers are more common. AT&T allegedly felt that Apple's use of an Infineon chip led to inferior reception. When the wireless carrier asked Apple to resolve the issues "together," it was said that Apple's response was, "No, you resolve them. They're not our problem. They're your problem."

The companies apparently squabbled over small things as well, as the two corporate cultures did not mesh well. At one point, an AT&T representative reportedly told one of Jobs' deputies that the company co-founder should wear a suit to meet with the AT&T Board of Directors. That AT&T employee was allegedly told, "We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."

Originally Posted by mstone

I agree with AT&T on this one. Jobs looks stupid in that same outfit day after day and the other guys just look really uncomfortable dressed like that. It doesn't fit their personalities. Appropriate attire is showing respect for your partners and vendors. Jobs would probably show up to a funeral dressed like that. He doesn't appear to give a rat's ass about anyone but himself. Oh I forgot, he 'loves' his users.

Originally Posted by mstone

I agree with AT&T on this one. Jobs looks stupid in that same outfit day after day and the other guys just look really uncomfortable dressed like that. It doesn't fit their personalities. Appropriate attire is showing respect for your partners and vendors. Jobs would probably show up to a funeral dressed like that. He doesn't appear to give a rat's ass about anyone but himself. Oh I forgot, he 'loves' his users.

Originally Posted by glui2001

I bet they will! Verizon's probably kicking themselves for all the lost billions they could've made if they jumped on board the first time Apple courted them.

Originally Posted by mstone

Well you have to remember that Apple originally signed a contract with Cingular. Once SBC/AT&T acquired Cingular, the contracts would have to be renegotiated. I addition I'm sure that both organizations have plenty of opt out clauses based on performance and quotas.

Originally Posted by BUSHMAN4

Not hard to believe story about ATT & APPLE albeit short on the inner details.

ATT has made many mistakes over the years and should have seized the opportunity with APPLE as an exclusive partner to improve upon their service and follow the lead from APPLE.

ATT feels that once it looses their exclusivity contract on the IPHONE they will still be a dominant force. Truth is customers will run to other carries even if the rate is higher.

Originally Posted by kaps

The Wired article should make for some interesting questions during AT&T's earnings call on Thursday morning. What the article alluded to but didn't really explain was that a lot of the problems have to do with antiquated backhaul infrastructure (backhaul refers to the bandwidth supplied to a cell tower site) and a lack of available licensed wireless spectrum for transmitting from towers to handsets.

AT&T can spend to improve backhaul -- it spent nearly $2 billion last year adding fiber and more T-1 lines to sites in San Francisco and New York alone -- but it is going to have to wait to get more spectrum, and in the meantime it will continue to deny there's a problem and sell you another iPhone.

Do users care? Are they figuring this out? How fast would they leave if Verizon got the iPhone? All questions to be answered...

Originally Posted by Icesnake

Didn't someone whine about "form over function?" Yet we know that the antenna engineer who designed the iPhone 4's antenna told Management that it was going to be a problem long before the design went gold. And now we know that Apple chose a radio chip that is known to work poorly in non-optimal signal areas, and knew it, and went ahead with it anyway.

Bottom line: Knowing all this, if you buy an iPhone, you deserve crappy service.

Originally Posted by Icesnake

If AT&T goes down, someone will buy their assets and it's almost certain the AT&T network will not be shut off. Someone will have to maintain all that stuff - and it's pretty unlikely you'll see the new owners getting 400,000 H-1B visas to import a bunch of low-wage workers to replace the people in place now.

Originally Posted by StLBluesFan

Your information is incorrect. SBC owned the majority share of Cingular when the original contract was signed. They received the balance of Cingluar when SBS purchased BellSouth.

Originally Posted by tonton

I'm only on page 2. You guys got it completely backwards with the Infineon thing.

Apple works with a number of carriers around the globe. Let's say 100 carriers, as an example. Of those 100 carriers, 99 of them play well with the Infineon chip. AT&T does not. How the HELL is that not AT&T's problem?

Originally Posted by mstone

Let's split some hairs why don't we. SBC had recently changed its name to AT&T before the acquisition of BellSouth which is why I referred to them as SBC/AT&T. AT&T had attempted to change the name of Cingular to AT&T even before the merger with BellSouth was completed in Dec 2006. Cingular was operating as a independent company at the time of the original contract with Apple. Although independent also wholly owned 60% AT&T, 40% BellSouth.

Originally Posted by tonton

I'm only on page 2. You guys got it completely backwards with the Infineon thing.

Apple works with a number of carriers around the globe. Let's say 100 carriers, as an example. Of those 100 carriers, 99 of them play well with the Infineon chip. AT&T does not. How the HELL is that not AT&T's problem?

Originally Posted by StLBluesFan

Two points. First, Apple's refusal to work with their partner on the issue was plain stoopid. Setting up the iPhone for potential poor performance in its initial rollout market ain't too bright. Second,which of those "99" carrier markets covers a territory the size of AT&T's. Aren't we regularly smacked about the body and head by overseas posters explaining how their cell infrasturcture is more dense and superior? The chip in question is supposedly a poor performer when signal strength is poor.

Now, Apple could have either helped work the issue, waited for an infrastructure that would better support that lessser chip, or done what they apparently did. Ignore it and say "not my problem." Swell partner there, eh?

Originally Posted by tonton

Wrong. I don't see Australians complaining. I don't see Russians complaining. I don't see Chinese complaining. Just like the economy, size of territory is not a viable excuse.

Why is Apple's "rollout market" more important than their global market, anyway? Should Apple sacrifice their global customers to appease Americans? Talk about entitlement!

Originally Posted by StLBluesFan

Two points. First, Apple's refusal to work with their partner on the issue was plain stoopid.

Originally Posted by tonton

Wrong. I don't see Australians complaining. I don't see Russians complaining. I don't see Chinese complaining. Just like the economy, size of territory is not a viable excuse.

Why is Apple's "rollout market" more important than their global market, anyway? Should Apple sacrifice their global customers to appease Americans? Talk about entitlement!

Originally Posted by brucep

verizon pre cripples its own networks making sure every one get a tad above shit service
but no one gets dropped calls