or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Verizon-Apple iPhone agreement 'may not ever get resolved'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Verizon-Apple iPhone agreement 'may not ever get resolved' - Page 2

post #41 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post

I don't understand this. Why would Verizon care which phone sells - Android vs. iPhone? As long as they have the data/voice contract, the actual phone sold is unimportant. What stake does Verizon have in seeing Android succeed over iPhone?

Because, with Android, they can control what people access and how they access it, something the carriers are doing more and more with each "Android" phone, to the point where some of them no longer carry the Android name, and don't use Google services. With the iPhone, the carriers haven't been allowed to do that.
post #42 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post

I don't understand this. Why would Verizon care which phone sells - Android vs. iPhone? As long as they have the data/voice contract, the actual phone sold is unimportant. What stake does Verizon have in seeing Android succeed over iPhone?

They want the same "lie back and relax" attitude from Apple as they got from Eric Schmidt. They want a Verizon logo on it. Forget that white apple on the back. Call it the VeriPhone. No, do it our way. No, we want some free junk apps on it that you can't take off. And we'll put an Android front end on it, with a calendar and everything. Updates will have to wait until my nephew, who does all the programming, gets around to it when he gets back from Unix camp. Want to bet? Verizon is a feudal organization.
post #43 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post

What stake does Verizon have in seeing Android succeed over iPhone?

With anything but the iPhone they can bundle in "services". Much like useless extended warranties, the services are the real cash cow Verizon is fighting desperately to keep.

The problem is these services universly suck and most users can't wait to eliminate them - and Apple is intent on not letting their experience be tainted by other peoples crap. The best Verizon can hope for with Apple is, as someone else pointed out, free downloads in the Apple store. Verizon knows that most people won't bother to go out of their way to put the sucktastic Verizon services on when there are often better alternatives already. Without forced shovel ware the iPhone is much less valuable to Verizon.

Or so they think. I guess with millions of subscribers even if only 1% take the bait you can get some revenue, but you sure piss off your other customers.
post #44 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I am not a fan of conspiracy theories... But something is going on!

3) Apple and Google are playing at being frenemies but secretly working together to break the carrier domination of the US cell industry, and cable company domination of access to the Internet and content.

Of all of these, the one that seems least likely, but makes most sense [to me] is an Apple-Google arrangement.

.

Very astute. I listened to the Daring Fireball podcast and was amazed that they have picked up on the fact that Jobs purposely left out the part of AppleTV that is the most intriquing, namely, that the iTV is actually designed for the future as a wireless client to have your iDevices port all your content directly to your TV, bypassing the cable and TV oligopoly entirely. You can send your DVD quality movies, or pics, from your iP4, your MLB.TV live from your iPad, or your content you subscribe to on any device, wirelessly, and the setup involves merely pressing the Airplay button on your device.

The future will eventually (hopefully) bypass the cable/TV folks, and you can stream whatever you desire, directly to your big screen/TV/Apple TV, etc, while using the Apps available on the device to subscribe.

The commentators said they think Jobs deliberately left out this most important detail so as not to unnecessarily rile up the cable/TV carrier bosses, while still calling it a mere "hobby" (wink, wink), which is codeword for "cable/TV carrier buster". One can only hope that it happens sooner rather than later.
post #45 of 142
Not that I want to gloat, but this is one of those very, very rare times when Apple has given us poor, beleagured UK customers the best deal. We can easily buy an unlocked SIM free iPhone from Apple, or buy a subsidised contract or pay as you iPhone with any one of 5 different carriers.

Funny thing is I just got back from Japan, where the iPhone is slowly gaining popularity (at least in Tokyo, - I didn't see a single one down in Okinawa). There iPhones are, like in the US, locked down to one carrier only. Walking around the streets if Akiba though I saw several stores offering SIM free iPhone 4s for the affordable price of $1500.

Wonder why Appke treats some markets well, but others so badly. I'll just try and remember this the next time I see the shocking UK iMac pricing.
post #46 of 142
So put it on Sprint and TMobile already!!!!! Just giv eme a damn choice outside of ATT's crappy service!
post #47 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by iansilv View Post

So put it on Sprint and TMobile already!!!!! Just giv eme a damn choice outside of ATT's crappy service!

Can't you unlock the iPhone 4 and take it to T-mobile? Using Edge speeds of course.
post #48 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgl323 View Post

Can't you unlock the iPhone 4 and take it to T-mobile? Using Edge speeds of course.

yeah but that's the problem- the edge speeds.
post #49 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagman View Post



Very astute. I listened to the Daring Fireball podcast and was amazed that they have picked up on the fact that Jobs purposely left out the part of AppleTV that is the most intriquing, namely, that the iTV is actually designed for the future as a wireless client to have your iDevices port all your content directly to your TV, bypassing the cable and TV oligopoly entirely. You can send your DVD quality movies, or pics, from your iP4, your MLB.TV live from your iPad, or your content you subscribe to on any device, wirelessly, and the setup involves merely pressing the Airplay button on your device.

The future will eventually (hopefully) bypass the cable/TV folks, and you can stream whatever you desire, directly to your big screen/TV/Apple TV, etc, while using the Apps available on the device to subscribe.

The commentators said they think Jobs deliberately left out this most important detail so as not to unnecessarily rile up the cable/TV carrier bosses, while still calling it a mere "hobby" (wink, wink), which is codeword for "cable/TV carrier buster". One can only hope that it happens sooner rather than later.

Ahhh.... very interesting!

I remember, a few years back, there were rumors:

-- Apple would buy Vivendi to get access to content
-- Apple would setup an MVNO to provide a virtual "carrier" for its phones

I suspect that Apple considered these options, but thought better of it. Apple is very careful of dissipating its resources and tries to avoid competing with potential suppliers of services and content.

With the approach you describe, Apple would not be a "competitor" to the cable / carriers-- rather they would be a big consumer of those who provide content and services (anyone who wants to make money from the Apple ecosystem).

The bigger the consumption, the bigger the leverage for Apple!

I think it was Senator "Fritz" Hollings that said: "There's too much consuming' goin' on out there".


... so, you think the ATV is really a "C&C Blaster"... I like that!


BTW, did you ever change your mind and buy another iP4?

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #50 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcahill009 View Post

Although it's clear ATT and Verizon have better service(s) than Tmobile and Sprint, the latter set have much better prices. I would really like to see an iPhone with a smaller monthly fee. This has been my biggest obstacle so far.

Well there is the $15 a month plan.

Verizon has never been interested in anything other than the bottom of the market. They out Sprinted Sprint years ago for the the bottom position. Expecting them to carry the premiere smart phone for cheap, is like expecting the local Toyota dealership to carry Ferrari parts at Toyota prices.

They are perfectly happy with second rate Android phones, just like they've been happy thru their entire existence to carry the lesser available phone models.
post #51 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

This site is MacRumors.com, not MacNews.com nor MacFacts.com.

Sorry.




It's hard to remember that sometimes as seriously as these rumors are taken, discussed or trolled
post #52 of 142
This is just misinformation to quell the rumors, but I think the Verizon iPhone will happen next year.
post #53 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Ahhh.... very interesting!

I remember, a few years back, there were rumors:

-- Apple would buy Vivendi to get access to content
-- Apple would setup an MVNO to provide a virtual "carrier" for its phones

I suspect that Apple considered these options, but thought better of it. Apple is very careful of dissipating its resources and tries to avoid competing with potential suppliers of services and content.

With the approach you describe, Apple would not be a "competitor" to the cable / carriers-- rather they would be a big consumer of those who provide content and services (anyone who wants to make money from the Apple ecosystem).

The bigger the consumption, the bigger the leverage for Apple!

I think it was Senator "Fritz" Hollings that said: "There's too much consuming' goin' on out there".

... so, you think the ATV is really a "C&C Blaster"... I like that!

BTW, did you ever change your mind and buy another iP4?

.

It's been killing me to await a fix that may not come, but I can't tolerate the dropped downloads/calls, so will make a decision next month, and buy a redesigned one if they fix it, selling mine on ebay. The denial of many still amazes me, as well as the illogical rationalizations. Wish they would just coat the antenna, and be done with it.
post #54 of 142
But if Apple does make a CDMA phones what is to stop anyone from buying one from a reseller and activating it on Verizon ?
post #55 of 142
I hope Verizon never gets iPhone. Apple is showing the world that they don't need Verizon to rake in 39% of handset industry profits. Not just smart phones. All cell phones.

In fact, leaving Verizon out in the cold could come in very handy if anyone pulls the tired old monopoly card again. Oh, and good luck with that Oracle lawsuit, Google. Android clearly violates the Java license agreement that Oracle inherited from Sun. And there's legal precedent: Microsoft paid Sun $20 million for a similar violation. But this time Larry doesn't care about money. No way to buy your way out of this one, Schmidt.

So Verizon stands to lose all those generic Android clones as well as iPhone. They could go running to Microsoft in the hope that Windows Phone 7 will a) survive longer than KIN, and b) become profitable soon enough to save Verizon's smart phone business.

Or maybe Verizon could pull a bold move and, say, buy Nokia just to get the Meego OS. Desperate is as desperate does. Should be fun to watch.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #56 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by ron1701 View Post

But if Apple does make a CDMA phones what is to stop anyone from buying one from a reseller and activating it on Verizon ?

Not too much I guess. As long as you're fluent in written Chinese. Nothing to it.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #57 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

So... T-mobile or Sprint it shall be.

And both it will be. Verizon will simply get nailed as being the only carrier without the iPhone.
Jobs won't

Not that apple would ever do this, but it does have enough cash now that Apple could simply buy a 51% of Verizon outright. Now THAT would be funny.
post #58 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by ron1701 View Post

But if Apple does make a CDMA phones what is to stop anyone from buying one from a reseller and activating it on Verizon ?

Verizon has an agreement with the other CDMA carriers that they will not activate other carrier's phones. I learned about this the hard way as a former Sprint Blackberry owner who had no Sprint coverage where I was moving.
post #59 of 142
Apple-please show my favorite carrier some love and negotiate availability for it on T-Mobile USA
post #60 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deewin View Post

They want to equip VCAST into the iPhones with an Verizon branded logo in them.

Vcast is a pile of ****. I think that's really the biggest obstacle; Verizon wants total control. I had an older phone that had lots of capabilities that were blocked by Verizon; I couldn't even put music on it without paying for it via Vcast. Verizon can't imagine just being a dumb pipe provider.
post #61 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerseymac View Post

Garageband is bloat??? I use it every day of my life! Reload it and give it another try!

Please don't feed the Microsoft astroturfer drones.
post #62 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post

I don't understand this. Why would Verizon care which phone sells - Android vs. iPhone? As long as they have the data/voice contract, the actual phone sold is unimportant. What stake does Verizon have in seeing Android succeed over iPhone?

Very simple, Money, and lots of it. Here's why. Lets say ATT sells 1 million iPhones which they paid $600 for and VZW sells 1 million Droids they paid $500 for, and all those subscribers have almost identical plans for two years. Now the end of the two years VZW made $100 million more than ATT did. So yes it does matter what phone they choose to sell. Apple loves operating at a high margin but it comes at the expense of someone else and in this case ATT.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #63 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagman View Post



Very astute. I listened to the Daring Fireball podcast and was amazed that they have picked up on the fact that Jobs purposely left out the part of AppleTV that is the most intriquing, namely, that the iTV is actually designed for the future as a wireless client to have your iDevices port all your content directly to your TV, bypassing the cable and TV oligopoly entirely. You can send your DVD quality movies, or pics, from your iP4, your MLB.TV live from your iPad, or your content you subscribe to on any device, wirelessly, and the setup involves merely pressing the Airplay button on your device.

The future will eventually (hopefully) bypass the cable/TV folks, and you can stream whatever you desire, directly to your big screen/TV/Apple TV, etc, while using the Apps available on the device to subscribe.

The commentators said they think Jobs deliberately left out this most important detail so as not to unnecessarily rile up the cable/TV carrier bosses, while still calling it a mere "hobby" (wink, wink), which is codeword for "cable/TV carrier buster". One can only hope that it happens sooner rather than later.

OK, but how will that content reach your home?

Currently there are three ways: a wire from a local telco or cable company, a wireless signal from a wireless telco or a wireless signal from a satellite provider.

The only ones in that group that don't already offer television are the cell phone providers and they have restrictive monthly throughput limits that assume consumption of phone optimized content not HD video.

So in order to get sufficient data limits to permit watching HD video you need to buy your internet access from a company that also offers television and they are likely to structure their packages to make it cost effective to buy your television from them rather than Apple.
post #64 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

OK, but how will that content reach your home?

Currently there are three ways: a wire from a local telco or cable company, a wireless signal from a wireless telco or a wireless signal from a satellite provider.

The only ones in that group that don't already offer television are the cell phone providers and they have restrictive monthly throughput limits that assume consumption of phone optimized content not HD video.

So in order to get sufficient data limits to permit watching HD video you need to buy your internet access from a company that also offers television and they are likely to structure their packages to make it cost effective to buy your television from them rather than Apple.

Bingo!!! Check out the big brain on Bregalad. The easiest way to kill the likes of Apple TV and Google TV will be for the cable and telco (they're offering TV now as well) companies to cap data consumption in your homes. They'll make sure it'll be more cost effective for you to subscribe to their TV plans than you choosing what and when you want to watch it over the internet.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #65 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by huntercr View Post

Verizon has an agreement with the other CDMA carriers that they will not activate other carrier's phones. I learned about this the hard way as a former Sprint Blackberry owner who had no Sprint coverage where I was moving.

How can that be legal?

If you continue your old contract or pay the ETF, the phone should free and clear!

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #66 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexpectations View Post

2007: Business blunder of the decade 1. "Verizon refuses the iPhone"
2010: Business blunder of the decade 2. "Verizon refuses the iPhone".

Apple is saying "Here....Verizon....I give you millions and millions of high paying customers".

Verizon's response: "No thanks. I must have control....I must put my logo on the iPhone".

Boneheads.

Time to buy some more AT&T stock.

verizon not wanting to break the trend starts a NEW decade of refusing success with the iphone

verizon changes ceo's maybe they have a chance now or wait till they get those hungry sprint and t-mobile to kick their arse
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #67 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

OK, but how will that content reach your home?

Currently there are three ways: a wire from a local telco or cable company, a wireless signal from a wireless telco or a wireless signal from a satellite provider.

The only ones in that group that don't already offer television are the cell phone providers and they have restrictive monthly throughput limits that assume consumption of phone optimized content not HD video.

So in order to get sufficient data limits to permit watching HD video you need to buy your internet access from a company that also offers television and they are likely to structure their packages to make it cost effective to buy your television from them rather than Apple.

This smacks of an illegal tie-in. Cable companies are often given monopoly status, similar to a utility, to assure delivery of TV to an area at a [somewhat] regulated price and standard of service.

If they package their "monoply" TV offerings with Internet Access services to gain a competitive advantage, it could be illegal restrabint of trade.

I don't know what the solution is... But if they aren't careful, the governments will get involved-- and make it worse!

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #68 of 142
If apple doesn't come to an agreement with verizon, then them following happens:

Apple signs agreements with sprint & t-mobile, whom sell theiPhone 4 at a subsidized rate on a typical 2 year contract.

Apple also sells an unsubsidized fully unlocked cdma model from it's own stores and online, so those verizon customers who have to have one on verizon can still buy one if they got the extra cash, meanwhile the bulk of potential iphone customers who dislike at&t would probably opt to switch networks to sprint or t mobile to get the subsidized device.

This happens in many countries, with apple having 1 or 2 official carriers and also selling the phone unlocked for customers on other carriers.
post #69 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

I hope Verizon never gets iPhone. Apple is showing the world that they don't need Verizon to rake in 39% of handset industry profits. Not just smart phones. All cell phones.

Link to statistic please? IIRC the stats that were shown were for smart phones only.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

In fact, leaving Verizon out in the cold could come in very handy if anyone pulls the tired old monopoly card again. Oh, and good luck with that Oracle lawsuit, Google. Android clearly violates the Java license agreement that Oracle inherited from Sun. And there's legal precedent: Microsoft paid Sun $20 million for a similar violation. But this time Larry doesn't care about money. No way to buy your way out of this one, Schmidt.

So Verizon stands to lose all those generic Android clones as well as iPhone. They could go running to Microsoft in the hope that Windows Phone 7 will a) survive longer than KIN, and b) become profitable soon enough to save Verizon's smart phone business.

Or maybe Verizon could pull a bold move and, say, buy Nokia just to get the Meego OS. Desperate is as desperate does. Should be fun to watch.

Just goes to show how much you really know and understand. The lawsuit doesn't deal with any violation of the Java license agreement. Java, as in the language, is an open set of rules for a programming language. Android uses a language based on Java (i can't remember the exact name) which is clearly within legal bounds. The problem with the lawsuit is that the code they used in their language has copyright infringement on the code that Oracle licenses. Putting it in layman's term, Oracle is suing Google for copying.

Comparing KIN to WP7 is ignorance. Please continue trolling.

There's a reason why Verizon is still the biggest wireless provider and still without the iPhone. The number people who want a phone that just calls/txt far outweights the number of people who want the latest smartphone. As good as the iPhone is, truth is, not EVERYONE wants one...
post #70 of 142
It's also possible that apple could subsidise the iPhone at some point by signing up users to a 2 year contract whereby they pay apple a monthly fee (say $30) to get $30 credit each month to use in iTunes store/app store/bookstore.

So sell the phone for $299 with the $30 a month contract and then people can go and choose their own carrier and plan without having to sign a 2 year contract or even get a data plan if they don't want it. And people would also get to buy apps & content each monthmwithmthe credit.
post #71 of 142
Compaing to the KIN is a valid exercise. It was a Microsoft phone project (just like WP7) and Microsoft managed to muck up not just the phone and it's software, but also screwed up the carrier relationship, and even faile dbig time at the marketing. Everything about the Kin debacle is directly relevant to how Microsoft has failed with a phone related launch in the very recent past.

And let's not forget how Microsoft also completely lost the plot with windows mobile 6 by failing to adapt tl the apple/google phone experience.

MS are merely trying to play catchup with WP7, and based purely on past performance they are likey to fail.
post #72 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by IOSWeekly View Post

Compaing to the KIN is a valid exercise. It was a Microsoft phone project (just like WP7) and Microsoft managed to muck up not just the phone and it's software, but also screwed up the carrier relationship, and even faile dbig time at the marketing. Everything about the Kin debacle is directly relevant to how Microsoft has failed with a phone related launch in the very recent past.

And let's not forget how Microsoft also completely lost the plot with windows mobile 6 by failing to adapt tl the apple/google phone experience.

MS are merely trying to play catchup with WP7, and based purely on past performance they are likey to fail.

Again, comparing Kin to WP7 is ignorance at best. Kin was NOT suppose to be a successor of WM6, it was meant to be a completely different platform. The marketing for Kin was clearly aimed at teenagers and social connected people. I don't think their carrier relationship was the problem with Kin. The failure of Kin was that it cost the same as a smartphone (at the time, iPhone 3Gs and Moto Droid) but lacked the key features of a smartphone. A person who could afford smartphone prices wasn't going to settle for a dumbphone. WP7 is not aimed towards teenagers, it's aimed towards people who actually want a smartphone.
post #73 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift View Post

Open, as in woman of shady virtue.

And equally diseased.
post #74 of 142
I disagree. I don't think anyone at Verizon actually gives a damn if they are seen as Android company and a champion of Freedom on Cell Phones. In fact, I doubt many execs even understand the differences between the two platforms. All Verizon CEO knows is that he can customize Android to his liking, offer a custom verizon experience, while still having something that looks kind of like iPhone.

If the monetary terms are right the deal will be struck, and announced with great fanfare and excitement from both sides. Verizon can than make some custom apps for the app store.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #75 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

This smacks of an illegal tie-in. Cable companies are often given monopoly status, similar to a utility, to assure delivery of TV to an area at a [somewhat] regulated price and standard of service.

If they package their "monopoly" TV offerings with Internet Access services to gain a competitive advantage, it could be illegal restraint of trade.

I don't know what the solution is... But if they aren't careful, the governments will get involved-- and make it worse!

.

I highly doubt the gov't will step in. If you have a choice of getting your services (Internet, TV, phone) from either the cable company or a telco and they both have capped how much internet access you have then where's the monopoly? Then add all the networks that have lucrative deals whom will side with the providers and we as consumers are doomed.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #76 of 142
This is what I'm talking about on these message boards....95% of the businesses where the original owner dies and a 'CEO' takes over, eventually go out of business...Coke, Ford, McDonald's, Walmart are the exception...

...mainly because they have figured out the easiest business model is 'to sell a lot of crap at a small margin!'

Think about it, the largest beverage company in the world is Coke and what do they sell? Crap! Water with 11 spoonfuls of sugar in each 12 oz. can.

Or Diet Coke that causes brain lesions.

McDonald's, the largest restaurant chain in the world and what do they sell? Crap!

In fact, the McDonald's at Ground Zero has killed more Americans than the 19 terrorists did!

Verizon has missed the boat time and time again because of executive staff that have more foreskin than foresight....they should all be fired!

Apple is the second largest company, by market cap, in the world. A feat achieved in a friggin recession. What company is so daft as not to hitch their wagon to Apple. Oh yeah, NBC, HBO, Movie Industry, TV industry, cable Industry and, of course, Verizon.

What twits!
post #77 of 142
Google didn't sell out to Verizon. They built Android and hoped that makers and carriers would do good things. Some did. Verizon didn't. Although I'd like Android to succeed as an OS, I fear that the Balkanization has killed it. All that's missing is the coffin.

Pity
post #78 of 142
Quote:
Think about it, the largest beverage company in the world is Coke and what do they sell? Crap! Water with 11 spoonfuls of sugar in each 12 oz. can.

Actually, there isn't any sugar in Coke. High-fructose-corn-syrup, but no sugar.

That changes around Passover, by the way. Sugar is kosher, HFCS is not. And kosher Coke is rather expensive.
post #79 of 142
Android/Blackberry/Featurephone on ATT: Loaded with bloatware, carrier branded phone, packaging and often theme.

Android/Blackberry/Featurephone on Verizon: Loaded with bloatware, carrier branded phone, packaging and often theme.

Iphone on ATT: Whatever steve wants, or ATT doesn't get the phone.

Iphone on Verizon:

Why do you people think it will be any different? You guys love painting big red as the culprit here, that they want to "control the experience" instead of letting apple handle it. But look at freaking ATT:

-Blocking Sideloading apps
-Putting Yahoo instead of Google on the backflip
-the torch has more att logos than you can shake a stick at.

They are doing the SAME THING you are saying Verizon will do, and yet they have the Iphone.

There is something else at work here. The biggest one is: Verizon doesn't need the iphone anymore. Their data profits are climbing nicely without paying apple royalties.

Yes, Big Red will stuff a phone fat with bloatware if you let it, but so will ATT. But, just like ATT they can be forced not to (The original Droid)
post #80 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

Apple needs to look at the dumb phone market. I wonder how many out there would love to have a sleek looking phone with a cool interface (no plastic buttons), great iOS, and with wifi, still get some of the benefits that apps may offer but not a mandatory need for the user.

The new iPod nano is just begging to be made into a flip phone.

In all seriousness, I'd be interested an Apple non-smart phone. Something small (iPhone and most smart phones are too big for my preference) that can sync my contact and calendar info. Just like my dumb Verizon phone from Motorola can easily do over Bluetooth. (Oh, and I can use BT to transfer files back and forth, too. So much for the "Verizon locks down all their phone" claims.) All iPods except the shuffle and new nano already have the contact/calendar feature, and it's been there since at least the 3rd generation iPod.

Anyway, throw in a basic music player along the lines of the new nano, not the disfunctional one in Apple's first attempt at an "iTunes phone" w/Moto, and you may just have a phone the non-smart phone crowd would be interested it. Remember, smart phones are still a minority of all cell phones sold.

Killer additional feature: This "dumb" phone can act as a wi-fi hot spot to share the 3G connection and tether to iPod touches, iPads, laptops, etc.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Verizon-Apple iPhone agreement 'may not ever get resolved'