Verizon-Apple iPhone agreement 'may not ever get resolved' - Page 3

it doesn't work that way. There is no such thing as an "unlocked" CDMA device. Locking occurs on the Carrier side, not on the device side. In order for a phone to work on Verizon, verizon has to approve the ESN that is unique to EACH device. Apple can't release a phone on verizon's network without Verizon allowing them too, period.

There are more differences between CDMA and GSM than the whole data/voice thing.

Yes, because it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the fact that Verizon and Sprint both run on CDMA networks, and that the frequencies used by American cell companies are not the same as those used by other CDMA coutries. (or that most of these asian countries produce phones that wouldn't get approved by our FCC anyway) so their selection of smartphone is inherently limited.

Or the fact that CDMA is owned by Qualcomm and that they require a higher royalty for their chips than any GSM provider so that the option of making high end, unsubsidized models isn't a attractive one (or practical, since it is impossible to sell an "unlocked" CDMA phone)

Yeah, it has nothing to do with that at all, and Android is totally just a second rate product when it comes to how much money it's making them (remember, att doesn't give a damn about how much apple makes on their phone).

Yep, keep on believing that.

No, because with android, they don't have to pay companies an INSANE royalty check every quarter just to sell the phone, or be forced to buy a minimum number of phones before a single one is shipped, or have to fork over a larger % of the data revenue than any other company demands.

It's not apple controlling the experience that is the large issue here. It's that they want you to pay them a premium to do so, and an outrageous one at that. Yes, apple makes a ton of money with their product. But how much has ATT made?

More importantly, ATT's reputation has been drug through the mud for almost 4 years because of that phone, with a lot of customers saying "the only reason I'm with ATT is for the iphone" why would Verizon want to risk that bad press since none of it seems to stick on apple?

And I know people who refused to get an android device until they could have VZ navigator. Most customers enjoy what we call bloat because they're used to it.

Don't be so optimistic about people.

Your quality standards may be high, as are mine, so we might not like the bloated Verizon apps forced onto phones. But as another poster or two noted, most people don't get user experience like we do. They're the ones who think, "1080p is always better than 720p because it's more!" They don't even notice how those bloatapps are hurting their user experience, mainly because they don't know any better.

As for those who notice how the apps suck: They deal with them, anyway. It's Verizon. Their network is perceived, by the mass majority of Americans, to be the most reliable in major cities, and the fastest, widest-reaching network in rural areas. That's why people go to Verizon. It's something Verizon has, that no other carrier has. Not customer service, or phone selection, or bloatware that may be on their phones. As long as their customers keep getting a good signal, and their calls don't get dropped, everything else is relatively unimportant.

Therefore, Verizon can get away with stuff that no other carrier can get away with. VZ knows they'll get their smartphone sales, no matter what kind of smartphone is sold -- their network is that good. So it only makes sense for them to develop and market phones which give them the best profit potential, both now and in the future. After all, you noted (correctly) that Verizon-exclusive apps are the big cash cow here. Android is the easiest way for them to implement that cash cow. It only makes sense for them to heavily develop for, then market, that platform.

Verizon has the leverage over Apple in this matter, unfortunately.


Under your argument, once Steve either dies or voluntarily leaves (like the latter would happen) the company he founded, Apple should then let Verizon brand their iPhone with endless bloatware, because remember: For Apple as a Steve-less company to survive, they've got to make their phones low-margin crapware. Way to amaze and delight customers.


As long as the Android Market apps work in all the Balkanized Android phones, that's all that matters. Android is not dead.

Verizon is the fascist company they have always been. Looking for every way they can to screw the consumer. I can remember the state of the art Motorola phone I had just before I got my first iphone and Verizon made Motorola cripple the bluetooth functionality so that I couldn't download photos directly to my computer. Instead I had to buy a data plan just to get access to my own photos. They need to have their butt kicked hard as they are anti-consumer.

Actually, I would like to see Verizon and Apple come to some form of an agreement. Many has been asking for a "Verizon-based iPhone", but it looks like that will never happen.

I might just tuck my tail in between my legs and go switch to AT&T (I've waited long enough for another possible wireless carrier to pick up the iPhone).

Those are at best secondary concerns. Carriers like Android for one reason: they can use it to control what happens on their networks and direct revenue generated off customers to their own pockets.

Two words: net neutrality.

But, you're right, they didn't sell out, they are equal partners in screwing everyone, and undermining our democracy, for profit.

Wait a few more months. TMobile and/or Sprint might get the iPhone, and neither has that bad of a network. Sprint, especially.

I love how you guys praise Apple for its high profit margins and blast anyone else trying to make some money. What hypocrisy.

Apple makes high profit margins by:

-- building superior products that many people want to buy.
-- playing by the rules to reserve components and production lines by committing (risking) $ in advance.

The Google/Verizon collusion was to make profits by:

-- changing the rules:to benefit themselves.
-- while claiming it was good for the customers: "We're only trying to help you"


The profit motive makes some raise themselves to excel... and others to lower themselves to conspire.

.

What's really astounding is that you are unable to see the distinction. The lack of critical thought demonstrated by some is appalling.

Thanks, Dick. I think you nailed it.

How does this not apply to Apple's and AT&T's agreement? Apple forces (or tries to anyway) me to stay on AT&T even after I have fulfilled my contract, presumably because AT&T will pay Apple more for the iPhone if they do. Is that not anti-consumer collusion?

First off, AT&T locking their iPhones isn't technically required to provide AT&T exclusivity. It probably is a condition in exchange for exclusivity, but it's not a requirement.

I could argue that it's technically collusion, but if it's collusion, it must be legal collusion. You can make the argument that any exclusivity agreement is collusion, but then what does that say about other exclusivity agreements, like the EA-NFL videogame exclusivity agreement? Or you could make the argument that a no-bid government contract is collusion, but no one is being charged with a crime, right? How is an exclusivity agreement collusion? How is locking a phone to a carrier collusion?

Besides, where else will you go for service? Sprint and Verizon don't use GSM/UMTS, and T-Mobile's 3G frequency band isn't in the range of any iPhone. Most would be pretty desperate to want to cripple their iPhone and use EDGE. Therefore, those who would be willing to take their iPhone to T-Mobile are in the vast minority. Meanwhile, a supermajority of AT&T customers are satisfied with AT&T. So even if there's collusion going on, few people are hurt by it, at least in this case.

I was involved in carrier negotiations in the past. The issue is that the cellular carriers feel they can:
1. Monetize apps that they control over and above the data plan price (i.e. AT&T Navigator at $10 per month, Vz's flawed music store).

2. Use the carrier controlled apps (crap-ware) to make "their" smartphone act and feel different to the user. Ivory tower cellular execs feel this will help them avoid being a dumb pipe and elevate the value of their brand WITHOUT having to dive into the murky waters of content creation or elegant user interfaces.

3. Ivory tower cellular execs feel the addition of their logo on the outside of the phone also adds value to their brand. (Note: there is a phrase for such fault self-induced-solitary-pleasure, but ivory tower cellular execs would deny ever m*********** in public.)

The bottom line:
iPhone owners are voting for with their pocketbooks for a great UI, pre-screened apps, user choice of what gets installed when, rapid user-initiated iOS upgrades, and elegant backup and restore. Vz doesn't get it yet.

-Verizon spent a ton of money (in advance) to build out their network, so people are willing to pay the premium for that coverage. (believe it or not, people arn't just parroting ads when they say verizon is the only one that works where they need it)
-Google spent time and money investing in things like GMAIL, creating products that millions around the world love and find everything else inferior at best.


You mean their net neutrality statement? The one that ATT also agrees with? (and most other telecom companies likely do as well)


Yep. Same could be said about apple. Thankfully the backlash they recieved was enough to kick some sense into them (banning cross compilers, blocking apps because they compete with apple products, etc)

Sorry, but not getting your phone unlocked, which sucks, does not equate with actively sabotaging net neutrality, an act which ultimately undermines our free, democratic society.

And, again, none of this equates to sabotaging net neutrality, not by any stretch of the imagination.

That's why Apple's pro-consumer experience stand is so important. Apple is possibly the only company besides possibly Microsoft who can't be bullied by the cellular networks into playing their branding and "value-add" games. And yes, AT&T and Sprint are doing it too. It would be like trying to sell electricity 2.0.

This editorial about the Samsung Fascinate sums it up nicely:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092503456.html

It's getting to the point where Android fans are concerned about the direction this is going.

Apple, Google and Microsoft are bigger than every single carrier in the world --- it means that they are bullying the carriers, not the other way around.

Co-incidentally Apple, Google and Microsoft are constantly being under the government radar for anti-trust investigations.

You don't like the red Verizon UI, fine --- but Verizon is no where close to being investigated by anyone for anti-trust bullying.

Thanks for that link and it's not getting to that point it's gotten there as far as I'm concerned. I will hang on to my Droid for as long as possible.

Except that if Verizon had the iphone in 2007 --- then you would have the chance to actually buy VZ Navigator at $10 a month from GIN in 2007.

But what did Apple do? Well, all you Apple fans got was a 2 year delay --- so that you could buy AT&T Navigator at the same $10 a month from itunes iphone app store --- in 2009.

I rather have the navigation app 2 years earlier.

There is no concern what so ever.

It is chicken or the egg problem.

All the handset manufacturers and carriers were leaning towards LiMO a few years back --- precisely because LiMO's "open source" license allowed them to fork the source code, put a bunch of proprietary stuff on top and keep the source code private.

The ONLY way Google could attract handset manufacturers and carriers to adopt Android instead of LiMO --- was to provide the same "open source" terms that allow them to fork the source code, put a bunch of proprietary stuff on top and keep the source code private.

Hell, Motorola has been selling linux phones in Asia since 2003 --- and these are some of the most locked up phones on earth. Linux hackers --- even with the source code provided by Motorola --- couldn't do a thing since 2003.

If it ever happens, great. But I wouldn't waist my time waiting for VERIZON to make nice with Apple.
Opportunities have been there and the negotiations have never bore any fruits.

It just means they've bought up enough congressmen to fly under the radar. If apple took all their available cash and spent it on lobbying, we'd be living in the republic of apple, inc.

I have Verizon service, and it's a good service, but a slimeball company, IMO. They are the Comcast of wireless service.

Well, there's legal, then there's "accepted business practices."

Rarely, if ever, do the two ever meet.

No, it just means that Apple became the big brother in the 1984 commercial and Google is a giant evil-doing company. These are giant companies dwarfing the carriers and headed by billionaires who can literally lose billions of dollars to destroy your tiny company's business model --- a la Microsoft style.

Hell, if you support the giant evil Microsoft --- at the very least, you know that Bill Gates is donating his fortune to save the world.

If Apple does indeed produce a CDMA iPhone, would it not make sense to sell it fully unlocked through the Apple store and let people decide which CDMA network to join.

Could Verizon block CDMA iPhones on its network?

Of course.

They'd lose tens of millions of dollars in revenue and a couple hundred million more overnight due to the negative PR, but sure, they could do that.

Ridiculously false.


Well, that's true.


Actually, it's more like he's donating his fortune to save his reputation.

Just like the old IBM, Apple is being investigated by FTC for anti-trust concerns.

Do you think that Warren Buffett is donating all his fortunes to Bill Gates Foundation because Buffett thinks that Gates is merely doing an act. You can tell a lot by the friends you keep.

THis is what I have heard from a high ranking Verizon Exec. a friend of a friend. we will see. I am on Tmobile and have too great a rate to switch to verizon, but thats what i heard, and i believe this one.

It's all these "friend of a friend who's a high-ranking Verizon employee" deals that cause me to be so skeptical of these rumors.

Makes me think of this:

Gee the analysis are finally figuring out what I have been saying all along about a deal between Apple and VZ. The only way it will happen is if VZ gives up things which for some reason they deem a deal breaker like their logo on the phone or their VCast software, or locking out feature they do not want consumer having access to unless you are willing to pay extra for them.

I personally do not see VZ changing, they have not changes their business practices in last 30 yrs what makes any of you think that they will change now. They got the likes of Motorola and other cell phone companies under their thumb and they believe they can break the Apple experience with their branded phones and software and charge all you idiots for it.

This is just a dumb comment. There are no parallels in Apple's business operations to those of IBM at that time. I continue to be astounded at the lack of reasoning demonstrated by so many who seem to think that if one can identify one characteristic in common between two things one has shown that they are the same.


Another dumb comment, bereft of logic, and entirely beside the point.

Yeah VZ does it every day, you can not activate a phone on VZ network without them being involved with the activation. You can buy any VZ CDMA phone from anyone one but you can not transfer your number to that phone without them doing it for you. Unlike GSM phone which required transferring the SIM card


Have to agree, it is not like he started doing this day one or the day after he made his first million or billion in that case. I would say Gates is no better than Andrew Carnegie, Rockefeller, Or Hurst, All these men made their money off the backs of others then later in life they decided to give back since everyone hated them and they did not want to go down in history as the most hate men of their times. Gates is falling into that mold.

That's right, IBM's business operations were different --- that's why IBM was clear by anti-trust cops. So what happens if Apple gets nailed right now and IBM was clear 20 25 years ago? Then Apple is worse than IBM's big brother.

You don't have any logic at all --- you just have a personal hatred of Bill Gates and you try to spin his philanthropic activities. In fact, according to your theory --- then the only person that is truly philanthropic is Warren Buffett --- because he donates his money not through his "named" foundation, but through Bill Gates' foundation.