This report lost all credibility the moment I saw the name Shaw Wu. The guy is a total Moran. His rate of correct predictions is in single digits. And more often than not he has basic facts all wrong.
A Verizon iPhone is still just a rumor. Yes it is a very likely rumor but at this point it is not confirmed by any party actually in the know. All these suppliers could be leaking this stuff to raise their stocks. Or it could be that yes Apple ordered the parts, but for the iPad, not the phone. And given the lack of proof that the AT&T contract is ending this year or could be paid off to end this year, it is possible that Apple is mealy in the beginning phases of working out if a Verizon iPhone is worth the efforts needed.
Also given all the flack over the years it seems a foolish move for Apple to enter into any kind of exclusive deals. Wu hasn't shown us why Apple would benefit from such a term, rather than being open to both Verizon and Sprint and letting consumers choose what they wish.
Originally Posted by Blastdoor
I don't think it's essential to add Sprint and t-mobile.
But what is the harm. There are some areas, particularly in the Midwest where sprint and t-mobile have the better service, so why should they be cut out on the whim of some outside company that wants to demand terms.
Originally Posted by JimDreamworx
Just start selling unlocked and unsubsidized phones in the USA the way it is done elsewhere and be done with this carrier-exclusive BS. .
I am inclined to agree with you. Or rather make it an option. I go to Apple, I buy it full price, unlocked. If I choose to go to a carrier for a deal then yes it can be locked to that carrier for the period of that deal, with the right to buy out early via paying the ETF
But at the same time, service fees and device costs should be separate line items. If I am not paying back a device subsidy I should not have to pay the same monthly as someone paying for the same level of service plus his device. And the device cost should be spread equally across the months of the contract, spelled out on each monthly bill and the ETF should be the remaining cost, not a penny more or less.
Originally Posted by pazimzadeh
also better if Apple can get on Verizon without compromising on other details, such as a separate Verizon app store, Verizon managed music store, and Verizon stickers on the phone.
Those a likely the terms Apple put on the table that Verizon is allegedly willing to agree to if they have a contract exclusivity.
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon
And you're probably thinking that Apple must still support you even after jailbreaking your phone?
I am torn on this issue. Yes jail breaking is legal in the US. And yes it is legal for Apple to not support the phones if you do it. But if the issue does come from the jailbreak then why shouldn't it be supported, especially if you can restore the phone to factory settings and the problem still exists. So in cases like that i'm not going to damn someone to h*ll for a little subterfuge. It is tacky but understandable.
Originally Posted by Inkling
I fear Apple has grown addicted to the money it makes from subsidy.
Apple isn't making that money. AT&T is. Apple might get a tiny cut of perhaps 5%, but the vast majority of that subsidy goes to the carrier. Apple's money was made when AT&T bought the phones at full price from them.