or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Verizon iPhone to use existing plans, similar to AT&T
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Verizon iPhone to use existing plans, similar to AT&T - Page 4

post #121 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpcg View Post

This is something Apple will not allow. Maybe its one of the main reasons it took Verizon so long to get the iPhone.

They already do. Visual Voice Mail is extra on some of the Canadian carriers.
post #122 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

You think Verizon is going to make their plans cheaper than AT&T? Get real.

I pay like $133 for me, iPhone and wife, non iPhone.
I can get a new one with unlimited due to granfathered clause ( I told everyone months ago this was about teethering) and my wife doesn't really want a smart phone. Maybe droid. It takes great pix. Anyway tobget her an iPhone would be $15 dollars more a month. With Verizon it's like $189 before taxes. Mines $144-$133 WITH taxes so we shall see. Maybe V can change their prices but tgey do have great video streaming services with excellent gps.

Plus they have 4g so expect the phones if made correct, to run faster. At the very least there should be no lag.

I'm glad they are doing tgis as AT&T could come down in price. Ps
ANYONE KNOW HOW TO BUY A NEW IPHONE UN CALIFORNIA WITHIUT PAYING TAX ON $600?
thanks
post #123 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwiztdWun View Post

...the amount of customers that travel to GSM areas is a very small percentage. Generally business based. Not saying that makes it unimportant....but, it is not as big a deal as everyone makes it out to be. ..

Apparently, the Verizon customers you are talking about refrain to go to Western Europe and many other countries in the world because their phone only does CDMA.
post #124 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

We don't know if that's true yet either.

When Apple was first planning the iPhone they kicked around the idea of creating their own Network, but the infrastructure to support that and the cost associated made it a poor choice.

After that Apple went to Verizon first before AT&T, but being Verizon they wanted complete control over the phone, the software it ran and all the Verizon branding they could fit on the phone. Also, the CEO believed the iPhone would be a failure.

Steve didn't want this, nor did he agree with the CEO. Steve wanted to control everything on the phone side and just have a carrier provide the data and voice, nothing else.

Apples second choice, AT&T. The two worked out a deal. Everyone was happy and as they say it the rest is history.

Now, several years later and Verzion comes crying back begging for an iPhone on their network. I'm sure for most of the conversation Steve wouldn't give them the time of day considering Verizon told him the iPhone would fail in the first place. A nice middle finger from Steve to Verizon.

The second thing. If, and only IF the iPhone does actually go to Verizon it will work the exact same as it does on AT&T providing the technology and tools are available to do so. Steve wouldn't have it any other way. He will leave the data and voice plans to Verizon to deal with.

Finally the big question. Who and how many current AT&T iPhone users will switch if the Verizon iPhone is released. In order for the iPhone to be dominant in the smartphone market it must be on more than one carrier. The only reason the Android OS is currently beating iOS is because Google left the Android OS at a burlesque house so 20 plus different phones could get their turn at her. Apple doesn't want that to happen. It's not good for the OS and it's far worse for the consumer.

To be honest I would love to see it on more than one carrier. Reason being is it will free up AT&Ts voice and data network and result in a better experience for the end user. Now, that being said the general public doesn't understand why AT&Ts network drops call most of the time. Well to help you out there are 61.5 million smartphones subscribers in the US and 25% of them are iPhone users. That 25% doesn't include the Android and BlackBerry users that are also on AT&T plugging up the network. 72% of AT&T total subscribers are smartphone users. Verizon has half of that, so you can imagine the difficulties it has been for AT&T to keep up with this giant, data hungry customer base.

If the addition of Verizon for the iPhone happens it could do a few things for iPhone user. First, it will for sure pull millions of subscribers from AT&T to the Verizon network for whatever reason that customer has. Second, it will spread the user base between two carriers giving AT&T's network a much needed break. However, don't assume that Verizon's network can support the massive increase of iPhone user. It it very possible Verizon's network could end up like AT&T, or even worse. Too many user for too small of a network and the train loops around the station again. Dropped calls dropped calls dropped calls. If that happens maybe the general public will finally understand that Verizon is just another carrier with the same problem. Too many subscribers for a small network.

Whatever happened to business expansion. Your customer base grows bigger your company grows bigger to support it. I guess when you're dealing with tens of millions of user you can pick and choose.

Anyways, that's my thoughts on the matter. In the long run it will be a good thing for Apple, Verizon, AT&T and for the consumer, but there is going to be a lot of crap the first few years till it can reach a balance.

Either way we will find out on Tuesday!
post #125 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka View Post

They already do. Visual Voice Mail is extra on some of the Canadian carriers.

within this country they will not allow it. Outside of the US is a different game for Apple. They don't have the power like with the US carriers.

But, it is Verizon I wouldn't put it passed then to do something like that.
post #126 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by crisss1205 View Post

Are they seriously going to charge for using Exchange? Deff not switching to Verizon now.

Only if you have a business account. I've been using exchange since I got my Droid and that's one thing I ask about and they confirmed that only business accounts have to pay for exchange access and it's a different plan all together.
post #127 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanFruniken View Post

Apparently, the Verizon customers you are talking about refrain to go to Western Europe and many other countries in the world because their phone only does CDMA.

Try not to be so sarcastic unless you have a better sense as to what you are talking about. Business users have been able to use GSM enabled CDMA handsets for years. Since they are business users, they often receive their handsets from their company. For example, I was distributing Verizon 8830 Blackberry handsets at my company three years ago and we would enable their SIM cards if we knew they were going international for a short period. It was a very reasonable price at the time, too.

Additionally, Verizon was selling non-smartphone handsets that had dual CDMA/GSM capabilities for a couple of years prior to that.
post #128 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timon View Post

Only if you have a business account. I've been using exchange since I got my Droid and that's one thing I ask about and they confirmed that only business accounts have to pay for exchange access and it's a different plan all together.

Agreed. This has been a discussion point since way back in the Palm Treo days with Verizon.

Consumers don't pay this surcharge. Business accounts do. This was a charge that was traditionally (though not always) thrown onto business accounts using Blackberry handsets.

Verizon can't block Exchange servers or the ports they use without crippling a large number of e-mail providers. Many of the e-mail services around the globe use Exchange ActiveSync for their e-mail. This includes Google Mail and Apple's MobileMe service, among others.
post #129 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

The best info i can find involves the aforementioned QChat from Qualcomm. What else can it be but VoIP over EV-DO Rev. A?


Talk time
I know I hit on this earlier, but I wanted to make sure its a clear point. The iPhone 4 has 3G talk time of 7 hours and 2G talk time of 14 hours. The only devices that beat the 3G talk time to reiterate, this means you have 3G' activated on the device even though it still uses CDMA 2G for voice are those on Verizon and Sprint. Adding VoIP over EV-DO Rev. A would mean talk time is actually over 3G. It might even be less efficient than the way voice and data WCDMA works, but Id imagine equivalent battery life.

The difference comes when comparing over Verizon phones to the iPhone. Some will wonder why everything on the iPhone is longer except 3G talk time. I doubt that will be a deal breaker, but I thought it should get mentioned.

That's a good point and one that gets missed a lot. All voice calls (to date) on a CDMA network get sent on their 1xRTT side. Many handsets don't indicate this, so people think that 3G is 3G all the time when it's not.

It's why I doubt that there will be a VoIP implementation if Verizon is, in fact, able to come up with a simultaneous voice/data solution at tomorrow's announcement. 3G all the time would likely hammer the battery mercilessly. I would have to say that I am curious about that component most of all. It's been such standard fare for so long that CDMA can't handle voice and data at the same time, that any change will be fairly huge. I really didn't think that it was a big deal until I switched to AT&T for the iPhone and I find that I like it a lot. So much so that I would be hesitant to switch back to Verizon without such a feature. I guess I'll know soon enough!

Can you imagine how pissed Droid users will be if such an announcement comes out and we find out that simultaneous voice/data requires a new chip that's only (for the moment) in the new iPhone? Oh boy, the Android Forums will go nuts!

As a final note, I really wish that AI would edit the original article to reflect that the Verizon 450 minute plan does NOT include the unlimited calling to 5 numbers as is stated in the original post. That's only available on the 900 minute plan. it's very misleading.
post #130 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

Unlike Att I wonder if they allow you to buy it outright so as not to have to pay a stupid data plan, since unlike Att cannot rationalize needing a data plan due to visual voicemail.

Probably not.

Why have an iPhone if you don't want data? Just get a regular phone! Done!!!
post #131 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by storneo View Post

Why have an iPhone if you don't want data? Just get a regular phone! Done!!!

Oh, sure. I don't deserve to have an iPhone if I have zero use for mobile data. Guess I'll never have an iPhone in my entire life.

Come on, really?

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #132 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

Even if they did, I wouldn't leave at&t. I get speeds far superior to their CDMA and close to their current LTE on the download side. Plus simultaneous voice and data is critical for me. Maybe once Apple offers an LTE based phone without an increase in costs of the plan would change my mind.

In Sugar Land, TX -I am in total agreement with you about switching to Verizon. No way would I switch to Verizon - we live in AT&T town (the old SW Bell) and are always one of the first areas to rollout and get better than good service here. So why do I want to switch to Verizon - tell me again why when I get this kind of coverage with 0 dropped call rate and good+ data speeds. I formerly lived in the SF bay area, if I were still there I would probably be cursing AT&T and switch to Verizon. Before that in Reno/Tahoe - I would stay with AT&T too. Great speeds, connect, etc. but again home of what was Nevada Bell->PacBell->etc. back to AT&T home town again. Almost sounds like I picked two out of the last 3 places I lived in 20 yrs or so based on the carrier but I didn't.

Just my 2 scents, er uh sense, oh hell you know what I mean.
post #133 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Oh, sure. I don't deserve to have an iPhone if I have zero use for mobile data. Guess I'll never have an iPhone in my entire life.

Come on, really?

It's like buying a race car just to commute to work then complaining the gas is too expensive. Sure, you can have the race car if you want, but don't complain after you buy it! You KNOW what you're getting into when you buy it!!
post #134 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by storneo View Post

It's like buying a race car just to commute to work then complaining the gas is too expensive. Sure, you can have the race car if you want, but don't complain after you buy it! You KNOW what you're getting into when you buy it!!

No, it's not like that at all. The iPhone is hardly a "race car", and the "gas" isn't necessary for its function.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #135 of 182
insults removed
post #136 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanFruniken View Post

Apparently, the Verizon customers you are talking about refrain to go to Western Europe and many other countries in the world because their phone only does CDMA.

You’re being pointless sarcastic. Sure, people travel, but they aren’t taking their phones with them. Besides the number of people that simply don’t want to these outrageous roaming charges, the fact that “world mode” phones aren’t common or popular should be an indicator that people in the US aren’t talking their phones out of the country.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveNYC View Post

That's a good point and one that gets missed a lot. All voice calls (to date) on a CDMA network get sent on their 1xRTT side. Many handsets don't indicate this, so people think that 3G is 3G all the time when it's not.

It's why I doubt that there will be a VoIP implementation if Verizon is, in fact, able to come up with a simultaneous voice/data solution at tomorrow's announcement. 3G all the time would likely hammer the battery mercilessly. I would have to say that I am curious about that component most of all. It's been such standard fare for so long that CDMA can't handle voice and data at the same time, that any change will be fairly huge. I really didn't think that it was a big deal until I switched to AT&T for the iPhone and I find that I like it a lot. So much so that I would be hesitant to switch back to Verizon without such a feature. I guess I'll know soon enough!

Can you imagine how pissed Droid users will be if such an announcement comes out and we find out that simultaneous voice/data requires a new chip that's only (for the moment) in the new iPhone? Oh boy, the Android Forums will go nuts!

As a final note, I really wish that AI would edit the original article to reflect that the Verizon 450 minute plan does NOT include the unlimited calling to 5 numbers as is stated in the original post. That's only available on the 900 minute plan. it's very misleading.

I’m trying to find a phone from a vendor that is pretty much the same between CDMA/CDMA2000 and GSM/UMTS so I can gauge the usage variance. Meaning, thee same battery and basic design. So far I can’t find any. Unfortunately, the “world mode” phones I’ve checked only list the talk time for CDMA. \


edit:
Blackberry Storm2 (9550)
  • Battery: 1400 mAh

Talk time:
  • GSM: 5 hours
  • UMTS: 6 hours
  • CDMA: 5.5 hours

Standby time:
  • GSM: 305 hours
  • UMTS: 280 hours
  • CDMA: 270 hours
On date point doesn’t a trend make, but that is interesting. I would have thought CDMA was more efficient than UMTS considering the trend of pure CDMA phones when comparing the other battery durations to the iPhone. Could that mean VoIP over EV-DO would be hit much worse or that the hit to talk time would be negligible?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #137 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

MyWi tethering, Netflix Hulu, and Comedy Central streaming, some tormenting of shows that air in the UK, and everything else I use my Mac for.

I pay for Unlimited data so I am using my fair share. What I dont pay for per my contract is tethering to utilize that data. This is a violation of my contract just as you did with your MyWi usage. I take full responsibility for my actions and if they throttle or cancel my account I wont be mad or upset or take some entitlement stance. Im exploiting them and will continue to do so as long as I can.

Do you spend your entire life in a coffee shop? Don't you have broadband at home or at work?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #138 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Do you spend your entire life in a coffee shop? Don't you have broadband at home or at work?

If I was in a coffee shop wouldnt I have WiFi? No, I dont have a home or a place of business. I travel all the time and the hotels I stay in typically charge for WiFi or have pretty slow WiFi so I use my MyWi app on my phone for internet access.

Oddly, the cheaper the hotel the more likely they will have free WiFi the faster it will be.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #139 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

No, I dont have a home or a place of business. I travel all the time and the hotels I stay in typically charge for WiFi or have pretty slow WiFi so I use my MyWi app on my phone for internet access.

Oddly, the cheaper the hotel the more likely they will have free WiFi the faster it will be.

My apologies. Your are a stronger soul than I. I would have completely lost my mind in similar circumstances. It is a challenge for me to even go on vacation for more than a few weeks without getting restless. Sort of explains your prolific writing here. Do you have any other companionship? Just curious, I don't mean to pry into your private affairs.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #140 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

Ah... here's a brainstorm - if Verizon keeps the unlimited plan, ATT announces that with 30 days notice, and no ETF, it is cancelling the grandfathered unlimited data plans. Anyone who objects to this material change of terms will be allowed out of their contract without penalty.

All the abusers jump ship to Verizon and the other 99.5% of us rejoice and stay on ATT, which sees performance jump as those 0.5% of users who take up 50% of bandwidth go away

My concern is the future. I don't come anywhere close to 2GB/month, but I decided not to drop to that plan. Why? Because IF I can keep the unlimited plan, I figure it will be worth it in the future - faster networks, larger file sizes, etc.
post #141 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Oddly, the cheaper the hotel the more likely they will have free WiFi the faster it will be.

This made me chuckle ... it's soooo freakin' true! I stayed in a 5 star hotel once (just once) that I payed a pretty penny for, it didn't come with WiFi.

But you can bet the Motel 6 down the way had fast WiFi that was not extra, you know how I know ... stayed at it to a few months later. The towel wasn't as good, but the porn was AWESOME!
post #142 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennywse View Post

This made me chuckle ... it's soooo freakin' true! I stayed in a 5 star hotel once (just once) that I payed a pretty penny for, it didn't come with WiFi.

But you can bet the Motel 6 down the way had fast WiFi that was not extra, you know how I know ... stayed at it to a few months later. The towel wasn't as good, but the porn was AWESOME!

It's true with television, too. The price of the hotel is inversely proportional to the amount of internet/television you get.

Five Star hotel - will charge $10-15/day for wifi and only give you maybe 10 channels on the television.

Motel 6 - free wifi and you'll have the entire spectrum of channels on the television.
post #143 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennywse View Post

This made me chuckle ... it's soooo freakin' true! I stayed in a 5 star hotel once (just once) that I payed a pretty penny for, it didn't come with WiFi.

But you can bet the Motel 6 down the way had fast WiFi that was not extra, you know how I know ... stayed at it to a few months later. The towel wasn't as good, but the porn was AWESOME!

Quote:
Originally Posted by mobycat View Post

It's true with television, too. The price of the hotel is inversely proportional to the amount of internet/television you get.

Five Star hotel - will charge $10-15/day for wifi and only give you maybe 10 channels on the television.

Motel 6 - free wifi and you'll have the entire spectrum of channels on the television.


Most Motel 6s Ive been to charge $2.99 for a 24 hour period. I find that rate to be high but acceptable since their no frills, economy lodging is designed to be inexpensive.

The most Ive seen Las Vegas Marriott, January 2010 was $20 per day. Note, this for a calendar day, so if you check in at 6pm that day that $20 will take you up to midnight. How weak is that?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #144 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexpectations View Post

I expected lower prices at Verizon....after all you are getting less:

-slower speed
-no concurrent data and voice access (I can't use my GPS while I talk!)
-no international coverage
-no rollover minutes
-no free visual voicemail
-no free wifi

I'm currently on AT&T like many of you. Although I agree with the above person about not leaving AT&T,

Slower speed - important
lack of simultaneous data & voice - very important
no rollover - i have so much rollover i don't know what to do with them all - not important
visual voicemail - i would have to think that Apple would do something about that
no free wifi - I wouldn't be using public wifi at all anyway.
unlimited data - this would be important for new subscribers.
post #145 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwiztdWun View Post


7: Why Apple.....why VZW...and why now? Well, honestly, Apple has lost some sales to the Android OS. You can deny it all you want, however, it is true. While Apple may be leading in the OS market now, they wont be in the future if they stay with just 1 US carrier. Up to a year ago, Apple could call all the shots they wanted and get away with it. VZW on the other hand, has done well and still grew its customer base without the iPhone (Apple has done just fine on its own, too). This is due to aquisitions and crazy BOGO offers on Androids and Blackberries.

The current trend of going to VZW and supposedly giving in to some VZW demands is the Android OS fault. Given enough time, Android OS will win. It is inevitable. It is a free OS, distributed across multple carriers and multiple manufacturers. This means the cost can be subsidized more greatly and BOGO free promos can be tossed out left and right to get new customers on board. You can say the Android is winning solely based on all these crazy BOGO offers and multiple manufacturers and claim because of this, you are not comparing Apples to Apples and defend Apple all you want, but, the fact remains, they are still gaining enormous ground. In this case, the ends is justified through the means.

You can scream fragmented OS all you want regarding Android. As I have 2 friends who build apps for Android, their input is this: The core of the OS is still the same no matter what GUI is placed on the phone. Anytime they have had a customer complain their app did not work on version 2.2 with one model ,but, it works on their friends with 2.2 on a different model, is due to the user having the issues has rooted and modded their phone ( dumping a piece of software that took something else with it ) or has had some sort of homebrew stuff ( non approved app ) going on.

Of course, this is just your opinion as someone with loyalty to the company you work for. It isn't necessarily the truth. There have been enough articles with good info as to why Verizon needs the iPhone more than Apple needs Verizon.

The truth, as usual, is somewhere in between. It's true that Android sales are now ahead of the iPhone. It's also true that it's because the iPhone is only directly exposed to a bit under 30% of the cell phone user base, where Android is directly exposed to 100%. What's amazing is that the iPhone is doing so well given those numbers. This will bring the iPhone exposure to 60%. As Verizon sells about half of all Android phones in the US, as a number of writers have put it, it's a big test for Google.

Now, saying that Apple has lost sales to Android isn't quite true. There is little direct competition there as they didn't interact until AT&T started to add Android phones to its line once it knew Apple was expanding to Verizon. It's tough to pull customers from another cell company, and the fact that Apple did this to millions, and that includes a lot of Verizon customers over the years, is saying a lot. What evidence is there that Verizon's Android phones pulled millions from other cell companies? Not that much.

In surveys, it's bee seen that almost 40% of Verizon's Android customers plan to dump their Android phone for an iPhone either when their contract ends, or before. Wow! Not the other way around at AT&T. Same thing with the BB.

I won't get into the rest now because there's just too much to say. But I understand that your voice in this matter is just as biased as anyone else's. You should too.
post #146 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuniverse View Post

I'm currently on AT&T like many of you. Although I agree with the above person about not leaving AT&T,

Slower speed - important
lack of simultaneous data & voice - very important
no rollover - i have so much rollover i don't know what to do with them all - not important
visual voicemail - i would have to think that Apple would do something about that
no free wifi - I wouldn't be using public wifi at all anyway.
unlimited data - this would be important for new subscribers.

I'm not having any problems with AT&T either. The only reason why we would leave, is to get the discounts from going to all FIOS, when it arrives.
post #147 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Of course, this is just your opinion as someone with loyalty to the company you work for. It isn't necessarily the truth. There have been enough articles with good info as to why Verizon needs the iPhone more than Apple needs Verizon.

The truth, as usual, is somewhere in between. It's true that Android sales are now ahead of the iPhone. It's also true that it's because the iPhone is only directly exposed to a bit under 30% of the cell phone user base, where Android is directly exposed to 100%. What's amazing is that the iPhone is doing so well given those numbers. This will bring the iPhone exposure to 60%. As Verizon sells about half of all Android phones in the US, as a number of writers have put it, it's a big test for Google.

Now, saying that Apple has lost sales to Android isn't quite true. There is little direct competition there as they didn't interact until AT&T started to add Android phones to its line once it knew Apple was expanding to Verizon. It's tough to pull customers from another cell company, and the fact that Apple did this to millions, and that includes a lot of Verizon customers over the years, is saying a lot. What evidence is there that Verizon's Android phones pulled millions from other cell companies? Not that much.

In surveys, it's bee seen that almost 40% of Verizon's Android customers plan to dump their Android phone for an iPhone either when their contract ends, or before. Wow! Not the other way around at AT&T. Same thing with the BB.

I won't get into the rest now because there's just too much to say. But I understand that your voice in this matter is just as biased as anyone else's. You should too.

Apple will sell a bunch more iPhones because of Verizon. That is simply understandable. Basic mathematics and marketing knowledge can come up with that deduction.

However, to say Apple hasn't lost sales to Android and that there is little direct competition between these two is ......well, insane to say the least. They have a similar product. They are on similar devices. It is like saying Ford has never lost a sale to Chevrolet. I am boggled that you could not see that these two companies are competitors....just like ATT and VZW.

Apple has lost sales. Unless you use the logic " You can't lose what you don't have to begin with." I know they have lost sales as VZW customers refused to jump ship to Apple because of ATT. They stayed with VZW and went Android. I don't about you, but, that is a lost sale to me. You can say ATT lost the sales, but, Apple partnered with them. A choice Apple made.

I love Apple products. I really do. My family is proudly touting iPods and iPads. However, I have never seen a blind bias towards a product like I see with Apple.

I don't understand it. No matter how much I blow the Apple horn, I know SJ is not going to come to my house and say thanks. I will not get my 72 virgins and I will not get eternal enlightenment on my death bed ( Thanks Carl Spackler!! ).
post #148 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwiztdWun View Post

Apple has lost sales. Unless you use the logic " You can't lose what you don't have to begin with." I know they have lost sales as VZW customers refused to jump ship to Apple because of ATT. They stayed with VZW and went Android. I don't about you, but, that is a lost sale to me. You can say ATT lost the sales, but, Apple partnered with them. A choice Apple made.

The one problem I have with both your posts is that you make it seem so one-sided: Apple has lost sales to Verizon but no acknowledgment that Verizon has last sales to ATT the past three years due to the iPhone.
post #149 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwiztdWun View Post

Apple has lost sales. Unless you use the logic " You can't lose what you don't have to begin with." I know they have lost sales as VZW customers refused to jump ship to Apple because of ATT.

How about “You can’t sell what you don’t have to sell”?

If your demand already exceeds your ability to produce then adding new carriers won’t help sell a damn thing. They are making them as fast as they can. They’re expect to sell 60M this year. That’s 2 phones every second of every minute of every hour of every day for 2011.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #150 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwiztdWun View Post

Apple will sell a bunch more iPhones because of Verizon. That is simply understandable. Basic mathematics and marketing knowledge can come up with that deduction.

However, to say Apple hasn't lost sales to Android and that there is little direct competition between these two is ......well, insane to say the least. They have a similar product. They are on similar devices. It is like saying Ford has never lost a sale to Chevrolet. I am boggled that you could not see that these two companies are competitors....just like ATT and VZW.

Apple has lost sales. Unless you use the logic " You can't lose what you don't have to begin with." I know they have lost sales as VZW customers refused to jump ship to Apple because of ATT. They stayed with VZW and went Android. I don't about you, but, that is a lost sale to me. You can say ATT lost the sales, but, Apple partnered with them. A choice Apple made.

I love Apple products. I really do. My family is proudly touting iPods and iPads. However, I have never seen a blind bias towards a product like I see with Apple.

I don't understand it. No matter how much I blow the Apple horn, I know SJ is not going to come to my house and say thanks. I will not get my 72 virgins and I will not get eternal enlightenment on my death bed ( Thanks Carl Spackler!! ).

Every country so far where Apple has moved to multiple providers has seen large sales increases for the iPhone. In fact, the US is one of the lowest iPhone penetrations around. But, despite what you're saying, most people don't leave their carrier for another phone somewhere else. Turnover rates are very low, at 2.5% or so. It's an amazing thing that 35% of AT&T's new iPhone subs are from elsewhere. Therefor, Android sales are taking very away little from the iPhone, because very few of those people would leave their carrier anyway. But where are those new AT&T iPhone subs coming from? Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon.

What we see happening is that the carriers without iPhones are getting customers for their other smartphones. Thre are various reasons for this.

One, some people just refuse to leave their carrier for any reason.

Two, some people cant, because their company supplies either their phone, their service, or both.

Three, because people are on family plans and one person can't, or won't leave for an above reason.

Four, people think that AT&T sucks, and won't go there.

Five, there's no service for AT&T where they live or work.

There are other reasons as well. But it's not necessarily because Android is "taking" sales away from the iPhone, though no doubt that's happening on some level. But, according to several surveys last year, many Android buyers simply bought them because because of one or more of the above reasons they couldn't go to AT&T, and so they bought second best where they were. In those surveys, as many as 40% of Android owners on Verizon said they would drop their Android phones for an iPhone at some point. I've never seen numbers going the other way. Have you?

In one general survey, 89% of iPhone customers said they would buy another iPhone.

73% of Android customers said the same for their phone.

Then, we have the BB. 56% of BB owners said they would buy another phone once their contract was over; 35% said they would buy an iPhone, and most of the rest said an Android model.

These surveys are around. You can find them if you need.
post #151 of 182
We know Verizon lost sales to ATT solely because of the iPhone. Everyone knows that. I have also seen huge accounts go to ATT for the iPhone and come back a few weeks later and use Android devices due to ATT's network. Those are lost sales no matter how you cut it. However, the table has turned on Apple with the dominance of Android. If they do not go to VZW, they will lose more money than VZW will. VZW could do more easily without the the device than Apple could do without VZW unless they go to more US carriers.....Sprint, TMo, US Cellular...however, that is much harder to do than just jumping on the biggest boat to begin with. The new lineup of Android based phones are phenominal. I am not just saying this, but, their specs speak for themselves.

I am not saying Apple will not be a fantastically profitable company as they are saturated globally now...however, they will lose more money by not opening another pathway for sales. They also know if they do not do this, they will be surpassed by Android....oh....they already are.

This is preventitive maintanance and a move to ensure longevity in the game. It is a smart move. It is also a smart move on VZW to get Apple. It is now offering a product that has become more than a device. It has become an icon. It has its own life so to speak.

VZW does not need Apple just like Apple does not need VZW. However, VZW has the leverage back in their court now as they have the largest wireless customer base in the US.

Sure, they could have went to Sprint or TMo, but, their customer base is rather small compared to VZW. Sure, they would have gained more customers by getting the iPhone, but, Apple knows which grass is greener.

I look at it as a postive move by both companies. I do not try to come up with excuses as to why this is doing better than that. I look at the end result and let it speak for itself.
post #152 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avidfcp View Post

I pay like $133 for me, iPhone and wife, non iPhone.
I can get a new one with unlimited due to granfathered clause ( I told everyone months ago this was about teethering) and my wife doesn't really want a smart phone. Maybe droid. It takes great pix. Anyway tobget her an iPhone would be $15 dollars more a month. With Verizon it's like $189 before taxes. Mines $144-$133 WITH taxes so we shall see. Maybe V can change their prices but tgey do have great video streaming services with excellent gps.

Plus they have 4g so expect the phones if made correct, to run faster. At the very least there should be no lag.

I'm glad they are doing tgis as AT&T could come down in price. Ps
ANYONE KNOW HOW TO BUY A NEW IPHONE UN CALIFORNIA WITHIUT PAYING TAX ON $600?
thanks

No, they don't have 4G. No one has 4G LTE. Their back end, like AT&T is building out support for LTE 4G, but will take 2 full years to switch over and use 3G as the fall back network.
post #153 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

Given that Austria is the size of the average Texan's BBQ, it is not that expensive for a phone company to cover it. How much does your phone company charge you to include France, Germany, Spain, Holland, Portugal etc.?

The average Texas BBQ is > 8 Million? Try again.

One thing is true about Texas. It's Flat. Austria has all the obstacles to interrupt communications with their rugged terrains and steep grades. What's Texas's excuse? Glass towers?
post #154 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwiztdWun View Post

I look at it as a postive move by both companies. I do not try to come up with excuses as to why this is doing better than that. I look at the end result and let it speak for itself.

This is what I expected you to acknowledge in your first post.

As far as who needs who more, I think we will know when we see the Verizon iPhone. If it has feature parity (including VVM at no additional charge) with the ATT iPhone and lacks any Verizon branding, I'm guessing that VZW felt it was pretty important to get the iPhone on their network.
post #155 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwiztdWun View Post

However, the table has turned on Apple with the dominance of Android..

Because Apple is too stupid to realize that others would copy there every move despite having done this since their inception? Because they forgot to give away iOS for free? because they account for 48% of the worlds handset profits and the only vendors using Android are ones who are still struggling to stay in the black?

Quote:
If they do not go to VZW, they will lose more money than VZW will..

If you have 10 apples to sell and demand for 10 apples how many apples can you sell? If you have 10 apples to sell and demand for 15 apples how many apples can you sell?

Quote:
VZW could do more easily without the the device than Apple could do without VZW.

Verizon has lost quarter after quarter to AT&T because of the iPhone, yet Apple keeps making more iPhones and they all seem to get bought, not to mention Apple has other carrier options.

Quote:
...unless they go to more US carriers.....Sprint, TMo, US Cellular...however, that is much harder to do than just jumping on the biggest boat to begin with.

Theyve done it with 40 countries and 100 carriers and you think it would be tough? They partner with T-Mobiles owner Deutsche Telekom and you think that would be more of a chore than Verizon that requires a completely different technology? They are going with Verizon because they will yield them the most money, but that doesnt mean they were losing any by being with AT&T or choosing different US carriers for 2011.

Quote:
The new lineup of Android based phones are phenominal. I am not just saying this, but, their specs speak for themselves.

Which specs? HW specs? You are comparing HW specs from disparate operating systems and think thats a valid argument for better when it comes to usability and consumer interest?

Quote:
I am not saying Apple will not be a fantastically profitable company as they are saturated globally now...however, they will lose more money by not opening another pathway for sales.

As previously noted that pathway doesnt have to be Verizon. It doesnt even have to be the US. There are 580 million subscribers in China that use GSM/TD-SCDMA. They already cant supply iPhones to China Unicoms piddly 160 million subscriber base.

Quote:
They also know if they do not do this, they will be surpassed by Android....oh....they already are.

No, they never will because the iPhone is PHONE and Android is a free OS that is installed on dozens of vendors PHONES. If Apple cared about you claim they would have given away their OS to increase marketshare. They care about profits and that is where they are killing everyone and why Verizon needs or risk AT&T being the largest carrier with more users who pay for data plans.

Quote:
VZW does not need Apple just like Apple does not need VZW. However, VZW has the leverage back in their court now as they have the largest wireless customer base in the US.

Funny how their dominance has dwindled. They are barely holding onto the most subscribers. In fact, AT&T might have best them over this past holiday season. On top of that we Verizon having to adjust their rates, features, and so many other aspects of their business to compete with AT&T who adjusted their operations for the iPhone.

Ill tell you what, if the Verizon iPhone has a big ass Verizon logo imprinted on the back Ill concede that Verizon had the upper hand and therefor need Apple less than they need them.

Quote:
Sure, they could have went to Sprint or TMo, but, their customer base is rather small compared to VZW. Sure, they would have gained more customers by getting the iPhone, but, Apple knows which grass is greener.

There customer base combined is larger than Verizon. Also, the effort to add a T-Mobile iPhone requires nothing more then changing out the pentaband chip for one that includes the 4 used bands and AWS. There is no other change required. A CDMA iPhone is an undertaking. Making it physically similar to the iPhone 4 which was the worlds thinnest smartphone when launched is another.

I thought were trying to be objective earlier. I guess I was wrong.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #156 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwiztdWun View Post

However, to say Apple hasn't lost sales to Android and that there is little direct competition between these two is ......well, insane to say the least. They have a similar product. They are on similar devices. It is like saying Ford has never lost a sale to Chevrolet. I am boggled that you could not see that these two companies are competitors....just like ATT and VZW.

I don't understand it. No matter how much I blow the Apple horn, I know SJ is not going to come to my house and say thanks.

Melgross has a stronger argument than you when it comes to Android and Apple as competitors.

First, there are over 80 different smartphones that are running on Android world wide. Did you catch that? 80. How many smartphones in the world are running on iOS? 1. Yup just 1. So to say that the Android is out selling the iPhone is a true statement, but it masked with fallacies.

With that amount of phone powered by Android OS, Android should have been and should be outselling the iPhone iOS everyday. It's less of a feat for the Android to achieve those number. It's shocking how long it took the Android OS to pass the iPhone iOS.

Yes they are direct competitors, but it's like comparing Ford's total sales to Hummer's total sales. Of course Ford will sell more cars because they have more depths to their product line unlike Hummer who had only 3 models.

If you want to compare apples to apples then you must take every aspect into account.

And no matter how much you blow the VZW horn Ivan Seidenberg isn't going to thank you either.
post #157 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Because Apple is too stupid to realize that others would copy there every move despite having done this since their inception?


When you do something great, people are going to copy it. Nature of business. Unless this was sarcasm...if it is, Sheldon Cooper you need more practice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

If you have 10 apples to sell and demand for 10 apples how many apples can you sell? If you have 10 apples to sell and demand for 15 apples how many apples can you sell?


You increase production and make more money. It is a simple philosophy. Business 101.


Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Verizon has lost quarter after quarter to AT&T because of the iPhone, yet Apple keeps making more iPhones and they all seem to get bought, not to mention Apple has other carrier options.


Verizon has not lost quarter after quarter. They have continued to grow just fine. There were quarters where ATT did better, yes, usually after a new iPhone was released. Then it went back to normal until ATT discounted the older generation iPhone to stupid low amounts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

They are going with Verizon because they will yield them the most money, but that doesnt mean they were losing any by being with AT&T or choosing different US carriers for 2011.


This post just confirmed what I said. They went with VZW as it will yield them the most money with the least effort.




Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Which specs? HW specs? You are comparing HW specs from disparate operating systems and think thats a valid argument for better when it comes to usability and consumer interest?


Well, do you see an iPhone phone with a dual core CPU, 512mb DDR2 desktop quality RAM, 8MP rear camera and front facing camera? I didn't think so. You can knock the Android OS if you want. I have had the iPhone 3Gs and currently have the Android. I am a self proclaimed nerd. Do you want to know what the average user says when they compare the iPhone to an Android? "The iPhone has prettier icons." Thats it. They know nothing else. They are the average user. I will give Apple this as their GUI is top notch. However, the Samsung Galaxy class GUI is just as polished looking. Motorola and HTC's GUi however, is like comparing Windows XP icons to Windows 7. Not as polished looking.


Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

As previously noted that pathway doesnt have to be Verizon. It doesnt even have to be the US. There are 580 million subscribers in China that use GSM/TD-SCDMA. They already cant supply iPhones to China Unicoms piddly 160 million subscriber base.


It is not so much as sales as it is keeping your brand in the spotlight. China is not as driven to Apple as the US market is. China is also home based for all the cheaper pirate copies. Since China is a not a state of capitalism, people are not as willing or able to throw money around as we are here. Thye are more likely to buy a pirate copy as it is more affordable.

I know, you are saying China has more money than the US. You are right...China does....however, its people do not have much money. Sweatshops and subpar working conditions anyone??


Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

No, they never will because the iPhone is PHONE and Android is a free OS that is installed on dozens of vendors PHONES. If Apple cared about you claim they would have given away their OS to increase marketshare. They care about profits and that is where they are killing everyone and why Verizon needs or risk AT&T being the largest carrier with more users who pay for data plans.


The average consumer could care less about the differentiation between an iPhone and a free OS given to manufacturers. No matter what phone it is on, it is still an Android phone to the average Joe wanting to get into the smart phone world.


Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Funny how their dominance has dwindled. They are barely holding onto the most subscribers. In fact, AT&T might have best them over this past holiday season. On top of that we Verizon having to adjust their rates, features, and so many other aspects of their business to compete with AT&T who adjusted their operations for the iPhone.


I will give you this as VZW really never put out anything new or exciting for the Holidays as they have the past few years. VZW was more worried about going to CES to drop the 4G phones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Ill tell you what, if the Verizon iPhone has a big ass Verizon logo imprinted on the back Ill concede that Verizon had the upper hand and therefor need Apple less than they need them.


You will never see this. I would be absolutely surprised if I see VZW brand anywhere on the phone except in the signal strength field.


Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

There customer base combined is larger than Verizon. Also, the effort to add a T-Mobile iPhone requires nothing more then changing out the pentaband chip for one that includes the 4 used bands and AWS. There is no other change required. A CDMA iPhone is an undertaking. Making it physically similar to the iPhone 4 which was the worlds thinnest smartphone when launched is another.


Changing out the pentaband chip or devloping a CDMA iPhone is not the issue or point I was making. However, it is not hard to develop a CDMA version. Qualcomm has tons of chips they would just love to sell to someone. Once you have the chip, it is just teaching the OS to speak differently to a CDMA chip than it usually does to a GSM chip. Not that hard as VZW has been doing it for years utilizing both chipsets in 1 phone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I thought were trying to be objective earlier. I guess I was wrong.

You are definately wrong, however, I am objective.
post #158 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwiztdWun View Post

You will never see this. I would be absolutely surprised if I see VZW brand anywhere on the phone except in the signal strength field.

Then I ask this: has Verizon sold any other smartphones without overt Verizon branding?
post #159 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastoriser View Post

Melgross has a stronger argument than you when it comes to Android and Apple as competitors.

First, there are over 80 different smartphones that are running on Android world wide. Did you catch that? 80. How many smartphones in the world are running on iOS? 1. Yup just 1. So to say that the Android is out selling the iPhone is a true statement, but it masked with fallacies.

With that amount of phone powered by Android OS, Android should have been and should be outselling the iPhone iOS everyday. It's less of a feat for the Android to achieve those number. It's shocking how long it took the Android OS to pass the iPhone iOS.

Yes they are direct competitors, but it's like comparing Ford's total sales to Hummer's total sales. Of course Ford will sell more cars because they have more depths to their product line unlike Hummer who had only 3 models.

If you want to compare apples to apples then you must take every aspect into account.

And no matter how much you blow the VZW horn Ivan Seidenberg isn't going to thank you either.

First, Ivan has thanked me personally. I have met him and shook his hand a couple of times.

And you make my point perfectly about the blindness of Apple fans.

It is like arguing that someone is retarded. Then you say that is only because he bumped his head really hard. Guess what, they are still retarded. How they got to that point is of no concern.....the end result is what matters.

So what if Android is on 80 different models of phones? You can argue the means all you want, however, the ends is all that matters.

You guys think I am here to cause trouble. I am not. It is not an argument and as I said earlier, I was looking forward to this day and welcome the opportunities it brings for both VZW and Apple. Again, I am a fan of Apple. Have many of their products, however, I will speak the truth about the situation and will not cloud anything up.
post #160 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

Then I ask this: has Verizon sold any other smartphones without overt Verizon branding?

Yes, the Palm Treo Pro. However, that is a whole different reason. The phone was never released to the public. It was only sold to a certain customer.

I realize that Apple will never let someone brand their product. I have also never seen VZW give up the ability to troubleshoot and replace the devices they sale, however, you will see it with the iPhone.

I assume your point your trying to make is that since it is not being logoed by VZW then Apple obviously had the bigger pud in the meeting. That idea would mean nothing. I have given up certain things to gain more on the backend of the deal. Companies do it everyday.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Verizon iPhone to use existing plans, similar to AT&T