Originally Posted by melgross
We don't know if any of that is true though.
We don't have boardroom spies (lol), but by the same token, this isn't exactly rocket science. If you know the players (carriers) and what they had to offer, and understand Apple's needs, its not difficult to come to the same conclusions.
It's also in line with much of what's been reported, and is not particularly speculative... its a fact
that Verizon turned them down, its a fact
that Sprint's been embroiled in a merger mess, its a fact
that T-Mobile, Alltel, et cetera are far smaller than the Big Three carriers, and that T-Mobile lags in 3G deployment. No analytical genius is required here... the broad picture is reasonably clear to anyone who really follows or works with this stuff.
I think it's more likely that Apple has both a CDMA and a GSM design, and wanted to go with both ATT and Verison, but gave up the CDMA version when Verison didn't play along.
I have heard no solid reports of that at all (but would like to, as it would be interesting). Not dismissing it, just saying I haven't heard that Apple originally wanted to go multi-carrier in the US.
As most 3G is actually based on CDMA, though it isn't CDMA as we know it, as Splinemodel has pointed out now, and as I have done in the past, Apple must have a model that handles that for the networks that are actual 3G, around the world, or they won't be able to go to those markets this year, and early next.
Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. If you're saying that it would've been terribly difficult for Apple to make both a CDMA/EVDO version and GSM/WCDMA version at the same time, no, it isn't that hard, really. Many cell phone makers routinely release versions of their phones on multiple technologies (the RAZR, to name just one example). The chipsets needed are widely available, the issues are well-known. Its not an enormous hurdle.
I'm going to wait to see just how cramped it really is before I'll feel qualified to comment on it.
That's a bit like saying "I'll go try dialup before I feel qualified to comment that it's slow." Some things are just known issues, Mel. EDGE is slow. The 'Fine EDGE' upgrades may help a bit, but its still slow.
It won't be optimal. Yes. Optimal. That's the word.
Thanks. That's why I used it.
And how many things are optimal? Very few. If this works well enough for most people, and it no doubt will, then that's all that will matter for now.
When they then come out with the 3G model, which Jobs did say they would, way back in January, then that will appear to be a bonus, and Apple will add features that the phone doesn't have now, because of the speed of the present service.
3G will appear to be a bonus to the uncritical. The critical or knowledgeable user will go, "It's about time. What took you so long?" But I would say that uncritical users outnumber knowledgeable ones, so it won't be anywhere near fatal. Plus, the UI, brilliant design, etc. will make many users, both critical and uncritical, very forgiving of any iPhone 1.0 flaws.
It isn't even a mediocre [network]. It's an average one. Remember that—average.
2. \tlacking exceptional quality or ability; "a novel of average merit"; "only a fair performance of the sonata"; "in fair health"; "the caliber of the students has gone from mediocre to above average"; "the performance was middling at best" [syn: average]
3. \tpoor to middling in quality; "there have been good and mediocre and bad artists"
Mediocre doesn't mean bad. Mediocre and average are largely the same thing, though it can imply 'low average' as well. And that's an accurate assessment of ATT's overall network and customer service at present. They may improve in the future.
A company always refers to its partners as "the best". I never concern myself with that. It's to be expected. They would say that about Verison too, even though I don't know even one person who has had anything other than a bad experience with their billing and customer service departments.
Yes, but if they said that about Verizon, they would actually be correct, overall
It's not just me saying it either... compare churn rates, look at national surveys. Even Stan Sigman, the CEO of ATT/Cingular
himself, has stated in interviews that Verizon is the benchmark that he's trying to match, and that he hopes to get there by end of '07. We'll see.
That said, there are definitely things I hate about Verizon too. Their insistence on crippling OBEX (object exchange) on most of their phones annoys a lot of people. They have no postpaid plans below $40, and no family share plans below $70. And they are a bit arrogant. This is why they're sometimes referred to as the 'Apple of the wireless world'. Which, on second thought, actually makes me dislike them a bit less.
All cell providers have gotten better over time, and will continue to, do so.
Yes, but few are spending quite as much money as ATT/Cingular is to do so. It is a very big deal to them, and one of the nicer things I can say about the company. It's just that its been slow going.
It took them a long time to integrate the Cingular and old ATT Wireless networks (which wasn't just two networks, but several... GSM, TDMA, analog, 3G, etc.), and its been taking them a long time to get their 3G really going. Their challenges are huge, but the resources they're putting towards solving them are huge as well.
ATT is better than either of its two halves before, because they have the benefit of both tower networks to fill in where before they had holes.
In areas where network integration is complete (which is most places by now), this can be somewhat true. But for a long time, before network integration was finished, things were a mess.
Keep in mind too, that merging with the old ATT Wireless didn't just bring in more towers... it also brought in 21 million more customers, i.e. the old ATT Wireless customers. Tower capacity increased, but so did load. Its not like they got the additional infrastructure but didn't have to support the additional customers. And ATT Wireless was in a pretty sorry state, network-wise, when Cingular bought them out. This was another thing that Cingular had to fix.
Don't put ATT down so much, like it or not, it's not so bad. The only real problem is the still limited 3G service, and we know that will be improving.
I'm not putting them down, I'm just telling it like it is. They are mediocre, or average, as you like to put it, overall. This is not the same thing as 'bad', 'crappy', or 'sucks'. Now, the old ATT Wireless, pre-merger, sucked. They had a monthly customer churn rate of as high as 3.7%, more than twice than what ATT has today, more than triple what Verizon has. Customers were running screaming from them. ATT is far better than that.
But are they great? No. Are they even good, overall? No, though like any carrier, even the bad ones, they may be good in certain locations. But, they may become
good overall, in 1-2 years, if things go according to plan. This is my hope.
If anything, I would blame Apple for not designing the phone so as to include 3G now, so that where it is available, and when it will be available more widely, current customers would be able to take advantage of it.
3G now wasn't a good idea, and I actually support Apple in their decision.
Sure, people in the areas where ATT actually has good 3G coverage would be ecstatic, but everyone else (a sizeable majority) would have been screwed. EDGE is slow, I think that's a complaint we're going to hear repeatedly from iPhone users until Apple finally DOES release a 3G iPhone, but hey, at least EDGE's coverage is great.
Better a slow data connection than none at all.
In closing, please understand that I'm not 'picking on' ATT. I'm just soberly assessing where they're at now. And if you read some interviews, even ATT execs admit that they've got a ways to go. Here's a quote from Stan Sigman, ATT/Cingular CEO himself, in a Business Week
I don't think it's time for us to go out touting on a national basis that we have the best network until we do have the best network. I know where our network stacks up. There's absolutely no reason why we can't have as good a network as Verizon has. If we don't, we failed to execute.http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...5/b3958094.htm
The interview as a whole is a good read, I recommend it.
And yes, ATT/Cingular has improved in the 18 months since that interview, but so has Verizon and ATT's other competition.