or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › AT&T pushing to keep iPhone exclusive through 2011
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AT&T pushing to keep iPhone exclusive through 2011 - Page 3

post #81 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by xwiredtva View Post

FYI: The current 3G iPhone is a Quad-Band phone, IE it will work on T-Mobile and Sprint.

Quad Band means it uses different frequencies with GSM, Sprint is CDMA.

Quote:
We'll see, like I've said before, iPhones available from Apple that are unlocked and available for either system this summer. Too many people that are close to this I know are all saying the same thing.

Its not in Apple's business model to just sell unlocked phones to whomever wants to buy them. Apple is going to be fully involved in how the phone and service are sold.

Quote:
ATT contract is up, there talking but it's just that-Talk.

The contract is up in 2010, not this year.

Quote:
What's not being talked about though is the possibility of Apple, Inc. Cell-Service. Their own packaged deal.

This has been talked about. Apple mentioned they thought about it but decided not to do it. Its much more efficient to be a hardware maker and leave the network to those who invest billions in networks.
post #82 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

It must suck to be American, land of the free* (*to be assraped by corporations).

But the cool part is that this is the easiest place in the world to start from nothing and build up a corporation where you can engage in government-assisted assraping! That's why most of us Americans take it up the pooper with grim resolve -- the prospect that we may be on the giving end some day!

The most egregious industry in which we Americans are assraped is undoubtedly health care. Any of the right-wing kooks who try to scare us about "socialized medicine", "rationed care", "inefficient bureaucracies", etc. are all hoping we don't know that all of those things are happening right now. Instead of being in the hands of our democratically-elected government, it's under the control of private companies who are duty-bound to maximize profits for their shareholders and have no accountability to the patients.

A few years ago, I had a choice of three of four companies to use as part of my benefits at work. Later, that narrowed to multiple plans from one company, Now, I have one choice from one company (which therefore, is not a choice, unless you consider "uninsured" a viable option).

All you have to tell the right-wingers is that with our so-called free market for health care, we pay twice as much as any other industrial country but have worse results. That's just inexcusable for a country that ideally operates as a meritocracy.

At least we still have football (what the world calls American Football)!
post #83 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by AjitMD View Post

Apple is just being insensitive to the consumer needs. ...

I like the iPhone, and I have been to the ATT store thinking about switching over to ATT, but their onerous terms along with reported poor coverage was a bitter pill to swallow so I backed away.

I'm on AT&T. What "onerous terms" are you referring to?

As for insensitive, I highly doubt it. AT&T was the carrier that agreed to Apple's demands for:
1. wi-fi,
2. voice over wi-fi,
3. iTunes at-home activation,
4. iTunes media,
5. iTunes media over-the-air,
6. iTunes App Store,
7. mobile me,
8. iTunes ringtones,
9. unlimited data (no metered data) plan,
10. no MMS,
11. Apple control of TV marketing,
12. Apple control over allowed retail outlets,
13. no AT&T branding on iPhone (other than tiny icon), etc
while providing no access to any of AT&T's own walled-garden stores (MediaNet, etc). Verizon, which Apple approached first, would've agreed to few, if any, of the above.

Altho Apple primarily does things for its own profit (like any business does), in the end, it was actually more sensitive to consumer's "needs" given the relative popularity of Apple's efforts over those of any carrier. In reality, Verizon is the one that is "insensitive" as they limit everything in exchange for providing a good network.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #84 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by samthegreater View Post

Even though AT&T is gaining many new subscribers that are paying for their monthly phone plans through the iPhone, it still seems to me that it doesn't quite make up for the amount they lost through subsidizing the iPhone 3G. And let's face it, AT&T's phone service is simply sub-par. I think that consumers will begin to realize that an iPod touch has just as many application options as an iPhone, so they are better off financially if they stick with whatever phone plan they have (many provide customers with phones that come free with the plan) and get an iPod touch instead.

Excluding any capital investments AT&T is making to improve their 3G+ network (which they would have to do anyway though not possibly on as quick a schedule as they have to to support iPhone), AT&T is clearly profiting big-time from its relationship with Apple. iPhone alone is bringing them huge numbers of new highly satisfied customers with 2-year $70+/month contracts. Go read their quarterly releases and conference call transcripts to see how much they love/need iPhone.

If you need further evidence from the other side, see Verizon's growing churn ratio, Verizon exit survey (highlighting iPhone as choice), and Verizon/RIM buy one, get one free promotions.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #85 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Trolling? Who- you? Don't flatter yourself!
Stop posting misinformation!!
Wrong again. Where's the carrier? Pre will be at Verizon this fall. Razr is all over the place.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Most cell/smartphones of high value are/were locked to one carrier when introduced. It's the length of the "lock" that is being discussed. iPhone's "lock" just happens to be way longer than any of the others.

Pre will not be at Verizon this fall. Within the US, Pre is exclusive to Sprint at least through the end of 2009. If you know otherwise, provide a link please.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #86 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by macFanDave View Post

when AT&T is not exclusive with Apple?

AT&T sells other smartphones. Why shouldn't Apple distribute its iPhones through other service providers?

There is no technical reason why people can't use iPhones on other networks. There is only a locking scheme that shackles iPhone users to their network exclusively.

If AT&T rolled out a data network exclusively for iPhones, I can understand why they might deserve a long-term monopoly on selling them. But their network works with many types of phones they sell, so they really have no valid claim to hold iPhone users hostage forever.

AT&T sells other smartphones, but doesn't give those other phones as much leeway as it gives Apple for iPhone. See my other post earlier in this thread.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #87 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by breeze View Post

Relate to why on earth Apple and ATT would offer a $699+ phone contract free if it did not behold the ability to be carrier choice ( ie: unlocked) ....

Unfortunately, this is what happening. Right now you can go to an Apple store and pay $599+ to buy contract free locked to AT&T iPhone (you can only use it with AT&T). However, you can use jailbreaking to unlock it but you may have problems updating to new iPhone OS. I guess you already know that.

The other unfortunate thing is that in the US there is no law to force carriers to unlock your phone and there is no clause in AT&T contract that says AT&T or Apple will unlock your iPhone even after your contract is up. Believe me, I've looked it up many times and couldn't find it. If you can find that law or clause in AT&T contract please let me know because I seriously want to point it out to AT&T and ask them to unlock my iPhone.

PS. AT&T and other carriers usually would unlock your phone (not any phone and not the iPhone) after 90 days of good standing but only if you ask them.
post #88 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

Most cell/smartphones of high value are/were locked to one carrier when introduced. It's the length of the "lock" that is being discussed. iPhone's "lock" just happens to be way longer than any of the others.

Pre will not be at Verizon this fall. Within the US, Pre is exclusive to Sprint at least through the end of 2009. If you know otherwise, provide a link please.

Where is your link proving it is exclusive until the end of 2009. Provide link please.
I've read 6 months after launch it goes to Verizon. So count 6 months after launch which now could be summer perhaps?

And the iPhone's lock with AT&T is not "just happening" either. These are abnormal terms. Prove to me that this is just business as usual (a 4 plus year lock) for phones as you seem to believe.
post #89 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

I'm on AT&T. What "onerous terms" are you referring to?

As for insensitive, I highly doubt it. AT&T was the carrier that agreed to Apple's demands for:
1. wi-fi,
2. voice over wi-fi,
3. iTunes at-home activation,
4. iTunes media,
5. iTunes media over-the-air,
6. iTunes App Store,
7. mobile me,
8. iTunes ringtones,
9. unlimited data (no metered data) plan,
10. no MMS,
11. Apple control of TV marketing,
12. Apple control over allowed retail outlets,
13. no AT&T branding on iPhone (other than tiny icon), etc
while providing no access to any of AT&T's own walled-garden stores (MediaNet, etc). Verizon, which Apple approached first, would've agreed to few, if any, of the above.

Altho Apple primarily does things for its own profit (like any business does), in the end, it was actually more sensitive to consumer's "needs" given the relative popularity of Apple's efforts over those of any carrier. In reality, Verizon is the one that is "insensitive" as they limit everything in exchange for providing a good network.

So AT&T charges you and arm and a leg, then gives you a crappy network and customer service and you're OK with that?
post #90 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


The other unfortunate thing is that in the US there is no law to force carriers to unlock your phone and there is no clause in AT&T contract that says AT&T or Apple will unlock your iPhone even after your contract is up. Believe me, I've looked it up many times and couldn't find it. If you can find that law or clause in AT&T contract please let me know because I seriously want to point it out to AT&T and ask them to unlock my iPhone.

PS. AT&T and other carriers usually would unlock your phone (not any phone and not the iPhone) after 90 days of good standing but only if you ask them.

ATT has to supply a code to unlock customer's phones upon expiration of a contract. They cannot force you to stay on as a customer and they cannot make your phone obsolete or redundant or make you throw away your phone for failure to do so.

I have been an ATT customer for many years. A few years back, I had to travel abroad and needed to use a local SIMM on my Nokia phone in Europe. Upon my inquiry with ATT on unlocking the phone they told me that they were required by law to provide unlock codes for all customer phones who's contracts had expired. They indeed provided then the unlocking code. This may be a federal FCC requirement or a consumer protection requirement. I inquired with a manager at ATT about this when I first got my iPhone and he verified that it is true.
post #91 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


The Apple/AT&T deal has nothing to do with lawyers, it has to do with loyalty
. AT&T took a chance and agreed to carry the phone under Apple's stipulations having never actually seen it.

That has to be the most naive post I've ever read here or anywhere.
Do you sincerely believe Apple would want to conitinue this affair with such a crappy carrier and not buy out of this choking exclusive contract and not expand even more?
post #92 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by breeze View Post

ATT has to supply a code to unlock customer's phones upon expiration of a contract. They cannot force you to stay on as a customer and they cannot make your phone obsolete or redundant or make you throw away your phone for failure to do so.

I have been an ATT customer for many years. A few years back, I had to travel abroad and needed to use a local SIMM on my Nokia phone in Europe. Upon my inquiry with ATT on unlocking the phone they told me that they were required by law to provide unlock codes for all customer phones who's contracts had expired. They indeed provided then the unlocking code. This may be a federal FCC requirement or a consumer protection requirement. I inquired with a manager at ATT about this when I first got my iPhone and he verified that it is true.

This is article about an interview with AT&T CEO back in Dec 2007. He clearly said that AT&T unlocking policy will not apply for the iPhone. Maybe you should check back with that manager again.

http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobilize/...r-networks-785

PS. There is not FCC regulation that require carriers to unlock. If you don't believe me google it.
post #93 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

This is article about an interview with AT&T CEO back in Dec 2007. He clearly said that AT&T unlocking policy will not apply for the iPhone. Maybe you should check back with that manager again.

http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobilize/...r-networks-785

Just because he said so, doesn't make it legal... ( sound familiar?)

It's definitely worth pursuing inquiries with consumer protection agencies...

I'd think there has to be some legal safeguards or conditions, that protect investment and property beyond the contract. ATT can control usage while under contract but not afterwards. Their protection is the lock but they are given the keys for "use" only while the contract is in force. Not after.
post #94 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

So AT&T charges you and arm and a leg, then gives you a crappy network and customer service and you're OK with that?

Why do you say they charge me any more than Verizon or the others do for a smartphone with an unlimited data plan?

Excluding the now extinct Sprint SERO plan, all the US carriers charge about the same (except for the completely unlimited everything highest end plan where Sprint is significantly cheaper, and which I don't need).

By the way, for the three months I've been on AT&T cell, its network has been much better (coverage & quality), and its customer service has been just as good as T-Mobile (my former carrier). I used to have Verizon for phone service and hated their customer service. (I now have Verizon FIOS and so far have not had to contact a real person. Their automated help system is painful to work through, but it's solved my problems so I'm not complaining.)
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #95 of 148
I pretty much stopped hoping iPhone will ever come to Verizon. I don't like AT&T so no iPhone for me. I'm about to get the Touch just to play with the interface and enjoy some of the tricks via my WiFi, that should satisfy my craving for the iPhone.

At the same time there isn't one phone I like on Verizon. Phone selection is just terrible. Where are the great Nokia's roaming in Europe. Why is this outdated still alive and kicking? Do we need the government to outlaw older systems much like they're mandating Digital broadcasting now?
13" MacBook 2.4ghz, 4g RAM, 500g Scorpio HD, 22" Samsung SyncMaster
Reply
13" MacBook 2.4ghz, 4g RAM, 500g Scorpio HD, 22" Samsung SyncMaster
Reply
post #96 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by breeze View Post

Just because he said so, doesn't make it legal... ( sound familiar?)

It's definitely worth pursuing inquiries with consumer protection agencies...

I'd think there has to be some protection that protects investment and property beyond the contract. ATT can control usage while under contract but not afterwards. Their protection is the lock but they are given the keys for "use" only while the contract is in force. Not after.

The problem is that it is legal because there is no FCC regulation regarding this issue. This is why there is class action lawsuit against AT&T for refusing to unlock iPhones. I am with you regarding this. I think the FCC should issue a regulation forcing carriers to unlock phones once the contract is up. The reality is there is none right now and this sucks. The only thing the FCC did was regulate the early contract termination fee.
post #97 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Quad Band means it uses different frequencies with GSM, Sprint is CDMA.



Its not in Apple's business model to just sell unlocked phones to whomever wants to buy them. Apple is going to be fully involved in how the phone and service are sold.



The contract is up in 2010, not this year.



This has been talked about. Apple mentioned they thought about it but decided not to do it. Its much more efficient to be a hardware maker and leave the network to those who invest billions in networks.

Contact re-up is this year, June in fact. Expires in 2010, the current. Yes Quad Band is GSM... Sprint IS ALSO GSM, thanks to Nextel...
http://www.nextel.com/en/stores/intl...al_phones.html

The can sublease the lines. The carrier then provides the service, Apple then sells the phones, contracts, whatever... There supporting the phone already, what's left?
post #98 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

The problem is that it is legal because there is no FCC regulation regarding this issue. This is why there is class action lawsuit against AT&T for refusing to unlock iPhones. I am with you regarding this. I think the FCC should issue a regulation forcing carriers to unlock phones once the contract is up. The reality is there is none right now and this sucks. The only thing the FCC did was regulate the early contract termination fee.

Well then we've got our work cut out for us haven't we?

Time to start writing and calling everyone that can do something about it.

I still think there is legal ground to demand that an iPhone continue to function fully after "doing time" with the mandatory ATT contract. Refusing to unlock it is tantamount to ATT sabotage.

PS: I did not know that there is a class action against ATT for refusing to unlock iPhones - after the contract expires...Could you please provide some details?
post #99 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

I'm on AT&T. What "onerous terms" are you referring to?

As for insensitive, I highly doubt it. AT&T was the carrier that agreed to Apple's demands for:
1. wi-fi,
2. voice over wi-fi,
3. iTunes at-home activation,
4. iTunes media,
5. iTunes media over-the-air,
6. iTunes App Store,
7. mobile me,
8. iTunes ringtones,
9. unlimited data (no metered data) plan,
10. no MMS,
11. Apple control of TV marketing,
12. Apple control over allowed retail outlets,
13. no AT&T branding on iPhone (other than tiny icon), etc
while providing no access to any of AT&T's own walled-garden stores (MediaNet, etc). Verizon, which Apple approached first, would've agreed to few, if any, of the above.

Altho Apple primarily does things for its own profit (like any business does), in the end, it was actually more sensitive to consumer's "needs" given the relative popularity of Apple's efforts over those of any carrier. In reality, Verizon is the one that is "insensitive" as they limit everything in exchange for providing a good network.

++ This is a great post!

People on here know I have bashed the hell out of AT&T and do not own an iPhone due to the fact that it is on their network. That said, people quickly forget how much Apple was trying to change the cell model when the iPhone first came out. The fact that Apple is having to fall in line a bit and go to a subscriber model and other such things is in no way the fault of AT&T.

Mark, you've made some great points and have a better memory than most.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #100 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Unfortunately, this is what happening. Right now you can go to an Apple store and pay $599+ to buy contract free locked to AT&T iPhone (you can only use it with AT&T). However, you can use jailbreaking to unlock it but you may have problems updating to new iPhone OS. I guess you already know that.

The other unfortunate thing is that in the US there is no law to force carriers to unlock your phone and there is no clause in AT&T contract that says AT&T or Apple will unlock your iPhone even after your contract is up. Believe me, I've looked it up many times and couldn't find it. If you can find that law or clause in AT&T contract please let me know because I seriously want to point it out to AT&T and ask them to unlock my iPhone.

PS. AT&T and other carriers usually would unlock your phone (not any phone and not the iPhone) after 90 days of good standing but only if you ask them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIM_lock
post #101 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

I've read 6 months after launch it goes to Verizon. So count 6 months after launch which now could be summer perhaps?

If you're assuming release in spring, then well yes, technically Dec 19 is Fall.

Quote:
And the iPhone's lock with AT&T is not "just happening" either. These are abnormal terms. Prove to me that this is just business as usual (a 4 plus year lock) for phones as you seem to believe.

Apple is an abnormal company.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #102 of 148
I'm sorry, but AT&T's network is terribad, I would so love multiple carriers for the iPhone.
post #103 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

I don't see a reason not to if they're going to be staying GSM only for the iPhone 3G. the 4G, however, should not have an exclusive deal.

Probably both will be locked to AT&T in the USA, but it's way more likely strategy-wise if they want to open things up, that they would do the reverse of what you suggest.

Making a cheaper 3G version that runs on almost any network and is sold around the world while simultaneously keeping the (purported) "iPhone Pro" exclusive to their partners would probably give the best result in terms of monetising the platform.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #104 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

++ This is a great post!

People on here know I have bashed the hell out of AT&T and do not own an iPhone due to the fact that it is on their network. That said, people quickly forget how much Apple was trying to change the cell model when the iPhone first came out. The fact that Apple is having to fall in line a bit and go to a subscriber model and other such things is in no way the fault of AT&T.

Mark, you've made some great points and have a better memory than most.

Thanks. There's probably even more that we don't see and don't know about, and stuff they never discussed. I bet Apple thought tethering over cell was included and allowable in the unlimited $30 data plan, but then found out that AT&T strongly disagreed after Apple released the tethering app on the App Store.

One other big concession AT&T made was to allow Apple to share in data plan fees rather than a phone subsidy. (This was not entirely new, as Blackberry collects fees.) But that changed in June 2008, and so I didn't include it in the list. But it's this change that is causing AT&T to take a special charge against earnings because for this last year it's been paying fees to Apple for the original iPhone, and subsidies for the iPhone 3G. Double-whammy.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #105 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by xwiredtva View Post

The can sublease the lines. The carrier then provides the service, Apple then sells the phones, contracts, whatever... There supporting the phone already, what's left?

Like already said, Apple looked into being an MVNO but decided it was more advantageous to be an AT&T partner given AT&T's concessions to let Apple handle the device. Apple said AT&T was well-equipped to handle contracts/billing and network operation - no middleman needed.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #106 of 148
There's little impetus for either company to kill the goose laying the golden egg, here. Apple gets some data plan revenues and made a phone everyone wants, with little restrictions over how to actually make the phone. AT&T pays a lot up front for iPhone subsidies, but gains millions of customers and billions of dollars yearly.

Meanwhile, Verizon is spending bank to redo their network for LTE, which is already the technological progression of GSM. When LTE comes around, maybe we'll have competition, but until that time, what's the point? I had Verizon and agree that their customer service and network are far superior right now... but the phones suck. My enV was clunky and chunky. My iPhone is a far superior device. It's truly the difference between high school baseball and the major leagues.
post #107 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

I'm on AT&T. What "onerous terms" are you referring to?

As for insensitive, I highly doubt it. AT&T was the carrier that agreed to Apple's demands for:
1. wi-fi,
2. voice over wi-fi,
3. iTunes at-home activation,
4. iTunes media,
5. iTunes media over-the-air,
6. iTunes App Store,
7. mobile me,
8. iTunes ringtones,
9. unlimited data (no metered data) plan,
10. no MMS,
11. Apple control of TV marketing,
12. Apple control over allowed retail outlets,
13. no AT&T branding on iPhone (other than tiny icon), etc
while providing no access to any of AT&T's own walled-garden stores (MediaNet, etc). Verizon, which Apple approached first, would've agreed to few, if any, of the above.

Altho Apple primarily does things for its own profit (like any business does), in the end, it was actually more sensitive to consumer's "needs" given the relative popularity of Apple's efforts over those of any carrier. In reality, Verizon is the one that is "insensitive" as they limit everything in exchange for providing a good network.

Absolutely spot on.

Man, the whining in this thread is clanging in my ears.....

And, in case you're wondering, I use the iPhone. All said and done, I think ATT is no worse than any other carrier from a service standpoint. I think they are trying hard to get better.
post #108 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by polvadis View Post

I pretty much stopped hoping iPhone will ever come to Verizon. I don't like AT&T so no iPhone for me. I'm about to get the Touch just to play with the interface and enjoy some of the tricks via my WiFi, that should satisfy my craving for the iPhone......

You know what? I just had a flash of insight (right or wrong, who knows) on why Apple loves being exclusive to ATT: If they weren't, they would have to shut down the production/sale of iPod Touch!
post #109 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by polvadis View Post

At the same time there isn't one phone I like on Verizon. Phone selection is just terrible. Where are the great Nokia's roaming in Europe. ....

This is the main reason I was happy to jump ship from Verizon the day the iPhone came out. Apart from the overrated coverage and the chokehold on services.

I think that Nokia is probably just as tired of dealing with Verizon, and hence the reluctance to offer its cutting-edge products in the US. Verizon will probably neuter the customer experience anyway.....
post #110 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

So AT&T charges you and arm and a leg, then gives you a crappy network and customer service and you're OK with that?

Coming from someone who doesn't even use AT&T.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

That has to be the most naive post I've ever read here or anywhere.
Do you sincerely believe Apple would want to conitinue this affair with such a crappy carrier and not buy out of this choking exclusive contract and not expand even more?

What evidence have you found that Apple is dissatisfied with AT&T as a carrier? That is your opinion.
post #111 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

Why do you say they charge me any more than Verizon or the others do for a smartphone with an unlimited data plan?

Excluding the now extinct Sprint SERO plan, all the US carriers charge about the same (except for the completely unlimited everything highest end plan where Sprint is significantly cheaper, and which I don't need).

I agree they all charge too much ( never said they charge more) but in Verizon's case the quality and consistency of the calls warrrants it. And wait till AT&T tacks on MMS charges. I believe other carriers include that already as it's standard.
post #112 of 148
[QUOTE=TenoBell;1403360]
Quote:
Coming from someone who doesn't even use AT&T.

But reads NY Times, COnsumer reports, WSJ, etc ,etc, etc.

Quote:
What evidence have you found that Apple is dissatisfied with AT&T as a carrier? That is your opinion.

Dream on. Right- Apple loves all that bad AT&T press and dissatisfied potential iPhone buyers.
post #113 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Coming from someone who doesn't even use AT&T.

Maybe he hasn't, but AT&T does have a pretty crummy network in my experience.
post #114 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppingmaster View Post

There's little impetus for either company to kill the goose laying the golden egg, here. Apple gets some data plan revenues and made a phone everyone wants, with little restrictions over how to actually make the phone. AT&T pays a lot up front for iPhone subsidies, but gains millions of customers and billions of dollars yearly.

Meanwhile, Verizon is spending bank to redo their network for LTE, which is already the technological progression of GSM. When LTE comes around, maybe we'll have competition, but until that time, what's the point? I had Verizon and agree that their customer service and network are far superior right now... but the phones suck. My enV was clunky and chunky. My iPhone is a far superior device. It's truly the difference between high school baseball and the major leagues.

I would agree that pretty much any enV makes any other phone look great. It is a terrible early attempt at a great concept. My wife has the enV2 and it is a fantatic LITTLE phone. It is the size of my old Razr. The enV3 will be coming along soon and looks to be even better.

It will be interesting to see in the future how the revenue sharing/network exclusivity bit works out. It is clear from many on here that most are paying extra for what they deem to be a substandard network. This becomes a form of Apple tax that most can avoid by going the iPod Touch route. Additionally the Touch has no contract.

As the saying goes, fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice...

Let's see how many AT&T can fool again even with the iPhone as bait.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #115 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by polvadis View Post

I pretty much stopped hoping iPhone will ever come to Verizon. I don't like AT&T so no iPhone for me. I'm about to get the Touch just to play with the interface and enjoy some of the tricks via my WiFi, that should satisfy my craving for the iPhone.

Have the same here- a Touch and Verizon cell. Verizon has the ugliest phones but the best service. Calls are too important to me to deal the AT&T's crapola.
Try an LG phone - not bad and quality is excellent- small too.
post #116 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppingmaster View Post

Meanwhile, Verizon is spending bank to redo their network for LTE, which is already the technological progression of GSM. When LTE comes around, maybe we'll have competition, but until that time, what's the point?

People say things like this, but would LTE really be the compatibility panacea? What would be the fallback modes if it can't connect to LTE because of weak signal? If everyone went LTE, wouldn't everyone have to have the same fallback signal types to be decently compatible? Say an AT&T phone would fall back to 3G if LTE didn't work, what would a phone on a Verizon LTE network do?
post #117 of 148
If Apple renews this contract AT&T will never lower their pricing to compete with T-Mobiles $45.00 unlimited minutes program. Yes, they do have one & it's offered to loyal customers who have had service for a year or more. Their unlimited data starts at $25.00 -- This pricing is a 50% savings over AT&T's raping of iPhone users..
post #118 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancelot9201 View Post

If Apple renews this contract AT&T will never lower their pricing to compete with T-Mobiles $45.00 unlimited minutes program. Yes, they do have one & it's offered to loyal customers who have had service for a year or more. Their unlimited data starts at $25.00 -- This pricing is a 50% savings over AT&T's raping of iPhone users..

Sure. AT&T charging the same data rate for the iPhone as for their other smart phones, which is what Verizon charges for their smart phones, which is more than a $25 unlimited data plan that T-Mobile is hiding by not putting it on their website, could certainly reasonably be characterized as AT&T "raping" their iPhone customers.

This is the sort of balanced analysis that makes me think well of the AT&T haters.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #119 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by xwiredtva View Post

Contact re-up is this year, June in fact. Expires in 2010, the current. Yes Quad Band is GSM... Sprint IS ALSO GSM, thanks to Nextel...
http://www.nextel.com/en/stores/intl...al_phones.html

iDEN is compatible with GSM, but it isn't as though you can simply connect an iPhone and it will work. If it were that easy people would be doing it already.

Quote:
The can sublease the lines. The carrier then provides the service, Apple then sells the phones, contracts, whatever... There supporting the phone already, what's left?

Apple only deals with the handset, Apple does not deal with billing, customer support, and customer service for the network. Apple would have to deal with this for ever country the iPhone is in, its not something they wanted to deal with.
post #120 of 148
You have to consider that none of Verizon's phones tax the network equivalent to the iPhone, so we don't really know how their network would handle the load. So do you feel ripped off?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Maybe he hasn't, but AT&T does have a pretty crummy network in my experience.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › AT&T pushing to keep iPhone exclusive through 2011