or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple happy with AT&T, indicates no plans for CDMA iPhone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple happy with AT&T, indicates no plans for CDMA iPhone - Page 2

post #41 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

the biggest market Apple can tap into is China, and they don't use CDMA.

That doesn't jive with what I've been reading on the telecom news sites. What I've been seeing is CDMA is widely used in China, and is actually increasing. Carriers there are seeing that they get better bang for their buck in terms of signal strength, audio quality, and transition to LTE from CDMA, and are moving away from GSM.
post #42 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka View Post

That doesn't jive with what I've been reading on the telecom news sites.

China is well mixed like the US. there largest carrier is CDMA-based.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecom...ecom_operators
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 #43 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I'd say that my worst AT&T coverage was in SF and Oakland areas. Sometimes it would literally fluctuate on the handset every few seconds. It's been about a year so I hope things have improved.

That's just odd... I live/work in San Francisco and work a lot in Richmond across the Bay. Reception for me is excellent in all the areas except for one dead spot in Richmod near San Pablo. Go figure.
post #44 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

That's just odd... I live/work in San Francisco and work a lot in Richmond across the Bay. Reception for me is excellent in all the areas except for one dead spot in Richmod near San Pablo. Go figure.

It's been a year, and that is a long time for AT&T to get things more covered. I was in Walnut Creek area around Christmas this past year and had EDGE with one to two bars, as did the AT&T Palm Treos, in a nice neighborhood. Makes no sense sometimes.
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 #45 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

It's been a year, and that is a long time for AT&T to get things more covered. I was in Walnut Creek area around Christmas this past year and had EDGE with one to two bars, as did the AT&T Palm Treos, in a nice neighborhood. Makes no sense sometimes.

You must have went off you kool-aid meds if you're admitting you had a weak signal.
Seriously, ever wonder why both signals were on AT&T? Huh- ever?
post #46 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka View Post

That doesn't jive with what I've been reading on the telecom news sites. What I've been seeing is CDMA is widely used in China, and is actually increasing. Carriers there are seeing that they get better bang for their buck in terms of signal strength, audio quality, and transition to LTE from CDMA, and are moving away from GSM.

But according to the "interim" chief of Apple "CDMA doesnt really have a life to it after a certain point in time" and we all know how backwards the Chinese are in technology after seeing how awful their technology was at the Olympics.
post #47 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Just whereabout is it not covered? http://www.wireless.att.com/coverage...585&sci=6&3g=t

The area in orange with the diagonal stripes. I live in Miami County (specifically southern Miami County) and work in downtown Kansas City. If I was in Johnson, I'd be okay, but, alas, I'm not.
post #48 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Just whereabout is it not covered? http://www.wireless.att.com/coverage...585&sci=6&3g=t

Leavenworth ? IPhone reception is lousy in there.
post #49 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Why is it a windoze world? Why did people vote for W Bush twice?

Because Al Egore was inventing the internet.
post #50 of 100
THats too bad apple is happy with AT&T, because my first iPhone is probably going to be my last iphone. I can't even make phone calls from my major metropolitan suburban home. My next phone is probably going to be another verizon phone, unless AT&T makes some major improvements in their service. Which I don't see happening. I'll just get a cheapey verizon phone and an iPod Touch with Skype.
post #51 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by l008com View Post

THats too bad apple is happy with AT&T, because my first iPhone is probably going to be my last iphone. I can't even make phone calls from my major metropolitan suburban home. My next phone is probably going to be another verizon phone, unless AT&T makes some major improvements in their service. Which I don't see happening. I'll just get a cheapey verizon phone and an iPod Touch with Skype.

Quite frankly, Apple has demostrated that it is totally fine losing (or never gaining) customers who are willing to jump through those kind of hoops to make things happen. It sucks that ATT doesn't work where you need it to, but Apple doesn't care, nor should they (because caring wouldn't change ATT's service, nor would it make it cost effective to dump the legal agreement they have with ATT for exclusivity).
post #52 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

You seem to be thinking that all of Apple's potential customers live in the US. They do not. In fact, the biggest market Apple can tap into is China, and they don't use CDMA.

It's certainly debatable since I believe China has ~400 million cellphone users... The biggest unknown is what percentage of those can afford an iPhone and what percentage of those actually would like the device (or how many will buy a knockoff instead).

Regardless if it's the China or the USA, customers in the USA have a very favorable opinion of the iPhone and there are 150+ million customers on other (mostly CDMA) carriers who are unable to purchase one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

It's never been about maximizing profits... or there are a plethora of markets that Apple could get into an conceivably do well (netbooks, sub-$1000 laptops, non-Mac Pro tower PCs, etc..). But it goes against the companies core philosophy of keeping things simple. Once you start down that slippery road, it becomes all to easy to ship out crud to the market simply because it will make money.

Apple has ALWAYS been about maximizing profits... Anyways, I don't buy the "complexity" argument. It doesn't make sense from a profit perspective, and regardless Apple could make the next iPhone with a dual-radio baseband that supports both standards...


Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

....Apple would surely profit (if all such exclusive contracts were removed from the equation) by making an iPhone they could sell to Verizon. The engineering costs would be minimal compared to the huge market opportunity. But ATT is making up for that with its payments to Apple. Those payments are not reflected in profit and loss statements, but go straight to Apple's balance sheet as one time items.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

about maximizing profits. And given the world the way it IS, not the way we wish it would be, being with one carrier in the USA maximizes profits better than being with both bigs because of the large subsidies and because of ATT's willingness to give Apple tons of control and cash in return for not making a Verizon iPhone.


So Apple is getting more from AT&T then they could make selling another 5-10 million iPhones on Verizon/Sprint? I HIGHLY doubt that... I don't remember the exact figure, but I believe the new deal is that Apple is getting around $500 from AT&T for each iPhone sold and in exchange not receiving any monthly commission.

So lets go with a theoretical 7 million CDMA iPhones sold over the next 24 months, which I think is quite conservative even especially with the new model and firmware 3.0.

7 Million iPhones sold @ $300/phone= $2.1 Billion. You'd have to be nuts to think AT&T is going to be paying Apple anywhere NEAR that amount for an exclusivity agreement.. I can't imagine more than $100 million or more..
post #53 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by winterspan View Post

So Apple is getting more from AT&T then they could make selling another 5-10 million iPhones on Verizon/Sprint? I HIGHLY doubt that... I don't remember the exact figure, but I believe the new deal is that Apple is getting around $500 from AT&T for each iPhone sold and in exchange not receiving any monthly commission.

So lets go with a theoretical 7 million CDMA iPhones sold over the next 24 months, which I think is quite conservative even especially with the new model and firmware 3.0.

7 Million iPhones sold @ $300/phone= $2.1 Billion. You'd have to be nuts to think AT&T is going to be paying Apple anywhere NEAR that amount for an exclusivity agreement.. I can't imagine more than $100 million or more..

Again, you're talking numbers and neglecting the non-monetary benefits/costs.

Apple and ATT have a LEGAL AGREEMENT that forbids Apple from selling phones to Verizon. The costs of breaking that agreement could be ANYTHING, and are not related to the profits that Apple might earn from selling those Verizon iPhones.

I've never denied that Apple would make a profit on the phones themselves, after factoring in engineering costs. But that's not the only thing at play. Apple has to break a legal agreement to do what you suggest, and the costs of breaking the legal agreement are known only to Apple and ATT.

One thing we DO know. Apple has not decided that it's worth what it would cost them to break the agreement. Surely you agree with that? So if Apple, knowing fully the costs of breaking the agreement, and presumably having a pretty darn good idea of the benefits that they would gain from Verizon's sales, has decided that the costs are more than the benefits, how can you argue?
post #54 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

But according to the "interim" chief of Apple "CDMA doesnt really have a life to it after a certain point in time" and we all know how backwards the Chinese are in technology after seeing how awful their technology was at the Olympics.

What Tim Cook meant was that in a couple years, most everything (including Verizon and China) will be transitioning completely to LTE anyway, so why start supporting a dying technology? It's a sound business decision if you ask me, since it would cost too much than it's worth for Apple to create two separate phones only to have everything merge back into one again in a year or two. You talk so much about people here drinking the Kool-Aid, but you really need to get some help for your Haterade addiction.
post #55 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by winterspan View Post

Apple has ALWAYS been about maximizing profits... Anyways, I don't buy the "complexity" argument. It doesn't make sense from a profit perspective, and regardless Apple could make the next iPhone with a dual-radio baseband that supports both standards...

So Apple is getting more from AT&T then they could make selling another 5-10 million iPhones on Verizon/Sprint? I HIGHLY doubt that... I don't remember the exact figure, but I believe the new deal is that Apple is getting around $500 from AT&T for each iPhone sold and in exchange not receiving any monthly commission.

So lets go with a theoretical 7 million CDMA iPhones sold over the next 24 months, which I think is quite conservative even especially with the new model and firmware 3.0.

7 Million iPhones sold @ $300/phone= $2.1 Billion. You'd have to be nuts to think AT&T is going to be paying Apple anywhere NEAR that amount for an exclusivity agreement.. I can't imagine more than $100 million or more..

I think you are thinking of short term gains, not long term. Apple thinks very long term, well beyond any other CE company I know of.

You are absolutely right, they could have not sided with a carrier and come out with a GSM/UMTS and A CDMA/CDMA2000 iPhone right out of the gate. They could have sold it with every major carrier.

They would also have issues with battery life to radios as it was their first device. They wouldn't have been able to get $20 unlimited data like they did with AT&T. They wouldn't have gotten the unlimited data to drop over the next year for the rest of the US to $30. They wouldn't have been able to include Visual Voicemail as a free feature. They probably would have had to remove YouTube and Gogole Maps from at least Verizon's version of the device when subsidized. They would have had higher development cost which have come through in the initial pricing. They would have had a great start and then it would have been like every other device on the market.

They wouldn't have been able to get song downloads over the carrier's network or start a vendor controlled App Store that allowed downloads over the carrier's network. They would have been put in the same poor position that every other handset manufacturer is in and what they thought would happen to Apple after they got here. Nothing innovate or unique in any way, just a fancy GUI and decent web browser.

Apple is doing what Apple does best, they are starting with something single minded, focused and expanding from there. They have a GSM-based device which is the developed world's standard, and they have slowly improved the HW and SW from there.

If the goal was a short sided increase in profit then there would have no reason to update the original iPhones to v2.0 or to v3.0. The original iPhone will be going into its third year and it's getting the same OS and pretty much all the SW features of the new device coming out this summer. What other phone has done that? It doesn't make sense to do that if short term profits are so important.

I'm quite sure AT&T is paying Apple more than $100M. For Apple and AT&T that number is so ridiculously low. The subsidy off the retail price is usually $200-300. That is retail price, not wholesale price, but AT&T also has to pay for this exclusivity and each iPhone contract has a required unlimited at a charge of $30/month, which in itself is unique to phones prior to the iPhone. We can look at the non-GAAP iPhone and AppleTV sales data to get a pretty good idea about much Apple is getting per unit worldwide.

The bottom line is, Apple couldn't have made a game changer without a carrier that would give them free reign. The best choice was AT&T. The best choice for China is China Unicom with their GSM-based network. These are the biggest networks in their respective countries so Apple can court the largest and then get a better deal from the smaller companies. It's a great strategy and benefits Apple in the long run a lot more than throwing multiple unlocked devices into the market to see where they land.
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 #56 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by hittrj01 View Post

What Tim Cook meant was that in a couple years, most everything (including Verizon and China) will be transitioning completely to LTE anyway, so why start supporting a dying technology? It's a sound business decision if you ask me, since it would cost too much than it's worth for Apple to create two separate phones only to have everything merge back into one again in a year or two. You talk so much about people here drinking the Kool-Aid, but you really need to get some help for your Haterade addiction.

Even when LTE is running strong phones will still have CDMA/CDMA200 radios in them, just like we have CDMA radios despite pretty solid CDMA2000 coverage. Unless there is a CDMA/CDMA2000/GSM/UMTS chipset arrive on the scene that small phones still won't be able to cross network types in the US. But I think that will be very likely in several years.
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 #57 of 100
Go the 2 device solution: blkbry, nokia etc. phone on verizon, t-mobile, etc. with an ipod Touch. Your favorite carrier and iTunes etc. Apple "might" see things differently if their new iPod Touches far outsell their new iPhones.

"TRAVEL is Fatal to Prejudice,Bigotry,Narrowmindedness"mt

TRY IT!

Reply

"TRAVEL is Fatal to Prejudice,Bigotry,Narrowmindedness"mt

TRY IT!

Reply
post #58 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by P L View Post

Go the 2 device solution: blkbry, nokia etc. phone on verizon, t-mobile, etc. with an ipod Touch. Your favorite carrier and iTunes etc. Apple "might" see things differently if their new iPod Touches far outsell their new iPhones.

Despite it's higher capacity and lack of a contract and associated month fees the Touch is still below the iPhone in total unit sales. I would have thought it would have easily trounced it. The iPhone only had a couple month head start.

I think it will once the v3.0 OS comes out and people start making slick D-pads for it, making it the new gaming console to have. But even then, there is no reason for Apple to break the contract with AT&T. It's not like a 3G iPhone will work on anyone else's network in the US.
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 #59 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by P L View Post

Go the 2 device solution: blkbry, nokia etc. phone on verizon, t-mobile, etc. with an ipod Touch. Your favorite carrier and iTunes etc. Apple "might" see things differently if their new iPod Touches far outsell their new iPhones.

Yeah, for all those people who were totally tired of having a CELL phone and want to go back to just having a land line. iPod touch + skype isn't going to cause even a blip in the relative sales of iPhones vs iPod Touches. The whole appeal of an iPhone is that no one wants to carry around a separate device for email, internet and music.
post #60 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling View Post

Wanting to be GSM-only only doesn't explain why Apple hasn't made a deal with T-Mobile. In cities like Seattle, service would be better. I know people with jail-broken iPhones who use T-Mobile because even with a data plan it costs them less. An a lot of us aren't on the go enough to justify $70 or more a month for AT&T's pricey package.

You really think that if T-Mobile had iPhone they would keep their Blackberry prices on data roming etc.
I don't think so.
Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
post #61 of 100
Theres no perfect company that satisfy every customer. Att wants to be a monopoly, just like Apple. So they both are in the same game plan.

jk
I would love to see apple monopoly though, just to see how big their balls will grow
Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
post #62 of 100
Clearly Apple interim chief Tim Cook carries an AT&T transmitting tower around with him where ever he goes, OR he hasn't tried using his iPhone in the Los Angeles area. Both of my iPhone, first generation, as well as my 3G get awful reception, lots of dropped calls, and no signal indicators all the time.

My personal cell is on a Verizon handset, I've used Verizon for the past 15 years and at least in LA, they have much better coverage.

I wish Apple would extended any future iPhones to include other carriers.
post #63 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by iVlad View Post

Theres no perfect company that satisfy every customer. Att wants to be a monopoly, just like Apple. So they both are in the same game plan.

jk
I would love to see apple monopoly though, just to see how big their balls will grow

They missed out on that by not bidding/winning at the spectrum auction. If I remember correctly they had about 25B laying around at the time.

"TRAVEL is Fatal to Prejudice,Bigotry,Narrowmindedness"mt

TRY IT!

Reply

"TRAVEL is Fatal to Prejudice,Bigotry,Narrowmindedness"mt

TRY IT!

Reply
post #64 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by l008com View Post

THats too bad apple is happy with AT&T, because my first iPhone is probably going to be my last iphone. I can't even make phone calls from my major metropolitan suburban home. My next phone is probably going to be another verizon phone, unless AT&T makes some major improvements in their service. Which I don't see happening. I'll just get a cheapey verizon phone and an iPod Touch with Skype.

For those unwilling to sacrifice data & call quality on GSM if your area isn't saturated with it:
(AT&T is struggling with its earnings to debt ratio, it's doubtful any large network expansions are coming soon to problematic areas, while Verizon just picked up Alltel & Unicel to add to its tower base)

For a while, I too prayed for a EVDO iPhone.
Living in NC, GSM service is about as reliable as an Obama press secretary.
I finally opted for the Blackberry on EVDO. I have all the iPhone goodies PLUS Broadband tethering for my laptop (rumored in the next iPhone release but not yet avail). I sync with all of my Apple apps via MissingSync including iTunes. Plus Crackberry regularly releases iPhone style desktop themes. It's not the iPhone killer it was lauded to be, but it's a comparable piece of hardware (albeit still buggy until the next software OTA).

A G4 iPhone is way more conceivable than a CDMA/EVDO (especially since Apple has RIM in their scopes), but it's almost silly to speculate on business decisions a year + down the pipe. I look forward to the eventual power plays by all companies involved, and more armchair quarterbacking from the AI readers.

(originally I chuckled as friends couldn't make iPhone calls from a beach hotspot, and had to borrow my phone... but then I realized : "why the h@ll do I want to talk on my phone on the beach in the first place")\
Bobby & Carie
13" Macbook Aluminum, 17" Macbook Pro -both: 2.4 GHz, 4GB RAM, 23" Cinema Display
Reply
Bobby & Carie
13" Macbook Aluminum, 17" Macbook Pro -both: 2.4 GHz, 4GB RAM, 23" Cinema Display
Reply
post #65 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyokuro View Post

I partially agree with this statement, however, if people are SO upset with the phone service, why is iPhone so successful? Why are Apple making billions including apps, etc? I see it as the best phone/portable device ever created and most people are willing to look beyond its obvious flaws.

I don't recall posting on this site previously, but do read it every day...... but on this thread I feel I need to contribute. I too, have been a Cell One/AT&T/Cingular/AT&T subscriber since 1990,when the McCaw brothers owned them from Washington State where I live...... every week I see people complain about AT&T coverage on this site....for what my two cents is here..... I have been totally happy with my service, coverage for years! I live in the Northwest and could not be more than ecstatic about my coverage. When I moved to Scottsdale in the late 90's, it was very adequate, not near as good as the NW and when I travel to San Fran regularly, I never have problems with my coverage! Neither in las Vegas where I visit 5 times/yr. Certainly the customer service has changed since the old days, but all of the wireless companies have gotten bad.
I am an Apple supporter and when people up here in the NW who are on Verizon and all tell me they wish they could get an iPhone... I really rub it in, because I truly know I have a better product than the blackberry they tote in their pockets, especially for my personal and business needs.
post #66 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Blu-ray is having a banner year? Does that mean it finally cracked 10% of DVD sales?

Some titles of blu-ray movies are selling in excess of 10% of the DVD equivalent, so yes. Also DVD sales are decreasing, and blu-ray sales are increasing.
post #67 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

Some titles of blu-ray movies are selling in excess of 10% of the DVD equivalent, so yes. Also DVD sales are decreasing, and blu-ray sales are increasing.

bag of hurt..
post #68 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBill View Post

bag of hurt..

What? The poor quality video downloads you get from Apple?
post #69 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

The article needs to be changed. A non-CDMA iPhone dashes all hopes for Sprint (as far as I know, they'll be using WiMax as their 4G tech) and Verizon until they switch to LTE.

Common sense dictates that Apple wasn't going to bother with a CDMA phone, especially when carriers are openly switching away from that technology. Since it's also obvious that Apple doesn't have ready an LTE iPhone right now, they were bound to deny any inkling of talking to Verizon.

Rest assured, in two years when LTE chipsets are mature and Verizon and AT&T's 4G LTE networks are up and running, that's when Apple will seriously begin talking to Verizon about potentially supporting the iPhone. Until then "iPhone on Verizon" rumors aren't even rumors, they're fantasies.

Also, do we know if the bands AT&T and Verizon are using for LTE will even be compatible? I thought that during the FCC Wireless auction they got separate bands. Did they get exclusive rights to the portion of spectrum they won? What about the what bands the rest of the world is using? All of this is pretty important information in terms of inter-compatability in trying to build a "world phone" that's a lot easier to manufacture.

That's a shame. I live in the middle of the USA - and here the AT&T signal is a big, fat ZERO. Verizon, on the other hand, has 5 bars everywhere. The iPhone is a non-event for me until some other carrier has a model that will work. It should concern you - if you ever drive a car more than 5 miles off a freeway. You will not reach AAA when your get a flat tire. You'd better have a Verizon cell phone in the glove box for emergencies.
AT&T is the worst carrier in the USA, and I will never forgive Apple for doing this exclusive deal with them.
Photoshop User 2
Reply
Photoshop User 2
Reply
post #70 of 100
I think Apple needs to let their contract with AT&T expire. Whether you are happy with AT&T's quality of service likely depends on the area you live in and whether you had to deal with their customer service when they mess up your bill. There is not one perfect provider for the United States. The land mass of the country is just too large. My experience with Cingular was so bad 5 years ago, when they bought AT&T, that I had to drop them. I could only dial out about 1 of 5 times, had mutliple call drops a day, and had to call monthly to have them fix my bill. I dropped them and went to T-Mobile. I was worried about the network coverage as I have heard many AT&T reps and customers make the claim that the smaller network would not be as good. I switched anyway and found that even though the phone switched to roaming more, it worked flawless. I had signal everywhere, including many areas AT&T did not. I reluctantly switched back to AT&T to get the iPhone when it was released. I have been an Apple user since 2004 and wanted a compatible phone. Again, I drop calls everyday. Sometimes I cannot dial out. Why has AT&T not been able to fix this issue. I live in Orlando, FL not some small city. If I leave Orlando, I am on Edge almost everywhere except other large cities (so much for the largest 3G network being worth anything). Even in Orlando, my phone likes to switch to Edge randomly. I might break my contract with AT&T, unlock my phone, and switch back to T-Mobile. It works better for me in this area and the areas I travel. Locking me with a service provider that provides terrible customer service is not what I think of when I think of Apple. I mean Apple even lets me install Windows on my Mac if I want. Why would they restrict me to what service provider I can use?
post #71 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Why is it a windoze world?

Price over substance?! MS had their "price hunter" computer ads all along!

Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Why did people vote for W Bush twice?

So we wouldn't have to deal with that lunkhead environmentalist Al Gore or that stuffed shirt French Poodle John Kerry!

Of course if this were Countdown's, Keith Olbermann talking, the rankings would be Worse: Al Gore, Worser: John Kerry, and then Barrack Obama, Worst President in the Woorrrrlllllldddddddd!

Let the Perez Hilton's of the world denunciation diatribe tirade begin...

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #72 of 100
I am an apple fan like so many others, and I would love to own an iphone. But I have verizon as my carrier and love their service. Also to get out of it and purchase the phone is just crazy. I just want to ask apple to rethink their decision about verizon. This is so weird, I work in a salon and spa in CT. and we were just having this discussion yesterday, because 3 people had just purchased the Verizon Storm touch phone and are returning it! And we all said " If apple would just change to verizon we could all ditch our phones and have iphones!" I do have the itouch ipod and can't live without it. I have a Macbook as well, the products are just unbelievable. Now I am trying to convince my husband to get a Mac too. Or maybe the 17" macbook for my birthday! Have a great day!
post #73 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Your facts are pretty well short on facts.

GSM is used by over 3 billion people around the world.

Apple won't have an LTE phone in June, there aren't any LTE chips available for phones yet.

Sprint won't go LTE at all they are using WiMax as their 4G network.

Exactly what are the reasons you think it will be easier for Verizon to completely switch wireless standards, than for AT&T to continue an extension to its existing wireless standard?

Verizon doesn't even expect to have its LTE network fully up and running by 2010, I'm not sure why you expect it to.

Actually they do expect to have it deployed by the end of this year and up and running in 2010 .
Take a look :
[URL="http://www.intomobile.com/2008/04/05/verizon-mobile-broadband-lte-on-700mhz-spectrum-by-2011.html"]http://www.intomobile.com/2008/04/05/verizon-mobile-broadband-lte-on-700mhz-spectrum-by-2011.html[/URL
I guess one mans facts are another mans . . . facts ]
post #74 of 100
If anyone doubts GSM coverage, then here are some maps:

- By country: http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/index.shtml
- By continent and planet: http://www.gsmworld.com/technology/r...info/index.htm
post #75 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

You seem to be thinking that all of Apple's potential customers live in the US. They do not. In fact, the biggest market Apple can tap into is China, and they don't use CDMA.

Something else that many people forget as an advantage: roaming. This is where the iPhone wins as GSM phone, since you can take it most places on the planet and it will just work. This is also one reason why carriers are moving to GSM. Even once you have a saturated local user base, you can still take advantage of customers from other locations (national or international) coming in and paying for your services, even if it is temporary. Currently CDMA providers don't have access to that.

Apple could make a CDMA phone, but this means a phone people can't travel anywhere in the world with and I am yet to see a successful CDMA-GSM combo phone. Apple is not the sort of company that wants to limit solution to a geographical location, no matter how big the population is. With a CMDA phone Apple could not boast 'it just works'.
post #76 of 100
Apple has to realize that having ATT as the exclusive carrier or iPhone, long term, is a bad idea. I guarantee that if they brought Verizon on board, there sales would go through the roof. But someone once said, if you want guarantee, buy a toaster.

Personally, I will not switch from Verizon to ATT (tried ATT once, so I am experienced) just to get an iPhone. I have too many friends and family on Verizon (free calling) that embeds me into loyalty. Which I can imagine many other are influenced by.

An iPod Touch would likely give people 99% of what non-ATT users need....cool factor and capabilities.
post #77 of 100
Yes....Apple has made millions, so calling it a bad business model is extreme. Point being, it's a dated business model.
post #78 of 100
I do not think that it is very complicated or even costly for Apple to have CDMA phones in addition. Several carriers like Nokia, Samsung have multiple tech support. Actually CDMA is easier to implement because this synch CDMA version is more power efficient than WCDMA/UMTS/3G that wide band and works in asynch mode. My understanding is that the CDMA chipset is cheaper than comparable UMTS chipset.

Qualcomm does offer chipsets with dual GSM/CMDA/WCDMA capability, but I am not sure about the incremental cost involved.

As the implementation of DOS and later Windows by Microsoft has shown, it makes sense to have multiple value chains in order to achieve market dominance. Anybody who has been around may remember that MSFT sold DOS to various computer makers besides IBM... Compaq, HP, Dell, etc. It was this value chain that pushed the market for DOS+Windows.

Apple is taking a limited approach to the market, instead of going for market share at all price points across carriers. It may be that they are interested in profit margins and just skimming the cream of the market. In that aspect they may be right since the low end mass market is not too profitable in many cases for tech products once maturity is achieved.
post #79 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhegge64 View Post

I guarantee that if they brought Verizon on board, there sales would go through the roof.

iPhone sales flourish as much as one can only wish them to. In spite any endlessly complaining verizons.

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #80 of 100
DVD sales are decreasing because all optical media sales are decreasing. Blu-ray increasing doesn't fill the gap.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

Some titles of blu-ray movies are selling in excess of 10% of the DVD equivalent, so yes. Also DVD sales are decreasing, and blu-ray sales are increasing.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple happy with AT&T, indicates no plans for CDMA iPhone