Well, yes you are paying Apple the next two years.....it's just that Apple got all their money upfront. Each iPhone has a $400 subsidy. AT&T collects it from you over 24 months ($400 / 24 = $16). So, in reality, your $30 Data plan is divided between AT&T and Apple. I almost wish AT&T had it all so that they could spend more on the network upgrades....instead of this money sitting in Apple's bank account.
Also, I wonder what Apple told AT&T regarding iPhone Sales Projections and estimated network usage per iPhone. When the iPhone first came out, the APP Store wasn't even in the contract between AT&T and Apple. It takes a few years to plan, engineer, design, and install cell networks. Local authorities are notorious for delaying construction permits. Did Apple forecast properly and within proper timeframes to inform AT&T? How could they?....they don't even know what applications are arriving tomorrow.
Apple is VERY secretive when it comes to announcing new features. How much time did they give AT&T to ramp up their network.
did apple admit there is a $400 subsidy? isupply said each iphone costs $179 to build. very unlikely that apple's gross margins are over 100%. and if you lose an iphone or damage it then it's $199 to replace it. again unlikely if there was a $400 subsidy
did apple admit there is a $400 subsidy? isupply said each iphone costs $179 to build. very unlikely that apple's gross margins are over 100%. and if you lose an iphone or damage it then it's $199 to replace it. again unlikely if there was a $400 subsidy
In Apple's SEC filings, you can calculate that Apple gets $600 per iphone.
did apple admit there is a $400 subsidy? isupply said each iphone costs $179 to build. very unlikely that apple's gross margins are over 100%. and if you lose an iphone or damage it then it's $199 to replace it. again unlikely if there was a $400 subsidy
Not true...if you have to replace your iPhone for any reason (other than a defect) before your contract expires, you will pay the unsubsidized list price for that iPhone.
How about they spend money on improving their network instead of their image? On a daily basis I get notified of missed calls or voicemails when my phone never rang. Call clarity sucks for both myself and the person listening to me. I can't go 90 miles in any direction without losing service entirely. AT&T complains that "only" 40% of iPhone subscribers are new to their network, but they should realize that the vast majority of them would go with any other carrier if iPhone wasn't exclusive to AT&T.
Don't get me wrong, I am not an apologist for AT&T....I too agree with many of the complaints. However, an 18 billion upgrade is not a half-hearted attempt.
Would a company like Sprint even have the capital to take on such an upgrade? They are losing money and customers every quarter.
Verizon is stuck in CDMA-land.....and will be there a few more years before they can offer a truly national 4G network....and by then, all other carriers will have it as well.
Yep, you're correct...I was more addressing the 'half-hearted and clumsy' PR aspect of how they are addressing the disaffection. Here in Phoenix, AZ they have invested $350 million since 2006 which is not inconsequential! I still think they are charging premium which is too high!
For me it sound's like USA is a third world country in mobile communications. In europe hdspa is faster then DSL at home. It's fun using mobile devices abroad.
This is a problem that would have very likely happened even if Verizon or Sprint or T-Mobile or Cricket had gotten the iPhone first. Before the iPhone, AT&T's 3G data service was ultra reliable and ultra fast. No one could have predicted that just because a popular computer company associated with a colorful fruit symbol released a phone that such a massive strain would have been put on AT&T's 3G network. This could just as easily have happened if HTC released a Windows Mobile or Android phone in the same form factor as the iPhone. Before the iPhone, AT&T had better coverage in the USA than any other cell phone company including Verizon, at least in terms of voice call quality.
Verizon will probably never, ever get the iPhone because they didn't agree to paying that huge subsidy the first time Apple approached them and they probably never will agree to pay it. Verizon is even more arrogant than Apple is.
This is a problem that would have very likely happened even if Verizon or Sprint or T-Mobile or Cricket had gotten the iPhone first. Before the iPhone, AT&T's 3G data service was ultra reliable and ultra fast. No one could have predicted that just because a popular computer company associated with a colorful fruit symbol released a phone that such a massive strain would have been put on AT&T's 3G network. This could just as easily have happened if HTC released a Windows Mobile or Android phone in the same form factor as the iPhone. Before the iPhone, AT&T had better coverage in the USA than any other cell phone company including Verizon, at least in terms of voice call quality.
Verizon will probably never, ever get the iPhone because they didn't agree to paying that huge subsidy the first time Apple approached them and they probably never will agree to pay it. Verizon is even more arrogant than Apple is.
For all our sakes, I hope you're wrong about Verizon. I'm sure if Apple negotiated a 4G iPhone, they'd make sure to broker themselves a good deal, so if Verizon came on board, it would benefit us more.
I think the most interesting proposal is a AT&T + T-Mobile US dual carrier alliance. I realize T-Mo doesn't have the same 4G plan, but it would have been better.
RE: Sprint...& Detroit
It's been a long while since I've had them as a carrier, but that was back when service was passable. I find it interesting that most of the carriers signals work well in Detroit. I guess they don't turn dark the towers when the economy goes bad and people move out of town.
Let's get this straight, AT&T charges a premium for service with the iPhone, it delivers substandard service and has an exclusive contract here in the US. Now, they want you to know after years into the contract that they are starting to do something about it. The teams are using facebook and twitter to get the message out... this only confirms my philosophy, twitter is the new PR firm for knuckle heads. How about making the price comparable to the service that you deliver? I will pay you $19.99 for unlimited dropped calls and $$9.99 for the incomplete data plan.
Nice. Totally agreed. I used to pay $50 a month for much better service. Forget about the data...let's just focus on calls. They suck. Period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by donlphi
I would agree. I know exactly what I'm paying for with AT&T. The communication has been great for the most part. Service is still spotty when I travel, but the same case could be made against any carrier.
No, it can't. I almost always had signal with Verizon. There are SOME exceptions...not many.
Quote:
However, I feel like a lot of the iPhone capabilities have been crippled because AT&T wasn't ready to go. Slingbox was destroyed. I don't see any tethering or MMS yet. It's sort of a let down when you think about all the excitement that came with the original iPhone announcement. It has been a very slow progression.
Agreed. They are the WEAKEST LINK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
Someone else brought this fact up before, say VZ got the iphone first, user would have had the same miserable experience since the increase data usage would have brought VZ network to its knees as well.
BS. You are just speculating. You have no idea.
Quote:
I can tell our data usage going going from a Trio to iphone went through the roof, I was amazed, how much more we use data on the iphone than any other phone we had before.
Boo-hoo. They had to know that it used a lot of data.
Quote:
The other thing just amazes me is that people would rather be with VZ who is known for crippling phone features and charging of everyone thing over having a phone which you can pretty much do what you want with, control over my phone is more important than the little bit of extra coverage you may get with VZ
They won't be able to do this if it goes multi-carrier. As for "control," well is it more important than: Crappy voice quality, dropped calls nearly ever day, outages, slow data, no MMS...all for $90 a month?
Quote:
Originally Posted by skittlebrau79
You assume that Verizon would have been just as prepared for the mountains of data used by the iPhone. According to my iPhone's stats, I have used 36mb of data for this month alone--and it's only day 9 of September. Now tell me, are you positive that Verizon, which still doesn't have a smartphone offering outside of the crummy Blackberry, could sustain this kind of data usage?
Verizon also has pretty unstable service in some areas. Verizon's strength is in the midwest. In the middle of Indiana, I had no problems with my phone, but when I moved out to the coast, I had a lot of issues with dropped calls on my Verizon phone. I even got the dreaded "No service" message--in the middle of the 2nd most populus city in the country (presumably because the tower was too busy).
Also let's not forget?it's widely speculated that Verizon actually turned Apple down because they didn't want to pay Apple's revenue sharing.
Anyway it's all in the past. The iPhone is GSM, and that's the end of it. Even if Apple were to make a 4G phone for Verizon, the first 4G phones are going to need to have a GSM radio too, since only 5-10% of the country will have 4G (just like the iPhone falls back to Edge when 3G isn't available). Verizon openly admits they won't start testing 4G until the end of 2010, and won't roll it out except to more than a dozen or so cities until late 2011.
They could easily offer a CDMA model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by approx
For me it sound's like USA is a third world country in mobile communications. In europe hdspa is faster then DSL at home. It's fun using mobile devices abroad.
haha. That's because it is. Then again, we've enjoyed a far superior landline service for a century. We didn't have the reason to build the mobile infrastructure...at least not at the same rate.
Rollover is the worst thing. What good is rollover when you have no minutes left to bank. I prefer a Fav Five or Simply Everything. Fav Five with Grand Central(former name) means no rollover necessary
I love my rollover because my usage varies widely from month to month, while I rarely call the same few numbers often. If yours doesn?t and you call the same few numbers a month then it?s not the best option for you. Both are good options depending on your usage habits, consumers need to educate themselves.
For me it sound's like USA is a third world country in mobile communications. In europe hdspa is faster then DSL at home. It's fun using mobile devices abroad.
Except that all the other countries lied about their advertised speed, just look at the wired.com survery --- AT&T Wireless has the third fastest 3G iphone speed in the whole world.
A few European carriers actually advertised their 3G network to be 7.2 mbps and then crippled their 3G iphone speed to 512 kbps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Damnit
Verizon will probably never, ever get the iPhone because they didn't agree to paying that huge subsidy the first time Apple approached them and they probably never will agree to pay it. Verizon is even more arrogant than Apple is.
Revisionist history --- the first gen iphone was sold WITHOUT subsidy at $600 each.
Revisionist history --- the first gen iphone was sold WITHOUT subsidy at $600 each.
That may be true, but Apple refused to let Verizon sell the iPhone unless Apple got a huge amount of the profits. Now that AT&T has agreed to the same agreement that Apple insisted upon with Verizon, it's very unlikely that Verizon will get the iPhone. Apple just wouldn't make as much money.
I love my rollover because my usage varies widely from month to month, while I rarely call the same few numbers often. If yours doesn?t and you call the same few numbers a month then it?s not the best option for you. Both are good options depending on your usage habits, consumers need to educate themselves.
For all our sakes, I hope you're wrong about Verizon. I'm sure if Apple negotiated a 4G iPhone, they'd make sure to broker themselves a good deal, so if Verizon came on board, it would benefit us more.
I think the most interesting proposal is a AT&T + T-Mobile US dual carrier alliance. I realize T-Mo doesn't have the same 4G plan, but it would have been better.
RE: Sprint...& Detroit
It's been a long while since I've had them as a carrier, but that was back when service was passable. I find it interesting that most of the carriers signals work well in Detroit. I guess they don't turn dark the towers when the economy goes bad and people move out of town.
That whole A-List thing is hilarious! Pay AT&T $59.99 per month or more and you get the honor of being on their A-List. Whoohoo! I've got thousands and thousands of roll over minutes. It's not like I need My Faves or anything like it.
I hope T-Mobile never, ever gets the iPhone. If AT&T's network couldn't handle it then I can guarantee you that T-Mobile's network won't handle it. It doesn't matter if it's the 2G only iPhone or one of the newer 3G versions. T-Mobile's coverage is about as good as Cricket's coverage if you pay for Cricket's new extended coverage.
That may be true, but Apple refused to let Verizon sell the iPhone unless Apple got a huge amount of the profits. Now that AT&T has agreed to the same agreement that Apple insisted upon with Verizon, it's very unlikely that Verizon will get the iPhone. Apple just wouldn't make as much money.
Nobody has ever said that AT&T would lose the right to sell the iphone all together and Verizon Wireless would gain the exclusive right to sell the iphone --- as this is the only way to extract that much money from the carrier.
What everybody is predicting is that AT&T will continue to sell the iphone and Verizon will also sell the iphone at the same time. And everybody is saying that both carriers will not subsidize the iphone at the current rate because they cannot justify that much subsidy on a non-exclusive iphone. And because of that Apple has to reduce its profit margin for the iphone in exchange for higher sales units.
Nobody has ever said that AT&T would lose the right to sell the iphone all together and Verizon Wireless would gain the exclusive right to sell the iphone --- as this is the only way to extract that much money from the carrier.
What everybody is predicting is that AT&T will continue to sell the iphone and Verizon will also sell the iphone at the same time. And everybody is saying that both carriers will not subsidize the iphone at the current rate because they cannot justify that much subsidy on a non-exclusive iphone. And because of that Apple has to reduce its profit margin for the iphone in exchange for higher sales units.
Apple doesn't want to spend the money on an obsolete technology like CDMA. GSM (TDMA with a SIM card) and HSPA get better reception than CDMA ever has. Smart people like Steve Jobs know that HSPA and LTE are the future.
Apple doesn't want to spend the money on an obsolete technology like CDMA. GSM (TDMA with a SIM card) and HSPA get better reception than CDMA ever has. Smart people like Steve Jobs know that HSPA and LTE are the future.
HSPA and LTE are the future, even Verizon knows that. Pedantically speaking, while I agree that CDMA is dying calling it obsolete is incorrect. It’s obsolescing. In other words, it’s in the process of becoming obsolete, as there are some 400M(?) CMDA and CMDA2000 users out there and the technology will be with us for decades. The technology is a dead end but there is plenty of life left in it. Even after Verizon gets LTE as saturated as their current CDMA200 network we’ll still have CDMA and CDMA2000 running strong and still being the dominate way people communicate on their network. I don’t think that Apple will make a CDMA-based iPhone for the US or any other country that is dependent on CDMA, but they certainly could turn a profit for many, many years if they did.
Apple doesn't want to spend the money on an obsolete technology like CDMA. GSM (TDMA with a SIM card) and HSPA get better reception than CDMA ever has. Smart people like Steve Jobs know that HSPA and LTE are the future.
Smart people also knows that you have to spend money to make money.
It's not a lot of money to design a Verizon iphone --- $5 million dollars. And it certainly doesn't raise the parts cost all that much per unit. Wow, instead of the iphone being $175 to make, it's going to cost them $5-10 more --- that's not going to kill the deal.
I am not saying that we'll see a Verizon iphone very soon --- there are a million different reasons why it might not happen (like Verizon not willing to pay the king's ransom that Apple demands).
Smart people also knows that you have to spend money to make money.
It's not a lot of money to design a Verizon iphone --- $5 million dollars. And it certainly doesn't raise the parts cost all that much per unit. Wow, instead of the iphone being $175 to make, it's going to cost them $5-10 more --- that's not going to kill the deal.
I am not saying that we'll see a Verizon iphone very soon --- there are a million different reasons why it might not happen (like Verizon not willing to pay the king's ransom that Apple demands).
Considering that there are many more people using superior TDMA technology in some form (mainly GSM) than 2G CDMA there's simply no point in making an iPhone for such a crappy type of cell phone service. Figuratively speaking, it's impossible to have decent call quality when you have to pick out the only english speaker in a room full of foreigners.
Considering that there are many more people using superior TDMA technology in some form (mainly GSM) than 2G CDMA there's simply no point in making an iPhone for such a crappy type of cell phone service. Figuratively speaking, it's impossible to have decent call quality when you have to pick out the only english speaker in a room full of foreigners.
Considering that TDMA is an older technology there are all being upgraded to some form of CDMA-based technology --- tells you that you are just making stuff up.
Considering that AT&T basically have the worst voice quality in the US tells you another thing about voice quality.
If you want good decent voice quality --- go to Europe because nobody ever uses their network. Just look at their OECD report results, 65 outgoing minutes (130 incoming/outgoing minutes) is considered to be the average. Of course, they can use a higher bitrate for their audio codec for their telephone calls. It's as simple as that, you want to have cheap voice plans that you can talk 800 minutes a month --- you have to sacriface some voice quality, so that more people can talk at the same time.
Considering that TDMA is an older technology there are all being upgraded to some form of CDMA-based technology --- tells you that you are just making stuff up.
Considering that AT&T basically have the worst voice quality in the US tells you another thing about voice quality.
If you want good decent voice quality --- go to Europe because nobody ever uses their network. Just look at their OECD report results, 65 outgoing minutes (130 incoming/outgoing minutes) is considered to be the average. Of course, they can use a higher bitrate for their audio codec for their telephone calls. It's as simple as that, you want to have cheap voice plans that you can talk 800 minutes a month --- you have to sacriface some voice quality, so that more people can talk at the same time.
I agree it's no secret that the USA is behind every other major country in wireless technology. As for USA cell phone technology, CDMA and TDMA both came out at the same time. TDMA got upgraded to GSM while 2G CDMA hasn't really changed one bit. Even Nextel (which uses a variant of TDMA) has better voice quality than Verizon Wireless despite Nextel's smaller coverage area. Here in Portland, Oregon there's no difference between the sound quality on a landline over Verizon's fiber optic phone lines and the sound quality from AT&T.
Comments
Well, yes you are paying Apple the next two years.....it's just that Apple got all their money upfront. Each iPhone has a $400 subsidy. AT&T collects it from you over 24 months ($400 / 24 = $16). So, in reality, your $30 Data plan is divided between AT&T and Apple. I almost wish AT&T had it all so that they could spend more on the network upgrades....instead of this money sitting in Apple's bank account.
Also, I wonder what Apple told AT&T regarding iPhone Sales Projections and estimated network usage per iPhone. When the iPhone first came out, the APP Store wasn't even in the contract between AT&T and Apple. It takes a few years to plan, engineer, design, and install cell networks. Local authorities are notorious for delaying construction permits. Did Apple forecast properly and within proper timeframes to inform AT&T? How could they?....they don't even know what applications are arriving tomorrow.
Apple is VERY secretive when it comes to announcing new features. How much time did they give AT&T to ramp up their network.
did apple admit there is a $400 subsidy? isupply said each iphone costs $179 to build. very unlikely that apple's gross margins are over 100%. and if you lose an iphone or damage it then it's $199 to replace it. again unlikely if there was a $400 subsidy
did apple admit there is a $400 subsidy? isupply said each iphone costs $179 to build. very unlikely that apple's gross margins are over 100%. and if you lose an iphone or damage it then it's $199 to replace it. again unlikely if there was a $400 subsidy
In Apple's SEC filings, you can calculate that Apple gets $600 per iphone.
did apple admit there is a $400 subsidy? isupply said each iphone costs $179 to build. very unlikely that apple's gross margins are over 100%. and if you lose an iphone or damage it then it's $199 to replace it. again unlikely if there was a $400 subsidy
Not true...if you have to replace your iPhone for any reason (other than a defect) before your contract expires, you will pay the unsubsidized list price for that iPhone.
Don't get me wrong, I am not an apologist for AT&T....I too agree with many of the complaints. However, an 18 billion upgrade is not a half-hearted attempt.
Would a company like Sprint even have the capital to take on such an upgrade? They are losing money and customers every quarter.
Verizon is stuck in CDMA-land.....and will be there a few more years before they can offer a truly national 4G network....and by then, all other carriers will have it as well.
Yep, you're correct...I was more addressing the 'half-hearted and clumsy' PR aspect of how they are addressing the disaffection. Here in Phoenix, AZ they have invested $350 million since 2006 which is not inconsequential!
Verizon will probably never, ever get the iPhone because they didn't agree to paying that huge subsidy the first time Apple approached them and they probably never will agree to pay it. Verizon is even more arrogant than Apple is.
This is a problem that would have very likely happened even if Verizon or Sprint or T-Mobile or Cricket had gotten the iPhone first. Before the iPhone, AT&T's 3G data service was ultra reliable and ultra fast. No one could have predicted that just because a popular computer company associated with a colorful fruit symbol released a phone that such a massive strain would have been put on AT&T's 3G network. This could just as easily have happened if HTC released a Windows Mobile or Android phone in the same form factor as the iPhone. Before the iPhone, AT&T had better coverage in the USA than any other cell phone company including Verizon, at least in terms of voice call quality.
Verizon will probably never, ever get the iPhone because they didn't agree to paying that huge subsidy the first time Apple approached them and they probably never will agree to pay it. Verizon is even more arrogant than Apple is.
For all our sakes, I hope you're wrong about Verizon. I'm sure if Apple negotiated a 4G iPhone, they'd make sure to broker themselves a good deal, so if Verizon came on board, it would benefit us more.
I think the most interesting proposal is a AT&T + T-Mobile US dual carrier alliance. I realize T-Mo doesn't have the same 4G plan, but it would have been better.
RE: Sprint...& Detroit
It's been a long while since I've had them as a carrier, but that was back when service was passable. I find it interesting that most of the carriers signals work well in Detroit. I guess they don't turn dark the towers when the economy goes bad and people move out of town.
Let's get this straight, AT&T charges a premium for service with the iPhone, it delivers substandard service and has an exclusive contract here in the US. Now, they want you to know after years into the contract that they are starting to do something about it. The teams are using facebook and twitter to get the message out... this only confirms my philosophy, twitter is the new PR firm for knuckle heads. How about making the price comparable to the service that you deliver? I will pay you $19.99 for unlimited dropped calls and $$9.99 for the incomplete data plan.
Nice. Totally agreed. I used to pay $50 a month for much better service. Forget about the data...let's just focus on calls. They suck. Period.
I would agree. I know exactly what I'm paying for with AT&T. The communication has been great for the most part. Service is still spotty when I travel, but the same case could be made against any carrier.
No, it can't. I almost always had signal with Verizon. There are SOME exceptions...not many.
However, I feel like a lot of the iPhone capabilities have been crippled because AT&T wasn't ready to go. Slingbox was destroyed. I don't see any tethering or MMS yet. It's sort of a let down when you think about all the excitement that came with the original iPhone announcement. It has been a very slow progression.
Agreed. They are the WEAKEST LINK.
Someone else brought this fact up before, say VZ got the iphone first, user would have had the same miserable experience since the increase data usage would have brought VZ network to its knees as well.
BS. You are just speculating. You have no idea.
I can tell our data usage going going from a Trio to iphone went through the roof, I was amazed, how much more we use data on the iphone than any other phone we had before.
Boo-hoo. They had to know that it used a lot of data.
The other thing just amazes me is that people would rather be with VZ who is known for crippling phone features and charging of everyone thing over having a phone which you can pretty much do what you want with, control over my phone is more important than the little bit of extra coverage you may get with VZ
They won't be able to do this if it goes multi-carrier. As for "control," well is it more important than: Crappy voice quality, dropped calls nearly ever day, outages, slow data, no MMS...all for $90 a month?
You assume that Verizon would have been just as prepared for the mountains of data used by the iPhone. According to my iPhone's stats, I have used 36mb of data for this month alone--and it's only day 9 of September. Now tell me, are you positive that Verizon, which still doesn't have a smartphone offering outside of the crummy Blackberry, could sustain this kind of data usage?
Verizon also has pretty unstable service in some areas. Verizon's strength is in the midwest. In the middle of Indiana, I had no problems with my phone, but when I moved out to the coast, I had a lot of issues with dropped calls on my Verizon phone. I even got the dreaded "No service" message--in the middle of the 2nd most populus city in the country (presumably because the tower was too busy).
Also let's not forget?it's widely speculated that Verizon actually turned Apple down because they didn't want to pay Apple's revenue sharing.
Anyway it's all in the past. The iPhone is GSM, and that's the end of it. Even if Apple were to make a 4G phone for Verizon, the first 4G phones are going to need to have a GSM radio too, since only 5-10% of the country will have 4G (just like the iPhone falls back to Edge when 3G isn't available). Verizon openly admits they won't start testing 4G until the end of 2010, and won't roll it out except to more than a dozen or so cities until late 2011.
They could easily offer a CDMA model.
For me it sound's like USA is a third world country in mobile communications. In europe hdspa is faster then DSL at home. It's fun using mobile devices abroad.
haha. That's because it is. Then again, we've enjoyed a far superior landline service for a century. We didn't have the reason to build the mobile infrastructure...at least not at the same rate.
Rollover is the worst thing. What good is rollover when you have no minutes left to bank. I prefer a Fav Five or Simply Everything. Fav Five with Grand Central(former name) means no rollover necessary
I love my rollover because my usage varies widely from month to month, while I rarely call the same few numbers often. If yours doesn?t and you call the same few numbers a month then it?s not the best option for you. Both are good options depending on your usage habits, consumers need to educate themselves.
But there is a silver lining for you if you want to consider AT&T ? http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/09/a...ing-to-a-list/
For me it sound's like USA is a third world country in mobile communications. In europe hdspa is faster then DSL at home. It's fun using mobile devices abroad.
Except that all the other countries lied about their advertised speed, just look at the wired.com survery --- AT&T Wireless has the third fastest 3G iphone speed in the whole world.
A few European carriers actually advertised their 3G network to be 7.2 mbps and then crippled their 3G iphone speed to 512 kbps.
Verizon will probably never, ever get the iPhone because they didn't agree to paying that huge subsidy the first time Apple approached them and they probably never will agree to pay it. Verizon is even more arrogant than Apple is.
Revisionist history --- the first gen iphone was sold WITHOUT subsidy at $600 each.
Revisionist history --- the first gen iphone was sold WITHOUT subsidy at $600 each.
That may be true, but Apple refused to let Verizon sell the iPhone unless Apple got a huge amount of the profits. Now that AT&T has agreed to the same agreement that Apple insisted upon with Verizon, it's very unlikely that Verizon will get the iPhone. Apple just wouldn't make as much money.
I love my rollover because my usage varies widely from month to month, while I rarely call the same few numbers often. If yours doesn?t and you call the same few numbers a month then it?s not the best option for you. Both are good options depending on your usage habits, consumers need to educate themselves.
But there is a silver lining for you if you want to consider AT&T ? http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/09/a...ing-to-a-list/
For all our sakes, I hope you're wrong about Verizon. I'm sure if Apple negotiated a 4G iPhone, they'd make sure to broker themselves a good deal, so if Verizon came on board, it would benefit us more.
I think the most interesting proposal is a AT&T + T-Mobile US dual carrier alliance. I realize T-Mo doesn't have the same 4G plan, but it would have been better.
RE: Sprint...& Detroit
It's been a long while since I've had them as a carrier, but that was back when service was passable. I find it interesting that most of the carriers signals work well in Detroit. I guess they don't turn dark the towers when the economy goes bad and people move out of town.
That whole A-List thing is hilarious! Pay AT&T $59.99 per month or more and you get the honor of being on their A-List. Whoohoo! I've got thousands and thousands of roll over minutes. It's not like I need My Faves or anything like it.
I hope T-Mobile never, ever gets the iPhone. If AT&T's network couldn't handle it then I can guarantee you that T-Mobile's network won't handle it. It doesn't matter if it's the 2G only iPhone or one of the newer 3G versions. T-Mobile's coverage is about as good as Cricket's coverage if you pay for Cricket's new extended coverage.
That may be true, but Apple refused to let Verizon sell the iPhone unless Apple got a huge amount of the profits. Now that AT&T has agreed to the same agreement that Apple insisted upon with Verizon, it's very unlikely that Verizon will get the iPhone. Apple just wouldn't make as much money.
Nobody has ever said that AT&T would lose the right to sell the iphone all together and Verizon Wireless would gain the exclusive right to sell the iphone --- as this is the only way to extract that much money from the carrier.
What everybody is predicting is that AT&T will continue to sell the iphone and Verizon will also sell the iphone at the same time. And everybody is saying that both carriers will not subsidize the iphone at the current rate because they cannot justify that much subsidy on a non-exclusive iphone. And because of that Apple has to reduce its profit margin for the iphone in exchange for higher sales units.
Nobody has ever said that AT&T would lose the right to sell the iphone all together and Verizon Wireless would gain the exclusive right to sell the iphone --- as this is the only way to extract that much money from the carrier.
What everybody is predicting is that AT&T will continue to sell the iphone and Verizon will also sell the iphone at the same time. And everybody is saying that both carriers will not subsidize the iphone at the current rate because they cannot justify that much subsidy on a non-exclusive iphone. And because of that Apple has to reduce its profit margin for the iphone in exchange for higher sales units.
Apple doesn't want to spend the money on an obsolete technology like CDMA. GSM (TDMA with a SIM card) and HSPA get better reception than CDMA ever has. Smart people like Steve Jobs know that HSPA and LTE are the future.
Apple doesn't want to spend the money on an obsolete technology like CDMA. GSM (TDMA with a SIM card) and HSPA get better reception than CDMA ever has. Smart people like Steve Jobs know that HSPA and LTE are the future.
HSPA and LTE are the future, even Verizon knows that. Pedantically speaking, while I agree that CDMA is dying calling it obsolete is incorrect. It’s obsolescing. In other words, it’s in the process of becoming obsolete, as there are some 400M(?) CMDA and CMDA2000 users out there and the technology will be with us for decades. The technology is a dead end but there is plenty of life left in it. Even after Verizon gets LTE as saturated as their current CDMA200 network we’ll still have CDMA and CDMA2000 running strong and still being the dominate way people communicate on their network. I don’t think that Apple will make a CDMA-based iPhone for the US or any other country that is dependent on CDMA, but they certainly could turn a profit for many, many years if they did.
Apple doesn't want to spend the money on an obsolete technology like CDMA. GSM (TDMA with a SIM card) and HSPA get better reception than CDMA ever has. Smart people like Steve Jobs know that HSPA and LTE are the future.
Smart people also knows that you have to spend money to make money.
It's not a lot of money to design a Verizon iphone --- $5 million dollars. And it certainly doesn't raise the parts cost all that much per unit. Wow, instead of the iphone being $175 to make, it's going to cost them $5-10 more --- that's not going to kill the deal.
I am not saying that we'll see a Verizon iphone very soon --- there are a million different reasons why it might not happen (like Verizon not willing to pay the king's ransom that Apple demands).
Smart people also knows that you have to spend money to make money.
It's not a lot of money to design a Verizon iphone --- $5 million dollars. And it certainly doesn't raise the parts cost all that much per unit. Wow, instead of the iphone being $175 to make, it's going to cost them $5-10 more --- that's not going to kill the deal.
I am not saying that we'll see a Verizon iphone very soon --- there are a million different reasons why it might not happen (like Verizon not willing to pay the king's ransom that Apple demands).
Considering that there are many more people using superior TDMA technology in some form (mainly GSM) than 2G CDMA there's simply no point in making an iPhone for such a crappy type of cell phone service. Figuratively speaking, it's impossible to have decent call quality when you have to pick out the only english speaker in a room full of foreigners.
Considering that there are many more people using superior TDMA technology in some form (mainly GSM) than 2G CDMA there's simply no point in making an iPhone for such a crappy type of cell phone service. Figuratively speaking, it's impossible to have decent call quality when you have to pick out the only english speaker in a room full of foreigners.
Considering that TDMA is an older technology there are all being upgraded to some form of CDMA-based technology --- tells you that you are just making stuff up.
Considering that AT&T basically have the worst voice quality in the US tells you another thing about voice quality.
If you want good decent voice quality --- go to Europe because nobody ever uses their network. Just look at their OECD report results, 65 outgoing minutes (130 incoming/outgoing minutes) is considered to be the average. Of course, they can use a higher bitrate for their audio codec for their telephone calls. It's as simple as that, you want to have cheap voice plans that you can talk 800 minutes a month --- you have to sacriface some voice quality, so that more people can talk at the same time.
Considering that TDMA is an older technology there are all being upgraded to some form of CDMA-based technology --- tells you that you are just making stuff up.
Considering that AT&T basically have the worst voice quality in the US tells you another thing about voice quality.
If you want good decent voice quality --- go to Europe because nobody ever uses their network. Just look at their OECD report results, 65 outgoing minutes (130 incoming/outgoing minutes) is considered to be the average. Of course, they can use a higher bitrate for their audio codec for their telephone calls. It's as simple as that, you want to have cheap voice plans that you can talk 800 minutes a month --- you have to sacriface some voice quality, so that more people can talk at the same time.
I agree it's no secret that the USA is behind every other major country in wireless technology. As for USA cell phone technology, CDMA and TDMA both came out at the same time. TDMA got upgraded to GSM while 2G CDMA hasn't really changed one bit. Even Nextel (which uses a variant of TDMA) has better voice quality than Verizon Wireless despite Nextel's smaller coverage area. Here in Portland, Oregon there's no difference between the sound quality on a landline over Verizon's fiber optic phone lines and the sound quality from AT&T.