I'll tell you exactly where Verizon gets some the money from. From the APPS that 90 million people buy, unlike AT&T that doesn't get a dime from the Apps iPhone users buy Verizon gets a piece if not all the money from a App the one of its customers buy, that right there is the major difference between Verizon and AT&T
Before iPhone, altho AT&T was a bit ahead in terms of subscribers, Verizon was way ahead in terms of ARPU, and data ARPU. Even as late as 3Q08, Verizon was averaging about a $1 more than AT&T in data ARPU. But during the last 3 quarters (or since iPhone 3G), that lead has been narrowed to 31/52/39 cents (obviously, not all of this gain is due to iPhone 3G).
As for apps, do you seriously think Verizon sells many apps? Do you think that revenue has any impact on its bottom line? (Clue 1: The almost 2 billion apps that Apple has sold, averaging about 36 per iPhone/touch owner, has little impact on Apple's bottom line. Clue 2: Verizon is busy reorganizing its App Store to be more like Apple's, and holding developer forums to recruit developers.)
I didn't say it was trivial, but there's nothing new to discover or implement. As someone said in a post, enhanced variants of HSPA up to 28.8 have already been fielded.
mature low power chipsets in existing smart phones in wide deployment? Really? Care to provide examples?
Quote:
Has acquiring tower space never been done before? Or spectrum management for HSPA?
Sure it's been done before, but it's neither quick nor easy. It can take years to get a new tower site purchased, approved and deployed. Multiple layers of government are involved. And that's assuming the proper spaces can even be acquired in the first place. Locals in a community not too far from me have been arguing with the local American Legion post that could benefit greatly financially from a tower lease because they don't want the tower near them. It's been tied up for over two years. That's not even a government regulation problem, a technology issue or a problem with business processes within a carrier, but a "not in my backyard" issue. Everyone want's utility service, but no one wants the infrastructure near them
Just one of many layers that infrastructure companies have to deal with.
Quote:
Do you even understand what the phrase "rocket science" means?
Sure - but apparently as an analogy for the cellular industry you don't.
Quote:
LTE on the other hand is much closer to rocket science (but still not). Chip sets and lots of LTE equipment have yet to even be built at a production-level quality.
The technology of LTE is just another layer on top of the laundry list of issues in maintaining a cellular network. Which is why Verizon won't have 4G any time soon and unless Apple reverses themselves on producing a CDMA iPhone, they won't be getting the iPhone anytime soon either.
Verizon Wireless likes to spend every dime that they have on the network --- because Verizon wanted to screw with Vodafone. They haven't given Vodafone any dividend from Verizon Wireless' profit since 2005.
I wouldn't worry about Verizon's LTE push --- they like to make big technology bets (first American carrier to go national with a 3G network, and $22 billion FIOS network build-out). Name any carrier around the world that are nuts enough to spend $22 billion on a fiber optics network.
Dont get me started on the fiber optic network. We're 10 yrs behind with that. All the phone companies were given billions to build a fiber network years ago and they all misspent the money, they're playing catch up now. The Koreans and Japanese have had 100 mbs internet for 10 yrs and now pay a lil over $40 for it today. Try to get that if its available and see how much it costs. This is the first time they're actually out ahead of the pack, and from what I heard they've been quietly building the 4G network for sometime now.
Why do you think Verizon is so controlling over what phones it sells? It does that to make sure the network can handle the traffic. It has close to 90 million suscribers yet our calls don't get dropped and the 3G speeds are at what they should be.
So when Verizon does it, it's foresight.
When AT&T restricts MMS and Tethering to protect their network, their just being pricks.
Before iPhone, altho AT&T was a bit ahead in terms of subscribers, Verizon was way ahead in terms of ARPU, and data ARPU. Even as late as 3Q08, Verizon was averaging about a $1 more than AT&T in data ARPU. But during the last 3 quarters (or since iPhone 3G), that lead has been narrowed to 31/52/39 cents (obviously, not all of this gain is due to iPhone 3G).
As for apps, do you seriously think Verizon sells many apps? Do you think that revenue has any impact on its bottom line? (Clue 1: The almost 2 billion apps that Apple has sold, averaging about 36 per iPhone/touch owner, has little impact on Apple's bottom line. Clue 2: Verizon is busy reorganizing its App Store to be more like Apple's, and holding developer forums to recruit developers.)
If the apps arent that important to Apple's bottom line then why did it leave AT&T out of it. At 2 billion apps and counting even if the average price was $1 that's $2 billion that Apple made of which AT&T got none of. I'm sure on the first day of business school you'd learn that that was a really bad deal for AT&T and yeah verizon does sell alot (of course no where near 2 billion) of apps plus ringtones
When AT&T restricts MMS and Tethering to protect their network, their just being pricks.
I'm glad we cleared that up.
Where did you get that from? I totally understood why AT&T did that. I knew they weren't ready to handle the amount of MMS msgs on their network. Where they did f up was not having it in place when the iPhone 3G first came out and handle the volume as it slowly came not a year later after you done sold a few million units and then spring it on
I read an article that stated Verizon was going with LTE. The date of the article was Sept 2007 shortly after the iPhone 2G had come out. So if you think LTE is something new that Verizon is rushing into you are sadly mistaken
You need to do more reading. Verizon didn't create LTE, and it (like other carriers) is dependent on a host of companies to bring forth the equipment it will need to make LTE work, and that handset manufacturers will need to make LTE handsets. It was only a year ago, when Ericsson demonstrated the world's first end-to-end mobile call enabled by LTE on a small handheld device. And that wasn't production-quality equipment. And it was only a month ago when Nortel and LG demonstrated a successful handoff from LTE to CDMA in accordance with the standards (which were only locked at the end of 2008/beginning of 2009).
Yes, some equipment is here now, so small trials can be run. And more equipment will be ready for commercial use in 2010. But you're dreaming if you think Verizon can implement any sort of US-wide network for use by a July 2010 LTE iPhone. That iPhone will be on 3G (EVDO) most of the time unless its owner happens to stay in the few small geographical areas that has LTE.
As for 2007, most carriers had to start making their intentions known so that standards bodies and equipment mfrs could allocate resources. The discussion was largely one of LTE or WiMax. (Verizon, AT&T went LTE. Sprint is still pursuing WiMax.)
You need to do more reading. Verizon didn't create LTE, and it (like other carriers) is dependent on a host of companies to bring forth the equipment it will need to make LTE work, and that handset manufacturers will need to make LTE handsets. It was only a year ago, when Ericsson demonstrated the world's first end-to-end mobile call enabled by LTE on a small handheld device. And that wasn't production-quality equipment. And it was only a month ago when Nortel and LG demonstrated a successful handoff from LTE to CDMA in accordance with the standards (which were only locked at the end of 2008/beginning of 2009).
Yes, some equipment is here now, so small trials can be run. And more equipment will be ready for commercial use in 2010. But you're dreaming if you think Verizon can implement any sort of US-wide network for use by a July 2010 LTE iPhone. That iPhone will be on 3G (EVDO) most of the time unless its owner happens to stay in the few small geographical areas that has LTE.
As for 2007, most carriers had to start making their intentions known so that standards bodies and equipment mfrs could allocate resources. The discussion was largely one of LTE or WiMax. (Verizon, AT&T went LTE. Sprint is still pursuing WiMax.)
I didnt say Verizon created it, just that two years ago they saw enough to decide to go with it. If you read what I wrote earlier you would know that Verizon's plan is to open 30 markets with LTE during 2010 and and have its entire footprint done by the end of 2013. And in case you didnt know Apple and Verizon have been in talks for months now. But what exactly about only the guys doing the talking know because there not have been any leaks just rumors. The most common one being a tablet.
If the apps arent that important to Apple's bottom line then why did it leave AT&T out of it. At 2 billion apps and counting even if the average price was $1 that's $2 billion that Apple made of which AT&T got none of. I'm sure on the first day of business school you'd learn that that was a really bad deal for AT&T and yeah verizon does sell alot (of course no where near 2 billion) of apps plus ringtones
1. After Apple pays the app developers, that's 600 million left for Apple (using your numbers as an example). After Apple pays for maintaining the Store (reviewers!, creating pages, other admin, etc), hosting the apps on servers, the bandwidth used in distributing the apps (and free updates), and developing the SDK, that leaves about 100-200 million?
2. AT&T gets none of it because it doesn't maintain the Store, host the apps, contract for ground-based Internet distribution, or develop the SDK. AT&T does provide for wireless bandwidth for those apps that go over the cellular network but didn't the user already pay for that bandwidth in his data plan?
And more importantly, AT&T gets none of it because that was Apple's intention. Apple aimed to get close to its users, and that was the barrier Apple broke with its iPhone. Prior to iPhone, the carrier was close to the user (sales, billing, device support/warranty, everything was thru the carrier), and the device maker had little contact with the user.
So if the deal was bad, that's why - it broke the carrier strangehold and introduced a new paradigm. But in exchange, AT&T got millions of new high-revenue, loyal subscribers; became more competitive with Verizon; and got a head start on preparing for the next generation of cell users who use data more than voice.
I didnt say Verizon created it, just that two years ago they saw enough to decide to go with it. If you read what I wrote earlier you would know that Verizon's plan is to open 30 markets with LTE during 2010 and and have its entire footprint done by the end of 2013. And in case you didnt know Apple and Verizon have been in talks for months now. But what exactly about only the guys doing the talking know because there not have been any leaks just rumors. The most common one being a tablet.
I know Verizon said that. What else could they say? They have no other avenue in terms of significantly upgrading their network for data. (Edit to add: I guess there is one other option: they could backtrack and go WiMax!!! Never.) And as samab said (and btw, I rarely agree with him but I do here), Verizon likes to get out on the edge. And they probably said they'd get 3G done in 3 years too - and some would argue it's still not done today. Would Apple really tout an LTE iPhone that works in only 30 markets? Apple wouldn't even make a 3G phone when AT&T had more than 30 markets towered for 3G. (I know, I know, Apple makes an iPhone that doesn't work in any AT&T market ... )
As for the tablet: You can buy a Verizon EVDO card for your Mac. Or you can buy a EVDO Mifi for your Mac or iPod touch. And since the rumored tablet might be more like a Mac (laptop) than a phone, there's really little relevance of those talks to the iPhone. It's a different product that's not breaking through any carrier stranglehold over consumers.
I didnt say Verizon created it, just that two years ago they saw enough to decide to go with it. If you read what I wrote earlier you would know that Verizon's plan is to open 30 markets with LTE during 2010 and and have its entire footprint done by the end of 2013. And in case you didnt know Apple and Verizon have been in talks for months now. But what exactly about only the guys doing the talking know because there not have been any leaks just rumors. The most common one being a tablet.
BTW, you didn't say Verizon created it, but the implication was that Verizon had control or oversight over what was happening with LTE. I'm saying they really don't; they're highly dependent on many suppliers and others. They've got a risky plan that they think is doable, but many would find not so much.
But I've always given them kudos for being aggressive and investing in their network reliability. (I have Verizon FIOS and it's worked great except for the first week when it kept losing the TV guide).
Hey just look at Wal-Mart, their profit margin is at roughly 10%, but they sell in the billions. The number 2 retailer is way below them in sales at only several hundred millions and with higher profit margin. I dont know about you but I'll take the 10% of billions
Sure, but that's not Apple's style. If it was, they'd slash the prices on all of their products and chase after market share. But they don't. They've demonstrated time and again that they would rather keep their high margins than chase volume. Lately, they've been able to achieve both with the iPhone; but I won't put bets either way on if they'd be willing to give up that margin to chase even more market share with a Verizon phone.
mature low power chipsets in existing smart phones in wide deployment? Really? Care to provide examples?
There are several phones that can do 7.2, including iPhone 3GS. (And USB cards that can already go all the way up to 21 peak, including one by Sierra Wireless.) You can argue about whether any of these are truly "low power", given that people complain about iPhone battery life.
My comment however was focused more on the network infrastructure, not the handheld device itself (since the iPhone can only do 7.2). There are HSDPA networks in several countries that are up to 21 peak (cat 14); few have plans to reach 42 peak (cat 20) in 2009, such as Telstra in Australia. I just want AT&T to deploy 7.2 or even 14.4 soon, and those just don't look like a big stretch. If Verizon thinks it can do 30 markets of LTE by end of 2010, why can't AT&T get 30 markets of 7.2 or 14.4 before then?
Sure, but that's not Apple's style. If it was, they'd slash the prices on all of their products and chase after market share. But they don't. They've demonstrated time and again that they would rather keep their high margins than chase volume. Lately, they've been able to achieve both with the iPhone; but I won't put bets either way on if they'd be willing to give up that margin to chase even more market share with a Verizon phone.
What are you talking about? They slash prices all the time. The price of the 3G went down to $99 when they debuted the 3GS, and they just lowered the price of the iTouch. Imagine being the idiot that bought a 3G a day, a week, or even a month or 2 before the 3GS came. I'd be highly pissed if I had to wait 2 yrs to upgrade. And why did they slash the price of 2G just months after it came out? I'm certain that cut heavily into their profit margin in order to sell more.
If they do stick with an exclusive contract and continue to lock my family and I, and all the others here out of using the iPhone -- there's no AT&T service here in rural Montana -- then I truly hope that the FCC gives them a jumbo pineapple right up the shaft, little-NIcky's-dad-style. They could just as easily stop with the monopolistic deals and sell them like iPods or computers, through anyone who can handle the transaction properly. There's no sane reason for this nonsense.
What are you talking about? They slash prices all the time. The price of the 3G went down to $99 when they debuted the 3GS, and they just lowered the price of the iTouch. Imagine being the idiot that bought a 3G a day, a week, or even a month or 2 before the 3GS came. I'd be highly pissed if I had to wait 2 yrs to upgrade. And why did they slash the price of 2G just months after it came out? I'm certain that cut heavily into their profit margin in order to sell more.
sales of the original EDGE iphone were slow so they worked out a subsidy deal with AT&T. paying retail price for a phone sounded good in theory in 2006, but once the iphone came out most people thought it was crazy to pay $600 for a cell phone. especially one that didn't have a lot of features that most other phones had at the time
Or, it could just be the popularity of one specific network. T-Mobile is the one who deserves the iPhone, not AT&T.
What sort of 3G data network does T-Mobile have? I was under the impression they were mostly EDGE and 1900 MHz? Wouldn't that make them farther behind the 3G race than AT&T?
Comments
I'll tell you exactly where Verizon gets some the money from. From the APPS that 90 million people buy, unlike AT&T that doesn't get a dime from the Apps iPhone users buy Verizon gets a piece if not all the money from a App the one of its customers buy, that right there is the major difference between Verizon and AT&T
Before iPhone, altho AT&T was a bit ahead in terms of subscribers, Verizon was way ahead in terms of ARPU, and data ARPU. Even as late as 3Q08, Verizon was averaging about a $1 more than AT&T in data ARPU. But during the last 3 quarters (or since iPhone 3G), that lead has been narrowed to 31/52/39 cents (obviously, not all of this gain is due to iPhone 3G).
As for apps, do you seriously think Verizon sells many apps? Do you think that revenue has any impact on its bottom line? (Clue 1: The almost 2 billion apps that Apple has sold, averaging about 36 per iPhone/touch owner, has little impact on Apple's bottom line. Clue 2: Verizon is busy reorganizing its App Store to be more like Apple's, and holding developer forums to recruit developers.)
I didn't say it was trivial, but there's nothing new to discover or implement. As someone said in a post, enhanced variants of HSPA up to 28.8 have already been fielded.
mature low power chipsets in existing smart phones in wide deployment? Really? Care to provide examples?
Has acquiring tower space never been done before? Or spectrum management for HSPA?
Sure it's been done before, but it's neither quick nor easy. It can take years to get a new tower site purchased, approved and deployed. Multiple layers of government are involved. And that's assuming the proper spaces can even be acquired in the first place. Locals in a community not too far from me have been arguing with the local American Legion post that could benefit greatly financially from a tower lease because they don't want the tower near them. It's been tied up for over two years. That's not even a government regulation problem, a technology issue or a problem with business processes within a carrier, but a "not in my backyard" issue. Everyone want's utility service, but no one wants the infrastructure near them
Just one of many layers that infrastructure companies have to deal with.
Do you even understand what the phrase "rocket science" means?
Sure - but apparently as an analogy for the cellular industry you don't.
LTE on the other hand is much closer to rocket science (but still not). Chip sets and lots of LTE equipment have yet to even be built at a production-level quality.
The technology of LTE is just another layer on top of the laundry list of issues in maintaining a cellular network. Which is why Verizon won't have 4G any time soon and unless Apple reverses themselves on producing a CDMA iPhone, they won't be getting the iPhone anytime soon either.
Verizon Wireless likes to spend every dime that they have on the network --- because Verizon wanted to screw with Vodafone. They haven't given Vodafone any dividend from Verizon Wireless' profit since 2005.
I wouldn't worry about Verizon's LTE push --- they like to make big technology bets (first American carrier to go national with a 3G network, and $22 billion FIOS network build-out). Name any carrier around the world that are nuts enough to spend $22 billion on a fiber optics network.
Dont get me started on the fiber optic network. We're 10 yrs behind with that. All the phone companies were given billions to build a fiber network years ago and they all misspent the money, they're playing catch up now. The Koreans and Japanese have had 100 mbs internet for 10 yrs and now pay a lil over $40 for it today. Try to get that if its available and see how much it costs. This is the first time they're actually out ahead of the pack, and from what I heard they've been quietly building the 4G network for sometime now.
Why do you think Verizon is so controlling over what phones it sells? It does that to make sure the network can handle the traffic. It has close to 90 million suscribers yet our calls don't get dropped and the 3G speeds are at what they should be.
So when Verizon does it, it's foresight.
When AT&T restricts MMS and Tethering to protect their network, their just being pricks.
I'm glad we cleared that up.
Before iPhone, altho AT&T was a bit ahead in terms of subscribers, Verizon was way ahead in terms of ARPU, and data ARPU. Even as late as 3Q08, Verizon was averaging about a $1 more than AT&T in data ARPU. But during the last 3 quarters (or since iPhone 3G), that lead has been narrowed to 31/52/39 cents (obviously, not all of this gain is due to iPhone 3G).
As for apps, do you seriously think Verizon sells many apps? Do you think that revenue has any impact on its bottom line? (Clue 1: The almost 2 billion apps that Apple has sold, averaging about 36 per iPhone/touch owner, has little impact on Apple's bottom line. Clue 2: Verizon is busy reorganizing its App Store to be more like Apple's, and holding developer forums to recruit developers.)
If the apps arent that important to Apple's bottom line then why did it leave AT&T out of it. At 2 billion apps and counting even if the average price was $1 that's $2 billion that Apple made of which AT&T got none of. I'm sure on the first day of business school you'd learn that that was a really bad deal for AT&T and yeah verizon does sell alot (of course no where near 2 billion) of apps plus ringtones
So when Verizon does it, it's foresight.
When AT&T restricts MMS and Tethering to protect their network, their just being pricks.
I'm glad we cleared that up.
Where did you get that from? I totally understood why AT&T did that. I knew they weren't ready to handle the amount of MMS msgs on their network. Where they did f up was not having it in place when the iPhone 3G first came out and handle the volume as it slowly came not a year later after you done sold a few million units and then spring it on
I read an article that stated Verizon was going with LTE. The date of the article was Sept 2007 shortly after the iPhone 2G had come out. So if you think LTE is something new that Verizon is rushing into you are sadly mistaken
You need to do more reading. Verizon didn't create LTE, and it (like other carriers) is dependent on a host of companies to bring forth the equipment it will need to make LTE work, and that handset manufacturers will need to make LTE handsets. It was only a year ago, when Ericsson demonstrated the world's first end-to-end mobile call enabled by LTE on a small handheld device. And that wasn't production-quality equipment. And it was only a month ago when Nortel and LG demonstrated a successful handoff from LTE to CDMA in accordance with the standards (which were only locked at the end of 2008/beginning of 2009).
Yes, some equipment is here now, so small trials can be run. And more equipment will be ready for commercial use in 2010. But you're dreaming if you think Verizon can implement any sort of US-wide network for use by a July 2010 LTE iPhone. That iPhone will be on 3G (EVDO) most of the time unless its owner happens to stay in the few small geographical areas that has LTE.
As for 2007, most carriers had to start making their intentions known so that standards bodies and equipment mfrs could allocate resources. The discussion was largely one of LTE or WiMax. (Verizon, AT&T went LTE. Sprint is still pursuing WiMax.)
Name any carrier around the world that are nuts enough to spend $22 billion on a fiber optics network.
AT&T: http://www.xchangemag.com/hotnews/at...and-fiber.html
Granted it's not $22 billion (still darn close), but then again they aren't taking fiber directly to every house at significant savings.
You need to do more reading. Verizon didn't create LTE, and it (like other carriers) is dependent on a host of companies to bring forth the equipment it will need to make LTE work, and that handset manufacturers will need to make LTE handsets. It was only a year ago, when Ericsson demonstrated the world's first end-to-end mobile call enabled by LTE on a small handheld device. And that wasn't production-quality equipment. And it was only a month ago when Nortel and LG demonstrated a successful handoff from LTE to CDMA in accordance with the standards (which were only locked at the end of 2008/beginning of 2009).
Yes, some equipment is here now, so small trials can be run. And more equipment will be ready for commercial use in 2010. But you're dreaming if you think Verizon can implement any sort of US-wide network for use by a July 2010 LTE iPhone. That iPhone will be on 3G (EVDO) most of the time unless its owner happens to stay in the few small geographical areas that has LTE.
As for 2007, most carriers had to start making their intentions known so that standards bodies and equipment mfrs could allocate resources. The discussion was largely one of LTE or WiMax. (Verizon, AT&T went LTE. Sprint is still pursuing WiMax.)
I didnt say Verizon created it, just that two years ago they saw enough to decide to go with it. If you read what I wrote earlier you would know that Verizon's plan is to open 30 markets with LTE during 2010 and and have its entire footprint done by the end of 2013. And in case you didnt know Apple and Verizon have been in talks for months now. But what exactly about only the guys doing the talking know because there not have been any leaks just rumors. The most common one being a tablet.
If the apps arent that important to Apple's bottom line then why did it leave AT&T out of it. At 2 billion apps and counting even if the average price was $1 that's $2 billion that Apple made of which AT&T got none of. I'm sure on the first day of business school you'd learn that that was a really bad deal for AT&T and yeah verizon does sell alot (of course no where near 2 billion) of apps plus ringtones
1. After Apple pays the app developers, that's 600 million left for Apple (using your numbers as an example). After Apple pays for maintaining the Store (reviewers!, creating pages, other admin, etc), hosting the apps on servers, the bandwidth used in distributing the apps (and free updates), and developing the SDK, that leaves about 100-200 million?
2. AT&T gets none of it because it doesn't maintain the Store, host the apps, contract for ground-based Internet distribution, or develop the SDK. AT&T does provide for wireless bandwidth for those apps that go over the cellular network but didn't the user already pay for that bandwidth in his data plan?
And more importantly, AT&T gets none of it because that was Apple's intention. Apple aimed to get close to its users, and that was the barrier Apple broke with its iPhone. Prior to iPhone, the carrier was close to the user (sales, billing, device support/warranty, everything was thru the carrier), and the device maker had little contact with the user.
So if the deal was bad, that's why - it broke the carrier strangehold and introduced a new paradigm. But in exchange, AT&T got millions of new high-revenue, loyal subscribers; became more competitive with Verizon; and got a head start on preparing for the next generation of cell users who use data more than voice.
I didnt say Verizon created it, just that two years ago they saw enough to decide to go with it. If you read what I wrote earlier you would know that Verizon's plan is to open 30 markets with LTE during 2010 and and have its entire footprint done by the end of 2013. And in case you didnt know Apple and Verizon have been in talks for months now. But what exactly about only the guys doing the talking know because there not have been any leaks just rumors. The most common one being a tablet.
I know Verizon said that. What else could they say? They have no other avenue in terms of significantly upgrading their network for data. (Edit to add: I guess there is one other option: they could backtrack and go WiMax!!! Never.) And as samab said (and btw, I rarely agree with him but I do here), Verizon likes to get out on the edge. And they probably said they'd get 3G done in 3 years too - and some would argue it's still not done today. Would Apple really tout an LTE iPhone that works in only 30 markets? Apple wouldn't even make a 3G phone when AT&T had more than 30 markets towered for 3G. (I know, I know, Apple makes an iPhone that doesn't work in any AT&T market ...
As for the tablet: You can buy a Verizon EVDO card for your Mac. Or you can buy a EVDO Mifi for your Mac or iPod touch. And since the rumored tablet might be more like a Mac (laptop) than a phone, there's really little relevance of those talks to the iPhone. It's a different product that's not breaking through any carrier stranglehold over consumers.
I didnt say Verizon created it, just that two years ago they saw enough to decide to go with it. If you read what I wrote earlier you would know that Verizon's plan is to open 30 markets with LTE during 2010 and and have its entire footprint done by the end of 2013. And in case you didnt know Apple and Verizon have been in talks for months now. But what exactly about only the guys doing the talking know because there not have been any leaks just rumors. The most common one being a tablet.
BTW, you didn't say Verizon created it, but the implication was that Verizon had control or oversight over what was happening with LTE. I'm saying they really don't; they're highly dependent on many suppliers and others. They've got a risky plan that they think is doable, but many would find not so much.
But I've always given them kudos for being aggressive and investing in their network reliability. (I have Verizon FIOS and it's worked great except for the first week when it kept losing the TV guide).
Hey just look at Wal-Mart, their profit margin is at roughly 10%, but they sell in the billions. The number 2 retailer is way below them in sales at only several hundred millions and with higher profit margin. I dont know about you but I'll take the 10% of billions
Sure, but that's not Apple's style. If it was, they'd slash the prices on all of their products and chase after market share. But they don't. They've demonstrated time and again that they would rather keep their high margins than chase volume. Lately, they've been able to achieve both with the iPhone; but I won't put bets either way on if they'd be willing to give up that margin to chase even more market share with a Verizon phone.
mature low power chipsets in existing smart phones in wide deployment? Really? Care to provide examples?
There are several phones that can do 7.2, including iPhone 3GS. (And USB cards that can already go all the way up to 21 peak, including one by Sierra Wireless.) You can argue about whether any of these are truly "low power", given that people complain about iPhone battery life.
My comment however was focused more on the network infrastructure, not the handheld device itself (since the iPhone can only do 7.2). There are HSDPA networks in several countries that are up to 21 peak (cat 14); few have plans to reach 42 peak (cat 20) in 2009, such as Telstra in Australia. I just want AT&T to deploy 7.2 or even 14.4 soon, and those just don't look like a big stretch. If Verizon thinks it can do 30 markets of LTE by end of 2010, why can't AT&T get 30 markets of 7.2 or 14.4 before then?
You must not be that important or travel in commonly important areas.
Sonoma/Mendocino coast. Big Sur coast. Adirondack Mountains. Nobody important goes there.
Sure, but that's not Apple's style. If it was, they'd slash the prices on all of their products and chase after market share. But they don't. They've demonstrated time and again that they would rather keep their high margins than chase volume. Lately, they've been able to achieve both with the iPhone; but I won't put bets either way on if they'd be willing to give up that margin to chase even more market share with a Verizon phone.
What are you talking about? They slash prices all the time. The price of the 3G went down to $99 when they debuted the 3GS, and they just lowered the price of the iTouch. Imagine being the idiot that bought a 3G a day, a week, or even a month or 2 before the 3GS came. I'd be highly pissed if I had to wait 2 yrs to upgrade. And why did they slash the price of 2G just months after it came out? I'm certain that cut heavily into their profit margin in order to sell more.
Or, it could just be the popularity of one specific network. T-Mobile is the one who deserves the iPhone, not AT&T.
What are you talking about? They slash prices all the time. The price of the 3G went down to $99 when they debuted the 3GS, and they just lowered the price of the iTouch. Imagine being the idiot that bought a 3G a day, a week, or even a month or 2 before the 3GS came. I'd be highly pissed if I had to wait 2 yrs to upgrade. And why did they slash the price of 2G just months after it came out? I'm certain that cut heavily into their profit margin in order to sell more.
sales of the original EDGE iphone were slow so they worked out a subsidy deal with AT&T. paying retail price for a phone sounded good in theory in 2006, but once the iphone came out most people thought it was crazy to pay $600 for a cell phone. especially one that didn't have a lot of features that most other phones had at the time
Or, it could just be the popularity of one specific network. T-Mobile is the one who deserves the iPhone, not AT&T.
What sort of 3G data network does T-Mobile have? I was under the impression they were mostly EDGE and 1900 MHz? Wouldn't that make them farther behind the 3G race than AT&T?