That's great but marketshare in the real world counts and Teckstud is correct.
I go to my shareholders and say hey people increase are sales from 3.5 million to 10 million Mac in 5 years, the savvy shareholder will ask the question, How is your marketshare improved in major markets over the last 5 years.
Yes there will love the increase in sales, but if you say I gone from 7% marketshare to 15%, there will love you even more with above sales figures!
Rubbish! All of the above.
What if the market has shrunk? What if you increase your share despite selling less units?
How about gaining massive market share by slashing your profits down to zero?
The "savvy" shareholder will be asking "What have you done with my fuckin' money?"
Apple functions in the Premium end of the market. Apple shuns the low end and locks out a good portion of the mid-end. Margin over volume. And it's a brilliant strategy.
Right and that why you basically get an orgasm every time it's share goes up 0.34% and constantly need to rank on MS inferior products!
Cute play on Apple's ad, "There's an app for that!"
But just "painting a map red" does not mean you'll get that coverage?
What recourse, as a Verizon consumer, does one have when they don't receive 3G service for whatever reason... tall trees, tall buildings, mountains, whatever, can they then sue Verizon for false advertising?
Anybody out there with Verizon service that found they were unable to receive 3G service and then looked at Verizons map commercial and saw that Verizon said they have 3G service? Makes you stop and think for a moment!
Sure, but that applies to every carriers coverage map. It's not as if ATT's map (or anyone else's) is any more accurate with regards to local interferences and obstructions to the signal.
I do not like ATT, and as soon as the iPhone opens up to other providers I'll most probably switch, but I think ATT will adjust their prices competitively when that happens.
Having said that, I get 3G and phone coverage in areas around VA and MD with ATT where Verizon and Sprint get ZERO bars! places such as Deep Creek, MD.
Please forgive me but looking at Verizon and T-Mobile, their wireless plans basically price match AT&T's. So why would AT&T lower it's plan prices if everyone charges the same thing? In fact, since Verizon and T-Mobile don't have a comparatively competitive phone, why haven't they "adjusted their prices competitively."
I don't think it's a GSM vs. CDMA technology issue, so much as a difference between the number of towers each carrier deploys.
And as far as I have read, the cellular radio/technology difference will disappear completely when they both deploy the same 4G/LTE standard in the future. Then it really will boil down to who has the most towers.
It is a technology issue. Verizon uses separate channels for data, called EVDO. So too much data use can not affect voice transmission that is done on the 1X channel. ATT uses the European version of 3G called WDMA/UMTS. It uses the same channel to transmit voice and data in packets.... when there is too much data usage, voice gets crowed out and get dropped calls.
CDMA is American technology developed by a US company called Qualcomm. The Europeans did not want to pay royalties so they diluted the patents with WCDMA/UMTS/3G. The idiots at ATT chose this tech and now they are paying the price.
If I remember correctly, 4G is based on OFMD tech developed in the US. Looks nice on paper, but very immature. The chipsets are not even close to ready, unless you want to have a brick sized phone and want to carry a car battery on the shoulder to power the phone like in the old days. It will take time like most techs. If the iPhone goes with LTE and Verizon, they will have to implement CDMA to fill the gaps next year.
Apple needs to get over their hang ups and make CDMA phone which is not that hard and sell it to Verizon, Korea, etc.
That's do to iPods and iPhones my friend, not Justin Long.
The iPod halo effect, the Apple Stores effect, the OS X on Intel effect ... have all played their part in boosting sales of the Mac. None of those factors means that advertising is not also effective.
Why do you have to derail nearly every thread that you post in?
The iPod halo effect, the Apple Stores effect, the OS X on Intel effect ... have all played their part in boosting sales of the Mac. None of those factors means that advertising is also effective.
Why do you have to derail nearly every thread that you post in?
You mean you've never read how Apple's negative advertising has had an adverse affect with windows users? Do some research please.
The iPod halo effect, the Apple Stores effect, the OS X on Intel effect ... have all played their part in boosting sales of the Mac. None of those factors means that advertising is not also effective.
Why do you have to derail nearly every thread that you post in?
I have to agree with this. iPhone was my gateway drug to a Macbook Pro, an iMac, and now a Mac Mini.
Please forgive me but looking at Verizon and T-Mobile, their wireless plans basically price match AT&T's. So why would AT&T lower it's plan prices if everyone charges the same thing? In fact, since Verizon and T-Mobile don't have a comparatively competitive phone, why haven't they "adjusted their prices competitively."
ATT's unlimited plan is not very unlimited, they also block iPhone apps that are available for RIM phones.
ATT's unlimited plan is not very unlimited, they also block iPhone apps that are available for RIM phones.
Actually it is unlimited. I have no data 'cap' on my plan, although I'm sure that may change when tethering is allowed. As to blocked Apps, those are blocked by Apple, not AT&T. Now it may be that Apple did so at AT&T's request but we have no way to determine that. In the end, the one who pulled the plug is Apple.
What recourse, as a Verizon consumer, does one have when they don't receive 3G service for whatever reason... tall trees, tall buildings, mountains, whatever, can they then sue Verizon for false advertising?
by the letter, sue. Sue away. Doesn't mean you will win. but you can try.
Verizon is most likely defining coverage by tower saturation, not by quality of service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Had Apple gone with Verizon, Verizon would have experienced the same crushing pressure on its network.
very possibly. same for T-Mobile and Sprint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lopsided
When I first read the headline I thought, [I]yikes, if Verizon is attacking the iPhone does that mean they're not going to get it anyti
Verizon uses the wrong flavor of 3G so no, they won't get it anytime soon. Even if the ATT contract ends. Not unless Apple adds this LTE to the phone. Which could happen but might not until 2011 given the complete lack of any coverage and the major battery issues. Or they will leave 3g and perhaps edge in the phones to pick up the slack so folks would stick with either T-Mobile or ATT for a while
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
I am not passing any judgement on the article or the ad but I am surprised Apple didn't get some copyright coverage on the exact phrase "There's an app for that!".
it's not a copyrightable item. few phrases are. some are trademarkable but they have to be very very unique. or every strongly associated with one company (like Verizon's 'can you hear me now') and even then, you generally have to use the exact phrase for a violation to occur. Making a parody (which is essentially what happened here) is almost always deemed allowed under fair use exemptions
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
Kind of looks like wasteful spending on Verizon part, spending money for 3G infrastructure in low population density areas makes it hard to recover that investment.
Depends on how hard it would be to switch towers to 4G. building the actual physical tower is a huge part of the cost. If they can convert the output or they have the room and support to add a second output for 4g that might be cheaper than having to build a whole rig
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
Shame. Barbaric wildness. No one should be allowed to name competitors openly in ads.
As long as the information is correct there's no real harm. Which is why it is allowed. With the rule that if the information is not correct, you'll be in trouble. If someone could prove without a shadow of a doubt that they are not really showing comparable maps then ATT could file a false advertising claim against them (even if the info they were 'messing up' was their own). Just like Apple could have when they lowered their prices but Microsoft left an ad running with the wrong price for six more weeks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Apple functions in the Premium end of the market. Apple shuns the low end and locks out a good portion of the mid-end. Margin over volume. And it's a brilliant strategy.
Apple has always been about the unique, avant-garde, different. this is part of why they don't do thing because 'everyone else did it'. not dropping to bargain basement prices is just more of the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOFEER
my biggest prob with verizon is how it cripples phones, my friend had the same phone i did, but verizon turned off his BT so i could do voice dialing, and transfering and he couldn't, will verizon lock out iphone functionality to sell its own junk???
if the iphone was one of their devices they likely would not play games because folks have a choice. even if (and I highly doubt it) Verizon was THE iphone dealer, there's a thing called unlocking. works really great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverpraxis
Please forgive me but looking at Verizon and T-Mobile, their wireless plans basically price match AT&T's. So why would AT&T lower it's plan prices if everyone charges the same thing?
Because everyone charges the same thing. if, and I do believe it will happen in the near future, Apple choses to just unlock the phone and let the carriers battle it out, ATT is going to have to change up their prices to beat T-Mobile (and eventually Verizon) if they want to keep folks around. Especially if Apple chooses to sell the phone full retail out of their stores, which is likely what they would do (and dump all this activation hassle). I believe by law, if you take a fully paid device to a carrier they can not force you into anything more than month to month (and they can't charge you an ETF).If this is so then the carriers might find themselves in a kind of bidding war. T-Mobile might have better coverage in your area, but ATT is dropping data to $25 a month with free unlimited texting to try to keep you. T-Mobile drops to match, ATT starts touting they have faster speeds, or they just added a bunch of new towers for coverage. and so on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AjitMD
Apple needs to get over their hang ups and make CDMA phone which is not that hard and sell it to Verizon, Korea, etc.
No, they don't. They are not obligated to make a CDMA phone. Folks need to get over this notion.
Cute play on Apple's ad, "There's an app for that!"
But just "painting a map red" does not mean you'll get that coverage?
What recourse, as a Verizon consumer, does one have when they don't receive 3G service for whatever reason... tall trees, tall buildings, mountains, whatever, can they then sue Verizon for false advertising?
Anybody out there with Verizon service that found they were unable to receive 3G service and then looked at Verizons map commercial and saw that Verizon said they have 3G service? Makes you stop and think for a moment!
I've been a Verizon Wireless customer since they were Airtouch. I travel all over North America on business. The only place I have ever found where I couldn't get *good* service was in a back street in Newport, Oregon, and moving 15 feet fixed that.
ATT, on the other hand, has developed a deserved reputation for bad coverage and worse service; the city of San Francisco, for example, has such poor coverage that iPhone users have to search diligently to get a usable signal, and even then, voicemails and text messages are *usually* delayed for hours, and sometimes days.
ATT is half the reason I will never buy an iPhone. Apple's "you bought it but we will control" attitude about the iPhone is the other half. When I buy a product, it's mine, not Apple's. That's why my next phone will be a Palm or something running Android.
Comments
That's great but marketshare in the real world counts and Teckstud is correct.
I go to my shareholders and say hey people increase are sales from 3.5 million to 10 million Mac in 5 years, the savvy shareholder will ask the question, How is your marketshare improved in major markets over the last 5 years.
Yes there will love the increase in sales, but if you say I gone from 7% marketshare to 15%, there will love you even more with above sales figures!
Rubbish! All of the above.
What if the market has shrunk? What if you increase your share despite selling less units?
How about gaining massive market share by slashing your profits down to zero?
The "savvy" shareholder will be asking "What have you done with my fuckin' money?"
Stick to the Monopoly board game.
Apple functions in the Premium end of the market. Apple shuns the low end and locks out a good portion of the mid-end. Margin over volume. And it's a brilliant strategy.
Right and that why you basically get an orgasm every time it's share goes up 0.34% and constantly need to rank on MS inferior products!
Spare me the BS.
Cute play on Apple's ad, "There's an app for that!"
But just "painting a map red" does not mean you'll get that coverage?
What recourse, as a Verizon consumer, does one have when they don't receive 3G service for whatever reason... tall trees, tall buildings, mountains, whatever, can they then sue Verizon for false advertising?
Anybody out there with Verizon service that found they were unable to receive 3G service and then looked at Verizons map commercial and saw that Verizon said they have 3G service? Makes you stop and think for a moment!
Sure, but that applies to every carriers coverage map. It's not as if ATT's map (or anyone else's) is any more accurate with regards to local interferences and obstructions to the signal.
I do not like ATT, and as soon as the iPhone opens up to other providers I'll most probably switch, but I think ATT will adjust their prices competitively when that happens.
Having said that, I get 3G and phone coverage in areas around VA and MD with ATT where Verizon and Sprint get ZERO bars! places such as Deep Creek, MD.
Please forgive me but looking at Verizon and T-Mobile, their wireless plans basically price match AT&T's. So why would AT&T lower it's plan prices if everyone charges the same thing? In fact, since Verizon and T-Mobile don't have a comparatively competitive phone, why haven't they "adjusted their prices competitively."
I don't think it's a GSM vs. CDMA technology issue, so much as a difference between the number of towers each carrier deploys.
And as far as I have read, the cellular radio/technology difference will disappear completely when they both deploy the same 4G/LTE standard in the future. Then it really will boil down to who has the most towers.
It is a technology issue. Verizon uses separate channels for data, called EVDO. So too much data use can not affect voice transmission that is done on the 1X channel. ATT uses the European version of 3G called WDMA/UMTS. It uses the same channel to transmit voice and data in packets.... when there is too much data usage, voice gets crowed out and get dropped calls.
CDMA is American technology developed by a US company called Qualcomm. The Europeans did not want to pay royalties so they diluted the patents with WCDMA/UMTS/3G. The idiots at ATT chose this tech and now they are paying the price.
If I remember correctly, 4G is based on OFMD tech developed in the US. Looks nice on paper, but very immature. The chipsets are not even close to ready, unless you want to have a brick sized phone and want to carry a car battery on the shoulder to power the phone like in the old days. It will take time like most techs. If the iPhone goes with LTE and Verizon, they will have to implement CDMA to fill the gaps next year.
Apple needs to get over their hang ups and make CDMA phone which is not that hard and sell it to Verizon, Korea, etc.
That's do to iPods and iPhones my friend, not Justin Long.
The iPod halo effect, the Apple Stores effect, the OS X on Intel effect ... have all played their part in boosting sales of the Mac. None of those factors means that advertising is not also effective.
Why do you have to derail nearly every thread that you post in?
That's do to iPods and iPhones my friend, not Justin Long.
Tell me TeckDud, just how did you get to be an expert on everything? Aren't you afraid your head will explode?
The iPod halo effect, the Apple Stores effect, the OS X on Intel effect ... have all played their part in boosting sales of the Mac. None of those factors means that advertising is also effective.
Why do you have to derail nearly every thread that you post in?
You mean you've never read how Apple's negative advertising has had an adverse affect with windows users? Do some research please.
Tell me TeckDud, just how did you get to be an expert on everything? Aren't you afraid your head will explode?
Thank you spell checker.
Or is it spelling newbee?
The iPod halo effect, the Apple Stores effect, the OS X on Intel effect ... have all played their part in boosting sales of the Mac. None of those factors means that advertising is not also effective.
Why do you have to derail nearly every thread that you post in?
I have to agree with this. iPhone was my gateway drug to a Macbook Pro, an iMac, and now a Mac Mini.
I have to agree with this. iPhone was my gateway drug to a Macbook Pro, an iMac, and now a Mac Mini.
Exactly.
Please forgive me but looking at Verizon and T-Mobile, their wireless plans basically price match AT&T's. So why would AT&T lower it's plan prices if everyone charges the same thing? In fact, since Verizon and T-Mobile don't have a comparatively competitive phone, why haven't they "adjusted their prices competitively."
ATT's unlimited plan is not very unlimited, they also block iPhone apps that are available for RIM phones.
Thank you spell checker.
Or is it spelling newbee?
You're welcome ... just trying to protect your "reputation".
You're welcome ... just trying to protect your "reputation".
I can protect myself, I assure you.
Hey- Vancouver's a beautiful place- what are you doing there?
ATT's unlimited plan is not very unlimited, they also block iPhone apps that are available for RIM phones.
Actually it is unlimited. I have no data 'cap' on my plan, although I'm sure that may change when tethering is allowed. As to blocked Apps, those are blocked by Apple, not AT&T. Now it may be that Apple did so at AT&T's request but we have no way to determine that. In the end, the one who pulled the plug is Apple.
I can protect myself, I assure you.
Hey- Vancouver's a beautiful place- what are you doing there?
You answered your own question with the opening statement about Vancouver.
What recourse, as a Verizon consumer, does one have when they don't receive 3G service for whatever reason... tall trees, tall buildings, mountains, whatever, can they then sue Verizon for false advertising?
by the letter, sue. Sue away. Doesn't mean you will win. but you can try.
Verizon is most likely defining coverage by tower saturation, not by quality of service.
Had Apple gone with Verizon, Verizon would have experienced the same crushing pressure on its network.
very possibly. same for T-Mobile and Sprint.
When I first read the headline I thought, [I]yikes, if Verizon is attacking the iPhone does that mean they're not going to get it anyti
Verizon uses the wrong flavor of 3G so no, they won't get it anytime soon. Even if the ATT contract ends. Not unless Apple adds this LTE to the phone. Which could happen but might not until 2011 given the complete lack of any coverage and the major battery issues. Or they will leave 3g and perhaps edge in the phones to pick up the slack so folks would stick with either T-Mobile or ATT for a while
I am not passing any judgement on the article or the ad but I am surprised Apple didn't get some copyright coverage on the exact phrase "There's an app for that!".
it's not a copyrightable item. few phrases are. some are trademarkable but they have to be very very unique. or every strongly associated with one company (like Verizon's 'can you hear me now') and even then, you generally have to use the exact phrase for a violation to occur. Making a parody (which is essentially what happened here) is almost always deemed allowed under fair use exemptions
Kind of looks like wasteful spending on Verizon part, spending money for 3G infrastructure in low population density areas makes it hard to recover that investment.
Depends on how hard it would be to switch towers to 4G. building the actual physical tower is a huge part of the cost. If they can convert the output or they have the room and support to add a second output for 4g that might be cheaper than having to build a whole rig
Shame. Barbaric wildness. No one should be allowed to name competitors openly in ads.
As long as the information is correct there's no real harm. Which is why it is allowed. With the rule that if the information is not correct, you'll be in trouble. If someone could prove without a shadow of a doubt that they are not really showing comparable maps then ATT could file a false advertising claim against them (even if the info they were 'messing up' was their own). Just like Apple could have when they lowered their prices but Microsoft left an ad running with the wrong price for six more weeks
Apple functions in the Premium end of the market. Apple shuns the low end and locks out a good portion of the mid-end. Margin over volume. And it's a brilliant strategy.
Apple has always been about the unique, avant-garde, different. this is part of why they don't do thing because 'everyone else did it'. not dropping to bargain basement prices is just more of the same.
my biggest prob with verizon is how it cripples phones, my friend had the same phone i did, but verizon turned off his BT so i could do voice dialing, and transfering and he couldn't, will verizon lock out iphone functionality to sell its own junk???
if the iphone was one of their devices they likely would not play games because folks have a choice. even if (and I highly doubt it) Verizon was THE iphone dealer, there's a thing called unlocking. works really great.
Please forgive me but looking at Verizon and T-Mobile, their wireless plans basically price match AT&T's. So why would AT&T lower it's plan prices if everyone charges the same thing?
Because everyone charges the same thing. if, and I do believe it will happen in the near future, Apple choses to just unlock the phone and let the carriers battle it out, ATT is going to have to change up their prices to beat T-Mobile (and eventually Verizon) if they want to keep folks around. Especially if Apple chooses to sell the phone full retail out of their stores, which is likely what they would do (and dump all this activation hassle). I believe by law, if you take a fully paid device to a carrier they can not force you into anything more than month to month (and they can't charge you an ETF).If this is so then the carriers might find themselves in a kind of bidding war. T-Mobile might have better coverage in your area, but ATT is dropping data to $25 a month with free unlimited texting to try to keep you. T-Mobile drops to match, ATT starts touting they have faster speeds, or they just added a bunch of new towers for coverage. and so on.
Apple needs to get over their hang ups and make CDMA phone which is not that hard and sell it to Verizon, Korea, etc.
No, they don't. They are not obligated to make a CDMA phone. Folks need to get over this notion.
Cute play on Apple's ad, "There's an app for that!"
But just "painting a map red" does not mean you'll get that coverage?
What recourse, as a Verizon consumer, does one have when they don't receive 3G service for whatever reason... tall trees, tall buildings, mountains, whatever, can they then sue Verizon for false advertising?
Anybody out there with Verizon service that found they were unable to receive 3G service and then looked at Verizons map commercial and saw that Verizon said they have 3G service? Makes you stop and think for a moment!
I've been a Verizon Wireless customer since they were Airtouch. I travel all over North America on business. The only place I have ever found where I couldn't get *good* service was in a back street in Newport, Oregon, and moving 15 feet fixed that.
ATT, on the other hand, has developed a deserved reputation for bad coverage and worse service; the city of San Francisco, for example, has such poor coverage that iPhone users have to search diligently to get a usable signal, and even then, voicemails and text messages are *usually* delayed for hours, and sometimes days.
ATT is half the reason I will never buy an iPhone. Apple's "you bought it but we will control" attitude about the iPhone is the other half. When I buy a product, it's mine, not Apple's. That's why my next phone will be a Palm or something running Android.