Doesn't mean squat when everyone and their dog is dying to get an iPhone and is perfectly willing to put up with AT&T.
It's all fun and games . . . until Verizon gets the iPhone.
Had Apple gone with Verizon, Verizon would have experienced the same crushing pressure on its network.
No one was fully prepared for what the iPhone brought to the table.
I know the iphone is successful, but I really don't think it's like that. I recommend an iphone to literally everyone who asks me what they should get. Ultimately, the idea of switching to AT&T to pay top dollar for bad service is what keeps them away.
It's not a matter of having a burden on the networks around here. There simply isn't any coverage. You understand how that works don't you? If it was a matter of AT&T's networks getting overloaded that made people hate them (around here) they would still at least have service to the towers. No bars is what makes the service crap here, not slow data transfer.
When it comes to Verizon, people around here seem to have bars EVERYWHERE. I mean, quite literally my friend ALWAYS has service when I have none (I'm on Sprint.)
So yes, had they gone with Verizon, that may have slowed the network a bit, but at least people would have access to that network.
This time it is not pleasant to say Verizon did better and they have made a good job of communicating what they are selling. it is not too far fetched to say Apple shall take notice.
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
Producers of attacking ads do know all that. Yet, they prefer to exploit shadows of doubts.
Formally, EDGE is indeed 3G technology --- just try to explain the difference to telcos in developing countries! they do market EDGE as 3G --- whence the evidence of the AT&T's coverage having been shown incorrectly. Is this bullshit worth filing a claim? I don't think so.
Attacking ads hurt the reputation of advertiser. You do not and you can not know the details of business model and processes of competitors. So, everything you say in your ad is nonsense. IBM clones, which run OS, being "full of viruses", hold 90% of the market; while Apple's computers, which are also PCs, admittedly, quite innovative PCs --- only 5%.
You mean you've never read how Apple's negative advertising has had an adverse affect with windows users? Do some research please.
Where do you suggest I start my research? Paul Thurrott's blog?
If you are suggesting that some Windows columnists /bloggers/ geeks/ anonymous forum commenters .... were pissed off by Apple's ads... then you are correct. (hey in the religious internet OS wars some might call that a lucky bonus!)
If you are suggesting that those people (and their ilk) were in anyway Apple's "switcher" target market... then you are deluded.
Perhaps Microsoft should have consulted you before they spent $300 million on ads directly countering Apple's ineffective "Get a Mac" campaign.
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.
Precisely! So Verizon's use of a well painted red map can be pretty useless to anyone out there unable to receive service!
Good point, but it may be legal since AT&T uses WCDMA(3G) for voice while Verizon would still remain on CDMA(2G) for voice even when in a CDMA2000(3G) data area.
Regardless, all ads are to be taken with a grain of salt, but I still commend the advertising agency for not only a clever ad, but one that mag also be very effective. Too often I find the clever ads are too smart to deliver the message properly.
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.
Ahh, but is the "back street in Newport, Oregon and moving 15 feet fixed that" red on Verizons "There's a map for that" ad?
Quote:
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.
SFO is a place I have never been to and doubt I'll ever be visiting and not being tied to traveling all over the country for business so that doesn't bother me. So unlike you, I would base AT&T's service reputation and reliability of coverage based on that. But you in your position definitely can.
Quote:
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.
"you bought it but we will control" attitude... is not only prevalent for Apple... you being in the business world traveling all over the country should know better!
ATT's unlimited plan is not very unlimited, they also block iPhone apps that are available for RIM phones.
Mickey Mouse wears red shorts and the sky is blue, but what does that have to do with AT&T lowering it's prices?
But answering your tangent, I've found I haven't hit a glass ceiling as far as AT&T's unlimited plan is concerned and do you really think verizon wouldn't restrict the iPhone like they do with all other phones on their network?
Good point, but it may be legal since AT&T uses WCDMA(3G) for voice while Verizon would still remain on CDMA(2G) for voice even when in a CDMA2000(3G) data area.
AT&T's EDGE covers much wider area. EDGE belongs to the family of 3G technologies. False advertising. Period.
AT&T is still signing up as many customers as they can....something must be right.
Verizon appears to be burning that bridge to Apple (and getting into bed with Google). What does this tell us? That Verizon knows it will be at least until mid 2011 before they get the iPhone?....that maybe they will never get it and now have aligned themselves with Google?
Verizon is known for crippling hardware and software features on the phones that they get from their suppliers. They want total control.....something that they don't want to cede to Apple.
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???
Better the feature be crippled than never exist at all. For years, even cheap phones did many things that an iPhone has just recently become capable of doing: video capture, MMS, tethering and Stereo Bluetooth as a few examples. And if you are going to single out Bluetooth, how exactly is the iPhone's implementation any better than that crippled Verizon phone your friend had? It isn't, they are both only good for hands-free operation.
AT&T's EDGE covers much wider area. EDGE belongs to the family of 3G technologies. False advertising. Period.
You are correct, it?s part of 3GPP so in one sense it?s 3G, but it?s an extension of GSM, so in another it?s part of the 2G network, oft referred at 2.5G. Personally, I hate the ambigous nomenclature as it says nothing about the technology and can used in marketing in shady ways; WiMAX(4G), for example.
Taken from Wikipedia:
"EDGE meets the International Telecommunications Union's requirement for a 3G network, and has been accepted by the ITU as part of the IMT-2000 family of 3G standards. It also enhances the circuit data mode called HSCSD, increasing the data rate of this service. EDGE is part of ITU's 3G definition and is considered a 3G radio technology."
My iPhone doesn?t say 3G when I?m on EDGE.
So is Verizon lying or just being slippery with their terminology?
Maybe Verizon should point out that you need to forget about getting your emails or using the internet while you are talking on your phone
Oh.. and no Wifi on their phones
I think they have learned from the fiasco with the first BB Storm about not having WiFi and may not have the power they once had to force a vendor to remove certain HW and OS features in this emerging era ruled by phones, not carriers, but I think you have a great contender for AT&T?s rebuttal against Verizon.
Mickey Mouse wears red shorts and the sky is blue, but what does that have to do with AT&T lowering it's prices?
But answering your tangent, I've found I haven't hit a glass ceiling as far as AT&T's unlimited plan is concerned and do you really think verizon wouldn't restrict the iPhone like they do with all other phones on their network?
ATT restricted several iPhone apps such as the Slingbox which, on the iPhone, is only allowed to run on WiFi but on the Blackberry it is permitted to use ATTs 3G network.
ATT restricted several iPhone apps such as the Slingbox which, on the iPhone, is only allowed to run on WiFi but on the Blackberry it is permitted to use ATTs 3G network.
The unlimited package does not include text.
I thought Apple told the FCC that AT&T was not part of the app approval decision making, though that does not mean that Apple didn?t contractually agree not to approve certain type apps to run on their network. I think the difference is that BB apps don?t have to get RiM approval so one could make an app that does pretty much anything, even porn or torrents, and have it install on a BB.
I thought Apple told the FCC that AT&T was not part of the app approval decision making, though that does not mean that Apple didn’t contractually agree not to approve certain type apps to run on their network. I think the difference is that BB apps don’t have to get RiM approval so one could make an app that does pretty much anything, even porn or torrents, and have it install on a BB.
"In a curiously worded statement, AT&T has claimed it prevented the iPhone version of SlingPlayer from using 3G because it would chew too much data -- and because the iPhone is, oddly, not considered a phone." - Appleinsider
"In a curiously worded statement, AT&T has claimed it prevented the iPhone version of SlingPlayer from using 3G because it would chew too much data -- and because the iPhone is, oddly, not considered a phone." - Appleinsider
Comments
Doesn't mean squat when everyone and their dog is dying to get an iPhone and is perfectly willing to put up with AT&T.
It's all fun and games . . . until Verizon gets the iPhone.
Had Apple gone with Verizon, Verizon would have experienced the same crushing pressure on its network.
No one was fully prepared for what the iPhone brought to the table.
I know the iphone is successful, but I really don't think it's like that. I recommend an iphone to literally everyone who asks me what they should get. Ultimately, the idea of switching to AT&T to pay top dollar for bad service is what keeps them away.
It's not a matter of having a burden on the networks around here. There simply isn't any coverage. You understand how that works don't you? If it was a matter of AT&T's networks getting overloaded that made people hate them (around here) they would still at least have service to the towers. No bars is what makes the service crap here, not slow data transfer.
When it comes to Verizon, people around here seem to have bars EVERYWHERE. I mean, quite literally my friend ALWAYS has service when I have none (I'm on Sprint.)
So yes, had they gone with Verizon, that may have slowed the network a bit, but at least people would have access to that network.
Really, the excuses you guys come up with...
HT.
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.
extra grumpy today? it's time to up the meds again!
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
Producers of attacking ads do know all that. Yet, they prefer to exploit shadows of doubts.
Formally, EDGE is indeed 3G technology --- just try to explain the difference to telcos in developing countries! they do market EDGE as 3G
Attacking ads hurt the reputation of advertiser. You do not and you can not know the details of business model and processes of competitors. So, everything you say in your ad is nonsense. IBM clones, which run OS, being "full of viruses", hold 90% of the market; while Apple's computers, which are also PCs, admittedly, quite innovative PCs --- only 5%.
You mean you've never read how Apple's negative advertising has had an adverse affect with windows users? Do some research please.
Where do you suggest I start my research? Paul Thurrott's blog?
If you are suggesting that some Windows columnists /bloggers/ geeks/ anonymous forum commenters .... were pissed off by Apple's ads... then you are correct. (hey in the religious internet OS wars some might call that a lucky bonus!)
If you are suggesting that those people (and their ilk) were in anyway Apple's "switcher" target market... then you are deluded.
Perhaps Microsoft should have consulted you before they spent $300 million on ads directly countering Apple's ineffective "Get a Mac" campaign.
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.
Precisely! So Verizon's use of a well painted red map can be pretty useless to anyone out there unable to receive service!
Oh, yeah... VZW Voice coverage is compared to AT&T's true 3G data coverage.
Good point, but it may be legal since AT&T uses WCDMA(3G) for voice while Verizon would still remain on CDMA(2G) for voice even when in a CDMA2000(3G) data area.
Regardless, all ads are to be taken with a grain of salt, but I still commend the advertising agency for not only a clever ad, but one that mag also be very effective. Too often I find the clever ads are too smart to deliver the message properly.
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.
Ahh, but is the "back street in Newport, Oregon and moving 15 feet fixed that" red on Verizons "There's a map for that" ad?
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.
SFO is a place I have never been to and doubt I'll ever be visiting and not being tied to traveling all over the country for business so that doesn't bother me. So unlike you, I would base AT&T's service reputation and reliability of coverage based on that. But you in your position definitely can.
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.
"you bought it but we will control" attitude... is not only prevalent for Apple... you being in the business world traveling all over the country should know better!
ATT's unlimited plan is not very unlimited, they also block iPhone apps that are available for RIM phones.
Mickey Mouse wears red shorts and the sky is blue, but what does that have to do with AT&T lowering it's prices?
But answering your tangent, I've found I haven't hit a glass ceiling as far as AT&T's unlimited plan is concerned and do you really think verizon wouldn't restrict the iPhone like they do with all other phones on their network?
Good point, but it may be legal since AT&T uses WCDMA(3G) for voice while Verizon would still remain on CDMA(2G) for voice even when in a CDMA2000(3G) data area.
AT&T's EDGE covers much wider area. EDGE belongs to the family of 3G technologies. False advertising. Period.
Oh.. and no Wifi on their phones
Verizon appears to be burning that bridge to Apple (and getting into bed with Google). What does this tell us? That Verizon knows it will be at least until mid 2011 before they get the iPhone?....that maybe they will never get it and now have aligned themselves with Google?
Verizon is known for crippling hardware and software features on the phones that they get from their suppliers. They want total control.....something that they don't want to cede to Apple.
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???
Better the feature be crippled than never exist at all. For years, even cheap phones did many things that an iPhone has just recently become capable of doing: video capture, MMS, tethering and Stereo Bluetooth as a few examples. And if you are going to single out Bluetooth, how exactly is the iPhone's implementation any better than that crippled Verizon phone your friend had? It isn't, they are both only good for hands-free operation.
AT&T's EDGE covers much wider area. EDGE belongs to the family of 3G technologies. False advertising. Period.
You are correct, it?s part of 3GPP so in one sense it?s 3G, but it?s an extension of GSM, so in another it?s part of the 2G network, oft referred at 2.5G. Personally, I hate the ambigous nomenclature as it says nothing about the technology and can used in marketing in shady ways; WiMAX(4G), for example.
Taken from Wikipedia:My iPhone doesn?t say 3G when I?m on EDGE.
So is Verizon lying or just being slippery with their terminology?
Maybe Verizon should point out that you need to forget about getting your emails or using the internet while you are talking on your phone
Oh.. and no Wifi on their phones
I think they have learned from the fiasco with the first BB Storm about not having WiFi and may not have the power they once had to force a vendor to remove certain HW and OS features in this emerging era ruled by phones, not carriers, but I think you have a great contender for AT&T?s rebuttal against Verizon.
Mickey Mouse wears red shorts and the sky is blue, but what does that have to do with AT&T lowering it's prices?
But answering your tangent, I've found I haven't hit a glass ceiling as far as AT&T's unlimited plan is concerned and do you really think verizon wouldn't restrict the iPhone like they do with all other phones on their network?
ATT restricted several iPhone apps such as the Slingbox which, on the iPhone, is only allowed to run on WiFi but on the Blackberry it is permitted to use ATTs 3G network.
The unlimited package does not include text.
ATT restricted several iPhone apps such as the Slingbox which, on the iPhone, is only allowed to run on WiFi but on the Blackberry it is permitted to use ATTs 3G network.
The unlimited package does not include text.
I thought Apple told the FCC that AT&T was not part of the app approval decision making, though that does not mean that Apple didn?t contractually agree not to approve certain type apps to run on their network. I think the difference is that BB apps don?t have to get RiM approval so one could make an app that does pretty much anything, even porn or torrents, and have it install on a BB.
I thought Apple told the FCC that AT&T was not part of the app approval decision making, though that does not mean that Apple didn’t contractually agree not to approve certain type apps to run on their network. I think the difference is that BB apps don’t have to get RiM approval so one could make an app that does pretty much anything, even porn or torrents, and have it install on a BB.
"In a curiously worded statement, AT&T has claimed it prevented the iPhone version of SlingPlayer from using 3G because it would chew too much data -- and because the iPhone is, oddly, not considered a phone." - Appleinsider
"In a curiously worded statement, AT&T has claimed it prevented the iPhone version of SlingPlayer from using 3G because it would chew too much data -- and because the iPhone is, oddly, not considered a phone." - Appleinsider
Interesting. Thanks for the link.