When Verizon makes a phone that can do GSM they are making a phone that can use about 90% of the world's cell systems. If Apple makes a CDMA phone they're making a phone for the remaining 10%, and for all practical purposes more like 5% since they would have little incentive to sell a CDMA phone outside the U.S.
And that's the difference. Don't know why it's so hard to grasp.
Maybe it is hard to grasp because RIM has no problem making phones that work with 100% of the market and happens to still be holding off Apple while gaining marketshare (both from Nokia).
Maybe it is hard to grasp because folks like yourself will toss around the smartphone label when noting that Apple doesn't need to sell as many phones as Nokia because they sell more expensive phones with much better margins and better profitability.
Yet people turn this around and note that because all of the people in sub-sahara use GSM, that Apple couldn't possible make a dime off some percentage of high dollar spending Americans in numbers above 140 million with a CDMA phone.
Even with widespread HSDPA, GSM is still around. LTE will be here along with HSPDA, GSM, CDMA2000 and CDMA.
2013 seems a little optimistic for the cost, difficulty and coverage that Verizon has to do over the US, but even if they can do it, it?s only 2009. Apple didn?t even put out a HSDPA-capable iPhone when AT&T had 3G in all major cities.
Why put one one out new on Verizon with LTE when they are just testing it? Are there even radios that are small enough and power efficient to fit into the svelte iPhone? Sounds more like a well placed vapourware campaign to stay on Verizon waiting than actual proof that there is one coming shortly.
If Verizon is opening 30 markets in 2010, that means phones are ready to be made that have both CDMA and LTE or else why would they build the network. VZ had decided since 2007 that it was gonna switch to LTE. I'll be the first to admit that VZ is sometimes like an evil dictator when it came to phones. That's the one BIG gripe I had about them, but lately it looks like they're softening that stance. They have to in order to stay as the number one carrier in terms of subs. They could easily be over the 100 million mark if they just compromised a lil.
Maybe it is hard to grasp because RIM has no problem making phones that work with 100% of the market and happens to still be holding off Apple while gaining marketshare (both from Nokia).
Maybe it is hard to grasp because folks like yourself will toss around the smartphone label when noting that Apple doesn't need to sell as many phones as Nokia because they sell more expensive phones with much better margins and better profitability.
Yet people turn this around and note that because all of the people in sub-sahara use GSM, that Apple couldn't possible make a dime off some percentage of high dollar spending Americans in numbers above 140 million with a CDMA phone.
It is ridiculous.
Bravo Trumtman. Well said. Analysts predict that Apple could very easily sell double and in a much shorter time period the iPhones they have already sold if they ended the exclusivity deal with AT&T. Do you not think the shareholders would want to see that?
If Verizon is opening 30 markets in 2010, that means phones are ready to be made that have both CDMA and LTE or else why would they build the network.
That is a valid point, but I haven?t seen much in the way of LTE phones on sites like Engadget cropping up, though CES 2010 will be a better place to show case them for the year. I look forward to the specs of these LTE phones.
People get all saucer eyed when they think of the potential bandwidth that LTE can offer, yet even on the world?s UMTS which can do 42Mbps dn/22Mbps up while still technically 3G, there are no phone radios that can handle that. Still working with HSUPA on some phones. There are some country?s carriers that have Evolved HSPA setup, apparently, but I know of know phones with such radios. I don?t see how a Verizon phone will be small enough, and power efficient enough without drastically reducing the potential bandwidth to something that is more inline with HSUPA.
Maybe it is hard to grasp because RIM has no problem making phones that work with 100% of the market and happens to still be holding off Apple while gaining marketshare (both from Nokia).
Maybe it is hard to grasp because folks like yourself will toss around the smartphone label when noting that Apple doesn't need to sell as many phones as Nokia because they sell more expensive phones with much better margins and better profitability.
Yet people turn this around and note that because all of the people in sub-sahara use GSM, that Apple couldn't possible make a dime off some percentage of high dollar spending Americans in numbers above 140 million with a CDMA phone.
It is ridiculous.
You're right, Apple doesn't know what they're doing. If only they would listen to you, they could be successful.
You're right, Apple doesn't know what their doing. If only they would listen to you, they could be successful.
Did you see this article?
Quote:
Bernstein Research analyst Toni Sacconaghi estimates that Apple (AAPL), though it is only the fifth-largest handset vendor, claimed nearly a third of handset industry profits in the first half of 2009
That is pretty unreal for a company that couldn’t possibly gain any ground in the already entrenched cellphone business. That is as much as Apple makes in the PC market in the US, and they did it under two years, with little sale time for the current 3GS and with only two models on the market.
That is pretty unreal for a company that couldn?t possibly gain any ground in the already entrenched cellphone business. That is as much as Apple makes in the PC market in the US, and they did it under two years, with little sale time for the current 3GS and with only two models on the market.
That just means that apple makes more money per phone.
That just means that apple makes more money per phone.
Obviously if they command more revenue for moving less product that means they make more per phone. What this means from a financial standpoint is that Apple?s iPhone is very successful and can easily move into cheaper devices while still commanding a higher than industry average in profit. RiM moves more product but they also have to BOGO sales and make increasing less profit per device. Their real profits came from BES and the per unit per year licensing. That is changing in this new era. Marketshare means squat without the profits to make it worthwhile.
Actually, many of us simply want a full-featured smartphone and dependable phone service on a reliable network.
No dropped calls, no static, no missing handset features that other manufacturers have had for years, and no lack of insurance options for our expensive handsets et al.
For me, I've found that with Verizon's network/HTC Imagio combination, as it provides everything I desire in advanced smartphone support e.g. choice of internet browsers (Opera, Skyfire w/ FLASH support), complete MS Word/Excel/Outlook integration, user changeable battery, advanced media player features w/incredible codec support (Kinoma Play), LIVE Playback (V Cast TV) No Tyrannical Ecosytem... just drag n' drop = done!, and a very reasonable insurance fee in case the worst does happen.
In my experience, the iPhone is a fairly solid 'media hub' with lots of Apps (can't forget those Apps ), but it seriously disappoints at its core task... that of being a reliable phone.
I agree with all that you say here. I am on my third 3G, due to one failure, and the second one failing to hold much of a charge after a whole four months of service. And, it seems every time there is a new firmware release, Safari crashes more, and battery life goes down even more.
I'm paying for 3G, and finding it in darn few places. Or, it shifts from 3G to Edge like a motorist going through the gears at rush hour.
AT&T's service in Nashville is anywhere from abysmal to fairly decent. It was only on a recent trip to Richmond VA that I learned AT&T actually had reliable coverage someplace. Most other places the coverage is poor to fair.
The concept of the iPhone is great; I enjoy using the features and find the phone's ergonomics quite good. But, give me better battery life, and give me FAR better and more reliable service.
My contract with AT&T is up next July. At that time, I will cease being an AT&T customer. I will seek out a phone with battery life offered by a service with decent coverage.
Actually, many of us simply want a full-featured smartphone and dependable phone service on a reliable network.
No dropped calls, no static, no missing handset features that other manufacturers have had for years, and no lack of insurance options for our expensive handsets et al.
For me, I've found that with Verizon's network/HTC Imagio combination, as it provides everything I desire in advanced smartphone support e.g. choice of internet browsers (Opera, Skyfire w/ FLASH support), complete MS Word/Excel/Outlook integration, user changeable battery, advanced media player features w/incredible codec support (Kinoma Play), LIVE Playback (V Cast TV) No Tyrannical Ecosytem... just drag n' drop = done!, and a very reasonable insurance fee in case the worst does happen.
In my experience, the iPhone is a fairly solid 'media hub' with lots of Apps (can't forget those Apps ), but it seriously disappoints at its core task... that of being a reliable phone.
So good for you that you have no Apple fever! We all are just lost and damned to it for ever. Once you go mac you never go back...
No one is saying CAN?T, people are saying that Apple WON?T.
Actually, I am the only one here that supports that theory.
All the other people are either saying that it would cost massive amount of money to design it or massive amount of money to manufacture it.
But if people just look at the raw numbers --- it doesn't cost a lot of money to design a CDMA iphone and it doesn't cost a lot of money to manufacture a separate model (Apple already does it for the wifi-less chinese iphone for instance).
Actually, I am the only one here that supports that theory.
All the other people are either saying that it would cost massive amount of money to design it or massive amount of money to manufacture it.
But if people just look at the raw numbers --- it doesn't cost a lot of money to design a CDMA iphone and it doesn't cost a lot of money to manufacture a separate model (Apple already does it for the wifi-less chinese iphone for instance).
Even with increased licensing costs (which i know we disagree on) Apple would make a killing by having a CDMA iPhone. CDMA may be hitting a dead-end, technologically, but it?s be the default standard for many carriers for many years to come. At least we can agree on that.
PS: I?m starting to question whether Apple will go to another carrier, not that think it will be Verizon, but AT&T?s CEO has stated too many times now that they won?t have iPhone exclusivity forever. That just seems odd to say at all. I wonder if Apple would like to keep it simple, but AT&T?s network simply can?t handle the load. I don?t think Verizon?s network could either with the amount of data iPhone?s use each month in comparison to other devices, but I don?t see how they can possibly build the complex networks fast enough to deal with the demand. Their network will get to it?s saturation point, if it hasn?t already in places.
Actually, I am the only one here that supports that theory.
All the other people are either saying that it would cost massive amount of money to design it or massive amount of money to manufacture it.
But if people just look at the raw numbers --- it doesn't cost a lot of money to design a CDMA iphone and it doesn't cost a lot of money to manufacture a separate model (Apple already does it for the wifi-less chinese iphone for instance).
Are they? Don't feel like going back through a lot of posts, but my impression certainly isn't that everybody but you is claiming that Apple wouldn't make a phone for Verizon because it would cost "a massive amount of money." I think you're indulging in a bit of a straw man, here.
My impression is that the arguments are various, but generally center on two things: Verizon has shown itself to be inimical to the kinds of concessions that Apple is sure to demand, and that it's really not in Apples best interests to go to the trouble to build a specific phone for the fraction of a fraction that Verizon's US CDMA business represents, particularly when it is set to expire over the next few years.
On that latter point, it's really about spending any money, rather than any large amount of money.
I don?t think we have info on this Chinese iPhone yet. No WiFi HW or just no WiFi drivers and SW in OS? Is it going to look like the 3G or 3GS or be something complete new?
Even with increased licensing costs (which i know we disagree on) Apple would make a killing by having a CDMA iPhone. CDMA may be hitting a dead-end, technologically, but it?s be the default standard for many carriers for many years to come. At least we can agree on that.
Well, if Apple goes CDMA, then Qualcomm sues you for licensing fee. If Apple goes GSM, then Nokia sues you for licensing fee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Are they? Don't feel like going back through a lot of posts, but my impression certainly isn't that everybody but you is claiming that Apple wouldn't make a phone for Verizon because it would cost "a massive amount of money." I think you're indulging in a bit of a straw man, here.
My impression is that the arguments are various, but generally center on two things: Verizon has shown itself to be inimical to the kinds of concessions that Apple is sure to demand, and that it's really not in Apples best interests to go to the trouble to build a specific phone for the fraction of a fraction that Verizon's US CDMA business represents, particularly when it is set to expire over the next few years.
On that latter point, it's really about spending any money, rather than any large amount of money.
Verizon already stated publicly that they didn't agree to revenue sharing (gone), full priced iphone without subsidy (gone), tech support/warranty issues (gone, other international carriers do iphone tech support and warranty), restricted distribution (partially gone, it's not just apple store and at&t corp stores anymore).
You might as well say that Apple shouldn't have designed the original 2G iphone that sold in only 6 countries and that it only sold 5-6 million units --- because we all know that a Verizon iphone would sell more than that.
You have to spend money to make money. As I said it repeatedly, Apple enjoys something like 50% gross profit margin on the iphone. Spending that little extra bit of money will not dent their profit margin much.
Well, if Apple goes CDMA, then Qualcomm sues you for licensing fee. If Apple goes GSM, then Nokia sues you for licensing fee.
Nokia is simply suing, and one report has it at a measly $200M. Who is to say if they will win. Apple would have to pay the additional per unit fees for each CDMA iPhone. I believe it?s the reason WCDMA and TD-CDMA were created.
Quote:
Verizon already stated publicly that they didn't agree to revenue sharing (gone), full priced iphone without subsidy (gone),
Profit sahring is gone, unfortunately for us consumers, but the price of the iPhone wasn?t the full price when profit sharing was in place, it was just an additional price the consumer didn?t have to pay directly, or at all, if they didn?t sign up with AT&T. It was Apple that asked AT&T to stop profit sharing. AT&T reportedly got an extra year of exclusivity out of the deal for cutting it.
Quote:
tech support/warranty issues (gone, other international carriers do iphone tech support and warranty),
It?s not gone in the US, and with Apple being so prominent here, this being there largest market and having many stores I can all but guarantee that Apple would still have the same stance on warranty, call center and repair issues.
Quote:
restricted distribution (partially gone, it's not just apple store and at&t corp stores anymore).
You?re right, but that just adds to the logistical issue I?ve mentioned. You go to a Best Buy phone center and ask to get an iPhone, but all they have is the iPhone for the carrier you don?t really want. Does the customer know the pros and cons of each carrier and each network type? Is Best Buy or Apple pushing for a certain carrier that makes them more money per device, hence the artificial herding? Do they really want to carry two models in each capacity?
Quote:
As I said it repeatedly, Apple enjoys something like 50% gross profit margin on the iphone.
It?s more like 40%. Still high, though I think RiM was higher prior to the iPhone?s arrival.
Nokia is simply suing, and one report has it at a measly $200M. Who is to say if they will win. Apple would have to pay the additional per unit fees for each CDMA iPhone. I believe it?s the reason WCDMA and TD-CDMA were created.
Profit sahring is gone, unfortunately for us consumers, but the price of the iPhone wasn?t the full price when profit sharing was in place, it was just an additional price the consumer didn?t have to pay directly, or at all, if they didn?t sign up with AT&T. It was Apple that asked AT&T to stop profit sharing. AT&T reportedly got an extra year of exclusivity out of the deal for cutting it.
It?s not gone in the US, and with Apple being so prominent here, this being there largest market and having many stores I can all but guarantee that Apple would still have the same stance on warranty, call center and repair issues.
You?re right, but that just adds to the logistical issue I?ve mentioned. You go to a Best Buy phone center and ask to get an iPhone, but all they have is the iPhone for the carrier you don?t really want. Does the customer know the pros and cons of each carrier and each network type? Is Best Buy or Apple pushing for a certain carrier that makes them more money per device, hence the artificial herding? Do they really want to carry two models in each capacity?
It?s more like 40%. Still high, though I think RiM was higher prior to the iPhone?s arrival.
You have to spend money to make money.
Apple migrated away from profit sharing because they couldn't get any other carriers (aside from the original 4 carriers who sold the 2G iphone) to agree on profit sharing.
Sure, there are 100 Apple stores in the US, but there are 1000 AT&T corporate stores. And Verizon is right on that issue --- consumers are better off to have the option of travelling minutes away from their homes to get iphone tech support than to travel for hours to get to an Apple store.
The issue is even worse right now for artificial herding --- because if you go to an AT&T agent store and ask for the iphone, they will diss the iphone and try to sell you a blackberry (because AT&T agent stores can't sell the iphone).
Verizon already stated publicly that they didn't agree to revenue sharing (gone), full priced iphone without subsidy (gone), tech support/warranty issues (gone, other international carriers do iphone tech support and warranty), restricted distribution (partially gone, it's not just apple store and at&t corp stores anymore).
What's not off the table is Verizon's insistence on their phones defaulting to their own app store. That alone is a deal breaker, and we're really not privy to whatever other conditions Verizon may be insisting on.
Quote:
You might as well say that Apple shouldn't have designed the original 2G iphone that sold in only 6 countries and that it only sold 5-6 million units --- because we all know that a Verizon iphone would sell more than that.
Except that the original roll-out was part of a long term plan which was always predicated on selling the same phone in many more markets. Which has no bearing on selling a CDMA phone to Verizon, which has built in limitations for future growth.
Quote:
You have to spend money to make money. As I said it repeatedly, Apple enjoys something like 50% gross profit margin on the iphone. Spending that little extra bit of money will not dent their profit margin much.
The simple rebuttal to this line of thinking is "but Apple hasn't done that." Unless you want to argue that Apple is insane/perverse/stupid (and their recent performance seems to suggest otherwise), or that you are simply better qualified to make business decisions for Apple than they are, we're going to have to assume they have their reasons, and that they extend beyond some kind of uncharacteristic cluelessness.
What's not off the table is Verizon's insistence on their phones defaulting to their own app store.
If Verizon really wanted the iPhone?even though the iDon?t ad seems to spit in Apple?s face?I think they would be willing to forego their app store on the iPhone as default, or at all. The App Store is just too entrenched and too big to be ignored. The other vendors really don?t have anything else. Android is the closest thing and it?s still woefully behind, and inferior, though part of that is the SDK, OS, UI and how the apps can interact with the HW.
Quote:
[?] we're going to have to assume they have their reasons, and that they extend beyond some kind of uncharacteristic cluelessness.
This goes to making the MBA, not including Blu-ray drives or OS support, not licensing and supporting Mac OS X for every x86 machine on the market, not including HDMI in their Macs, making there Macs thinner which limits the performance options and adds costs, using more expensive materials when a cheap plastic case is adequate, and not making the mythical xMac and other Macs that suit individual and niche interests. Did I miss anything out?
PS: We may not agree with Samab?s stance here but at least we can have a civil conversation with him about it. I wish the board was like this more often.
If Verizon really wanted the iPhone—even though the iDon’t ad seems to spit in Apple’s face—I think they would be willing to forego their app store on the iPhone as default, or at all. The App Store is just too entrenched and too big to be ignored. The other vendors really don’t have anything else. Android is the closest thing and it’s still woefully behind, and inferior, though part of that is the SDK, OS, UI and how the apps can interact with the HW.
This goes to making the MBA, not including Blu-ray drives or OS support, not licensing and supporting Mac OS X for every x86 machine on the market, not including HDMI in their Macs, making there Macs thinner which limits the performance options and adds costs, using more expensive materials when a cheap plastic case is adequate, and not making the mythical xMac and other Macs that suit individual and niche interests. Did I miss anything out?
PS: We may not agree with Samab’s stance here but at least we can have a civil conversation with him about it. I wish the board was like this more often.
Yeah, it's a shame the signal to noise ratio has plummeted as of late-- seems to coincide with an influx of iPhone owners who nevertheless think Apple and its users suck, and feel a need to tell everybody about it.
Honestly, you could take almost any thread on AI and edit all the obvious trolls, "fanboy" accusations, and tired old strawmen about Apple's crimes and the attitudes of its customer base, and you magically have a much, much more pleasant forum.
Doesn't require fealty to Apple, doesn't require never criticizing Apple, doesn't require not being pissed off at Apple or thinking they're doing it wrong. Just get rid of the nasty stuff that proceeds from the assumption that anyone who likes Apple's hardware is a dupe or a moron.
Way back when, when we had far fewer blatantly anti-Apple members, we were no less fractious or skeptical of some of Apple's moves. We just didn't exude smug contempt for having the poor taste to, you know, be an Apple customer, on an Apple website.
Comments
When Verizon makes a phone that can do GSM they are making a phone that can use about 90% of the world's cell systems. If Apple makes a CDMA phone they're making a phone for the remaining 10%, and for all practical purposes more like 5% since they would have little incentive to sell a CDMA phone outside the U.S.
And that's the difference. Don't know why it's so hard to grasp.
Maybe it is hard to grasp because RIM has no problem making phones that work with 100% of the market and happens to still be holding off Apple while gaining marketshare (both from Nokia).
Maybe it is hard to grasp because folks like yourself will toss around the smartphone label when noting that Apple doesn't need to sell as many phones as Nokia because they sell more expensive phones with much better margins and better profitability.
Yet people turn this around and note that because all of the people in sub-sahara use GSM, that Apple couldn't possible make a dime off some percentage of high dollar spending Americans in numbers above 140 million with a CDMA phone.
It is ridiculous.
Even with widespread HSDPA, GSM is still around. LTE will be here along with HSPDA, GSM, CDMA2000 and CDMA.
2013 seems a little optimistic for the cost, difficulty and coverage that Verizon has to do over the US, but even if they can do it, it?s only 2009. Apple didn?t even put out a HSDPA-capable iPhone when AT&T had 3G in all major cities.
Why put one one out new on Verizon with LTE when they are just testing it? Are there even radios that are small enough and power efficient to fit into the svelte iPhone? Sounds more like a well placed vapourware campaign to stay on Verizon waiting than actual proof that there is one coming shortly.
If Verizon is opening 30 markets in 2010, that means phones are ready to be made that have both CDMA and LTE or else why would they build the network. VZ had decided since 2007 that it was gonna switch to LTE. I'll be the first to admit that VZ is sometimes like an evil dictator when it came to phones. That's the one BIG gripe I had about them, but lately it looks like they're softening that stance. They have to in order to stay as the number one carrier in terms of subs. They could easily be over the 100 million mark if they just compromised a lil.
Maybe it is hard to grasp because RIM has no problem making phones that work with 100% of the market and happens to still be holding off Apple while gaining marketshare (both from Nokia).
Maybe it is hard to grasp because folks like yourself will toss around the smartphone label when noting that Apple doesn't need to sell as many phones as Nokia because they sell more expensive phones with much better margins and better profitability.
Yet people turn this around and note that because all of the people in sub-sahara use GSM, that Apple couldn't possible make a dime off some percentage of high dollar spending Americans in numbers above 140 million with a CDMA phone.
It is ridiculous.
Bravo Trumtman. Well said. Analysts predict that Apple could very easily sell double and in a much shorter time period the iPhones they have already sold if they ended the exclusivity deal with AT&T. Do you not think the shareholders would want to see that?
If Verizon is opening 30 markets in 2010, that means phones are ready to be made that have both CDMA and LTE or else why would they build the network.
That is a valid point, but I haven?t seen much in the way of LTE phones on sites like Engadget cropping up, though CES 2010 will be a better place to show case them for the year. I look forward to the specs of these LTE phones.
People get all saucer eyed when they think of the potential bandwidth that LTE can offer, yet even on the world?s UMTS which can do 42Mbps dn/22Mbps up while still technically 3G, there are no phone radios that can handle that. Still working with HSUPA on some phones. There are some country?s carriers that have Evolved HSPA setup, apparently, but I know of know phones with such radios. I don?t see how a Verizon phone will be small enough, and power efficient enough without drastically reducing the potential bandwidth to something that is more inline with HSUPA.
Maybe it is hard to grasp because RIM has no problem making phones that work with 100% of the market and happens to still be holding off Apple while gaining marketshare (both from Nokia).
Maybe it is hard to grasp because folks like yourself will toss around the smartphone label when noting that Apple doesn't need to sell as many phones as Nokia because they sell more expensive phones with much better margins and better profitability.
Yet people turn this around and note that because all of the people in sub-sahara use GSM, that Apple couldn't possible make a dime off some percentage of high dollar spending Americans in numbers above 140 million with a CDMA phone.
It is ridiculous.
You're right, Apple doesn't know what they're doing. If only they would listen to you, they could be successful.
You're right, Apple doesn't know what their doing. If only they would listen to you, they could be successful.
Did you see this article?
Bernstein Research analyst Toni Sacconaghi estimates that Apple (AAPL), though it is only the fifth-largest handset vendor, claimed nearly a third of handset industry profits in the first half of 2009
That is pretty unreal for a company that couldn’t possibly gain any ground in the already entrenched cellphone business. That is as much as Apple makes in the PC market in the US, and they did it under two years, with little sale time for the current 3GS and with only two models on the market.
Did you see this article?
That is pretty unreal for a company that couldn?t possibly gain any ground in the already entrenched cellphone business. That is as much as Apple makes in the PC market in the US, and they did it under two years, with little sale time for the current 3GS and with only two models on the market.
That just means that apple makes more money per phone.
That just means that apple makes more money per phone.
Obviously if they command more revenue for moving less product that means they make more per phone. What this means from a financial standpoint is that Apple?s iPhone is very successful and can easily move into cheaper devices while still commanding a higher than industry average in profit. RiM moves more product but they also have to BOGO sales and make increasing less profit per device. Their real profits came from BES and the per unit per year licensing. That is changing in this new era. Marketshare means squat without the profits to make it worthwhile.
Actually, many of us simply want a full-featured smartphone and dependable phone service on a reliable network.
No dropped calls, no static, no missing handset features that other manufacturers have had for years, and no lack of insurance options for our expensive handsets et al.
For me, I've found that with Verizon's network/HTC Imagio combination, as it provides everything I desire in advanced smartphone support e.g. choice of internet browsers (Opera, Skyfire w/ FLASH support), complete MS Word/Excel/Outlook integration, user changeable battery, advanced media player features w/incredible codec support (Kinoma Play), LIVE Playback (V Cast TV) No Tyrannical Ecosytem... just drag n' drop = done!, and a very reasonable insurance fee in case the worst does happen.
In my experience, the iPhone is a fairly solid 'media hub' with lots of Apps (can't forget those Apps
I agree with all that you say here. I am on my third 3G, due to one failure, and the second one failing to hold much of a charge after a whole four months of service. And, it seems every time there is a new firmware release, Safari crashes more, and battery life goes down even more.
I'm paying for 3G, and finding it in darn few places. Or, it shifts from 3G to Edge like a motorist going through the gears at rush hour.
AT&T's service in Nashville is anywhere from abysmal to fairly decent. It was only on a recent trip to Richmond VA that I learned AT&T actually had reliable coverage someplace. Most other places the coverage is poor to fair.
The concept of the iPhone is great; I enjoy using the features and find the phone's ergonomics quite good. But, give me better battery life, and give me FAR better and more reliable service.
My contract with AT&T is up next July. At that time, I will cease being an AT&T customer. I will seek out a phone with battery life offered by a service with decent coverage.
Actually, many of us simply want a full-featured smartphone and dependable phone service on a reliable network.
No dropped calls, no static, no missing handset features that other manufacturers have had for years, and no lack of insurance options for our expensive handsets et al.
For me, I've found that with Verizon's network/HTC Imagio combination, as it provides everything I desire in advanced smartphone support e.g. choice of internet browsers (Opera, Skyfire w/ FLASH support), complete MS Word/Excel/Outlook integration, user changeable battery, advanced media player features w/incredible codec support (Kinoma Play), LIVE Playback (V Cast TV) No Tyrannical Ecosytem... just drag n' drop = done!, and a very reasonable insurance fee in case the worst does happen.
In my experience, the iPhone is a fairly solid 'media hub' with lots of Apps (can't forget those Apps
So good for you that you have no Apple fever! We all are just lost and damned to it for ever. Once you go mac you never go back...
No one is saying CAN?T, people are saying that Apple WON?T.
Actually, I am the only one here that supports that theory.
All the other people are either saying that it would cost massive amount of money to design it or massive amount of money to manufacture it.
But if people just look at the raw numbers --- it doesn't cost a lot of money to design a CDMA iphone and it doesn't cost a lot of money to manufacture a separate model (Apple already does it for the wifi-less chinese iphone for instance).
Actually, I am the only one here that supports that theory.
All the other people are either saying that it would cost massive amount of money to design it or massive amount of money to manufacture it.
But if people just look at the raw numbers --- it doesn't cost a lot of money to design a CDMA iphone and it doesn't cost a lot of money to manufacture a separate model (Apple already does it for the wifi-less chinese iphone for instance).
Even with increased licensing costs (which i know we disagree on) Apple would make a killing by having a CDMA iPhone. CDMA may be hitting a dead-end, technologically, but it?s be the default standard for many carriers for many years to come. At least we can agree on that.
PS: I?m starting to question whether Apple will go to another carrier, not that think it will be Verizon, but AT&T?s CEO has stated too many times now that they won?t have iPhone exclusivity forever. That just seems odd to say at all. I wonder if Apple would like to keep it simple, but AT&T?s network simply can?t handle the load. I don?t think Verizon?s network could either with the amount of data iPhone?s use each month in comparison to other devices, but I don?t see how they can possibly build the complex networks fast enough to deal with the demand. Their network will get to it?s saturation point, if it hasn?t already in places.
Actually, I am the only one here that supports that theory.
All the other people are either saying that it would cost massive amount of money to design it or massive amount of money to manufacture it.
But if people just look at the raw numbers --- it doesn't cost a lot of money to design a CDMA iphone and it doesn't cost a lot of money to manufacture a separate model (Apple already does it for the wifi-less chinese iphone for instance).
Are they? Don't feel like going back through a lot of posts, but my impression certainly isn't that everybody but you is claiming that Apple wouldn't make a phone for Verizon because it would cost "a massive amount of money." I think you're indulging in a bit of a straw man, here.
My impression is that the arguments are various, but generally center on two things: Verizon has shown itself to be inimical to the kinds of concessions that Apple is sure to demand, and that it's really not in Apples best interests to go to the trouble to build a specific phone for the fraction of a fraction that Verizon's US CDMA business represents, particularly when it is set to expire over the next few years.
On that latter point, it's really about spending any money, rather than any large amount of money.
Are they?
I don?t think we have info on this Chinese iPhone yet. No WiFi HW or just no WiFi drivers and SW in OS? Is it going to look like the 3G or 3GS or be something complete new?
Even with increased licensing costs (which i know we disagree on) Apple would make a killing by having a CDMA iPhone. CDMA may be hitting a dead-end, technologically, but it?s be the default standard for many carriers for many years to come. At least we can agree on that.
Well, if Apple goes CDMA, then Qualcomm sues you for licensing fee. If Apple goes GSM, then Nokia sues you for licensing fee.
Are they? Don't feel like going back through a lot of posts, but my impression certainly isn't that everybody but you is claiming that Apple wouldn't make a phone for Verizon because it would cost "a massive amount of money." I think you're indulging in a bit of a straw man, here.
My impression is that the arguments are various, but generally center on two things: Verizon has shown itself to be inimical to the kinds of concessions that Apple is sure to demand, and that it's really not in Apples best interests to go to the trouble to build a specific phone for the fraction of a fraction that Verizon's US CDMA business represents, particularly when it is set to expire over the next few years.
On that latter point, it's really about spending any money, rather than any large amount of money.
Verizon already stated publicly that they didn't agree to revenue sharing (gone), full priced iphone without subsidy (gone), tech support/warranty issues (gone, other international carriers do iphone tech support and warranty), restricted distribution (partially gone, it's not just apple store and at&t corp stores anymore).
You might as well say that Apple shouldn't have designed the original 2G iphone that sold in only 6 countries and that it only sold 5-6 million units --- because we all know that a Verizon iphone would sell more than that.
You have to spend money to make money. As I said it repeatedly, Apple enjoys something like 50% gross profit margin on the iphone. Spending that little extra bit of money will not dent their profit margin much.
Well, if Apple goes CDMA, then Qualcomm sues you for licensing fee. If Apple goes GSM, then Nokia sues you for licensing fee.
Nokia is simply suing, and one report has it at a measly $200M. Who is to say if they will win. Apple would have to pay the additional per unit fees for each CDMA iPhone. I believe it?s the reason WCDMA and TD-CDMA were created.
Verizon already stated publicly that they didn't agree to revenue sharing (gone), full priced iphone without subsidy (gone),
Profit sahring is gone, unfortunately for us consumers, but the price of the iPhone wasn?t the full price when profit sharing was in place, it was just an additional price the consumer didn?t have to pay directly, or at all, if they didn?t sign up with AT&T. It was Apple that asked AT&T to stop profit sharing. AT&T reportedly got an extra year of exclusivity out of the deal for cutting it.
tech support/warranty issues (gone, other international carriers do iphone tech support and warranty),
It?s not gone in the US, and with Apple being so prominent here, this being there largest market and having many stores I can all but guarantee that Apple would still have the same stance on warranty, call center and repair issues.
restricted distribution (partially gone, it's not just apple store and at&t corp stores anymore).
You?re right, but that just adds to the logistical issue I?ve mentioned. You go to a Best Buy phone center and ask to get an iPhone, but all they have is the iPhone for the carrier you don?t really want. Does the customer know the pros and cons of each carrier and each network type? Is Best Buy or Apple pushing for a certain carrier that makes them more money per device, hence the artificial herding? Do they really want to carry two models in each capacity?
As I said it repeatedly, Apple enjoys something like 50% gross profit margin on the iphone.
It?s more like 40%. Still high, though I think RiM was higher prior to the iPhone?s arrival.
Nokia is simply suing, and one report has it at a measly $200M. Who is to say if they will win. Apple would have to pay the additional per unit fees for each CDMA iPhone. I believe it?s the reason WCDMA and TD-CDMA were created.
Profit sahring is gone, unfortunately for us consumers, but the price of the iPhone wasn?t the full price when profit sharing was in place, it was just an additional price the consumer didn?t have to pay directly, or at all, if they didn?t sign up with AT&T. It was Apple that asked AT&T to stop profit sharing. AT&T reportedly got an extra year of exclusivity out of the deal for cutting it.
It?s not gone in the US, and with Apple being so prominent here, this being there largest market and having many stores I can all but guarantee that Apple would still have the same stance on warranty, call center and repair issues.
You?re right, but that just adds to the logistical issue I?ve mentioned. You go to a Best Buy phone center and ask to get an iPhone, but all they have is the iPhone for the carrier you don?t really want. Does the customer know the pros and cons of each carrier and each network type? Is Best Buy or Apple pushing for a certain carrier that makes them more money per device, hence the artificial herding? Do they really want to carry two models in each capacity?
It?s more like 40%. Still high, though I think RiM was higher prior to the iPhone?s arrival.
You have to spend money to make money.
Apple migrated away from profit sharing because they couldn't get any other carriers (aside from the original 4 carriers who sold the 2G iphone) to agree on profit sharing.
Sure, there are 100 Apple stores in the US, but there are 1000 AT&T corporate stores. And Verizon is right on that issue --- consumers are better off to have the option of travelling minutes away from their homes to get iphone tech support than to travel for hours to get to an Apple store.
The issue is even worse right now for artificial herding --- because if you go to an AT&T agent store and ask for the iphone, they will diss the iphone and try to sell you a blackberry (because AT&T agent stores can't sell the iphone).
Verizon already stated publicly that they didn't agree to revenue sharing (gone), full priced iphone without subsidy (gone), tech support/warranty issues (gone, other international carriers do iphone tech support and warranty), restricted distribution (partially gone, it's not just apple store and at&t corp stores anymore).
What's not off the table is Verizon's insistence on their phones defaulting to their own app store. That alone is a deal breaker, and we're really not privy to whatever other conditions Verizon may be insisting on.
You might as well say that Apple shouldn't have designed the original 2G iphone that sold in only 6 countries and that it only sold 5-6 million units --- because we all know that a Verizon iphone would sell more than that.
Except that the original roll-out was part of a long term plan which was always predicated on selling the same phone in many more markets. Which has no bearing on selling a CDMA phone to Verizon, which has built in limitations for future growth.
You have to spend money to make money. As I said it repeatedly, Apple enjoys something like 50% gross profit margin on the iphone. Spending that little extra bit of money will not dent their profit margin much.
The simple rebuttal to this line of thinking is "but Apple hasn't done that." Unless you want to argue that Apple is insane/perverse/stupid (and their recent performance seems to suggest otherwise), or that you are simply better qualified to make business decisions for Apple than they are, we're going to have to assume they have their reasons, and that they extend beyond some kind of uncharacteristic cluelessness.
What's not off the table is Verizon's insistence on their phones defaulting to their own app store.
If Verizon really wanted the iPhone?even though the iDon?t ad seems to spit in Apple?s face?I think they would be willing to forego their app store on the iPhone as default, or at all. The App Store is just too entrenched and too big to be ignored. The other vendors really don?t have anything else. Android is the closest thing and it?s still woefully behind, and inferior, though part of that is the SDK, OS, UI and how the apps can interact with the HW.
[?] we're going to have to assume they have their reasons, and that they extend beyond some kind of uncharacteristic cluelessness.
This goes to making the MBA, not including Blu-ray drives or OS support, not licensing and supporting Mac OS X for every x86 machine on the market, not including HDMI in their Macs, making there Macs thinner which limits the performance options and adds costs, using more expensive materials when a cheap plastic case is adequate, and not making the mythical xMac and other Macs that suit individual and niche interests. Did I miss anything out?
PS: We may not agree with Samab?s stance here but at least we can have a civil conversation with him about it. I wish the board was like this more often.
If Verizon really wanted the iPhone—even though the iDon’t ad seems to spit in Apple’s face—I think they would be willing to forego their app store on the iPhone as default, or at all. The App Store is just too entrenched and too big to be ignored. The other vendors really don’t have anything else. Android is the closest thing and it’s still woefully behind, and inferior, though part of that is the SDK, OS, UI and how the apps can interact with the HW.
This goes to making the MBA, not including Blu-ray drives or OS support, not licensing and supporting Mac OS X for every x86 machine on the market, not including HDMI in their Macs, making there Macs thinner which limits the performance options and adds costs, using more expensive materials when a cheap plastic case is adequate, and not making the mythical xMac and other Macs that suit individual and niche interests. Did I miss anything out?
PS: We may not agree with Samab’s stance here but at least we can have a civil conversation with him about it. I wish the board was like this more often.
Yeah, it's a shame the signal to noise ratio has plummeted as of late-- seems to coincide with an influx of iPhone owners who nevertheless think Apple and its users suck, and feel a need to tell everybody about it.
Honestly, you could take almost any thread on AI and edit all the obvious trolls, "fanboy" accusations, and tired old strawmen about Apple's crimes and the attitudes of its customer base, and you magically have a much, much more pleasant forum.
Doesn't require fealty to Apple, doesn't require never criticizing Apple, doesn't require not being pissed off at Apple or thinking they're doing it wrong. Just get rid of the nasty stuff that proceeds from the assumption that anyone who likes Apple's hardware is a dupe or a moron.
Way back when, when we had far fewer blatantly anti-Apple members, we were no less fractious or skeptical of some of Apple's moves. We just didn't exude smug contempt for having the poor taste to, you know, be an Apple customer, on an Apple website.