Of course VZ cares about being the largest network. They brag about it in their marketing. AT&T cares about it too. You will go to any length to make VZ look good.
I'm no AT&T fanboy, I will admit I have no particular loyalty to them. I'm only with them because of the iPhone. I think AT&T deserves it's success because it took a risk with the iPhone. I think VZ deserves what it's getting because they did not have the foresight to take the risk.
If VZ had the iPhone they likely would have had over 100 million subscribers by now. AT&T would have been in serious trouble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
Verizon Wireless never cared about the number 1 carrier status --- only fanbois care about that. VZW lost their number 1 status when Cingular bought AT&T Wireless --- what did VZW do to close that gap? Nothing, VZW continued to grow what they want to grow --- postpaid subscriber base. VZW could have closed that gap a lot more if they do what AT&T did --- buy market share with prepaid and MVNO's. But Verizon Wireless didn't do that.
How would AT&T grow faster? Alltel's customers are in Kentucky, Arkansas.... --- and they ain't the iphone crowd. VZW would still have no comparable handset with or without the Alltel merger.
It's amazing, that even two years in, the iPhone is so game-changing that people are willing to put up with AT&T in order have it.
I'm not leaving Verizon & I will wait for the iPhone no matter how long it takes. I am not getting any other mobile device like it including an Android phone. Since I have done my time on the 2 year contract I get a nice credit towards a new phone which, you know, what phone I will use that for. Another reason not to get it now with AT&T is that the service barely gets 1 bar at my house. I just live in a hole when 1 mile down the road it is 3 or 4 bars. Also, when I travel Verizon has almost always had a signal to use. I know that may not be the case for others. And that's the way it is.
Of course VZ cares about being the largest network. They brag about it in their marketing. AT&T cares about it too. You will go to any length to make VZ look good.
I'm no AT&T fanboy, I will admit I have no particular loyalty to them. I'm only with them because of the iPhone. I think AT&T deserves it's success because it took a risk with the iPhone. I think VZ deserves what it's getting because they did not have the foresight to take the risk.
If VZ had the iPhone they likely would have had over 100 million subscribers by now. AT&T would have been in serious trouble.
Marketing is marketing, talk is cheap. If you actually look at what VZW did post Cingular/AT&T Wireless merger --- VZW didn't do much to reclaim that crown. VZW didn't go for the prepaid market and didn't go for the MVNO market. Action speaks much louder than words.
I think VZW deserves credit as the only wireless carrier in the whole world to say no to Apple and still manage to survive quite well. Taking the iphone isn't much of a risk, betting $22+ billion on FIOS is a much bigger and riskier bet.
If Apple signed with Verizon originally and drop those idiotic demands --- they would have (1) wiped Palm off the map, (2) seriously damaged RIM (without VZW's buy one get one promotion), launched in 80 countries much sooner (because only the original 4 carriers were stupid enough to sign the revenue sharing deal).
If Verizon would simply acknowledge Mac users, it would be nice, whether or not they get the iPhone. So many Verizon phones simply are not supported on the Mac for even basic things like syncing, yet well supported on the PC. How about hiring some software developers to take care of it? iPhone or not, the Mac situation on Verizon is unacceptable.
Also, I can't consider AT&T. Their network in Chicago is completely unacceptable -- easily the worst of any of the five main carriers in the market.
If Apple signed with Verizon originally and drop those idiotic demands --- they would have (1) wiped Palm off the map, (2) seriously damaged RIM (without VZW's buy one get one promotion), launched in 80 countries much sooner (because only the original 4 carriers were stupid enough to sign the revenue sharing deal).
No, if Apple signed with Verizon originally under Verizon's terms, the iPhone would not be the iPhone. Among lots of other things, Verizon was blocking wifi on phones back then. And with no wifi, there's little reason to believe the Verizon network would've held up well under the 2G and 3G data load.
Also, Apple is in no rush to kill off RIMM or PALM. They are moving methodically for the kill.
No, if Apple signed with Verizon originally under Verizon's terms, the iPhone would not be the iPhone. Among lots of other things, Verizon was blocking wifi on phones back then. And with no wifi, there's little reason to believe the Verizon network would've held up well under the 2G and 3G data load.
Also, Apple is in no rush to kill off RIMM or PALM. They are moving methodically for the kill.
No carrier in the world would have their network held up with that kind of data load.
But with CDMA voice and data on separate channels --- you would still get to make phone calls with a Verizon iphone.
Whenever you have the chance, you should kill your competition right away. If Microsoft didn't fear about their anti-trust thing years ago --- they could have killed Apple then, and not even give Apple a chance to come back.
Verizon is in no rush to buy market share at the expense of lower profit margin.
True, except I can't talk and get data at the same time...
And neither is Apple.
You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth at once. Most distracting...
It's still better than not even having the chance to make a phone call with quite a few AT&T iphone customers.
I am not speaking out of both sides of my mouth at all. Even with a Verizon iphone, Verizon would not have the chance to wipe out AT&T. But with a Verizon iphone, Apple would have the chance to wipe out Palm and heavily damage RIM.
It's still better than not even having the chance to make a phone call with quite a few AT&T iphone customers.
I am not speaking out of both sides of my mouth at all. Even with a Verizon iphone, Verizon would not have the chance to wipe out AT&T. But with a Verizon iphone, Apple would have the chance to wipe out Palm and heavily damage RIM.
Nobody said anything about a Verizon iPhone. You were discussing how Verizon didn't do anything radical to beat back AT&T, but just continued following its strategy of building a great network, including buying Alltel because it gave them additional network on the cheap. I agreed with you that that's the way to go.
But yet you think Apple should veer from their strategy just to wipe out Palm and heavily damage RIM. Apple (and great companies) doesn't target their competitors because other companies will just spring up and replace them. Apple's strategy is to build high-quality products with great margins as a result of, among many other things, its understanding of the user experience and software skills, and its best-in-industry supply chain (including making key investments). No need to give in to Verizon to its future detriment just to "wipe out Palm". That would be inane.
Nobody said anything about a Verizon iPhone. You were discussing how Verizon didn't do anything radical to beat back AT&T, but just continued following its strategy of building a great network, including buying Alltel because it gave them additional network on the cheap. I agreed with you that that's the way to go.
But yet you think Apple should veer from their strategy just to wipe out Palm and heavily damage RIM. Apple (and great companies) doesn't target their competitors because other companies will just spring up and replace them. Apple's strategy is to build high-quality products with great margins as a result of, among many other things, its understanding of the user experience and software skills, and its best-in-industry supply chain (including making key investments). No need to give in to Verizon to its future detriment just to "wipe out Palm". That would be inane.
It doesn't have to be a Apple conscious decision to wipe Palm out or heavily damage RIM --- to be called a mistake.
Let's just say that for the sake of argument, I agree with you that it was a mistake for Verizon to reject Apple's iphone demands. But objectively --- with 20/20 hindsight --- Apple's decision not to sign with Verizon in the first place was a bigger mistake.
It doesn't have to be a Apple conscious decision to wipe Palm out or heavily damage RIM --- to be called a mistake.
Let's just say that for the sake of argument, I agree with you that it was a mistake for Verizon to reject Apple's iphone demands. But objectively --- with 20/20 hindsight --- Apple's decision not to sign with Verizon in the first place was a bigger mistake.
Apple went to Verizon first because they knew having a great network was important. But even in hindsight, giving in to Verizon's demands would've been the biggest mistake. You make it seem like Verizon's demands would not have crippled the Apple user experience (ecosystem and all) and Apple strategy; I think it certainly would've.
Apple went to Verizon first because they knew having a great network was important. But even in hindsight, giving in to Verizon's demands would've been the biggest mistake. You make it seem like Verizon's demands would not have crippled the Apple user experience (ecosystem and all) and Apple strategy; I think it certainly would've.
In any case, Apple still holds the trump card.
They didn't even go that far to talk about apple user experience and eco-system. This was 2005 when the iphone app store didn't even come in until 2008.
But what do know about the actual demands --- Apple drop all of them eventually.
No, if Apple signed with Verizon originally under Verizon's terms, the iPhone would not be the iPhone. Among lots of other things, Verizon was blocking wifi on phones back then. And with no wifi, there's little reason to believe the Verizon network would've held up well under the 2G and 3G data load.
Also, Apple is in no rush to kill off RIMM or PALM. They are moving methodically for the kill.
... And Apple would not have had happy investors and $34,000,000,000 in the bank.
You must be a big wig at Verizon. There is no other way to rationalize you thinking this is an objective statement.
Why? All the published demands Apple initially asked Verizon for has been drop in the last 2 years --- and they were drop rather quickly. Apple backed down on subsidies, backed down on revenue sharing.....
Why? All the published demands Apple initially asked Verizon for has been drop in the last 2 years --- and they were drop rather quickly. Apple backed down on subsidies, backed down on revenue sharing.....
Apple still repairs its own iPhones in the US and controls its own all center. There was at least one more thing that Apple is doing in the US that Verizon previously wouldn't be happy with, but it's late so my mind is slipping more than usual.
Expect for profit sharing it looks like Verizon is the one that made all the changes to welcome the iPhone. They've even publically stated as much while pooh-poohing the iPhone in an iDon't advert for the Droid.
Verizon clearly needs the iPhone more than Apple needs Verizon. Unless is willing to really drop trou and grab ankle this time I din't think they will partner.
Apple still repairs its own iPhones in the US and controls its own all center. There was at least one more thing that Apple is doing in the US that Verizon previously wouldn't be happy with, but it's late so my mind is slipping more than usual.
Expect for profit sharing it looks like Verizon is the one that made all the changes to welcome the iPhone. They've even publically stated as much while pooh-poohing the iPhone in an iDon't advert for the Droid.
Verizon clearly needs the iPhone more than Apple needs Verizon. Unless is willing to really drop trou and grab ankle this time I din't think they will partner.
Overseas iphone carriers do handle iphone tech support and warranty issues. Verizon has a point --- there are 100 apple stores and there are 1000 AT&T Wireless corp stores selling the iphone. The consumer is better off by driving to the local AT&T store that is minutes away than driving for hours (maybe even across stateline to get to the nearest apple store).
Verizon has a point of protecting their distribution partners. Just look at how badly RadioShack turned out after they ditched Verizon and signed with Cingular. RadioShack picked the wrong carrier partner, bited them in the ass. It was one problem after another --- first their cell phone sales drop because Cingular is a weaker carrier, then their CEO got fired because of his fake resume, then Cingular got the iphone and forbid Radioshack from selling it, then RadioShack went into bankruptcy protection.
And what was the lesson learned from this fiasco --- Verizon Wireless said no to the iphone because VZW wants all their distribution partners to be able to sell the iphone.
Overseas iphone carriers do handle iphone tech support and warranty issues. Verizon has a point --- there are 100 apple stores and there are 1000 AT&T Wireless corp stores selling the iphone. The consumer is better off by driving to the local AT&T store that is minutes away than driving for hours (maybe even across stateline to get to the nearest apple store).
All things being equal, sure, but you aren?t going to get the same kind of help from an Apple Store employee, whether it be in-store tech support or over-the-phone tech support from a Verizon or AT&T CSR who is expected to deal with dozens of phones.
Apple isn?t doing this in the US. If ever need tech support you?ll know this is a very good thing. People had problems with the Storm and Verizon wasn?t so good about it. People had problem with the Pre and Sprint was sub par about switching out defective units. With the Apple Store or their phone support you can get it done very quickly and easily.
Quote:
Verizon has a point of protecting their distribution partners. Just look at how badly RadioShack turned out after they ditched Verizon and signed with Cingular. RadioShack picked the wrong carrier partner, bited them in the ass. It was one problem after another --- first their cell phone sales drop because Cingular is a weaker carrier, then their CEO got fired because of his fake resume, then Cingular got the iphone and forbid Radioshack from selling it, then RadioShack went into bankruptcy protection.
I have always hated Radio Shack for there horrible products and customer service so I can?t feel bad for them as a company, but I have to wonder if the deal with Cingular had Apple specificall stating that no distribution partner could sell the iPhone. They have always been crap.
This is where you say to yourself that Apple is a distribution partner, and you are correct, but they are the hardware vendor. They have a vested interest in the device succeeding. In other countries, Nokia has stores and the sales people have knowledge of the phones functions and how to resolve issues.
Quote:
And what was the lesson learned from this fiasco --- Verizon Wireless said no to the iphone because VZW wants all their distribution partners to be able to sell the iphone.
WE all know that wasn?t the only reason. Now we are at a place where Verizon is saying they would welcome the iPhone, yet it comes across very desperately, yet Apple doesn?t need Verizon. They couldn?t even keep up with demand for the current replace.
Next year the demand will be even higher; the only pressing issue is having that many iPhones with excessive usage usage on one carrier, and I have doubts that Apple would even choose AT&T for the overflow.
I?d add the GSM radio to the device in the US and go with T-Mobile USA, but that is just me. That should be plenty fo breathing room for AT&T?s network while making a lot of people happy that won?t go to AT&T for legitimate reasons. On top of that, both carriers can have voice and data at the same time.
Why? All the published demands Apple initially asked Verizon for has been drop in the last 2 years --- and they were drop rather quickly. Apple backed down on subsidies, backed down on revenue sharing.....
Oh, come on already. That's obviously false. They traded revenue sharing for subsidies; not backed down. But the rest - iTunes Store, App Store, control of software updates, no carrier branding on iPhone, no carrier services on iPhone, Apple Store/iTunes activations, Apple warranty/repair, Apple marketing - no carrier marketing of iPhone, etc. All still hold true.
Comments
Want to see it again?
Enough Said.
I'm no AT&T fanboy, I will admit I have no particular loyalty to them. I'm only with them because of the iPhone. I think AT&T deserves it's success because it took a risk with the iPhone. I think VZ deserves what it's getting because they did not have the foresight to take the risk.
If VZ had the iPhone they likely would have had over 100 million subscribers by now. AT&T would have been in serious trouble.
Verizon Wireless never cared about the number 1 carrier status --- only fanbois care about that. VZW lost their number 1 status when Cingular bought AT&T Wireless --- what did VZW do to close that gap? Nothing, VZW continued to grow what they want to grow --- postpaid subscriber base. VZW could have closed that gap a lot more if they do what AT&T did --- buy market share with prepaid and MVNO's. But Verizon Wireless didn't do that.
How would AT&T grow faster? Alltel's customers are in Kentucky, Arkansas.... --- and they ain't the iphone crowd. VZW would still have no comparable handset with or without the Alltel merger.
It's amazing, that even two years in, the iPhone is so game-changing that people are willing to put up with AT&T in order have it.
I'm not leaving Verizon & I will wait for the iPhone no matter how long it takes. I am not getting any other mobile device like it including an Android phone. Since I have done my time on the 2 year contract I get a nice credit towards a new phone which, you know, what phone I will use that for. Another reason not to get it now with AT&T is that the service barely gets 1 bar at my house. I just live in a hole when 1 mile down the road it is 3 or 4 bars. Also, when I travel Verizon has almost always had a signal to use. I know that may not be the case for others. And that's the way it is.
Of course VZ cares about being the largest network. They brag about it in their marketing. AT&T cares about it too. You will go to any length to make VZ look good.
I'm no AT&T fanboy, I will admit I have no particular loyalty to them. I'm only with them because of the iPhone. I think AT&T deserves it's success because it took a risk with the iPhone. I think VZ deserves what it's getting because they did not have the foresight to take the risk.
If VZ had the iPhone they likely would have had over 100 million subscribers by now. AT&T would have been in serious trouble.
Marketing is marketing, talk is cheap. If you actually look at what VZW did post Cingular/AT&T Wireless merger --- VZW didn't do much to reclaim that crown. VZW didn't go for the prepaid market and didn't go for the MVNO market. Action speaks much louder than words.
I think VZW deserves credit as the only wireless carrier in the whole world to say no to Apple and still manage to survive quite well. Taking the iphone isn't much of a risk, betting $22+ billion on FIOS is a much bigger and riskier bet.
If Apple signed with Verizon originally and drop those idiotic demands --- they would have (1) wiped Palm off the map, (2) seriously damaged RIM (without VZW's buy one get one promotion), launched in 80 countries much sooner (because only the original 4 carriers were stupid enough to sign the revenue sharing deal).
Also, I can't consider AT&T. Their network in Chicago is completely unacceptable -- easily the worst of any of the five main carriers in the market.
If Apple signed with Verizon originally and drop those idiotic demands --- they would have (1) wiped Palm off the map, (2) seriously damaged RIM (without VZW's buy one get one promotion), launched in 80 countries much sooner (because only the original 4 carriers were stupid enough to sign the revenue sharing deal).
No, if Apple signed with Verizon originally under Verizon's terms, the iPhone would not be the iPhone. Among lots of other things, Verizon was blocking wifi on phones back then. And with no wifi, there's little reason to believe the Verizon network would've held up well under the 2G and 3G data load.
Also, Apple is in no rush to kill off RIMM or PALM. They are moving methodically for the kill.
No, if Apple signed with Verizon originally under Verizon's terms, the iPhone would not be the iPhone. Among lots of other things, Verizon was blocking wifi on phones back then. And with no wifi, there's little reason to believe the Verizon network would've held up well under the 2G and 3G data load.
Also, Apple is in no rush to kill off RIMM or PALM. They are moving methodically for the kill.
No carrier in the world would have their network held up with that kind of data load.
But with CDMA voice and data on separate channels --- you would still get to make phone calls with a Verizon iphone.
Whenever you have the chance, you should kill your competition right away. If Microsoft didn't fear about their anti-trust thing years ago --- they could have killed Apple then, and not even give Apple a chance to come back.
Verizon is in no rush to buy market share at the expense of lower profit margin.
But with CDMA voice and data on separate channels --- you would still get to make phone calls with a Verizon iphone..
True, except I can't talk and get data at the same time...
Verizon is in no rush to buy market share at the expense of lower profit margin.
And neither is Apple.
Whenever you have the chance, you should kill your competition right away.
You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth at once. Most distracting...
True, except I can't talk and get data at the same time...
And neither is Apple.
You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth at once. Most distracting...
It's still better than not even having the chance to make a phone call with quite a few AT&T iphone customers.
I am not speaking out of both sides of my mouth at all. Even with a Verizon iphone, Verizon would not have the chance to wipe out AT&T. But with a Verizon iphone, Apple would have the chance to wipe out Palm and heavily damage RIM.
It's still better than not even having the chance to make a phone call with quite a few AT&T iphone customers.
I am not speaking out of both sides of my mouth at all. Even with a Verizon iphone, Verizon would not have the chance to wipe out AT&T. But with a Verizon iphone, Apple would have the chance to wipe out Palm and heavily damage RIM.
Nobody said anything about a Verizon iPhone. You were discussing how Verizon didn't do anything radical to beat back AT&T, but just continued following its strategy of building a great network, including buying Alltel because it gave them additional network on the cheap. I agreed with you that that's the way to go.
But yet you think Apple should veer from their strategy just to wipe out Palm and heavily damage RIM. Apple (and great companies) doesn't target their competitors because other companies will just spring up and replace them. Apple's strategy is to build high-quality products with great margins as a result of, among many other things, its understanding of the user experience and software skills, and its best-in-industry supply chain (including making key investments). No need to give in to Verizon to its future detriment just to "wipe out Palm". That would be inane.
Nobody said anything about a Verizon iPhone. You were discussing how Verizon didn't do anything radical to beat back AT&T, but just continued following its strategy of building a great network, including buying Alltel because it gave them additional network on the cheap. I agreed with you that that's the way to go.
But yet you think Apple should veer from their strategy just to wipe out Palm and heavily damage RIM. Apple (and great companies) doesn't target their competitors because other companies will just spring up and replace them. Apple's strategy is to build high-quality products with great margins as a result of, among many other things, its understanding of the user experience and software skills, and its best-in-industry supply chain (including making key investments). No need to give in to Verizon to its future detriment just to "wipe out Palm". That would be inane.
It doesn't have to be a Apple conscious decision to wipe Palm out or heavily damage RIM --- to be called a mistake.
Let's just say that for the sake of argument, I agree with you that it was a mistake for Verizon to reject Apple's iphone demands. But objectively --- with 20/20 hindsight --- Apple's decision not to sign with Verizon in the first place was a bigger mistake.
It doesn't have to be a Apple conscious decision to wipe Palm out or heavily damage RIM --- to be called a mistake.
Let's just say that for the sake of argument, I agree with you that it was a mistake for Verizon to reject Apple's iphone demands. But objectively --- with 20/20 hindsight --- Apple's decision not to sign with Verizon in the first place was a bigger mistake.
Apple went to Verizon first because they knew having a great network was important. But even in hindsight, giving in to Verizon's demands would've been the biggest mistake. You make it seem like Verizon's demands would not have crippled the Apple user experience (ecosystem and all) and Apple strategy; I think it certainly would've.
In any case, Apple still holds the trump card.
Apple went to Verizon first because they knew having a great network was important. But even in hindsight, giving in to Verizon's demands would've been the biggest mistake. You make it seem like Verizon's demands would not have crippled the Apple user experience (ecosystem and all) and Apple strategy; I think it certainly would've.
In any case, Apple still holds the trump card.
They didn't even go that far to talk about apple user experience and eco-system. This was 2005 when the iphone app store didn't even come in until 2008.
But what do know about the actual demands --- Apple drop all of them eventually.
No, if Apple signed with Verizon originally under Verizon's terms, the iPhone would not be the iPhone. Among lots of other things, Verizon was blocking wifi on phones back then. And with no wifi, there's little reason to believe the Verizon network would've held up well under the 2G and 3G data load.
Also, Apple is in no rush to kill off RIMM or PALM. They are moving methodically for the kill.
... And Apple would not have had happy investors and $34,000,000,000 in the bank.
But objectively --- with 20/20 hindsight --- Apple's decision not to sign with Verizon in the first place was a bigger mistake.
You must be a big wig at Verizon. There is no other way to rationalize you thinking this is an objective statement.
Why? All the published demands Apple initially asked Verizon for has been drop in the last 2 years --- and they were drop rather quickly. Apple backed down on subsidies, backed down on revenue sharing.....
Why? All the published demands Apple initially asked Verizon for has been drop in the last 2 years --- and they were drop rather quickly. Apple backed down on subsidies, backed down on revenue sharing.....
Apple still repairs its own iPhones in the US and controls its own all center. There was at least one more thing that Apple is doing in the US that Verizon previously wouldn't be happy with, but it's late so my mind is slipping more than usual.
Expect for profit sharing it looks like Verizon is the one that made all the changes to welcome the iPhone. They've even publically stated as much while pooh-poohing the iPhone in an iDon't advert for the Droid.
Verizon clearly needs the iPhone more than Apple needs Verizon. Unless is willing to really drop trou and grab ankle this time I din't think they will partner.
Apple still repairs its own iPhones in the US and controls its own all center. There was at least one more thing that Apple is doing in the US that Verizon previously wouldn't be happy with, but it's late so my mind is slipping more than usual.
Expect for profit sharing it looks like Verizon is the one that made all the changes to welcome the iPhone. They've even publically stated as much while pooh-poohing the iPhone in an iDon't advert for the Droid.
Verizon clearly needs the iPhone more than Apple needs Verizon. Unless is willing to really drop trou and grab ankle this time I din't think they will partner.
Overseas iphone carriers do handle iphone tech support and warranty issues. Verizon has a point --- there are 100 apple stores and there are 1000 AT&T Wireless corp stores selling the iphone. The consumer is better off by driving to the local AT&T store that is minutes away than driving for hours (maybe even across stateline to get to the nearest apple store).
Verizon has a point of protecting their distribution partners. Just look at how badly RadioShack turned out after they ditched Verizon and signed with Cingular. RadioShack picked the wrong carrier partner, bited them in the ass. It was one problem after another --- first their cell phone sales drop because Cingular is a weaker carrier, then their CEO got fired because of his fake resume, then Cingular got the iphone and forbid Radioshack from selling it, then RadioShack went into bankruptcy protection.
And what was the lesson learned from this fiasco --- Verizon Wireless said no to the iphone because VZW wants all their distribution partners to be able to sell the iphone.
Overseas iphone carriers do handle iphone tech support and warranty issues. Verizon has a point --- there are 100 apple stores and there are 1000 AT&T Wireless corp stores selling the iphone. The consumer is better off by driving to the local AT&T store that is minutes away than driving for hours (maybe even across stateline to get to the nearest apple store).
All things being equal, sure, but you aren?t going to get the same kind of help from an Apple Store employee, whether it be in-store tech support or over-the-phone tech support from a Verizon or AT&T CSR who is expected to deal with dozens of phones.
Apple isn?t doing this in the US. If ever need tech support you?ll know this is a very good thing. People had problems with the Storm and Verizon wasn?t so good about it. People had problem with the Pre and Sprint was sub par about switching out defective units. With the Apple Store or their phone support you can get it done very quickly and easily.
Verizon has a point of protecting their distribution partners. Just look at how badly RadioShack turned out after they ditched Verizon and signed with Cingular. RadioShack picked the wrong carrier partner, bited them in the ass. It was one problem after another --- first their cell phone sales drop because Cingular is a weaker carrier, then their CEO got fired because of his fake resume, then Cingular got the iphone and forbid Radioshack from selling it, then RadioShack went into bankruptcy protection.
I have always hated Radio Shack for there horrible products and customer service so I can?t feel bad for them as a company, but I have to wonder if the deal with Cingular had Apple specificall stating that no distribution partner could sell the iPhone. They have always been crap.
This is where you say to yourself that Apple is a distribution partner, and you are correct, but they are the hardware vendor. They have a vested interest in the device succeeding. In other countries, Nokia has stores and the sales people have knowledge of the phones functions and how to resolve issues.
And what was the lesson learned from this fiasco --- Verizon Wireless said no to the iphone because VZW wants all their distribution partners to be able to sell the iphone.
WE all know that wasn?t the only reason. Now we are at a place where Verizon is saying they would welcome the iPhone, yet it comes across very desperately, yet Apple doesn?t need Verizon. They couldn?t even keep up with demand for the current replace.
Next year the demand will be even higher; the only pressing issue is having that many iPhones with excessive usage usage on one carrier, and I have doubts that Apple would even choose AT&T for the overflow.
I?d add the GSM radio to the device in the US and go with T-Mobile USA, but that is just me. That should be plenty fo breathing room for AT&T?s network while making a lot of people happy that won?t go to AT&T for legitimate reasons. On top of that, both carriers can have voice and data at the same time.
Why? All the published demands Apple initially asked Verizon for has been drop in the last 2 years --- and they were drop rather quickly. Apple backed down on subsidies, backed down on revenue sharing.....
Oh, come on already. That's obviously false. They traded revenue sharing for subsidies; not backed down. But the rest - iTunes Store, App Store, control of software updates, no carrier branding on iPhone, no carrier services on iPhone, Apple Store/iTunes activations, Apple warranty/repair, Apple marketing - no carrier marketing of iPhone, etc. All still hold true.