Wrong. My AT&T 3G coverage is excellent, almost everywhere I go. As much recognition as Apple gets for their marketing, Verizon deserves a lot of credit for convincing people their network is, as a matter of indisputable fact, superior to AT&T.
Justify it any way you want to... AT&T's network blows.
For the last 18 months, it's be "ok" in Oregon. Now it's to the point where I'm dropping almost every call, and so are other people I know that have AT&T. I'm getting very frustrated with it to the point where I'm going to move when my contract is up no matter what. If the iPhone is there, great. If not, guess I'm going to android. For the last few weeks my phone has been jumping back and forth between Edge and 3g. 4 months ago this never would have happened.
AT&T even admits their network sucks.
In 2010 Verizon is migrating their network to a GSM based 4g. Once this happens, I'm sure the iPhone will migrate over to Verizon. Verizon has too many customers that want the iPhone. Apple is in the selling phone business. Not making carrier's happy business. It's inevitable that there will be an iPhone on Verizon.
Come on folks... we need to all realize that making comments about one carriers quality/coverage is subjective to the point that even in the same TOWN two people could have two ENTIRELY different feelings when it comes to 'carrier A' vs. 'carrier B' if the town is sprawling enough and one person lives on one side of a mountain and the other person lives on the other side.
Exactly. Just because it doesn't happen to you, doesn't mean it doesn't happen to everyone
All the naysayers stated that Apple wouldn't make an iPhone for the Chinese market and their variant of CDMA but they did. Whats to stop them from adding Verizon as an iPhone carrier? Especially if Apples accountants reckon that they can make more money by being with AT&T and Verizon.
The CDMA standard in China is not really CDMA
It's W-CDMA which is actually very similar to GSM and completely different than CDMA2000 which Verizon uses.
Verizon standard is IS-41, also known as ANSI-41.
ATT, other GSM and China Unicom standards are GSM-MAP
The two system will converge in 4G LTE as discussed in previous posts.
Yes. If you're unable to afford a Mac you'll either:
a) wait until you can
b) get something else
It would be hard to say by todays standards that most the average consumer can not afford a Mac. The macbook, mac mini and 21.5 iMac are really not that expensive. Most Americans really aren't all that concerned with what things cost, when they want something as long as their credit card has room they buy it.
Its only my opinion but I think alot of people still get spooked at trying something new. They have used Windows systems for so long and what is reality is there are alot of people that just dont like to jump out of their confort zone.
There are also people that are use to using certain 3rd party software and the Mac may not run that software and people yet again don't want to mess with somethign like bootcamp because its outside their comfort zone.
Seeing that the last two holiday seasons HD tvs have been the #1 consumer product it would be hard to believe that a Mac is out of the scope of what people are willing to spend or can spend.
Wow, this analyst is being more an idiot than they usually are. There are so many things wrong with his conclusions that it hardly seems fair to start listing them out. Readers can safely overlook this idiot and move on to the next topic.
And don't expect the iPhone to become more expensive if the exclusive contract ends.
Apple already has stated several times it doesn't see any sense in investing in making a CDMA network handset because nearly the whole world is on GSM and CDMA is nearing end of life. Verizon is moving to LTE, a next generation GSM standard. That won't probably happen until 2011.
I see the iPhone going to T-Mobile for Verizon or Sprint. Apple & AT&T never expected exclusivity to last forever. Apple wanted an exclusive partner so both would work to together in innovating ne services such as visual voicemail and App store etc. Since AT&T was GSM, it made sense to build a GSM iphone because it works on 95% of the worlds networks
I can't see any reason why Apple would go to another CDMA player. What good would that do for Apple? If they move to CDMA, then it will be Verizon. T-Mobile is the smallest by far, with less than 35 million customers, and is not growing. It also uses the 1700 freq band, an odd choice.
In June, when Apple comes out with a new phone upgrade, we'll see if it includes an LTE radio. If it does, then we'll have a good idea of what's to come, early. If not, then everything will remain the same until, at least, June 2010.
Apple is a control freak and Verizon is a control freak. It ain't gonna happen.
I can't picture Verizon allowing the app store to download new apps unless Verizon gets to veto any app they don't like. This would be hideous for developers; you'd not only have to convince Apple, but you'd have to convince Verizon as well. Can't see it happening.
I would have to agree with you. Due to one major point that none of these folks ever address. The technology. Verizon is CDMA. No where has anyone pointed this out, discussed the cost of adding that tech to the phones. Dealt with the issue of LTE and when Apple might add it, if they are going to, the cost, how far Verizon might be on having a working network of a decent size etc.
that said, I highly doubt that Apple is going to drop ATT, with all the customer service hassles that caused, and go to another company exclusively. It just makes more sense for them to drop the need to illegally unlock by doing it themselves and making it a free for all with the right tech. and it would benefit the customers because the carriers would have to compete to have the best rates and coverage to lure in and keep subscribers.
What misinformation? I have no problem with my iPhone 3G. AT&T has 80million subscribers - are they all masochists who choose to suffer with crappy service for the heck of it? Sorry if New York and San Fran suck, that's inexcusable on AT&Ts part. However, the vast majority of people are satisfied with their AT&T service.
For my part, I agree with this. I live in Austin, TX and used to be a Verizon customer; had a Motorola made phone. I'd be 2 miles from down town, a stone throw from one of two N <--> S freeways and I'd be analog and roaming. I paid to get out of my contract.
I was in NY for some Yanks vs BSox games a few weeks back and, holy hell, the service wasn't near what I was used to.
So theoretically speaking if all your consumers are well-off retirees , it doesn't matter?
That's Cadillac, and it's why their sales have been shrinking over the years.
Apple sells across the entire spectrum. College students are willing to spend more to get a Macbook, or Macbook Pro. So are parents buying computers for their their kids in middle school and high school. Older, well off people are buying them as well.
iPhones are selling to every age group, and even income group.
That's why sales have been on such a sharply higher trajectory.
My question is: Will people leave AT&T to go to t-Mobile if the iPhone gets there first?
Doubtful that more than a few would do that. T-Mobile has, by far, the worst 3G coverage of all the carriers. If people are complaining about 3G coverage at AT&T, then they will have a heart attack over T-Mobile's coverage.
Forgive my ignorance, but why would the recent VZW / Moto/Droid deal would suggest that VZW would be unable to carry the iPhone?
that deal isn't over if they would be unable, that is tech as I mentioned before. The deal and the recent ads suggests that there's no deal in the words, regardless of tech. Because logically you don't bash, or allow a partner to bash, a company you are negotiating with. it's tacky and can blow up in your face. so those ads seem like a strong sign that no deal is in the worlds, no matter what the analysts want to say
Exactly. Just because it doesn't happen to you, doesn't mean it doesn't happen to everyone
Look, I know people with Verizon who have problems, and several who hate their customer service. While the network is better, the question is whether that's enough to matter.
As AT&T is now adding more new customers per quarter than Verizon, and churn is down a lot, possibly the network quality differences don't matter.
We've go to be realistic here.
When I first bought a smartphone, I went to Sprint, despite their having the worst network at the time. At was sometime close to 9.11, when we decided we should get cells. I went to them because they were the only carrier to have the Samsung i300, the first color Palmphone.
People often go to a carrier for a phone, and ignore the network problems.
Sprint, which now has a fairly good network, one that had improved noticeably by the time I left it and my Treo 700p, has so many customer service problems that they're drowning in them. That's something I don't understand, but seems to be far more important to most people than the network quality.
The fact that AT&T is doing so well, esp as far as iPhone sales go, shows that despite the network complaints by some, the iPhone is much more important than those complaints. Churn for iPhone users is far less than the industry average. I think the lowest of all major phones.
So I don't think that the network matters as much when a desirable phone is in question.
The argument that Apple would greatly profit from a CDMA-based iPhone is solid. There are 150M+ CDMA-based users in the US and there are some countries that can?t get the iPhone until a CDMA version is made. It may only account for 10% of the world?s cellphone users but it?s still a very large number.
Still, there are already reports of production issues from this year?s 3GS launch and there are logistical issues for the controlling Apple to have 2 phones for each capacity stocked in their stores. I?d think they?d go with T-Mobile USA, by adding the additional radio, where controlled iPhone growth to here 40M customers would be an smoother transition. On top of that, they already have a rapport with the parent company in Europe and they are certainly a favoured underdog in the US that would likely be more willing to bend to Apple?s needs over Verizon.
PS: This thread has now been jacked up. It looks like more than half the posts are from Teckstud followed by others correcting him. When you feed him it just gets out of hand. Please, be kind to other forum members
You do have a point about the 150m users of the world that use CDMA but it will eventually be out the window. That would be like people going back and making HD DVD because a very small percentage of people use that format. It doesn't make sense to cater to the minority just so they can have fun too. They don't hold a majority of the wealth which is what drives production and coverage support. I could see this phone going to all other companies that use CDMA way before it goes to Verizon. Apple wouldn't have to redesign the phone to cater to CDMA users...they would only have to make more of what they already have to support the GSM users. Just my opinion.
All the articles I have read about LTE seem to suggest that it is primarily for data. Most estimates seem to suggest that Verizon and Sprint will still need the CDMA towers for voice calls for a good 10 to 15 more years. So even with LTE, Apple would still need to include the CDMA radio in any Verizon iPhone for many, many, more years to come. Personally I think WiMax is the far more open and better technology than LTE but that is an entirely different debate.
With about 150 million plus CDMA customers in the U.S. that is a pretty big market not to tap. The cost for making a CDMA version would be tiny compared to the potential profit to Apple. That number is larger than the cellphone subscribers of the U.K. , France, and Italy combined for example. Apple is Apple and therefore unpredictable so who knows what they are thinking or what they will do.
Sprint actually has a very impressive 3G map coverage that rivals Verizon. It is also far more widespread than AT&T's. I would love to see Apple slap Verizon in the face an offer a CDMA version for Sprint. Sprint's impressive 3G coverage plus unbeatable plans that would be about $30 cheaper per month would definitely make AT&T and Verizon very nervous.
All the articles I have read about LTE seem to suggest that it is primarily for data. Most estimates seem to suggest that Verizon and Sprint will still need the CDMA towers for voice calls for a good 10 to 15 more years. So even with LTE, Apple would still need to include the CDMA radio in any Verizon iPhone for many, many, more years to come. Personally I think WiMax is the far more open and better technology than LTE but that is an entirely different debate.
With about 150 million plus CDMA customers in the U.S. that is a pretty big market not to tap. The cost for making a CDMA version would be tiny compared to the potential profit to Apple. That number is larger than the cellphone subscribers of the U.K. , France, and Italy combined for example. Apple is Apple and therefore unpredictable so who knows what they are thinking or what they will do.
Sprint actually has a very impressive 3G map coverage that rivals Verizon. It is also far more widespread than AT&T's. I would love to see Apple slap Verizon in the face an offer a CDMA version for Sprint. Sprint's impressive 3G coverage plus unbeatable plans that would be about $30 cheaper per month would definitely make AT&T and Verizon very nervous.
What people who dream of Verizon arn't thinking about, when they mention that possible 150 million number, is first, that many people from those networks are already leaving them to buy iPhones from AT&T, so that the addtional numbers may very well be much smaller than is thought. Ion't agree with the numbers in the article, for example, because they seem to be adding them to the AT&T numbers, rather that trying to figure out how many would stay with AT&T (most) and how many are left elsewhere.
Second is the overall percentage of adds for Apple. We had only to consider AT&Ts numbers over the first year, but now we have to consider the numbers from all the other countries, a number that is quickly growing.
What percentage would Verizon be? It might be too small for Apple to want a special model phone. Even if the troubled Sprint is added in, where Apple may see only small numbers.
While many manufacturers are willing to make a myriad number of phones for every small marker niche, Apple has shown that they aren't willing to do that. None of those other phones sell in large numbers, and is one reason why those other manufacturers have so much less profit than Apple does. R&D costs, as well as manufacturing start-up costs become too big a percentage of sales. I can't see Apple going there now.
Comments
Wrong. My AT&T 3G coverage is excellent, almost everywhere I go. As much recognition as Apple gets for their marketing, Verizon deserves a lot of credit for convincing people their network is, as a matter of indisputable fact, superior to AT&T.
Justify it any way you want to... AT&T's network blows.
For the last 18 months, it's be "ok" in Oregon. Now it's to the point where I'm dropping almost every call, and so are other people I know that have AT&T. I'm getting very frustrated with it to the point where I'm going to move when my contract is up no matter what. If the iPhone is there, great. If not, guess I'm going to android. For the last few weeks my phone has been jumping back and forth between Edge and 3g. 4 months ago this never would have happened.
AT&T even admits their network sucks.
In 2010 Verizon is migrating their network to a GSM based 4g. Once this happens, I'm sure the iPhone will migrate over to Verizon. Verizon has too many customers that want the iPhone. Apple is in the selling phone business. Not making carrier's happy business. It's inevitable that there will be an iPhone on Verizon.
Come on folks... we need to all realize that making comments about one carriers quality/coverage is subjective to the point that even in the same TOWN two people could have two ENTIRELY different feelings when it comes to 'carrier A' vs. 'carrier B' if the town is sprawling enough and one person lives on one side of a mountain and the other person lives on the other side.
Exactly. Just because it doesn't happen to you, doesn't mean it doesn't happen to everyone
All the naysayers stated that Apple wouldn't make an iPhone for the Chinese market and their variant of CDMA but they did. Whats to stop them from adding Verizon as an iPhone carrier? Especially if Apples accountants reckon that they can make more money by being with AT&T and Verizon.
The CDMA standard in China is not really CDMA
It's W-CDMA which is actually very similar to GSM and completely different than CDMA2000 which Verizon uses.
Verizon standard is IS-41, also known as ANSI-41.
ATT, other GSM and China Unicom standards are GSM-MAP
The two system will converge in 4G LTE as discussed in previous posts.
Yes. If you're unable to afford a Mac you'll either:
a) wait until you can
b) get something else
It would be hard to say by todays standards that most the average consumer can not afford a Mac. The macbook, mac mini and 21.5 iMac are really not that expensive. Most Americans really aren't all that concerned with what things cost, when they want something as long as their credit card has room they buy it.
Its only my opinion but I think alot of people still get spooked at trying something new. They have used Windows systems for so long and what is reality is there are alot of people that just dont like to jump out of their confort zone.
There are also people that are use to using certain 3rd party software and the Mac may not run that software and people yet again don't want to mess with somethign like bootcamp because its outside their comfort zone.
Seeing that the last two holiday seasons HD tvs have been the #1 consumer product it would be hard to believe that a Mac is out of the scope of what people are willing to spend or can spend.
And don't expect the iPhone to become more expensive if the exclusive contract ends.
Apple already has stated several times it doesn't see any sense in investing in making a CDMA network handset because nearly the whole world is on GSM and CDMA is nearing end of life. Verizon is moving to LTE, a next generation GSM standard. That won't probably happen until 2011.
I see the iPhone going to T-Mobile for Verizon or Sprint. Apple & AT&T never expected exclusivity to last forever. Apple wanted an exclusive partner so both would work to together in innovating ne services such as visual voicemail and App store etc. Since AT&T was GSM, it made sense to build a GSM iphone because it works on 95% of the worlds networks
I can't see any reason why Apple would go to another CDMA player. What good would that do for Apple? If they move to CDMA, then it will be Verizon. T-Mobile is the smallest by far, with less than 35 million customers, and is not growing. It also uses the 1700 freq band, an odd choice.
In June, when Apple comes out with a new phone upgrade, we'll see if it includes an LTE radio. If it does, then we'll have a good idea of what's to come, early. If not, then everything will remain the same until, at least, June 2010.
Apple is a control freak and Verizon is a control freak. It ain't gonna happen.
I can't picture Verizon allowing the app store to download new apps unless Verizon gets to veto any app they don't like. This would be hideous for developers; you'd not only have to convince Apple, but you'd have to convince Verizon as well. Can't see it happening.
Apple is not going to Verizon in 2010. Next.
I would have to agree with you. Due to one major point that none of these folks ever address. The technology. Verizon is CDMA. No where has anyone pointed this out, discussed the cost of adding that tech to the phones. Dealt with the issue of LTE and when Apple might add it, if they are going to, the cost, how far Verizon might be on having a working network of a decent size etc.
that said, I highly doubt that Apple is going to drop ATT, with all the customer service hassles that caused, and go to another company exclusively. It just makes more sense for them to drop the need to illegally unlock by doing it themselves and making it a free for all with the right tech. and it would benefit the customers because the carriers would have to compete to have the best rates and coverage to lure in and keep subscribers.
What misinformation? I have no problem with my iPhone 3G. AT&T has 80million subscribers - are they all masochists who choose to suffer with crappy service for the heck of it? Sorry if New York and San Fran suck, that's inexcusable on AT&Ts part. However, the vast majority of people are satisfied with their AT&T service.
For my part, I agree with this. I live in Austin, TX and used to be a Verizon customer; had a Motorola made phone. I'd be 2 miles from down town, a stone throw from one of two N <--> S freeways and I'd be analog and roaming. I paid to get out of my contract.
I was in NY for some Yanks vs BSox games a few weeks back and, holy hell, the service wasn't near what I was used to.
So theoretically speaking if all your consumers are well-off retirees , it doesn't matter?
That's Cadillac, and it's why their sales have been shrinking over the years.
Apple sells across the entire spectrum. College students are willing to spend more to get a Macbook, or Macbook Pro. So are parents buying computers for their their kids in middle school and high school. Older, well off people are buying them as well.
iPhones are selling to every age group, and even income group.
That's why sales have been on such a sharply higher trajectory.
My question is: Will people leave AT&T to go to t-Mobile if the iPhone gets there first?
Doubtful that more than a few would do that. T-Mobile has, by far, the worst 3G coverage of all the carriers. If people are complaining about 3G coverage at AT&T, then they will have a heart attack over T-Mobile's coverage.
Forgive my ignorance, but why would the recent VZW / Moto/Droid deal would suggest that VZW would be unable to carry the iPhone?
that deal isn't over if they would be unable, that is tech as I mentioned before. The deal and the recent ads suggests that there's no deal in the words, regardless of tech. Because logically you don't bash, or allow a partner to bash, a company you are negotiating with. it's tacky and can blow up in your face. so those ads seem like a strong sign that no deal is in the worlds, no matter what the analysts want to say
Exactly. Just because it doesn't happen to you, doesn't mean it doesn't happen to everyone
Look, I know people with Verizon who have problems, and several who hate their customer service. While the network is better, the question is whether that's enough to matter.
As AT&T is now adding more new customers per quarter than Verizon, and churn is down a lot, possibly the network quality differences don't matter.
We've go to be realistic here.
When I first bought a smartphone, I went to Sprint, despite their having the worst network at the time. At was sometime close to 9.11, when we decided we should get cells. I went to them because they were the only carrier to have the Samsung i300, the first color Palmphone.
People often go to a carrier for a phone, and ignore the network problems.
Sprint, which now has a fairly good network, one that had improved noticeably by the time I left it and my Treo 700p, has so many customer service problems that they're drowning in them. That's something I don't understand, but seems to be far more important to most people than the network quality.
The fact that AT&T is doing so well, esp as far as iPhone sales go, shows that despite the network complaints by some, the iPhone is much more important than those complaints. Churn for iPhone users is far less than the industry average. I think the lowest of all major phones.
So I don't think that the network matters as much when a desirable phone is in question.
The argument that Apple would greatly profit from a CDMA-based iPhone is solid. There are 150M+ CDMA-based users in the US and there are some countries that can?t get the iPhone until a CDMA version is made. It may only account for 10% of the world?s cellphone users but it?s still a very large number.
Still, there are already reports of production issues from this year?s 3GS launch and there are logistical issues for the controlling Apple to have 2 phones for each capacity stocked in their stores. I?d think they?d go with T-Mobile USA, by adding the additional radio, where controlled iPhone growth to here 40M customers would be an smoother transition. On top of that, they already have a rapport with the parent company in Europe and they are certainly a favoured underdog in the US that would likely be more willing to bend to Apple?s needs over Verizon.
PS: This thread has now been jacked up. It looks like more than half the posts are from Teckstud followed by others correcting him. When you feed him it just gets out of hand. Please, be kind to other forum members
You do have a point about the 150m users of the world that use CDMA but it will eventually be out the window. That would be like people going back and making HD DVD because a very small percentage of people use that format. It doesn't make sense to cater to the minority just so they can have fun too. They don't hold a majority of the wealth which is what drives production and coverage support. I could see this phone going to all other companies that use CDMA way before it goes to Verizon. Apple wouldn't have to redesign the phone to cater to CDMA users...they would only have to make more of what they already have to support the GSM users. Just my opinion.
That's Cadillac,
Unless we're talking . . .
With about 150 million plus CDMA customers in the U.S. that is a pretty big market not to tap. The cost for making a CDMA version would be tiny compared to the potential profit to Apple. That number is larger than the cellphone subscribers of the U.K. , France, and Italy combined for example. Apple is Apple and therefore unpredictable so who knows what they are thinking or what they will do.
Sprint actually has a very impressive 3G map coverage that rivals Verizon. It is also far more widespread than AT&T's. I would love to see Apple slap Verizon in the face an offer a CDMA version for Sprint. Sprint's impressive 3G coverage plus unbeatable plans that would be about $30 cheaper per month would definitely make AT&T and Verizon very nervous.
Unless we're talking . . .
I don't know how to comment on that without getting in some sort of trouble.
I don't know how to comment on that without getting in some sort of trouble.
LOL, why? It's popular with younger people, often celebrities, with above-average disposable income.
All the articles I have read about LTE seem to suggest that it is primarily for data. Most estimates seem to suggest that Verizon and Sprint will still need the CDMA towers for voice calls for a good 10 to 15 more years. So even with LTE, Apple would still need to include the CDMA radio in any Verizon iPhone for many, many, more years to come. Personally I think WiMax is the far more open and better technology than LTE but that is an entirely different debate.
With about 150 million plus CDMA customers in the U.S. that is a pretty big market not to tap. The cost for making a CDMA version would be tiny compared to the potential profit to Apple. That number is larger than the cellphone subscribers of the U.K. , France, and Italy combined for example. Apple is Apple and therefore unpredictable so who knows what they are thinking or what they will do.
Sprint actually has a very impressive 3G map coverage that rivals Verizon. It is also far more widespread than AT&T's. I would love to see Apple slap Verizon in the face an offer a CDMA version for Sprint. Sprint's impressive 3G coverage plus unbeatable plans that would be about $30 cheaper per month would definitely make AT&T and Verizon very nervous.
What people who dream of Verizon arn't thinking about, when they mention that possible 150 million number, is first, that many people from those networks are already leaving them to buy iPhones from AT&T, so that the addtional numbers may very well be much smaller than is thought. Ion't agree with the numbers in the article, for example, because they seem to be adding them to the AT&T numbers, rather that trying to figure out how many would stay with AT&T (most) and how many are left elsewhere.
Second is the overall percentage of adds for Apple. We had only to consider AT&Ts numbers over the first year, but now we have to consider the numbers from all the other countries, a number that is quickly growing.
What percentage would Verizon be? It might be too small for Apple to want a special model phone. Even if the troubled Sprint is added in, where Apple may see only small numbers.
While many manufacturers are willing to make a myriad number of phones for every small marker niche, Apple has shown that they aren't willing to do that. None of those other phones sell in large numbers, and is one reason why those other manufacturers have so much less profit than Apple does. R&D costs, as well as manufacturing start-up costs become too big a percentage of sales. I can't see Apple going there now.