Of course Apple would only do it if they can have a GSM/CDMA chip that does not significantly add to the cost. Verizon won't be finished with CDMA for some years to come. At the same time Verizon as a lot of valuable customers that Apple does not currently have direct access to.
I don't know if it will happen next year, but it will inevitably happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChickenHawk
There's nothing physically stopping those 90 million customers moving to a GSM/UMTS based network. There is however something stopping the most of the world moving to a CDMA network (in that, they don't exist in too many places).
I think the 350$ early termination fee may be in anticipation on Droid owners trying to switch to an iphone when it's made available in the near future...just my two cents
Of course Apple would only do it if they can have a GSM/CDMA chip that does not significantly add to the cost. Verizon won't be finished with CDMA for some years to come. At the same time Verizon as a lot of valuable customers that Apple does not currently have direct access to.
.
Course they have direct access... They're welcome to walk into an apple store or AT&T store and switch network at any time. Don't know about over there, but over here its not that much harder than resigning your current contract with a new handset.
Nothing is stopping those 90 million customers doing that. If they really want that phone, they just have to buy it just like all the other customers that switched over.
The real killer for this story is could be the reduction in ATT subsidies if the iPhone once it stops being exclusive. ATT pays something like $400/phone now. If Verizon gets access to the phone, ATT could reduce the subsidy by $100-200 from the $400/iPhone.
Add to this the GOBAL increase in the BOM of around $30+ extra royalties to QCOM it addition to what is paid to the UMTS royalty pool. QCOM normally charges 5.5% royalties on CDMA phones, but lets assume they reduce that by half since they also get a share via UMTS. That is an extra $15-30.
Incremental cost could go up to $50/phone WORLDWIDE just to grab a marginal amount of CDMA users in the US and a few other places like Korea. Add the damage of reduction in ATT subsidies and it does not make sense. Neither does the small screen and tinny keyboard on screen keyboard.
Sounds like an Android Verizon shill story. Somebody is reading too much into Sun Tzu.
The transceiver is scheduled to sample this quarter, the chipset (adds GPS, Bluetooth, FM radio) in "mid-2010". That would mean Apple either gets early access or the next generation iPhones introduction would be sligthly later in the year in 2010 if they'd use the chipset (so its use is unlikely, IMO). As of now Broadcom and Infineon supply the GPS, BT and FM chips, so only the transceiver would need to be replaced for the successor of the 3Gs and the timeline for integration into the iPhone would match quite good.
The chipset, as the first link address reveals, would also support LTE, and-taking away ATTs advertising advantage stated in the article-"Simultaneous Voice-Data Operation (SV-DO)", which would also benefit Apple in not having to differentiate the marketing (as in "works on UMTS but not CDMA", still, no word about conferencing).
But still it remains to be seen if this is the solution Apple will be using for its next iPhone (3Gm for multi-radio..?)
After all the crap Verizon's been throwing at the iPhone lately, I seriously doubt Jobs is going to give them the iPhone. You don't think Jobs will hold a grudge? Trust me, I think we'll see the return of the Newton before Verizon gets an iPhone.
Me too! Especially with their new talk, txt, data plans that cut the cost in half of what one pays with AT&T.
Hey, you get what you pay for. T-Mobile in my area is just plain awful. My brother-in-law and sister were on T-Mobile before getting iPhones and it was virtually impossible to have a phone conversation with them because of coverage issues. I know many can say the same about AT&T, but we've got excellent coverage here in NJ.
Based what others have told me, Apple uses a 40/60 pricing model, margin (60%)=Price(100%)-Cost(40%).
What your economic degree just told me is this
M P C
30 = 50 - 20
(60%) = (100%) - (40%) but now cost rises by 30 so now we just raise price by 30 to achieve the same results.......
60 = 110 - 50
(54.5%) = (100%) - (45.5%)
A 54.5% margin isn't the same as a 60% margin given this scenario. What did the Psychology degree teach the Economic degree this evening (other than I have to much time on my hands)?
Um... you taught me that if you change the fixed values in an equation, that the results will change too? Very impressive! Ha! Stick to psychology, leave even basic math to others.
Just so I don't leave you wondering, what you did is change the assumed profit margin to 60% from 50%. Of course the required price increase is different if you're going for a different margin. Does this really make you think you did something? Hilarious...
Even though there is much to complain about AT&T, at least they have the EDGE (2.75G) as a backup to 3G. The EDGE is 100% functionally equivalent to a 3G network (data and voice access at the same time)....only slower.
You probably should have left that part out, since it's 100% wrong.
It's nonsense. A smaller screen size would affect all 100,000 apps currently for sale in the App Store.
I don't understand this, why the false dichotomy? It seems you're leaving another option off the table that should be obvious. Don't you know that screens can also be made at a higher PPI? The same number of dots can fit on a slightly smaller screen. That would mean that it would have absolutely no impact on app support.
90 million people don't want to do that. Switching to AT&T is not direct access.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChickenHawk
Course they have direct access... They're welcome to walk into an apple store or AT&T store and switch network at any time. Don't know about over there, but over here its not that much harder than resigning your current contract with a new handset.
Nothing is stopping those 90 million customers doing that. If they really want that phone, they just have to buy it just like all the other customers that switched over.
I don't understand this, why the false dichotomy? It seems you're leaving another option off the table that should be obvious. Don't you know that screens can also be made at a higher PPI? The same number of dots can fit on a slightly smaller screen. That would mean that it would have absolutely no impact on app support.
The ability to display of the apps on a different sized screen isn? the issue, it?s the ability for ut to be as effectively. if text is now smaller it can be harder to read. If input have shrunk and are now closer together they will be harder to use.
I think the 3.5 display at this ration is the minimum screen size Apple will use for future iPhones. Now, we look at the iPod model, a smaller handheld is in order after the market is saturated, but it would have to be a different UI to deal with the smaller size.
I don't know about a mini-iPhone, but the silicon they're talking about in the report already is available: the Qualcomm Gobi. Qualcomm I am sure would love to sell a few million Gobi's, and Apple would love a true worldphone they can distribute as a single SKU in their product catalog.
I could be wrong, but I believe the RIM Storm 2 already uses a Gobi baseband, its how they could keep the Storm a world phone, throw in wi-fi, and have the battery last longer than an hour.
Do you have a link that explains the removable and states what the new Bluetooth+EDR chip make and model number are?
If you look at the diagram below you see that the WiFi is part of the Bluetooth chip and it connects with the GPS transceiver. Re-engineering this would not be an easy task. If they had to make HW changes removing the antenna, as mentioned earlier in the thread, may be enough to satisfy the ban. Of course the UI elements and drivers would not be included either.
After reading it however, I'm not sure they're correct. The China iPhone (model A1324) still uses the layout for the older Marvell 88W8686 wifi and CSR bluetooth combo from the 3G, instead of the Broadcom BCM 4325 wifi/bluetooth combo in the 3GS. But in the picture they show, one can't tell that the Marvell wifi chip is not there. Maybe you can tell. (See step 20 at http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone-3G/600/3 for the US 3G).
After reading it however, I'm not sure they're correct. The China iPhone (model A1324) still uses the layout for the older Marvell 88W8686 wifi and CSR bluetooth combo from the 3G, instead of the Broadcom BCM 4325 wifi/bluetooth combo in the 3GS. But in the picture they show, one can't tell that the Marvell wifi chip is not there. Maybe you can tell. (See step 20 at http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone-3G/600/3 for the US 3G).
I hadn?t thought that China would be getting the 3G model instead of the 3GS. I?ll check out the link later. Thanks.
This image from iFixit seems a little ambiguous. It appears to show one chip, but the Marvell 88W8686 is clearly for WiFI, so if Bluetooth was included it would have have need to separate out Bluetooth. “Marvell 88W8686 802.11a/b/g + Bluetooth” is what I would have expected.
To make it even more convoluted I found this
Quote:
It is interesting to note that while both the Marvell 88W8686 and the CSR Bluecore 4 die are found separately on the iPhone, they are again bundled as a WLAN and Bluetooth system-in-package (SiP) solution in the Wi2Wi W2CBW003. The Marvell 88W8686 device provides for both traditional bond wires as well as flip-chip packaging options to allow the form factor of the SoC to be as small as possible depending on the users specific bonding requirements. (source)
So I have no idea and hope someone will crack open their overpriced Chinese iPhone to show us.
I talked to some Verizon officials on the phone the other day, who implied heavily that a move like this might be the works. "As far as Apple is concerned, you never know where things might go and there could be changes in the works going forward".
It would make sense for Apple to release a Verizon model at this point-- AT&Ts network is really not helping Apple any, and joining verizon would allow Apple to access both a better network and a lot of new customers with its known and successful product. Plus Id bet Verizon would launch a huge advertising campaign for the Iphone to win back customers from AT&T... sounds like a win for them "Love your iphone?... well now you can love it on only network thats blah blah blah blah best blah". "Same device, better network. Iphone on the Verizon network. Im sure verizon wont try to pull that crap about disabling features on the iphone like they tried to pull last time-- they have learned their lesson in a tough way.
For apple, it would likely just mean more iphones, and more money.
Comments
I don't know if it will happen next year, but it will inevitably happen.
There's nothing physically stopping those 90 million customers moving to a GSM/UMTS based network. There is however something stopping the most of the world moving to a CDMA network (in that, they don't exist in too many places).
Why increase costs when you don't have to?
It would have little or no effect, if the smaller screen comes with higher pixel resolution to compensate.
We might have to resort to using a stylus instead of our fingers though...
That's the other obvious reason why this rumor is ridiculous.
Of course Apple would only do it if they can have a GSM/CDMA chip that does not significantly add to the cost. Verizon won't be finished with CDMA for some years to come. At the same time Verizon as a lot of valuable customers that Apple does not currently have direct access to.
.
Course they have direct access... They're welcome to walk into an apple store or AT&T store and switch network at any time. Don't know about over there, but over here its not that much harder than resigning your current contract with a new handset.
Nothing is stopping those 90 million customers doing that. If they really want that phone, they just have to buy it just like all the other customers that switched over.
Add to this the GOBAL increase in the BOM of around $30+ extra royalties to QCOM it addition to what is paid to the UMTS royalty pool. QCOM normally charges 5.5% royalties on CDMA phones, but lets assume they reduce that by half since they also get a share via UMTS. That is an extra $15-30.
Incremental cost could go up to $50/phone WORLDWIDE just to grab a marginal amount of CDMA users in the US and a few other places like Korea. Add the damage of reduction in ATT subsidies and it does not make sense. Neither does the small screen and tinny keyboard on screen keyboard.
Sounds like an Android Verizon shill story. Somebody is reading too much into Sun Tzu.
http://www.qualcomm.com/news/release...artphones.html
http://www.qctconnect.com/newsroom/n...60_social.html
The transceiver is scheduled to sample this quarter, the chipset (adds GPS, Bluetooth, FM radio) in "mid-2010". That would mean Apple either gets early access or the next generation iPhones introduction would be sligthly later in the year in 2010 if they'd use the chipset (so its use is unlikely, IMO). As of now Broadcom and Infineon supply the GPS, BT and FM chips, so only the transceiver would need to be replaced for the successor of the 3Gs and the timeline for integration into the iPhone would match quite good.
The chipset, as the first link address reveals, would also support LTE, and-taking away ATTs advertising advantage stated in the article-"Simultaneous Voice-Data Operation (SV-DO)", which would also benefit Apple in not having to differentiate the marketing (as in "works on UMTS but not CDMA", still, no word about conferencing).
But still it remains to be seen if this is the solution Apple will be using for its next iPhone (3Gm for multi-radio..?)
just saying,
Ciao, Alex
Or if they made a new product to get past the AT&T exclusive contract.
More uninformed nonsense suggesting that Apple wants out of the AT&T exclusivity.
B.S. The next phone will be LTE capable for 4G roll out, not CMDA enabled.
i agree why put out a phone that in a few months is obsolete???
i can understand this as a working model that was tested sometime ago then discarded
smaller screen, a waste,
i say BS
Me too! Especially with their new talk, txt, data plans that cut the cost in half of what one pays with AT&T.
Hey, you get what you pay for. T-Mobile in my area is just plain awful. My brother-in-law and sister were on T-Mobile before getting iPhones and it was virtually impossible to have a phone conversation with them because of coverage issues. I know many can say the same about AT&T, but we've got excellent coverage here in NJ.
Based what others have told me, Apple uses a 40/60 pricing model, margin (60%)=Price(100%)-Cost(40%).
What your economic degree just told me is this
M P C
30 = 50 - 20
(60%) = (100%) - (40%) but now cost rises by 30 so now we just raise price by 30 to achieve the same results.......
60 = 110 - 50
(54.5%) = (100%) - (45.5%)
A 54.5% margin isn't the same as a 60% margin given this scenario. What did the Psychology degree teach the Economic degree this evening (other than I have to much time on my hands)?
Um... you taught me that if you change the fixed values in an equation, that the results will change too? Very impressive! Ha! Stick to psychology, leave even basic math to others.
Just so I don't leave you wondering, what you did is change the assumed profit margin to 60% from 50%. Of course the required price increase is different if you're going for a different margin. Does this really make you think you did something? Hilarious...
Even though there is much to complain about AT&T, at least they have the EDGE (2.75G) as a backup to 3G. The EDGE is 100% functionally equivalent to a 3G network (data and voice access at the same time)....only slower.
You probably should have left that part out, since it's 100% wrong.
It's nonsense. A smaller screen size would affect all 100,000 apps currently for sale in the App Store.
I don't understand this, why the false dichotomy? It seems you're leaving another option off the table that should be obvious. Don't you know that screens can also be made at a higher PPI? The same number of dots can fit on a slightly smaller screen. That would mean that it would have absolutely no impact on app support.
Course they have direct access... They're welcome to walk into an apple store or AT&T store and switch network at any time. Don't know about over there, but over here its not that much harder than resigning your current contract with a new handset.
Nothing is stopping those 90 million customers doing that. If they really want that phone, they just have to buy it just like all the other customers that switched over.
I don't understand this, why the false dichotomy? It seems you're leaving another option off the table that should be obvious. Don't you know that screens can also be made at a higher PPI? The same number of dots can fit on a slightly smaller screen. That would mean that it would have absolutely no impact on app support.
The ability to display of the apps on a different sized screen isn? the issue, it?s the ability for ut to be as effectively. if text is now smaller it can be harder to read. If input have shrunk and are now closer together they will be harder to use.
I think the 3.5 display at this ration is the minimum screen size Apple will use for future iPhones. Now, we look at the iPod model, a smaller handheld is in order after the market is saturated, but it would have to be a different UI to deal with the smaller size.
I could be wrong, but I believe the RIM Storm 2 already uses a Gobi baseband, its how they could keep the Storm a world phone, throw in wi-fi, and have the battery last longer than an hour.
Do you have a link that explains the removable and states what the new Bluetooth+EDR chip make and model number are?
If you look at the diagram below you see that the WiFi is part of the Bluetooth chip and it connects with the GPS transceiver. Re-engineering this would not be an easy task. If they had to make HW changes removing the antenna, as mentioned earlier in the thread, may be enough to satisfy the ban. Of course the UI elements and drivers would not be included either.
http://d1.it168.com/show/26739.html It's in Chinese so use Google Translate.
After reading it however, I'm not sure they're correct. The China iPhone (model A1324) still uses the layout for the older Marvell 88W8686 wifi and CSR bluetooth combo from the 3G, instead of the Broadcom BCM 4325 wifi/bluetooth combo in the 3GS. But in the picture they show, one can't tell that the Marvell wifi chip is not there. Maybe you can tell. (See step 20 at http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone-3G/600/3 for the US 3G).
http://d1.it168.com/show/26739.html It's in Chinese so use Google Translate.
After reading it however, I'm not sure they're correct. The China iPhone (model A1324) still uses the layout for the older Marvell 88W8686 wifi and CSR bluetooth combo from the 3G, instead of the Broadcom BCM 4325 wifi/bluetooth combo in the 3GS. But in the picture they show, one can't tell that the Marvell wifi chip is not there. Maybe you can tell. (See step 20 at http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone-3G/600/3 for the US 3G).
I hadn?t thought that China would be getting the 3G model instead of the 3GS. I?ll check out the link later. Thanks.
To make it even more convoluted I found this
It is interesting to note that while both the Marvell 88W8686 and the CSR Bluecore 4 die are found separately on the iPhone, they are again bundled as a WLAN and Bluetooth system-in-package (SiP) solution in the Wi2Wi W2CBW003. The Marvell 88W8686 device provides for both traditional bond wires as well as flip-chip packaging options to allow the form factor of the SoC to be as small as possible depending on the users specific bonding requirements. (source)
So I have no idea and hope someone will crack open their overpriced Chinese iPhone to show us.
It would make sense for Apple to release a Verizon model at this point-- AT&Ts network is really not helping Apple any, and joining verizon would allow Apple to access both a better network and a lot of new customers with its known and successful product. Plus Id bet Verizon would launch a huge advertising campaign for the Iphone to win back customers from AT&T... sounds like a win for them "Love your iphone?... well now you can love it on only network thats blah blah blah blah best blah". "Same device, better network. Iphone on the Verizon network. Im sure verizon wont try to pull that crap about disabling features on the iphone like they tried to pull last time-- they have learned their lesson in a tough way.
For apple, it would likely just mean more iphones, and more money.