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.
Apple can do that by going with T-Mobile, which only requires an additional spectrum to be added, not an entirely new device that requires a lot more R&D, a lot more cost and the reported 5.5% gross profit of every sale, even this hybrid chip is used on AT&T, to go back to Qualcomm. Apple already has contract with T-Mobile USA?s parent corp and T-Mobile would bend over for Apple while Verizon has not only shown no real interest, they?ve also specifically attacked the iPhone in ads.
Maybe the licensing cost doesn't apply, or Apple thinks it doesn't, or at least not all of it. They are going head to head with Nokia over mobile phone patents, or cost of licensing thereof, maybe Qualcomm is next.
What if Apple reverse engineered the protocols and have a chip that can talk to the network without using Qualcomm's tech. A further stretch, I don't think radio chips were PA Semiconductor's core competency but what if Apple has designed their own radio chip?
Way in to 'what if' territory but it is Apple we are discussing.
I've always thought Apple was very strict about its margins, and now that they have lowered prices (which negatively affect margins) on many of there other products (justified because of gains on iphone), I find it very hard to believe that they would take on a brand new piece of hardware that's probably much pricier (because it's not being used by the masses yet), hence cutting into those margins.
Id hardly call a new version of the Iphone a new product. More like an upgrade to an existing successful product. Apple isnt taking a high risk in mass producing a new model of the macbook-- nor are they with a new iphone. Its not like this is V1 of the Iphone or V1 of an Ipod-- Apple can afford to start mass production on these upgrades without an issue. Hence why there were such shortages for the V1 iphone (a real new product) and there wasnt more than a 2 week wait for those who really wanted the 3G/GS.
Also, new products have the best margins because they CAN change more. The cost of equipment is going down AND new products are more in demand-- plus its better technology, and apple has the leverage to get the best prices on things like ram. No one makes a good margin on a 3 year old Ipod, because few want to go buy them and they are outdated technologically.
I've always thought Apple was very strict about its margins, and now that they have lowered prices (which negatively affect margins) on many of there other products (justified because of gains on iphone), I find it very hard to believe that they would take on a brand new piece of hardware that's probably much pricier (because it's not being used by the masses yet), hence cutting into those margins.
I don?t know where you are seeing Apple has lowered their prices. Every release a new model with more stuff takes the price-point of the previous model. The 32GB 3GS replaced the 16GB 3G at $299, the 16GB 3GS replaced the 8G 3G @ $199, and the old 8GB iPhone 3G found new life @ $99.
As for margins, they could have been reduced as you have more competition on the lower end, but they could have stayed the same or even gone up. When you lower the price in order to maintain the same net profit per unit you have to increase the margin. This can be countered increased sales in the new price-point which can lead to less costs per unit. Also, having a production in place that has worked out kinks for a year now and with components that are older and cheaper can all lead to Apple still making as much net profit per device, or even more. It all depends on many, many factors.
Quote:
I love my iphone, but realistically, many aspects of the hardware are not cutting edge (a 3MP camera).
Cutting edge is used more in marketing to trick people into thinking they are getting something better than something else, but it usually requires scraping at the tree bark without looking at the forest. Apple has a 3Mpx camera in the 3GS while the Droid has a 5Mpx camera, but have you seen the quality of the photos?
The MacBook Air used a lot of "cutting edge? features, though I?d describe it as previously unused in mass-masrketed computers. The milled aluminium case, even though milling aluminium has been around for a long time.
Intel had invented the small-form-factor CPU awhile back but shelved it. Apple apparently asked for something small and power efficient, yet some say it?s a crappy processor because it?s not as fast as xyz. Yet, it?s a $300 part that is a C2D that significantly small than other C2Ds and now being used in over a half dozen other such machines.
Having the biggest or fastest or coolest looking is not a sign of good design. It?s about balance and more than silly pseudo-geeks think matters. If you only look at the CPU speed or the Megapixel size or the screen resolution then you really aren?t looking very closely. Not fitting one?s needs is not the same as being an un-innovative piece of junk.
Check out the Droid v. iPhone image comparisons. That 5Mpx camera is pretty bad. Most of can be resolved in software by the looks of it, but that can be a tricky fix.
Quote:
I could see the iPhone on T-Mobile, being that they are aggressively deploying 3G and they have great customer service; apple would only have to place an additional WCDMA antenna in the device, and slightly modify the software if they choose to go with T-Mobile. I guess we will have to wait and see.
It?s more than an antenna, it?s the radio for that spectrum. Specifically, WCDMA 1700, Band IV. Seems a lot easier to add that than all the trouble with the hybrid chip and Qualcomm?s fees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike12309
Id hardly call a new version of the Iphone a new product. More like an upgrade to an existing successful product.
Do you mean a new product category? It?s certainly a new product. Has a new name, has a lot of new components with a re-engineered logic board. I don?t think the exterior look not changing means that it?s the same product.
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.
Fingers aren't getting smaller all of a sudden. Apple engineered their screen for a size that would be exactly right for the device they were going to sell. Not too big, not too small. They won't abandon a size they took great pain to develop for lightly. IMO, they won't abandon it at all.
I would also like to see Apple give the iPhone to T-Mobile next. More for the sake of the US mobile industry. I think we at least need three healthy telcoms. Verizon and AT&T's dominance is not a good thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Apple can do that by going with T-Mobile, which only requires an additional spectrum to be added,
Fingers aren't getting smaller all of a sudden. Apple engineered their screen for a size that would be exactly right for the device they were going to sell. Not too big, not too small. They won't abandon a size they took great pain to develop for lightly. IMO, they won't abandon it at all.
Just to beat this one more time like a dead house, the issue isn?t with resolution or pixel density, it?s with text sizes and input points becoming less than ideal to use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I would also like to see Apple give the iPhone to T-Mobile next. More for the sake of the US mobile industry. I think we at least need three healthy telcoms. Verizon and AT&T's dominance is not a good thing.
T-Mobile has 34M subs. If they got the iPhone they would likely surpass Sprint within a year. Apple wouldn?t have to keep 2 of every capacity phone in their stores, no need for the expensive Qualcomm fees for using CDMA/CDMA2000 tech, and T-Mobile can finally be the carrier it needs to be in the US.
Verizon will still thrive though a little slowly, but Sprint will likely crumble faster. An iPhone on T-Mobile will have a comparable data package cost, but may offer free SMS. I wouldn?t expect the current huge savings you can get from this 4th place carrier if they started selling the iPhone.
cdma/umts GREAT. But to make it a Truely world phone, you need to have a Satellite chip so the phone will work in the South pole and in mountains with no cellphone coverage.
cdma/umts GREAT. But to make it a Truely world phone, you need to have a Satellite chip so the phone will work in the South pole and in mountains with no cellphone coverage.
If we are going to get pedantic about the term ?world?, then it can?t be a world phone unless it can withstand the pressure and heat of the earth?s core and has an antenna long enough to be able to call anyone from the center.
I wouldn't buy a 2.8" screen device but there's probably a market for it. I'd love to see a bigger model -- maybe 4.5" so it's not too awkward to hold up to your ear.
Fingers aren't getting smaller all of a sudden. Apple engineered their screen for a size that would be exactly right for the device they were going to sell. Not too big, not too small. They won't abandon a size they took great pain to develop for lightly. IMO, they won't abandon it at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
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.
In a way, I agree, but I'm not totally convinced though. Something that will fit my needs even less (I would like to see something larger) doesn't mean there isn't a market for it as it is. It seems like people are willing to take some pretty tiny buttons and tiny text.
Folks, to get started with Verizon, and others, Apple is rumored to be making a "Phone"!
No more, no less. But within a very short period of time, they (Apple) will introduce many new models with all of the features folks have come to expect from Apple.
"Get your foot in the door" and they will come (hopefully they will move their feet before the door closes on them).
Ok, so it won't be JUST a phone, but it won't be a full fledge iPhone ether - at least not right away.
This gives Apple a chance to test the waters for a SIMPLE phone, while getting folks ready for what's to come.
cdma/umts GREAT. But to make it a Truely world phone, you need to have a Satellite chip so the phone will work in the South pole and in mountains with no cellphone coverage.
not sure how far we are from that but once we all have satilite phones, thst will truly be a world phone. Making a call from anywhere. It's coming. Probably the next 10 years. Can get them now but very pricey.
Whether or not these rumors are true, competition is always good. I feel obligated to say that Verizon is not that great of a carrier. In fact, I have had a better experience with ATT than Verizon by far. It seems that many people believe Verizon is so great when it really isn't that great. Don't say I didn't warn you when everyone starts posting how bad Verizon is.
not sure how far we are from that but once we all have satilite phones, thst will truly be a world phone. Making a call from anywhere. It's coming. Probably the next 10 years. Can get them now but very pricey.
Maybe some day but in the case stated before about phone service in Antarctica, etc, it seems to me that anyone venturing to that part of the globe would be able to afford a satellite phone.
Several years ago satellite phones were quite common in Central and South America (and I imagine in other under developed regions) but now they have decent cell service so satellite phones are rarely seen these days. Satellite phones require large antennas and the audio quality is horrible mostly because the bandwidth is so small.
not sure how far we are from that but once we all have satilite phones, thst will truly be a world phone. Making a call from anywhere. It's coming. Probably the next 10 years. Can get them now but very pricey.
Even if you get the cost down, you still have to deal with about a half second of lag.
The smaller screen size is demented. I've tried the new Android phones at Verizon this week. The Motorola Droid's 3.7 inch display is very comfortable. The only things wrong with the phone are that the slider keyboard is a completely unnecessary addition of weight and fragility to the phone, and that it's too angular to hold comfortably for a long call.
The HTC Droid Eris, on the other hand, seems like the perfect form factor, except that the 3.2 inch display is already pushing the limits of small size. I have to really watch myself on typing on it, despite the fact that HTC's keyboard overlay is clearly better than the stock Android one. A 2.8 inch screen effectively crosses the line out of smartphone territory. In fact, these designers all ought to pick up a Droid Eris, and ask themselves, does it really need to be any smaller? The Eris is barely over four ounces, and about the same size as a closed Motorola RAZR. Any smaller and you'd lose it in your pocket.
Whether or not these rumors are true, competition is always good. I feel obligated to say that Verizon is not that great of a carrier. In fact, I have had a better experience with ATT than Verizon by far. It seems that many people believe Verizon is so great when it really isn't that great. Don't say I didn't warn you when everyone starts posting how bad Verizon is.
At least here in the Midwest, Verizon is still "the network." Only US Cellular in this part of the world is as well put together. T-Mobile has terrific networks in cities but the only rural areas it covers are in Minnesota and Iowa where the company's different heritage in those states (the former Aerial Communications network in MN, the I-wireless limited partnership in Iowa) means they have a rural PCS network. Sprint is OK, urban and rural, but only OK. AT&T falls over their shoelaces in high-density urban areas -- and this condition predates the arrival of the iPhone. I chalk it up to 1900MHz masts arrayed at the larger intervals appropriate to 800MHz.
AT&T makes sense in parts of the country where the network is built properly, like much of California and the Gulf of Mexico coastal region.
Greetings, I'm new to the forum, drawn here by the report.
You all seem well-read on matters regarding the various technical issues that would arise from a Verizon/iPhone merger and it seems there's a general air of skepticism about it's validity.
On this note I also seemed unsure about the intentions of this report from OTR Global.
I've done some searching of OTR (Off The Record) Global to get an idea of what sort of company they're all about.
Their site says that they are "The Premier Provider of Industry Intellegence for Institutional Investors" who manage mutual funds, pension funds and hedge funds... Basically, they do market research for investors.
Notice on the last paragraph of their FAQ page it says, "OTR Global does not make its research available to the press."
This would make sense concerning their clientele, but it begs the question, why did they decide to give it to appleinsider?
Would Prince McLean, the author of the article, care to share any information, either about the report, or at least some insight as to why OTR would suddenly choose to go "On The Record"?
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.
Jobs may hold a grudge but he's legally accountable to Apple share holders. If Apple doesn't do a CDMA iPhone they will not be able to grow their market at the same pace as their competition.
Comments
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.
Apple can do that by going with T-Mobile, which only requires an additional spectrum to be added, not an entirely new device that requires a lot more R&D, a lot more cost and the reported 5.5% gross profit of every sale, even this hybrid chip is used on AT&T, to go back to Qualcomm. Apple already has contract with T-Mobile USA?s parent corp and T-Mobile would bend over for Apple while Verizon has not only shown no real interest, they?ve also specifically attacked the iPhone in ads.
What if Apple reverse engineered the protocols and have a chip that can talk to the network without using Qualcomm's tech. A further stretch, I don't think radio chips were PA Semiconductor's core competency but what if Apple has designed their own radio chip?
Way in to 'what if' territory but it is Apple we are discussing.
Quote:
I've always thought Apple was very strict about its margins, and now that they have lowered prices (which negatively affect margins) on many of there other products (justified because of gains on iphone), I find it very hard to believe that they would take on a brand new piece of hardware that's probably much pricier (because it's not being used by the masses yet), hence cutting into those margins.
Id hardly call a new version of the Iphone a new product. More like an upgrade to an existing successful product. Apple isnt taking a high risk in mass producing a new model of the macbook-- nor are they with a new iphone. Its not like this is V1 of the Iphone or V1 of an Ipod-- Apple can afford to start mass production on these upgrades without an issue. Hence why there were such shortages for the V1 iphone (a real new product) and there wasnt more than a 2 week wait for those who really wanted the 3G/GS.
Also, new products have the best margins because they CAN change more. The cost of equipment is going down AND new products are more in demand-- plus its better technology, and apple has the leverage to get the best prices on things like ram. No one makes a good margin on a 3 year old Ipod, because few want to go buy them and they are outdated technologically.
I've always thought Apple was very strict about its margins, and now that they have lowered prices (which negatively affect margins) on many of there other products (justified because of gains on iphone), I find it very hard to believe that they would take on a brand new piece of hardware that's probably much pricier (because it's not being used by the masses yet), hence cutting into those margins.
I don?t know where you are seeing Apple has lowered their prices. Every release a new model with more stuff takes the price-point of the previous model. The 32GB 3GS replaced the 16GB 3G at $299, the 16GB 3GS replaced the 8G 3G @ $199, and the old 8GB iPhone 3G found new life @ $99.
As for margins, they could have been reduced as you have more competition on the lower end, but they could have stayed the same or even gone up. When you lower the price in order to maintain the same net profit per unit you have to increase the margin. This can be countered increased sales in the new price-point which can lead to less costs per unit. Also, having a production in place that has worked out kinks for a year now and with components that are older and cheaper can all lead to Apple still making as much net profit per device, or even more. It all depends on many, many factors.
I love my iphone, but realistically, many aspects of the hardware are not cutting edge (a 3MP camera).
Cutting edge is used more in marketing to trick people into thinking they are getting something better than something else, but it usually requires scraping at the tree bark without looking at the forest. Apple has a 3Mpx camera in the 3GS while the Droid has a 5Mpx camera, but have you seen the quality of the photos?
The MacBook Air used a lot of "cutting edge? features, though I?d describe it as previously unused in mass-masrketed computers. The milled aluminium case, even though milling aluminium has been around for a long time.
Intel had invented the small-form-factor CPU awhile back but shelved it. Apple apparently asked for something small and power efficient, yet some say it?s a crappy processor because it?s not as fast as xyz. Yet, it?s a $300 part that is a C2D that significantly small than other C2Ds and now being used in over a half dozen other such machines.
Having the biggest or fastest or coolest looking is not a sign of good design. It?s about balance and more than silly pseudo-geeks think matters. If you only look at the CPU speed or the Megapixel size or the screen resolution then you really aren?t looking very closely. Not fitting one?s needs is not the same as being an un-innovative piece of junk.
Check out the Droid v. iPhone image comparisons. That 5Mpx camera is pretty bad. Most of can be resolved in software by the looks of it, but that can be a tricky fix.
I could see the iPhone on T-Mobile, being that they are aggressively deploying 3G and they have great customer service; apple would only have to place an additional WCDMA antenna in the device, and slightly modify the software if they choose to go with T-Mobile. I guess we will have to wait and see.
It?s more than an antenna, it?s the radio for that spectrum. Specifically, WCDMA 1700, Band IV. Seems a lot easier to add that than all the trouble with the hybrid chip and Qualcomm?s fees.
Id hardly call a new version of the Iphone a new product. More like an upgrade to an existing successful product.
Do you mean a new product category? It?s certainly a new product. Has a new name, has a lot of new components with a re-engineered logic board. I don?t think the exterior look not changing means that it?s the same product.
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.
Fingers aren't getting smaller all of a sudden. Apple engineered their screen for a size that would be exactly right for the device they were going to sell. Not too big, not too small. They won't abandon a size they took great pain to develop for lightly. IMO, they won't abandon it at all.
Apple can do that by going with T-Mobile, which only requires an additional spectrum to be added,
Fingers aren't getting smaller all of a sudden. Apple engineered their screen for a size that would be exactly right for the device they were going to sell. Not too big, not too small. They won't abandon a size they took great pain to develop for lightly. IMO, they won't abandon it at all.
Just to beat this one more time like a dead house, the issue isn?t with resolution or pixel density, it?s with text sizes and input points becoming less than ideal to use.
I would also like to see Apple give the iPhone to T-Mobile next. More for the sake of the US mobile industry. I think we at least need three healthy telcoms. Verizon and AT&T's dominance is not a good thing.
T-Mobile has 34M subs. If they got the iPhone they would likely surpass Sprint within a year. Apple wouldn?t have to keep 2 of every capacity phone in their stores, no need for the expensive Qualcomm fees for using CDMA/CDMA2000 tech, and T-Mobile can finally be the carrier it needs to be in the US.
Verizon will still thrive though a little slowly, but Sprint will likely crumble faster. An iPhone on T-Mobile will have a comparable data package cost, but may offer free SMS. I wouldn?t expect the current huge savings you can get from this 4th place carrier if they started selling the iPhone.
cdma/umts GREAT. But to make it a Truely world phone, you need to have a Satellite chip so the phone will work in the South pole and in mountains with no cellphone coverage.
If we are going to get pedantic about the term ?world?, then it can?t be a world phone unless it can withstand the pressure and heat of the earth?s core and has an antenna long enough to be able to call anyone from the center.
Fingers aren't getting smaller all of a sudden. Apple engineered their screen for a size that would be exactly right for the device they were going to sell. Not too big, not too small. They won't abandon a size they took great pain to develop for lightly. IMO, they won't abandon it at all.
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.
In a way, I agree, but I'm not totally convinced though. Something that will fit my needs even less (I would like to see something larger) doesn't mean there isn't a market for it as it is. It seems like people are willing to take some pretty tiny buttons and tiny text.
No more, no less. But within a very short period of time, they (Apple) will introduce many new models with all of the features folks have come to expect from Apple.
"Get your foot in the door" and they will come (hopefully they will move their feet before the door closes on them).
Ok, so it won't be JUST a phone, but it won't be a full fledge iPhone ether - at least not right away.
This gives Apple a chance to test the waters for a SIMPLE phone, while getting folks ready for what's to come.
Skip
cdma/umts GREAT. But to make it a Truely world phone, you need to have a Satellite chip so the phone will work in the South pole and in mountains with no cellphone coverage.
not sure how far we are from that but once we all have satilite phones, thst will truly be a world phone. Making a call from anywhere. It's coming. Probably the next 10 years. Can get them now but very pricey.
Peace.
not sure how far we are from that but once we all have satilite phones, thst will truly be a world phone. Making a call from anywhere. It's coming. Probably the next 10 years. Can get them now but very pricey.
Maybe some day but in the case stated before about phone service in Antarctica, etc, it seems to me that anyone venturing to that part of the globe would be able to afford a satellite phone.
Several years ago satellite phones were quite common in Central and South America (and I imagine in other under developed regions) but now they have decent cell service so satellite phones are rarely seen these days. Satellite phones require large antennas and the audio quality is horrible mostly because the bandwidth is so small.
not sure how far we are from that but once we all have satilite phones, thst will truly be a world phone. Making a call from anywhere. It's coming. Probably the next 10 years. Can get them now but very pricey.
Even if you get the cost down, you still have to deal with about a half second of lag.
The HTC Droid Eris, on the other hand, seems like the perfect form factor, except that the 3.2 inch display is already pushing the limits of small size. I have to really watch myself on typing on it, despite the fact that HTC's keyboard overlay is clearly better than the stock Android one. A 2.8 inch screen effectively crosses the line out of smartphone territory. In fact, these designers all ought to pick up a Droid Eris, and ask themselves, does it really need to be any smaller? The Eris is barely over four ounces, and about the same size as a closed Motorola RAZR. Any smaller and you'd lose it in your pocket.
Whether or not these rumors are true, competition is always good. I feel obligated to say that Verizon is not that great of a carrier. In fact, I have had a better experience with ATT than Verizon by far. It seems that many people believe Verizon is so great when it really isn't that great. Don't say I didn't warn you when everyone starts posting how bad Verizon is.
At least here in the Midwest, Verizon is still "the network." Only US Cellular in this part of the world is as well put together. T-Mobile has terrific networks in cities but the only rural areas it covers are in Minnesota and Iowa where the company's different heritage in those states (the former Aerial Communications network in MN, the I-wireless limited partnership in Iowa) means they have a rural PCS network. Sprint is OK, urban and rural, but only OK. AT&T falls over their shoelaces in high-density urban areas -- and this condition predates the arrival of the iPhone. I chalk it up to 1900MHz masts arrayed at the larger intervals appropriate to 800MHz.
AT&T makes sense in parts of the country where the network is built properly, like much of California and the Gulf of Mexico coastal region.
You all seem well-read on matters regarding the various technical issues that would arise from a Verizon/iPhone merger and it seems there's a general air of skepticism about it's validity.
On this note I also seemed unsure about the intentions of this report from OTR Global.
I've done some searching of OTR (Off The Record) Global to get an idea of what sort of company they're all about.
Their site says that they are "The Premier Provider of Industry Intellegence for Institutional Investors" who manage mutual funds, pension funds and hedge funds... Basically, they do market research for investors.
Notice on the last paragraph of their FAQ page it says, "OTR Global does not make its research available to the press."
This would make sense concerning their clientele, but it begs the question, why did they decide to give it to appleinsider?
Would Prince McLean, the author of the article, care to share any information, either about the report, or at least some insight as to why OTR would suddenly choose to go "On The Record"?
What does this say about the validity of claim?
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.
Jobs may hold a grudge but he's legally accountable to Apple share holders. If Apple doesn't do a CDMA iPhone they will not be able to grow their market at the same pace as their competition.