Looks like for AT&T, practically the whole country is a deadzone. I'm surprised I haven't been hearing more about how in most of the country you get zero bars with AT&T.
The maps Verizon has been showing only indicate the 3G coverage areas, not the overall coverage. This is the reason AT&T filed suit against Verizon over the ads.
Apparently that's the case, just as there's no denying 1001 is a bigger number than 1000. Close is good enough in horseshoes and hand grenades. Verizon also nickle-and-dimes its customers more, too.
Time to switch!
Much is the same for many Verizon users. So what's your point?
Let me guess, it's when you're behind a hill or in a little ravine. The fact that it's predictable is a good thing, no? Are Verizon's dropped calls unpredictable... and happy?
Is your iPhone jailbroken?
Try a Verizon phone for a couple weeks and see if it doesn't drop calls when you're driving about. The parkways and major roads of DC go 'round and through some decent hills. My experience with Verizon, in the locations I cared about, was that its coverage was worse than AT&T.
You are dreaming if you think ATT coverage is even close to what Verizon has, its not even something that is up for debate.
ATT 3G coverage is a dead zone unless your on the east coast or California. In five years I can count on one hand how many times I have dropped a call on Verizon. This is why a Blackberry and Verizon is the only way to go for business. The iPhone however makes a great toy.
And Verizon is very clear in its ads they are talking about 3G coverage. Which is really all that matters because ATT Edge coverage is useless.
edge is far from useless - it's what I use myself most of the time as there is no 3G in my small town. Edge is fast enough for what I do that I don't even bother to turn on wifi and typically don't bother to turn on 3G when I'm in a 3G capable area.
And the commercials are certainly misleading - in this very thread someone thought it meant there was no coverage outside of the areas shown in the ad.
There are certainly places I don't get reception. THere are also places my wife doesn't get reception with her Verizon phone.
I take it no one here has read Daniel's (AKA Prince McClean) article outlining legitimate reasons why "Verizon getting an iPhone" claims are unfounded. It's here for those who missed it:
CDMA is a dying technology. Telecom here in New Zealand is ditching its CDMA network for WCDMA because it can't use its phones elsewhere in the world very easily instead having to use World Mode phones which are kind of pathetic. Also Telecom's phones have been so feature poor that Vodafone was trouncing them. Hell, Vodafone's bottom end phone has BlueTooth and web browsing which is more than some of Telecom's top end phones had.
If Verizon is insisting on continuing using CDMA then all the features that makes the iPhone a great phone will largely be useless under CDMA. CDMA 3G is no way near as good as WCDMA and I've seen the two working side by side with a test between Vodafone's UMTS network and Telecom's CDMA network and Telecom failed miserably.
I'm picking that in the right spots the battle between the two would probably favour AT&T instead of Verizon.
Haven't seen them yet. Still, hard to imagine attvevervwinning. The 3G coverage is preety bad. They would lose in a heartbeat and when in edge you can access maps. So pretty bad if someone is lost.
Yea, let me hang up, see where I am and call you back.
Apple actually spends less on advertising than MS. Far less.
And Apple only gained record Mac sales from those ads, for several years now. Market share in the Premium end is going to be naturally limited, keep that in mind. In fact those ads helped play a role in Apple clinching the Premium end.
The Get a Mac ads were hugely successful.
US
It's well known and documented that apples main marketing is done by leaks, buzz and rumors. The commercials are for the technically challengeqith regard to msft commercials we now have lower priced macs but at the same time lower paid and knowlegable staff as the ine to one procare used to be $99'for both and the trainers new logic, fcp, motion. Now itanjuat iLife man. For the same group the get a mac campaign targets not to mention, bless their hearts, lower pay. Working in apple retail used to be quite a thing I imagine. All the theatres showing logic, fcp with major talent in the audience. Now it's just iLife users.
Coverage in the SF Bay Area is just fine. I have never had a problem the whole time I've been with Cingular/AT&T. If and when the iPhone goes to Verizon, I say bring it on. The more whiners that jump to that network and drag down Verizon's quality, the better AT&T's service gets. Personally I can't wait.
San Francisco coverage is terrible - fluctuating signal, dropped calls all the time, all around downtown. I live in Hayes Valley and lose signal at home, in the garage, on the local sections of 101 and 280, in the Financial District, etc. I have just grown to expect this - don't we all expect dropped calls ;-)
For me, down on the Peninsula, 3G coverage and signal is fine, East bay is mostly good, South Bay, no real problems so far. A lot of the utterly justified griping is about the city of SF.
Edge is not "equivalent to 3G except slower" - it's slower and has the same weakness that you fault CDMA for right below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34
EDGE doesn't allow data at the same time as a phone call. Therefore, EDGE != slower 3G
While the "equivalent to 3G except slower" might be questionable, I think these criticisms of it are a little questionable too. If 3G is defined as allowing data at the same time as a phone call, then Verizon doesn't have any 3G at all.
AT&T deserves to be attacked for their poor service.
But not Steve Jobs? I thought it was him that worked the deal with Cingular(AT&T) and then telling us consumers at the iPhone introduction in January that Cingular/AT&T was the best choice!
I'd love to see the reasoning why Apple's tablet, if indeed a true product, is announced by Steve and if it requires a carrier networks signal, which carrier that would be and if not AT&T, the best according to Steve, then why not, Steve?!!!!! \
The maps Verizon has been showing only indicate the 3G coverage areas, not the overall coverage. This is the reason AT&T filed suit against Verizon over the ads.
I'm not sure AT&T is actually concerned with whether their suit has any merit or not, but, by suing Verizon for false advertising, they can create some doubt about how truthful Verizon is being in their ads.
So Apple finally gets bashed and everyone is boohooing. Shouldn't have bashed PCs for 3 years I guess.
Microsoft on the other hand has taken the high road at least with their positive attitude Windows 7 commercials. I actually find them fascinating!.
I guess you haven't been reading my posts.
While I'm not anti-iPhone, I do find it disgusting whenever I read iPhone great / AT&T bad posts (hey, as I post, the misfit toy ad is on), anyway, I find it disgusting for those who solely blame AT&T when it takes two to make a contract and Apple creates the phone and then doesn't have a suitable cellular carrier partner to network on? So they made a deal with the devil (Cingular/AT&T) knowing how lacking it was and then Apple tells us that the iPhone GSM technology is the future and the best carrier to partner with is Cingular/AT&T.
I just wish those AT&T bashers, while they can make a half truth argument, to remember what AT&Ts partner, Apple, said about them when all this started! That's all.
Quote:
Microsoft on the other hand has taken the high road at least with their positive attitude Windows 7 commercials.
MS takes the high road? Why would MS bash Apple in their Windows 7 ad, where, according to the YouTube videos I have seen highlighting Windows 7 features, Microsoft has made their product more Mac like. What with even better background / wallpaper customization and the ability to have gadgets all over the screen versus the sidebar found in MS Vista and the taskbar, now has "icons' that make it look more Mac "Dock" like, or have a cluttered desktop with a lot of open apps, just "violently" shake (as one video of features stated) and all the open windows clear out (hello, it's called Apple Expose), etc... how can MS bash Apple with such exciting innovations?
But to prove I'm just not all about bashing MS, I will give them "kudos" for their dock "Preview" of web pages.
MS takes the high road? Why would MS bash Apple in their Windows 7 ad, where, according to the YouTube videos I have seen highlighting Windows 7 features, Microsoft has made their product more Mac like. What with even better background / wallpaper customization and the ability to have gadgets all over the screen versus the sidebar found in MS Vista and the taskbar, now has "icons' that make it look more Mac "Dock" like, etc... how can MS bash Apple with such exciting innovations?
MS stopped with the "PC's are affordable, Macs are not" campaign after six months. You think there is nothing about Apple even besides that, that can be critiqued effectively? Who ever thought the iPhone would ever be attacked be it indirectly in most of the ads?
But not Steve Jobs? I thought it was him that worked the deal with Cingular(AT&T) and then telling us consumers at the iPhone introduction in January that Cingular/AT&T was the best choice!
I'd love to see the reasoning why Apple's tablet, if indeed a true product, is announced by Steve and if it requires a carrier networks signal, which carrier that would be and if not AT&T, the best according to Steve, then why not, Steve?!!!!! \
If it require a carrier signal than its not gonna do well in this economy.
The maps Verizon has been showing only indicate the 3G coverage areas, not the overall coverage. This is the reason AT&T filed suit against Verizon over the ads.
Well if they showed overall coverage AT&T would lose there as well. Verizon has a blanket completely covering the entire the USA including Hawaii and Alaska .
Comments
Looks like for AT&T, practically the whole country is a deadzone. I'm surprised I haven't been hearing more about how in most of the country you get zero bars with AT&T.
The maps Verizon has been showing only indicate the 3G coverage areas, not the overall coverage. This is the reason AT&T filed suit against Verizon over the ads.
You're not being critical enough of Verizon.
Apparently that's the case, just as there's no denying 1001 is a bigger number than 1000. Close is good enough in horseshoes and hand grenades. Verizon also nickle-and-dimes its customers more, too.
Time to switch!
Much is the same for many Verizon users. So what's your point?
Let me guess, it's when you're behind a hill or in a little ravine. The fact that it's predictable is a good thing, no? Are Verizon's dropped calls unpredictable... and happy?
Is your iPhone jailbroken?
Try a Verizon phone for a couple weeks and see if it doesn't drop calls when you're driving about. The parkways and major roads of DC go 'round and through some decent hills. My experience with Verizon, in the locations I cared about, was that its coverage was worse than AT&T.
You are dreaming if you think ATT coverage is even close to what Verizon has, its not even something that is up for debate.
ATT 3G coverage is a dead zone unless your on the east coast or California. In five years I can count on one hand how many times I have dropped a call on Verizon. This is why a Blackberry and Verizon is the only way to go for business. The iPhone however makes a great toy.
And Verizon is very clear in its ads they are talking about 3G coverage. Which is really all that matters because ATT Edge coverage is useless.
What do you mean by "useless"?
There's Really Nothing Else To Say
the actual coverage map looks like this
The verizon ads only show the 3G coverage area.
... and every one of their ads is crystal clear about that fact.
And Verizon is very clear in its ads they are talking about 3G coverage. Which is really all that matters because ATT Edge coverage is useless.
edge is far from useless - it's what I use myself most of the time as there is no 3G in my small town. Edge is fast enough for what I do that I don't even bother to turn on wifi and typically don't bother to turn on 3G when I'm in a 3G capable area.
And the commercials are certainly misleading - in this very thread someone thought it meant there was no coverage outside of the areas shown in the ad.
There are certainly places I don't get reception. THere are also places my wife doesn't get reception with her Verizon phone.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/1...ng-to-verizon/
CDMA is a dying technology. Telecom here in New Zealand is ditching its CDMA network for WCDMA because it can't use its phones elsewhere in the world very easily instead having to use World Mode phones which are kind of pathetic. Also Telecom's phones have been so feature poor that Vodafone was trouncing them. Hell, Vodafone's bottom end phone has BlueTooth and web browsing which is more than some of Telecom's top end phones had.
If Verizon is insisting on continuing using CDMA then all the features that makes the iPhone a great phone will largely be useless under CDMA. CDMA 3G is no way near as good as WCDMA and I've seen the two working side by side with a test between Vodafone's UMTS network and Telecom's CDMA network and Telecom failed miserably.
I'm picking that in the right spots the battle between the two would probably favour AT&T instead of Verizon.
The first one is funny!
the next two not so much.
Haven't seen them yet. Still, hard to imagine attvevervwinning. The 3G coverage is preety bad. They would lose in a heartbeat and when in edge you can access maps. So pretty bad if someone is lost.
Yea, let me hang up, see where I am and call you back.
Ahh huh.
Apple actually spends less on advertising than MS. Far less.
And Apple only gained record Mac sales from those ads, for several years now. Market share in the Premium end is going to be naturally limited, keep that in mind. In fact those ads helped play a role in Apple clinching the Premium end.
The Get a Mac ads were hugely successful.
US
It's well known and documented that apples main marketing is done by leaks, buzz and rumors. The commercials are for the technically challengeqith regard to msft commercials we now have lower priced macs but at the same time lower paid and knowlegable staff as the ine to one procare used to be $99'for both and the trainers new logic, fcp, motion. Now itanjuat iLife man. For the same group the get a mac campaign targets not to mention, bless their hearts, lower pay. Working in apple retail used to be quite a thing I imagine. All the theatres showing logic, fcp with major talent in the audience. Now it's just iLife users.
Peace.
'3) A large majority of people do not travel outside of the US'
That's just f***ing sad.
that's actually... debatable!
Verizon needs the iPhone, or they continue losing to AT&T.
For APPL longs, we also want the iPhone on every large network. That way the 50% market share a la iPod, will happen all the more quickly.
Coverage in the SF Bay Area is just fine. I have never had a problem the whole time I've been with Cingular/AT&T. If and when the iPhone goes to Verizon, I say bring it on. The more whiners that jump to that network and drag down Verizon's quality, the better AT&T's service gets. Personally I can't wait.
San Francisco coverage is terrible - fluctuating signal, dropped calls all the time, all around downtown. I live in Hayes Valley and lose signal at home, in the garage, on the local sections of 101 and 280, in the Financial District, etc. I have just grown to expect this - don't we all expect dropped calls ;-)
For me, down on the Peninsula, 3G coverage and signal is fine, East bay is mostly good, South Bay, no real problems so far. A lot of the utterly justified griping is about the city of SF.
Edge is not "equivalent to 3G except slower" - it's slower and has the same weakness that you fault CDMA for right below.
EDGE doesn't allow data at the same time as a phone call. Therefore, EDGE != slower 3G
While the "equivalent to 3G except slower" might be questionable, I think these criticisms of it are a little questionable too. If 3G is defined as allowing data at the same time as a phone call, then Verizon doesn't have any 3G at all.
AT&T deserves to be attacked for their poor service.
But not Steve Jobs? I thought it was him that worked the deal with Cingular(AT&T) and then telling us consumers at the iPhone introduction in January that Cingular/AT&T was the best choice!
I'd love to see the reasoning why Apple's tablet, if indeed a true product, is announced by Steve and if it requires a carrier networks signal, which carrier that would be and if not AT&T, the best according to Steve, then why not, Steve?!!!!!
The maps Verizon has been showing only indicate the 3G coverage areas, not the overall coverage. This is the reason AT&T filed suit against Verizon over the ads.
I'm not sure AT&T is actually concerned with whether their suit has any merit or not, but, by suing Verizon for false advertising, they can create some doubt about how truthful Verizon is being in their ads.
So Apple finally gets bashed and everyone is boohooing. Shouldn't have bashed PCs for 3 years I guess.
Microsoft on the other hand has taken the high road at least with their positive attitude Windows 7 commercials. I actually find them fascinating!.
I guess you haven't been reading my posts.
While I'm not anti-iPhone, I do find it disgusting whenever I read iPhone great / AT&T bad posts (hey, as I post, the misfit toy ad is on), anyway, I find it disgusting for those who solely blame AT&T when it takes two to make a contract and Apple creates the phone and then doesn't have a suitable cellular carrier partner to network on? So they made a deal with the devil (Cingular/AT&T) knowing how lacking it was and then Apple tells us that the iPhone GSM technology is the future and the best carrier to partner with is Cingular/AT&T.
I just wish those AT&T bashers, while they can make a half truth argument, to remember what AT&Ts partner, Apple, said about them when all this started! That's all.
Microsoft on the other hand has taken the high road at least with their positive attitude Windows 7 commercials.
MS takes the high road? Why would MS bash Apple in their Windows 7 ad, where, according to the YouTube videos I have seen highlighting Windows 7 features, Microsoft has made their product more Mac like. What with even better background / wallpaper customization and the ability to have gadgets all over the screen versus the sidebar found in MS Vista and the taskbar, now has "icons' that make it look more Mac "Dock" like, or have a cluttered desktop with a lot of open apps, just "violently" shake (as one video of features stated) and all the open windows clear out (hello, it's called Apple Expose), etc... how can MS bash Apple with such exciting innovations?
But to prove I'm just not all about bashing MS, I will give them "kudos" for their dock "Preview" of web pages.
MS takes the high road? Why would MS bash Apple in their Windows 7 ad, where, according to the YouTube videos I have seen highlighting Windows 7 features, Microsoft has made their product more Mac like. What with even better background / wallpaper customization and the ability to have gadgets all over the screen versus the sidebar found in MS Vista and the taskbar, now has "icons' that make it look more Mac "Dock" like, etc... how can MS bash Apple with such exciting innovations?
MS stopped with the "PC's are affordable, Macs are not" campaign after six months. You think there is nothing about Apple even besides that, that can be critiqued effectively? Who ever thought the iPhone would ever be attacked be it indirectly in most of the ads?
But not Steve Jobs? I thought it was him that worked the deal with Cingular(AT&T) and then telling us consumers at the iPhone introduction in January that Cingular/AT&T was the best choice!
I'd love to see the reasoning why Apple's tablet, if indeed a true product, is announced by Steve and if it requires a carrier networks signal, which carrier that would be and if not AT&T, the best according to Steve, then why not, Steve?!!!!!
If it require a carrier signal than its not gonna do well in this economy.
The maps Verizon has been showing only indicate the 3G coverage areas, not the overall coverage. This is the reason AT&T filed suit against Verizon over the ads.
Well if they showed overall coverage AT&T would lose there as well. Verizon has a blanket completely covering the entire the USA including Hawaii and Alaska .
AT&T does not.