That's probably because most people on the Verizon network don't realize that it's even possible, on any network.
This capability adds tremendously to the value of the iPhone on GSM, and though I never had the capability before, I use it all the time (on the web while on a phone call), and I would not be happy at all to discover I had lost it. I also wouldn't be very happy if someone else with the "same" phone had it and I didn't. Brings new meaning to the phrase "paperweight mode" if your phone turns into one for data service just because you are on a call.
There are going to be a million things that are going to be different.
You are going to have a much faster uplink and lower latency with a ev-do rev A iphone --- which has a lot more potential on the app side. And you are going to be able to connect to an actual 3G network.
Much better than not even getting a telephone signal with the AT&T network --- now that's real paperweight mode.
Apart from hitting people with bogus data charges that their phones are designed to produce more of, the real kicker is that with the $350 "early termination" fee, which decreases at $10 per month, you still have a $110 "early termination" fee at the end of your contract, if you leave or get a new phone.
Verizon does some pretty shady nickel and diming, but is Pogue?s analysis accurate? He states "This fee drops slowly over time ($10 a month), but after two years, it?s still $110.?, implying hat even after the contract is fulfilled you still that $110 unless you keep your phone for another 6 months. AT&T starts the fee at $175 and drops the fee by $5 per month so that it would also take 2.5 to complete, but if you finish your contract you are free and clear. Is there an actual policy change that shows that you still owe the $110 when before the $60 would have been dropped once you finished your contract?
I seriously doubt there will be a verizon only iPhone. CDMA is a dead technology.
Doesn't matter. CDMA is going to be around for at least a few more years. Whatever engineering costs Apple has developing a CDMA-only iPhone will be nothing compared to the profit they can make on a CDMA iPhone in the short term. Very likely the RF/antenna design would be designed to accommodate the new radio chipset so at some point in the future they merge the production back into one line. If you look at Apple's other product lines it's not uncommon for them to produce hardware for a short period of time before a new design takes over. This would be no different.
The chip in the Storm/Tour can work in the iPhone in the same space as the current 3G chips and without any additional power drain? I think we need to consider some other physical differences in the chips. The iPhone and Storm/Tour are note exactly the same level of device. That is without even considering what Qualcomm charges for the use of the CDMA/CDMA2000 radios. i?ve read that beside basic costs they also want 5.5% of the gross revenue from each device.
.
I wonder if Apple's ever demonstrated any ability to negotiate good terms from suppliers?
I wonder if Apple's ever demonstrated any ability to negotiate good terms from suppliers?
Part of that is by negotiating with the more desperate. Hence a chance that Apple will not go with Verizon and a chance that Apple never seriously considered Verizon but instead used them against AT&T to get a better deal.
Verizon does some pretty shady nickel and diming, but is Pogue?s analysis accurate? He states "This fee drops slowly over time ($10 a month), but after two years, it?s still $110.?, implying hat even after the contract is fulfilled you still that $110 unless you keep your phone for another 6 months. AT&T starts the fee at $175 and drops the fee by $5 per month so that it would also take 2.5 to complete, but if you finish your contract you are free and clear. Is there an actual policy change that shows that you still owe the $110 when before the $60 would have been dropped once you finished your contract?
That definitely seemed to be what he was implying. It's possible the point was that if you cancel a month early, you pay $120, but that it should go down so that it would only be 1/24th of the total. But, if it doesn't go to $0, that would be another 11 months, not 6.
Part of that is by negotiating with the more desperate. Hence a chance that Apple will not go with Verizon and a chance that Apple never seriously considered Verizon but instead used them against AT&T to get a better deal.
He was stating that from his research, the number of iPhones pre sold wasn't meeting expectations.
And it wasn't predictable.
Easy for an armchair analyst like yourself to say so afterwards.
Yeah, it was predictable because you don't do good business in China playing by their rules. Millions of iPhones will probably be sold in China using the vast networks of criminal gangs that control the country and its industries. Apple will sell the iPhones but not the "official" way. Just like a great proportion of China's overall retail market, which is an opaque system with a network of "guanxi" behind everything (see the decade-old film Red Corner).
It doesn't mean Apple is a failure in China. They are selling a lot of phones there. There is no impact on Apple stock. It is at an all-time high.
Regarding Verizon, OMG people. It is an incremental GOLDMINE with MILLIONS of loyal customers and the nation's best network. How can you not make big profits bringing iPhone to them.... this is a much bigger revenue source than iPhones in China. Possibly, a continuous revenue source for Apple lasting many years. It's a huge deal. Apple can jolly well solder up some CDMA phones to collect several BILLION dollars in extra revenue. They have done it before. They have shown they can manufacture what they need.
That definitely seemed to be what he was implying. It's possible the point was that if you cancel a month early, you pay $120, but that it should go down so that it would only be 1/24th of the total. But, if it doesn't go to $0, that would be another 11 months, not 6.
Both my iPhone 3G and Sierra Wireless 3G USB card from AT&T had the $175 early termination fee. The difference being that my iPhone?s cancelation fee dropped by $5 each month while my USb card stayed constant so if canceled a day before the contract ended I was due to pay the full fee.
The difference was a policy change. I had signed up for the USB card a couple months before that went into effect. I went into the contract fulling knowing the consequences of the cancelation. As I recall, Verizon was the first I can recall to initiate this quasi-protation in early termination fees and AT&T were the ones who followed suit.
I don?t think anything should require it to be a direct 1:1 ratio of the fee. Don?t get me wrong, it would be nice and I think the $350 Verizon is starting now is extreme, but it?s their choice and the monthly drop is better then we had 2 years ago from carriers yet I don?t recall this ever being an issue.
Knowing full well what my contractual obligations are I can choose not to sign up if I don?t like the terms. I see nothing wrong with part of Verizon?s effort to make money. The other stuff in the article is less honest.
PS: As an AT&T customer I have more concerned that they will follow suit. What AT&T pays Apple for the iPhone is more than the cost you pay AT&T plus the early termination fee. For this reason I we may very well see an increase from AT&T for these highly subsidized devices. I am part of the problem. I bought several iPhones which I canceled almost immediately paying the $175 fee. Completely legal but found a hole in their system to get the devices for a decent profit unlocked. If I were running AT&T I?d be raising the fee, too, but I?d also be make the monthly fee drop by 1/24th.
Verizon has ev-do phones for a couple of years now --- you don't see much complaining from people at all. The issue is academic in nature, driving mostly in part by fanbois.
In 3 months or 6 months, you are going to see millions of Android phones on the Verizon network --- and you probably won't see much complaining about this apparent technical weakness in real life either.
Yeah, you have a half-dozen posts defending Verizon and their EVDO A network, yet somehow we're the fanboys?
Twice this week I've put a phone call on speakerphone while doing a Google search.
If Verizon users don't complain about not being able to do a Google search while talking on the Google phone, it's only because they don't know that it should be possible and that they are only limited because Verizon won't or can't roll out EVDO B. And AT&T is missing a huge marketing opportunity if they don't exploit it.
Of course, by that time the Verizon users will be stuck with their technologically inferior Verizon EVDO A 3G network because Verizon will charge them $350 to cancel their 2 year contract early.
Just having a CDMA iPhone would cheapen the entire franchise and kill off a large degree of cool. CDMA is tired, and Apple doesn't need to be pandering to has-been networks.
I seriously doubt there will be a verizon only iPhone. CDMA is a dead technology.
Calling a technology dead when its the majority is a little pre-mature dont you think?
There are far more CDMA subscribers than GSM subscribers in the US. I know your going to tout this and that about how things will be in 3, 5, 10 years, but whatever. The fact is there are MORE CDMA users than GSM in the US and it will be years before that changes.
Just having a CDMA iPhone would cheapen the entire franchise and kill off a large degree of cool. CDMA is tired, and Apple doesn't need to be pandering to has-been networks.
Yea I agree its is sooo tired. I mean its 3g network only blankets the entire country and has for YEARS. in 5 years the US GSM 3g/4g network still wont cover what the 3g CDMA network does in 2008.
Part of that is by negotiating with the more desperate. Hence a chance that Apple will not go with Verizon and a chance that Apple never seriously considered Verizon but instead used them against AT&T to get a better deal.
I agree 100%. You have a better chance of the Cubs SWEEPING the playoffs next year with Crazy Ole Uncle Milton on the team than of you seeing a Verizon iPhone EVER. (and that's after the LTE rollout to current 3G coverage.)
If Apple could negotiate a fairly sweet deal with Verizon, I don't see why they wouldn't produce a CDMA iPhone in order to sell more phones in the US. At some point, almost everyone who is willing to switch to AT&T in order to get the iPhone will have done so, and this seems like the next natural step to keep driving sales.
As far as CDMA being dead, it will still take several years to phase out and replace. I'm sure at some level Apple would rather not fool with CDMA, but at the same time it's hard to ignore the millions of potential customers there. Considering that Apple did it with the 2G/3G iPhone, I'm sure they would have no issue with selling consumers a CDMA phone for a year or two, and then selling them another LTE phone when it becomes available. I'm sure most consumers would probably fork over the cash and go along with it as well.
As far as a "dual-mode" phone, isn't Qualcomm one of the patent holders for CDMA? I could understand how it would be in their best interest to milk CDMA as long as possible. But I seriously doubt Apple would make ALL iPhones with a dual-mode chipset, and have to pay Qualcomm CDMA royalties for millions of iPhones shipped internationally that will never see a single CDMA signal.
Just having a CDMA iPhone would cheapen the entire franchise and kill off a large degree of cool. CDMA is tired, and Apple doesn't need to be pandering to has-been networks.
Considering that the meat of AT&T's current lawsuit against Verizon is that most consumers don't understand the difference between 3G and non-3G, I seriously doubt that most consumers really understand CDMA vs GSM. They just care about whether or not the phone works with their service, and how well it works in their area.
Prior to the iPhone, the word "GSM" in the US was relatively unknown, and those who were familiar with it probably thought it was some strange abbreviation for "Nokia". Apple brings its own cool factor to whatever technology it embraces, just ask the PowerPC guys...
Comments
That's probably because most people on the Verizon network don't realize that it's even possible, on any network.
This capability adds tremendously to the value of the iPhone on GSM, and though I never had the capability before, I use it all the time (on the web while on a phone call), and I would not be happy at all to discover I had lost it. I also wouldn't be very happy if someone else with the "same" phone had it and I didn't. Brings new meaning to the phrase "paperweight mode" if your phone turns into one for data service just because you are on a call.
There are going to be a million things that are going to be different.
You are going to have a much faster uplink and lower latency with a ev-do rev A iphone --- which has a lot more potential on the app side. And you are going to be able to connect to an actual 3G network.
Much better than not even getting a telephone signal with the AT&T network --- now that's real paperweight mode.
Yeah, check out this article by David Pogue:
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/...ou-charge-now/
Apart from hitting people with bogus data charges that their phones are designed to produce more of, the real kicker is that with the $350 "early termination" fee, which decreases at $10 per month, you still have a $110 "early termination" fee at the end of your contract, if you leave or get a new phone.
Verizon does some pretty shady nickel and diming, but is Pogue?s analysis accurate? He states "This fee drops slowly over time ($10 a month), but after two years, it?s still $110.?, implying hat even after the contract is fulfilled you still that $110 unless you keep your phone for another 6 months. AT&T starts the fee at $175 and drops the fee by $5 per month so that it would also take 2.5 to complete, but if you finish your contract you are free and clear. Is there an actual policy change that shows that you still owe the $110 when before the $60 would have been dropped once you finished your contract?
I seriously doubt there will be a verizon only iPhone. CDMA is a dead technology.
Doesn't matter. CDMA is going to be around for at least a few more years. Whatever engineering costs Apple has developing a CDMA-only iPhone will be nothing compared to the profit they can make on a CDMA iPhone in the short term. Very likely the RF/antenna design would be designed to accommodate the new radio chipset so at some point in the future they merge the production back into one line. If you look at Apple's other product lines it's not uncommon for them to produce hardware for a short period of time before a new design takes over. This would be no different.
The chip in the Storm/Tour can work in the iPhone in the same space as the current 3G chips and without any additional power drain? I think we need to consider some other physical differences in the chips. The iPhone and Storm/Tour are note exactly the same level of device. That is without even considering what Qualcomm charges for the use of the CDMA/CDMA2000 radios. i?ve read that beside basic costs they also want 5.5% of the gross revenue from each device.
.
I wonder if Apple's ever demonstrated any ability to negotiate good terms from suppliers?
I wonder if Apple's ever demonstrated any ability to negotiate good terms from suppliers?
Apple negotiate great terms --- by going after 2nd string suppliers like Infineon, which has like a single digit market share.
I wonder if Apple's ever demonstrated any ability to negotiate good terms from suppliers?
Part of that is by negotiating with the more desperate. Hence a chance that Apple will not go with Verizon and a chance that Apple never seriously considered Verizon but instead used them against AT&T to get a better deal.
Much better than not even getting a telephone signal with the AT&T network
Well, I haven't really had any problems with that to date, GSM is just a better technology for the iPhone.
Verizon does some pretty shady nickel and diming, but is Pogue?s analysis accurate? He states "This fee drops slowly over time ($10 a month), but after two years, it?s still $110.?, implying hat even after the contract is fulfilled you still that $110 unless you keep your phone for another 6 months. AT&T starts the fee at $175 and drops the fee by $5 per month so that it would also take 2.5 to complete, but if you finish your contract you are free and clear. Is there an actual policy change that shows that you still owe the $110 when before the $60 would have been dropped once you finished your contract?
That definitely seemed to be what he was implying. It's possible the point was that if you cancel a month early, you pay $120, but that it should go down so that it would only be 1/24th of the total. But, if it doesn't go to $0, that would be another 11 months, not 6.
Part of that is by negotiating with the more desperate. Hence a chance that Apple will not go with Verizon and a chance that Apple never seriously considered Verizon but instead used them against AT&T to get a better deal.
... and is still using them.
He was stating that from his research, the number of iPhones pre sold wasn't meeting expectations.
And it wasn't predictable.
Easy for an armchair analyst like yourself to say so afterwards.
Yeah, it was predictable because you don't do good business in China playing by their rules. Millions of iPhones will probably be sold in China using the vast networks of criminal gangs that control the country and its industries. Apple will sell the iPhones but not the "official" way. Just like a great proportion of China's overall retail market, which is an opaque system with a network of "guanxi" behind everything (see the decade-old film Red Corner).
It doesn't mean Apple is a failure in China. They are selling a lot of phones there. There is no impact on Apple stock. It is at an all-time high.
Regarding Verizon, OMG people. It is an incremental GOLDMINE with MILLIONS of loyal customers and the nation's best network. How can you not make big profits bringing iPhone to them.... this is a much bigger revenue source than iPhones in China. Possibly, a continuous revenue source for Apple lasting many years. It's a huge deal. Apple can jolly well solder up some CDMA phones to collect several BILLION dollars in extra revenue. They have done it before. They have shown they can manufacture what they need.
That definitely seemed to be what he was implying. It's possible the point was that if you cancel a month early, you pay $120, but that it should go down so that it would only be 1/24th of the total. But, if it doesn't go to $0, that would be another 11 months, not 6.
Both my iPhone 3G and Sierra Wireless 3G USB card from AT&T had the $175 early termination fee. The difference being that my iPhone?s cancelation fee dropped by $5 each month while my USb card stayed constant so if canceled a day before the contract ended I was due to pay the full fee.
The difference was a policy change. I had signed up for the USB card a couple months before that went into effect. I went into the contract fulling knowing the consequences of the cancelation. As I recall, Verizon was the first I can recall to initiate this quasi-protation in early termination fees and AT&T were the ones who followed suit.
I don?t think anything should require it to be a direct 1:1 ratio of the fee. Don?t get me wrong, it would be nice and I think the $350 Verizon is starting now is extreme, but it?s their choice and the monthly drop is better then we had 2 years ago from carriers yet I don?t recall this ever being an issue.
Knowing full well what my contractual obligations are I can choose not to sign up if I don?t like the terms. I see nothing wrong with part of Verizon?s effort to make money. The other stuff in the article is less honest.
PS: As an AT&T customer I have more concerned that they will follow suit. What AT&T pays Apple for the iPhone is more than the cost you pay AT&T plus the early termination fee. For this reason I we may very well see an increase from AT&T for these highly subsidized devices. I am part of the problem. I bought several iPhones which I canceled almost immediately paying the $175 fee. Completely legal but found a hole in their system to get the devices for a decent profit unlocked. If I were running AT&T I?d be raising the fee, too, but I?d also be make the monthly fee drop by 1/24th.
Web browsing is bursty in data consumption.
Verizon has ev-do phones for a couple of years now --- you don't see much complaining from people at all. The issue is academic in nature, driving mostly in part by fanbois.
In 3 months or 6 months, you are going to see millions of Android phones on the Verizon network --- and you probably won't see much complaining about this apparent technical weakness in real life either.
Yeah, you have a half-dozen posts defending Verizon and their EVDO A network, yet somehow we're the fanboys?
Twice this week I've put a phone call on speakerphone while doing a Google search.
If Verizon users don't complain about not being able to do a Google search while talking on the Google phone, it's only because they don't know that it should be possible and that they are only limited because Verizon won't or can't roll out EVDO B. And AT&T is missing a huge marketing opportunity if they don't exploit it.
Of course, by that time the Verizon users will be stuck with their technologically inferior Verizon EVDO A 3G network because Verizon will charge them $350 to cancel their 2 year contract early.
I seriously doubt there will be a verizon only iPhone. CDMA is a dead technology.
Calling a technology dead when its the majority is a little pre-mature dont you think?
There are far more CDMA subscribers than GSM subscribers in the US. I know your going to tout this and that about how things will be in 3, 5, 10 years, but whatever. The fact is there are MORE CDMA users than GSM in the US and it will be years before that changes.
Just having a CDMA iPhone would cheapen the entire franchise and kill off a large degree of cool. CDMA is tired, and Apple doesn't need to be pandering to has-been networks.
Yea I agree its is sooo tired. I mean its 3g network only blankets the entire country and has for YEARS. in 5 years the US GSM 3g/4g network still wont cover what the 3g CDMA network does in 2008.
Part of that is by negotiating with the more desperate. Hence a chance that Apple will not go with Verizon and a chance that Apple never seriously considered Verizon but instead used them against AT&T to get a better deal.
I agree 100%. You have a better chance of the Cubs SWEEPING the playoffs next year with Crazy Ole Uncle Milton on the team than of you seeing a Verizon iPhone EVER. (and that's after the LTE rollout to current 3G coverage.)
As far as CDMA being dead, it will still take several years to phase out and replace. I'm sure at some level Apple would rather not fool with CDMA, but at the same time it's hard to ignore the millions of potential customers there. Considering that Apple did it with the 2G/3G iPhone, I'm sure they would have no issue with selling consumers a CDMA phone for a year or two, and then selling them another LTE phone when it becomes available. I'm sure most consumers would probably fork over the cash and go along with it as well.
As far as a "dual-mode" phone, isn't Qualcomm one of the patent holders for CDMA? I could understand how it would be in their best interest to milk CDMA as long as possible. But I seriously doubt Apple would make ALL iPhones with a dual-mode chipset, and have to pay Qualcomm CDMA royalties for millions of iPhones shipped internationally that will never see a single CDMA signal.
Just having a CDMA iPhone would cheapen the entire franchise and kill off a large degree of cool. CDMA is tired, and Apple doesn't need to be pandering to has-been networks.
Considering that the meat of AT&T's current lawsuit against Verizon is that most consumers don't understand the difference between 3G and non-3G, I seriously doubt that most consumers really understand CDMA vs GSM. They just care about whether or not the phone works with their service, and how well it works in their area.
Prior to the iPhone, the word "GSM" in the US was relatively unknown, and those who were familiar with it probably thought it was some strange abbreviation for "Nokia". Apple brings its own cool factor to whatever technology it embraces, just ask the PowerPC guys...
Google is expected to launch a self branded smartphone by year end followed by a netbook early next year.
Google has already denied that.