I said so before. Here. I won't even bother to give you a link. You know nothing about me to make stupid statements like 'armchair analysts.' What is this analyst? Certified? Non-armchair?
Get off your high-horse.
You're just making an observation based on hindsight. You can't present it as being credible.
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.
Not really. Apple has the volume to negotiate good prices, and the cash to guarantee it.
When they give Samsung or Toshiba a half billion to guarantee supply and pricing, it's not dealing with a second tier vendor. They deal with the vendors who have what they want. It's also possible that some of these companies will be willing to make minor mods to their chips because of the volume.
What isn't realized is that even Intel, with its 250 million in chip sales every year doesn't actually have that much volume in any one chip, because they have so very many. So when selling to Apple, who uses the same chip in all of its products, the volume is very large for that one design.
I would imagine that in Apple's own chips which we'll hopefully be seeing next year, the volumes will be even greater, as iPhone/Touch sales will be higher, possibly as much as 52 million for the both. I doubt that even Intel has that high a volume on any individual chip.
What I'm wondering is who Apple will will be using to manufacture that chip.
Samsung seems a likely choice as they make the ones Apple has been using. But there are a couple more foundries that can make chips in that volume that have experience with ARMs.
Of course, it's even possible that Apple approached Intel. They used to do contract chips. If Apple says that we'll give you over 50 million chips to make this year at $10 to $15 a chip, that would be a very large order even for them. But then, the next year could be for 70 million, the year after 90 million etc.
Companies would be beating down Apple's doors for that business.
If Apple's rumored tablet is coming out next quarter sometime, and it used Apple's own chip(s), then they would have had to been sent out for preproduction runs months ago. Even if Apple won't be using them until June with the new iPhone, they need to have them now, which means that someone is already manufacturing them in small quantities at least.
But we haven't heard a word about it, which is surprising. Unless Apple won't have them ready in 2010.
Actually, all that I was pointing out was the mess our "analyst" friend Kumar made on Baron's blog.
I have sources inside Qualcomm that say Kumar's sources aren't as good as mine, and I live in San Diego. They also say there will be chicken served in the cafeteria tomorrow, but they're not sure if it will be in curry or soup, it would be a "stretch," but don't rule out chicken salad. Get my point?
Obviously, you didn't. Ashok Kumar = FUD... martini = "analyst"
Well they replaced my MotoQ work cell phone with a Samsung Intrepid with WinMo 6.5 today...
The problem with having an iPhone as my personal cell phone is that you really get a feel for how bad the UX is on other platforms. Stylus? Really? A throwback to the 90's (ala Palm)? Are they serious? This is what MS has been working on since the iPhone was first released?
The Droid might turn out to be a worthy iPhone competitor, but WinMO 6.5 phones are DOA.
Thanks for the link. I found this PDF a little more digestible. I have doubt for Apple going that route for several years. After all, we just got 7.2 HSDPA in the 3GS, have no HSUPA, there are no cellular modems with LTE that I know of, and the networks that would use this mostly haven?t even been built yet.
I don't get the whole "CDMA-only" comments. Just about all new Blackberries for VerizonWireless's network are worldphone capable. Maybe someone can explain why Apple wouldn't produce a VZW phone that's worldphone capable???
1) They don't need to.
2) More SKU's increase costs. Apple is successful because of their strict inventory management and their simplified product line.
Those are the main two. There have been many other really good articles linked as to why Verizon probably won't be getting the iPhone until 2012 or beyond, and I happen to agree.
, Verizon will continue to be the king of the carrier networks.
Enjoy saying that while you can - Verizon has been maintaining their growth through acquisitions. Not many more companies for them to buy up. At some point they are going to need something more then "the network" to set them apart - AT&T and others aren't just sitting still.
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.
The issue is academic because before the iPhone the mobile browsing experience was hideous and people simply didn't do it. If I had realized just how significantly better the iPhone was then my Windows Mobile device, would have cheerfully paid the early termination fee. Want to talk about overpriced - pay smartphone data plan but have phones that are so horrible they aren't really even useable. The iPhone is a freaking bargain...
Quote:
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.
Wanna bet? If android is decent at all for web browsing, it's going to stick out very quickly.
What good are background apps if data screeches to a halt while you are on the phone? I can hear the complaining about the free turn by turn in google maps halting as soon as you get a call (or soon after - they do cache a little).
I say bring on Android. It will be good for Verizon to have a phone they aren't strictly controlling and that will put the first real strain on their network. Time to put up or shut up - it should be fun to watch.
The issue is academic because before the iPhone the mobile browsing experience was hideous and people simply didn't do it. If I had realized just how significantly better the iPhone was then my Windows Mobile device, would have cheerfully paid the early termination fee. Want to talk about overpriced - pay smartphone data plan but have phones that are so horrible they aren't really even useable. The iPhone is a freaking bargain...
Wanna bet? If android is decent at all for web browsing, it's going to stick out very quickly.
What good are background apps if data screeches to a halt while you are on the phone? I can hear the complaining about the free turn by turn in google maps halting as soon as you get a call (or soon after - they do cache a little).
I say bring on Android. It will be good for Verizon to have a phone they aren't strictly controlling and that will put the first real strain on their network. Time to put up or shut up - it should be fun to watch.
There are zillions of journalists reviewing "iphone killers" for the last few years and these people basically hated the LG Voyager, the Blackberry Storm... And they hated a million things on these Verizon smartphones --- yet you won't find any journalist hating these phones because they cannot talk and do data at the same time.
Verizon has been selling their VZ Navigator for YEARS (which also depends on the data network to stream maps) --- zero complaints from people about not getting driving directions because they accepted a phone call while driving.
Enjoy saying that while you can - Verizon has been maintaining their growth through acquisitions. Not many more companies for them to buy up. At some point they are going to need something more then "the network" to set them apart - AT&T and others aren't just sitting still.
You are actually wrong.
Since Cingular Wireless swallowed up AT&T Wireless in 2004 (to 2007 iphone launch) --- Verizon Wireless has been growing faster than the Cingular/AT&T combo.
After the 2007 iphone launch, Verizon Wireless has been growing faster than ATT Wireless on the retail net adds. ATT Wireless only "beat" Verizon Wireless since 2007 when they included the "wholesale" net subscriber additions (Tracfone prepaid subscribers that paid an average $15 a month).
In Q3, after you take out the Tracfone numbers, ATT only beat Verizon Wireless by 200K net subscriber additions. This is a full quarter for the iphone launch for ATT and this is a quarter for Verizon without a Palm Pixi or an Android. Just imagine when ATT doesn't have the iphone exclusivity anymore.
It's Verizon's choice not to focus on cheap prepaid MVNO wholesale subscribers that has a $15 ARPU. It's a desperate move for AT&T to actually focus on these cheap subscribers.
2) More SKU's increase costs. Apple is successful because of their strict inventory management and their simplified product line.
Those are the main two. There have been many other really good articles linked as to why Verizon probably won't be getting the iPhone until 2012 or beyond, and I happen to agree.
Yes, they don't need to.
Sure, making a separate CDMA iphone will increase cost, but that's not going to matter much for a company that has a 50% gross margin on the iphone.
Ummm... Everything is doubtful in this article. CDMA iPhone on Qualcomm chips? Very unlikely.
LTE+WCDMA iPhone coming looks more probable. Infineon's or Broadcom's transceivers inside. (Samsung's one? who knows?) And Verizon (and others) are indeed capable of rolling out LTE infrastructure by the fall of 2010.
Comments
I said so before. Here. I won't even bother to give you a link. You know nothing about me to make stupid statements like 'armchair analysts.' What is this analyst? Certified? Non-armchair?
Get off your high-horse.
You're just making an observation based on hindsight. You can't present it as being credible.
If you did say it before, that's different.
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.
Not really. Apple has the volume to negotiate good prices, and the cash to guarantee it.
When they give Samsung or Toshiba a half billion to guarantee supply and pricing, it's not dealing with a second tier vendor. They deal with the vendors who have what they want. It's also possible that some of these companies will be willing to make minor mods to their chips because of the volume.
What isn't realized is that even Intel, with its 250 million in chip sales every year doesn't actually have that much volume in any one chip, because they have so very many. So when selling to Apple, who uses the same chip in all of its products, the volume is very large for that one design.
I would imagine that in Apple's own chips which we'll hopefully be seeing next year, the volumes will be even greater, as iPhone/Touch sales will be higher, possibly as much as 52 million for the both. I doubt that even Intel has that high a volume on any individual chip.
What I'm wondering is who Apple will will be using to manufacture that chip.
Samsung seems a likely choice as they make the ones Apple has been using. But there are a couple more foundries that can make chips in that volume that have experience with ARMs.
Of course, it's even possible that Apple approached Intel. They used to do contract chips. If Apple says that we'll give you over 50 million chips to make this year at $10 to $15 a chip, that would be a very large order even for them. But then, the next year could be for 70 million, the year after 90 million etc.
Companies would be beating down Apple's doors for that business.
If Apple's rumored tablet is coming out next quarter sometime, and it used Apple's own chip(s), then they would have had to been sent out for preproduction runs months ago. Even if Apple won't be using them until June with the new iPhone, they need to have them now, which means that someone is already manufacturing them in small quantities at least.
But we haven't heard a word about it, which is surprising. Unless Apple won't have them ready in 2010.
I would totally disregard all of this. Its from Qualcomm, they are a fatally biased source.
The only thing that's here from Qualcomm, is that they announced new chips that will be going out for sampling in 2010.
How is that something to disregard as a biased source? Manufacturers have press releases like this constantly when new products are announced.
The only thing that's here from Qualcomm, is that they announced new chips that will be going out for sampling in 2010.
How is that something to disregard as a biased source? Manufacturers have press releases like this constantly when new products are announced.
Google has already denied that.
You are correct. That was a direct quote from "analyst" Ashok Kumar and you bit.
You are correct. That was a direct quote from "analyst" Ashok Kumar and you bit.
What are you talking about?
Actually, all that I was pointing out was the mess our "analyst" friend Kumar made on Baron's blog.
I have sources inside Qualcomm that say Kumar's sources aren't as good as mine, and I live in San Diego. They also say there will be chicken served in the cafeteria tomorrow, but they're not sure if it will be in curry or soup, it would be a "stretch," but don't rule out chicken salad. Get my point?
Obviously, you didn't. Ashok Kumar = FUD... martini = "analyst"
The problem with having an iPhone as my personal cell phone is that you really get a feel for how bad the UX is on other platforms. Stylus? Really? A throwback to the 90's (ala Palm)? Are they serious? This is what MS has been working on since the iPhone was first released?
The Droid might turn out to be a worthy iPhone competitor, but WinMO 6.5 phones are DOA.
http://www.qualcomm.com/news/release...rys_First.html
I meant to post this a couple of days ago, but forgot. Better late than never:
http://www.qualcomm.com/news/release...rys_First.html
Thanks for the link. I found this PDF a little more digestible. I have doubt for Apple going that route for several years. After all, we just got 7.2 HSDPA in the 3GS, have no HSUPA, there are no cellular modems with LTE that I know of, and the networks that would use this mostly haven?t even been built yet.
The only thing that's here from Qualcomm, is that they announced new chips that will be going out for sampling in 2010.
How is that something to disregard as a biased source? Manufacturers have press releases like this constantly when new products are announced.
they are just pushing a chip that they want to sell to apple
does cdma have a future, NO, gsm, lte is the future why pay qualcomme for transition piece
they are just pushing a chip that they want to sell to apple
does cdma have a future, NO, gsm, lte is the future why pay qualcomme for transition piece
They're pushing a new chip that they want to sell to anyone who will buy it.
I don't get the whole "CDMA-only" comments. Just about all new Blackberries for VerizonWireless's network are worldphone capable. Maybe someone can explain why Apple wouldn't produce a VZW phone that's worldphone capable???
1) They don't need to.
2) More SKU's increase costs. Apple is successful because of their strict inventory management and their simplified product line.
Those are the main two. There have been many other really good articles linked as to why Verizon probably won't be getting the iPhone until 2012 or beyond, and I happen to agree.
, Verizon will continue to be the king of the carrier networks.
Enjoy saying that while you can - Verizon has been maintaining their growth through acquisitions. Not many more companies for them to buy up. At some point they are going to need something more then "the network" to set them apart - AT&T and others aren't just sitting still.
a little competition will help keep Apple on their toes.
These statements always fascinate me - where the heck was the rest of the industry before the iPhone?
If the competition is doing so great, why are they all chasing the iPhone? Who needs to be on their toes exactly?
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.
The issue is academic because before the iPhone the mobile browsing experience was hideous and people simply didn't do it. If I had realized just how significantly better the iPhone was then my Windows Mobile device, would have cheerfully paid the early termination fee. Want to talk about overpriced - pay smartphone data plan but have phones that are so horrible they aren't really even useable. The iPhone is a freaking bargain...
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.
Wanna bet? If android is decent at all for web browsing, it's going to stick out very quickly.
What good are background apps if data screeches to a halt while you are on the phone? I can hear the complaining about the free turn by turn in google maps halting as soon as you get a call (or soon after - they do cache a little).
I say bring on Android. It will be good for Verizon to have a phone they aren't strictly controlling and that will put the first real strain on their network. Time to put up or shut up - it should be fun to watch.
The issue is academic because before the iPhone the mobile browsing experience was hideous and people simply didn't do it. If I had realized just how significantly better the iPhone was then my Windows Mobile device, would have cheerfully paid the early termination fee. Want to talk about overpriced - pay smartphone data plan but have phones that are so horrible they aren't really even useable. The iPhone is a freaking bargain...
Wanna bet? If android is decent at all for web browsing, it's going to stick out very quickly.
What good are background apps if data screeches to a halt while you are on the phone? I can hear the complaining about the free turn by turn in google maps halting as soon as you get a call (or soon after - they do cache a little).
I say bring on Android. It will be good for Verizon to have a phone they aren't strictly controlling and that will put the first real strain on their network. Time to put up or shut up - it should be fun to watch.
There are zillions of journalists reviewing "iphone killers" for the last few years and these people basically hated the LG Voyager, the Blackberry Storm... And they hated a million things on these Verizon smartphones --- yet you won't find any journalist hating these phones because they cannot talk and do data at the same time.
Verizon has been selling their VZ Navigator for YEARS (which also depends on the data network to stream maps) --- zero complaints from people about not getting driving directions because they accepted a phone call while driving.
Enjoy saying that while you can - Verizon has been maintaining their growth through acquisitions. Not many more companies for them to buy up. At some point they are going to need something more then "the network" to set them apart - AT&T and others aren't just sitting still.
You are actually wrong.
Since Cingular Wireless swallowed up AT&T Wireless in 2004 (to 2007 iphone launch) --- Verizon Wireless has been growing faster than the Cingular/AT&T combo.
After the 2007 iphone launch, Verizon Wireless has been growing faster than ATT Wireless on the retail net adds. ATT Wireless only "beat" Verizon Wireless since 2007 when they included the "wholesale" net subscriber additions (Tracfone prepaid subscribers that paid an average $15 a month).
In Q3, after you take out the Tracfone numbers, ATT only beat Verizon Wireless by 200K net subscriber additions. This is a full quarter for the iphone launch for ATT and this is a quarter for Verizon without a Palm Pixi or an Android. Just imagine when ATT doesn't have the iphone exclusivity anymore.
It's Verizon's choice not to focus on cheap prepaid MVNO wholesale subscribers that has a $15 ARPU. It's a desperate move for AT&T to actually focus on these cheap subscribers.
1) They don't need to.
2) More SKU's increase costs. Apple is successful because of their strict inventory management and their simplified product line.
Those are the main two. There have been many other really good articles linked as to why Verizon probably won't be getting the iPhone until 2012 or beyond, and I happen to agree.
Yes, they don't need to.
Sure, making a separate CDMA iphone will increase cost, but that's not going to matter much for a company that has a 50% gross margin on the iphone.
LTE+WCDMA iPhone coming looks more probable. Infineon's or Broadcom's transceivers inside. (Samsung's one? who knows?) And Verizon (and others) are indeed capable of rolling out LTE infrastructure by the fall of 2010.
TV frequencies are freed everywhere right now.