honestly i think its a load of crap, i had backgrounder back when i had my first gen touch and it ran just fine without murdering the battery life using AIM and facebook and a couple other apps, and they could easily set x2 home presses to pull up multi-tasking when the screen is on, while some use this as a shortcut for the ipod, id rather have it set up like this and be able to control music via the volume buttons (hold up to skip song rather than cranking the volume up) like the blackberry
It?s not a load of crap. I have currently use Backgrounder and have used it since it came out. Just like the Cycorder technically being able to make the iPhone have a video camera, it?s far from ideal. Having the technical ability does not mean a consumer device should automatically get the feature. The most important app is the one you are running in the foreground. If that isn?t working as it should then you shouldn?t be running background apps.
If you?ve jailbroken your iPhone you would know that the original and 3G iPhones have 128MB RAM. That running iPhone OS X uses about half of that and trying to use multiple built-in apps already slows down the system enough where the iPod freezes/skip and leaving Safari for even a second or switching between Safari tabs would cause the page to reload. It simply didn?t have enough RAM to even begin to let any and all 3rd-party apps run in the background without.
I?m certain that iPhone OS v4.0 will bring 3rd-party background apps to the 3GS and the model coming next year. The original and 3G won?t get it. I think the most likely setup will be a Settings option, like Notifications, that any apps that include the background API will get a toggle switch for you turn on and off so when you press the Home Button that/those apps and only that/those app/s will run in the background. A Menu Bar item will then be added to remind you that you do have an app running in the background. Since a background app can?t adversely affect what it going on with the foreground app there will have to be a maximum resource limit for an app running in background mode.
I fully understand your point and it makes a lot of sense. I guess I'm just frugal. I do wonder though. How bad is it really to have a new number?
depends on what you use it for. if its a business number, its incredibly important. sometimes its just a good number (like ends in 7100 or something simple like that) and its too good to give up. other people... just dont like change and to change their number is like asking to cut off a hand.
I fully understand your point and it makes a lot of sense. I guess I'm just frugal. I do wonder though. How bad is it really to have a new number?
Two data points:
? I got my iPhone a month before my Sprint contract ended, because I just couldn't wait any longer. (I was going on a vacation to Hawaii, and - damn it! - I wanted the iPhone when I went there.) For me, the new number wasn't that big of deal, so I just did basically what you are suggesting (without the call forwarding). A month later, I closed the Sprint account and bid adieu to the old number.
? My wife wanted an iPhone too, but she absolutely refused to change phone numbers (and became upset when I quizzed her as to why). We tried to look into some of the available workarounds for her, but ultimately it was such a pain in the butt (meanwhile, we are planning and preparing for the vacation) that she just decided to stay with Sprint until the contract was up. Then she got the iPhone and ported her old number in one fell swoop.
Different strokes. Different folks. Same household.
If instead, my wife's previous cell phone had been rendered inoperable at that point in time, I'm not sure what her resolution would have been. I know she doesn't like to dick around with eBay, wait on hold with customer service at Sprint (for call forwarding) or AT&T (for number change) and then Sprint again (to confirm proper account closure). Nor would she have gone to Hawaii phoneless. I somewhat suspect that she would go down the road that the OP did, as financially painful as it is. She's willing to pay a bit for swift resolution and convenience, if we're talking a difference of only $40 here.
If you look at at&t's 3G coverage map in the Verizon ads, you'll notice there is no 3G in the Traverse City area (Northwest of the lower peninsula). There is also only a small amount of 3G in the south central area of Michigan. In fact, there is 3G almost all the way along the I-94 corridor.
I have to wonder if there are other areas of the country that Verizon is not showing accurately. I think they are using an outdated map. If they are I think at&t has a point.
AT&T has never argued that point. Since it would be their strongest point, I'm assuming they don't have any major objections about Verizons depiction of of their 3G coverage. If 3G upgrades are continuous, any map will be out of date, but that would apply to Verizons network too. AT&T is only concerned about the fact that it may appear like there is no cell service the white areas.
It?s not a load of crap. I have currently use Backgrounder and have used it since it came out. Just like the Cycorder technically being able to make the iPhone have a video camera, it?s far from ideal. Having the technical ability does not mean a consumer device should automatically get the feature. The most important app is the one you are running in the foreground. If that isn?t working as it should then you shouldn?t be running background apps.
If you?ve jailbroken your iPhone you would know that the original and 3G iPhones have 128MB RAM. That running iPhone OS X uses about half of that and trying to use multiple built-in apps already slows down the system enough where the iPod freezes/skip and leaving Safari for even a second or switching between Safari tabs would cause the page to reload. It simply didn?t have enough RAM to even begin to let any and all 3rd-party apps run in the background without.
I?m certain that iPhone OS v4.0 will bring 3rd-party background apps to the 3GS and the model coming next year. The original and 3G won?t get it. I think the most likely setup will be a Settings option, like Notifications, that any apps that include the background API will get a toggle switch for you turn on and off so when you press the Home Button that/those apps and only that/those app/s will run in the background. A Menu Bar item will then be added to remind you that you do have an app running in the background. Since a background app can?t adversely affect what it going on with the foreground app there will have to be a maximum resource limit for an app running in background mode.
There is an obvious limit to how many apps you can open up before performance takes a hit, i think most people are too blind to the fact they have so many apps open that you start to get poor performance (try a display blackberry in a store and i bet you'll find 15+ apps running nearly all the time) and then just blame it solely on the phone. I also know that the iphone has 128MB of RAM, but i am going to grill them just like i do RIM, that is a paltry amount and they should know better, RIM has obviously a small app footprint but they already multi-task fully, Apple should have seen this limitation before they even stepped into the market.
thats the 3GS, not the original iphone or the first 3G iphone.
the article even says:
Quote:
T-Mobile Netherlands, the country's iPhone carrier, posted the processor and RAM on their site that Apple's been so cagey about confirming, and it's exactly what we thought: 600MHz CPU (up from 412MHz) and 256MB of RAM, double the previous models.
Here's an idea. Don't expect so much. Multi-tasking, as in people, is in efficient.
I used to have problems with ram. Then i found out you can hold down the home key to exit a program. Like say, mail. Or Safari. Something that doesn't need to run in the background.
There is an obvious limit to how many apps you can open up before performance takes a hit, i think most people are too blind to the fact they have so many apps open that you start to get poor performance (try a display blackberry in a store and i bet you'll find 15+ apps running nearly all the time) and then just blame it solely on the phone.
You understand this but think Apple being Apple even considered background apps out of the gate? Copy/Paste obviously required a completely rewrite an rethinking for finger-based input but other things they didn?t include that they could have because they wanted to start simple and move from there. Yet there were still hiccups.
Quote:
I also know that the iphone has 128MB of RAM, but i am going to grill them just like i do RIM, that is a paltry amount and they should know better, RIM has obviously a small app footprint but they already multi-task fully, Apple should have seen this limitation before they even stepped into the market.
I?d wager that they did know better but they had no intention of adding it that time so it wasn?t a concern. 128MB was just barely enough to use the iPod and Safari and get Mail at the same time. 192MB would have been the ideal minimum and I have yet to see my 3GS push the limits of the RAM at this point.
Wait wait wait, so your telling me you can pull the iphone away from your face, send a SMS while talking, surf the web, and use GPS while on a phone call over speakerphone? Where is that at because id love to try it out on my girlfriends iphone right now.
I also know that the iphone has 128MB of RAM, but i am going to grill them just like i do RIM, that is a paltry amount and they should know better, RIM has obviously a small app footprint but they already multi-task fully, Apple should have seen this limitation before they even stepped into the market.
It's really easy to sit in the peanut gallery and critique decisions, offering up seemingly no-brainer conclusions...
? "Apple should have put 256 MB of RAM and allowed multitasking in the first iPhone... blah blah blah."
The problem is that with a tightly integrated device like the iPhone, there is almost no component choice that doesn't ripple out into a sea of engineering and/or financial trade-offs. It's just not that simple. The same is true of carrier choices, which are rife with political and business ramifications...
? "Apple should have gone with Verizon instead of AT&T because their network is better... blah blah blah."
We sound really naive when we reach conclusions based on woefully incomplete information.
AT&T's rollout of 7.2 is nice, but VZW will have LTE starting next year (about a 30 city roll out) and LTE > HSPA+ by a fucking mile and VZW will have completed its full rollout by 2013, leaving AT&T in the dust.
Let's be a little more explicit: VZW will be starting its LTE conversion starting next year. It's very unlikely that VZW will have completed a total transition to LTE by 2013. They will be stuck with the problem of assuring backward compatibility with their existing CDMA network for a long time, especially in outlying areas. Your assertions conveniently ignore the fact that AT&T will also be rolling out its LTE during that period, although starting slightly later than VZW. However AT&T enjoys the advantage of LTE being backward compatible with its existing data network.
VZW undoubtedly has better network coverage today, but they are also facing a much harder job managing the LTE transition from today's incompatible CDMA technology. This will be somewhat akin to the painful analog to digital switchover of several years ago.
Quote:
Also lets be real here, you can do voice/data at the same time on 3G but that is nil for iphone users seeing as how you cant multitask
That's of course incorrect. The iPhone can and does multitask.
If it didn't, my phone wouldn't ring while I listened to music. As most other people know, Apple keeps a tight leash on multitasking to control iPhone battery life, and while it's legitimate to disagree with the choices they made, they did so for considered reasons.
To address your specific point, Apple certainly does allow voice calling while maintaining active 3G data services in the background. The Mail app will also background, as will certain utility apps such as the timer, the alarm clock and so on. I don't believe that any third party apps are allowed to background other than by using Notification Services.
In my area (Midwest), VZW is the dominant carrier and has very good coverage. However I've been pleasantly surprised with AT&T after switching to them in mid-2008 after many years with VZW. That doesn't negate the problems people in SFO or NYC have with AT&T coverage, but it's incorrect to assume that their problems are everyone's problems. I've also had excellent experiences both with my local AT&T stores and when calling their customer service line.
Lastly it's naive to imagine that, had VZW landed the iPhone instead of AT&T, everything would have been rosy on their network. It's very clear in hindsight that nobody imagined the intensity with which iPhone users would consume cellular data bandwidth. We can't know to what degree, but it's certain that VZW too would have had its share of problems.
Incompetent, no. But to put GSM+CDMA radios into the same space as the current GSM radios for a phone that is the same size, with the same power consumption and same profit is likely impossible with the iPhone 3GS just out a few months now.
If you suggest Apple should would a device extra thick like the world-mode Blackberries, which likely also need a larger battery just to have the same duration do to power overhead and to raise the cost to still maintain profits or simply reduce profits altogether to the high extra feee from Qualcomm, then I?d say it?s improbably due to Apple?s stringent business model.
"Improbable", yes. But a year from now, better chips and better batteries could make things easier.
Let's be a little more explicit: VZW will be starting its LTE conversion starting next year. It's very unlikely that VZW will have completed a total transition to LTE by 2013. They will be stuck with the problem of assuring backward compatibility with their existing CDMA network for a long time, especially in outlying areas. Your assertions conveniently ignore the fact that AT&T will also be rolling out its LTE during that period, although starting slightly later than VZW. However AT&T enjoys the advantage of LTE being backward compatible with its existing data network.
VZW undoubtedly has better network coverage today, but they are also facing a much harder job managing the LTE transition from today's incompatible CDMA technology. This will be somewhat akin to the painful analog to digital switchover of several years ago.
its quite possible vzw will do what they did when they removed analog service. they gave existing customers (a small %.. less than 1%) an option to get digital phones for free without extending/making a new contract. of course, this might be a few years after LTE is out. who knows.
it will be a much bigger challenge for vzw to make the swap to LTE than ATT.
"Improbable", yes. But a year from now, better chips and better batteries could make things easier.
Everything being equal and Apple incuring no additional cost expect for the R&D, then sure, but I don?t think Apple?s legendary negotiating can get Qualcomm to bend on their high licensing costs and their reported 5.5% take of gross handset revenue.
At least, not enough that would satisfy Apple. To make a world-mode phone it?s not just for the phones on Verizon?s and/or Sprint?s network, but they are paying this even if the device is sold to and used on a GSM-based network.
This would mean high worldwide costs unless Apple wants to R&D a different device for the US than the rest of the world, which brings us back to Apple should just go ahead and keep it simple by making a separate CDMA-based iPhone. But then you have a logistics issue with Apple Stores having to stock two version of every device in each capacity and also have a rep from each carrier you?re now doing business with help activate phones. Seems like more than Apple?s boutique-like setup would go for.
Personally, I would much rather have other carriers get the iPhone simply so AT&T can get some alleviation on their network. I think T-Mobile?s 35M customers might be the best bet since it only requires an additional radio, not a different tech with additional licensing fees and already have an alliance with the parent company.
Its impossible for Apple to make one universal phone for all US carriers. Their networks are all too different.
Umm.. sorry. You've been mislead. There are only ( currently ) 2 kinds of networks in the USA. GSM ( almost everyone ) and CDMA ( Verizon & Sprint ) . Every other network "feature" EDGE, iDEN, HSP(U)DA, CMDA2000 EVDO etc are protocols on top of these. And are indeed custom to each network, but the integrated chips put out these days by qualcomm and the like are embedded in many different phone brands. They simply must support all the network features in the chip. It's the firmware that enables or disables features and protocols.
It is indeed not only possible to support multiple networks on one device, it's already being done ( Blackberry "international" class phones contain both CMDA and GSM radios for example).
I don't believe that Apple is likely to sell a phone that is unlocked for all networks, but one model they will sell that will work on all networks. Note the difference?
Quote:
The carriers really want to get out of subsidizing phones. Its not really a good business model for them. That is why Apple and AT&T experimented with revenue sharing.
AT&T ended the revenue sharing model when the 3G came out.
Regardless of whether subsidizing is a good business model or not, it's the only thing the phone companies understand, and it's the only thing that lets them undercut their competitor when Apple is free of its exclusivity contract. Verizon can tout their network, but AT&T can give away the iPhone for free as their counter offer. See what I mean?
Umm.. sorry. You've been mislead. There are only ( currently ) 2 kinds of networks in the USA. GSM ( almost everyone ) and CDMA ( Verizon & Sprint ) . Every other network "feature" EDGE, iDEN, HSP(U)DA, CMDA2000 EVDO etc are protocols on top of these. And are indeed custom to each network, but the integrated chips put out these days by qualcomm and the like are embedded in many different phone brands. They simply must support all the network features in the chip. It's the firmware that enables or disables features and protocols.
It?s more than just the architecture of the network, there are many other considerations that make designing and building world-mode phones less than ideal. If it was a win-win then RiM would simply make every US-bound Blackberry also contain the GSM-based chips, too.
Quote:
I don't believe that Apple is likely to sell a phone that is unlocked for all networks, but one model they will sell that will work on all networks. Note the difference?
Not sure I?m following this, but if you are saying they?ll release a different phone for each US carrier then that bring in a different logistical issue even if it just 2 carriers in total. That would mean Apple stores have to stock 2 version of each iPhone for each capacity. That tends to go against Apple?s usual modus operandi.
Quote:
AT&T ended the revenue sharing model when the 3G came out.
Technically, I recall it being Apple who wanted out of the revenue sharing plan and Apple had to agree to additional exclusivity in order to break out of it.
Now all the carriers are selling heavily subsidized smartphones. They hate this state of affairs — and wish that American consumers would just pay full price for the phones, the way people do in Europe. T-Mobile recently introduced an option for customers to pay a lower monthly bill if they buy their own phones, and even offered to spread the handset cost over two years with no interest charges.
“They are trying to break the model and get away from the big subsidies that are going into these phones,” said John Hodulik, an analyst at UBS Securities. “There is something to that, but I’m not sure it will work because people want their brand-new shiny phones.”
Actions speak louder than words, my friend. And in this case, the carrier's actions shout much louder than the analyst's words in that article (and you are on this board often enough to know what we think of analysts!)
I just went to Verizon's web site to test the analyst's claim in the article you linked to. Picking a simple, basic cell phone, the Moto W755, with a two year contract will get me the phone for free. Or I can purchase the phone outright for $249 and not have a contract. With the two year contract Verizon needs to recoup the cost of subsidizing the phone and giving it to you for free. So, a portion of my cell phone service must go towards that expense. And my month-to-month contract should be cheaper because they don't have to recoup the subsidy. Right?
Well guess what, the monthly service fees are exactly the same for both options! If I paid for my phone outright, it should be $10/month cheaper. Even if we figure the phone is marked up for a profit, and really costs less than $249, let's say half that, my monthly phone bill should be $5/month cheaper. But it's not.
Please explain exactly which part of this is the phone carrier wanting to get out of the practice of subsidizing the cost of phones?
Comments
honestly i think its a load of crap, i had backgrounder back when i had my first gen touch and it ran just fine without murdering the battery life using AIM and facebook and a couple other apps, and they could easily set x2 home presses to pull up multi-tasking when the screen is on, while some use this as a shortcut for the ipod, id rather have it set up like this and be able to control music via the volume buttons (hold up to skip song rather than cranking the volume up) like the blackberry
It?s not a load of crap. I have currently use Backgrounder and have used it since it came out. Just like the Cycorder technically being able to make the iPhone have a video camera, it?s far from ideal. Having the technical ability does not mean a consumer device should automatically get the feature. The most important app is the one you are running in the foreground. If that isn?t working as it should then you shouldn?t be running background apps.
If you?ve jailbroken your iPhone you would know that the original and 3G iPhones have 128MB RAM. That running iPhone OS X uses about half of that and trying to use multiple built-in apps already slows down the system enough where the iPod freezes/skip and leaving Safari for even a second or switching between Safari tabs would cause the page to reload. It simply didn?t have enough RAM to even begin to let any and all 3rd-party apps run in the background without.
I?m certain that iPhone OS v4.0 will bring 3rd-party background apps to the 3GS and the model coming next year. The original and 3G won?t get it. I think the most likely setup will be a Settings option, like Notifications, that any apps that include the background API will get a toggle switch for you turn on and off so when you press the Home Button that/those apps and only that/those app/s will run in the background. A Menu Bar item will then be added to remind you that you do have an app running in the background. Since a background app can?t adversely affect what it going on with the foreground app there will have to be a maximum resource limit for an app running in background mode.
I fully understand your point and it makes a lot of sense. I guess I'm just frugal. I do wonder though. How bad is it really to have a new number?
depends on what you use it for. if its a business number, its incredibly important. sometimes its just a good number (like ends in 7100 or something simple like that) and its too good to give up. other people... just dont like change and to change their number is like asking to cut off a hand.
I fully understand your point and it makes a lot of sense. I guess I'm just frugal. I do wonder though. How bad is it really to have a new number?
Two data points:
? I got my iPhone a month before my Sprint contract ended, because I just couldn't wait any longer. (I was going on a vacation to Hawaii, and - damn it! - I wanted the iPhone when I went there.) For me, the new number wasn't that big of deal, so I just did basically what you are suggesting (without the call forwarding). A month later, I closed the Sprint account and bid adieu to the old number.
? My wife wanted an iPhone too, but she absolutely refused to change phone numbers (and became upset when I quizzed her as to why). We tried to look into some of the available workarounds for her, but ultimately it was such a pain in the butt (meanwhile, we are planning and preparing for the vacation) that she just decided to stay with Sprint until the contract was up. Then she got the iPhone and ported her old number in one fell swoop.
Different strokes. Different folks. Same household.
If instead, my wife's previous cell phone had been rendered inoperable at that point in time, I'm not sure what her resolution would have been. I know she doesn't like to dick around with eBay, wait on hold with customer service at Sprint (for call forwarding) or AT&T (for number change) and then Sprint again (to confirm proper account closure). Nor would she have gone to Hawaii phoneless. I somewhat suspect that she would go down the road that the OP did, as financially painful as it is. She's willing to pay a bit for swift resolution and convenience, if we're talking a difference of only $40 here.
Thompson
If you look at at&t's 3G coverage map in the Verizon ads, you'll notice there is no 3G in the Traverse City area (Northwest of the lower peninsula). There is also only a small amount of 3G in the south central area of Michigan. In fact, there is 3G almost all the way along the I-94 corridor.
I have to wonder if there are other areas of the country that Verizon is not showing accurately. I think they are using an outdated map. If they are I think at&t has a point.
AT&T has never argued that point. Since it would be their strongest point, I'm assuming they don't have any major objections about Verizons depiction of of their 3G coverage. If 3G upgrades are continuous, any map will be out of date, but that would apply to Verizons network too. AT&T is only concerned about the fact that it may appear like there is no cell service the white areas.
It?s not a load of crap. I have currently use Backgrounder and have used it since it came out. Just like the Cycorder technically being able to make the iPhone have a video camera, it?s far from ideal. Having the technical ability does not mean a consumer device should automatically get the feature. The most important app is the one you are running in the foreground. If that isn?t working as it should then you shouldn?t be running background apps.
If you?ve jailbroken your iPhone you would know that the original and 3G iPhones have 128MB RAM. That running iPhone OS X uses about half of that and trying to use multiple built-in apps already slows down the system enough where the iPod freezes/skip and leaving Safari for even a second or switching between Safari tabs would cause the page to reload. It simply didn?t have enough RAM to even begin to let any and all 3rd-party apps run in the background without.
I?m certain that iPhone OS v4.0 will bring 3rd-party background apps to the 3GS and the model coming next year. The original and 3G won?t get it. I think the most likely setup will be a Settings option, like Notifications, that any apps that include the background API will get a toggle switch for you turn on and off so when you press the Home Button that/those apps and only that/those app/s will run in the background. A Menu Bar item will then be added to remind you that you do have an app running in the background. Since a background app can?t adversely affect what it going on with the foreground app there will have to be a maximum resource limit for an app running in background mode.
There is an obvious limit to how many apps you can open up before performance takes a hit, i think most people are too blind to the fact they have so many apps open that you start to get poor performance (try a display blackberry in a store and i bet you'll find 15+ apps running nearly all the time) and then just blame it solely on the phone. I also know that the iphone has 128MB of RAM, but i am going to grill them just like i do RIM, that is a paltry amount and they should know better, RIM has obviously a small app footprint but they already multi-task fully, Apple should have seen this limitation before they even stepped into the market.
http://gizmodo.com/5286031/iphone-3g...0mhz-and-256mb
except the iPhone has 256mb Ram
http://gizmodo.com/5286031/iphone-3g...0mhz-and-256mb
thats the 3GS, not the original iphone or the first 3G iphone.
the article even says:
T-Mobile Netherlands, the country's iPhone carrier, posted the processor and RAM on their site that Apple's been so cagey about confirming, and it's exactly what we thought: 600MHz CPU (up from 412MHz) and 256MB of RAM, double the previous models.
Here's an idea. Don't expect so much. Multi-tasking, as in people, is in efficient.
I used to have problems with ram. Then i found out you can hold down the home key to exit a program. Like say, mail. Or Safari. Something that doesn't need to run in the background.
now you sound like verizon.
considering the other 2 people were talking about the original iphone and the first 3g iphone, you just made yourself look like an idiot. congrats.
There is an obvious limit to how many apps you can open up before performance takes a hit, i think most people are too blind to the fact they have so many apps open that you start to get poor performance (try a display blackberry in a store and i bet you'll find 15+ apps running nearly all the time) and then just blame it solely on the phone.
You understand this but think Apple being Apple even considered background apps out of the gate? Copy/Paste obviously required a completely rewrite an rethinking for finger-based input but other things they didn?t include that they could have because they wanted to start simple and move from there. Yet there were still hiccups.
I also know that the iphone has 128MB of RAM, but i am going to grill them just like i do RIM, that is a paltry amount and they should know better, RIM has obviously a small app footprint but they already multi-task fully, Apple should have seen this limitation before they even stepped into the market.
I?d wager that they did know better but they had no intention of adding it that time so it wasn?t a concern. 128MB was just barely enough to use the iPod and Safari and get Mail at the same time. 192MB would have been the ideal minimum and I have yet to see my 3GS push the limits of the RAM at this point.
except the iPhone has 256mb Ram
http://gizmodo.com/5286031/iphone-3g...0mhz-and-256mb
That is the 3GS, the original and 3G only had 128MB.
Wait wait wait, so your telling me you can pull the iphone away from your face, send a SMS while talking, surf the web, and use GPS while on a phone call over speakerphone? Where is that at because id love to try it out on my girlfriends iphone right now.
Yes. Absolutely.
I also know that the iphone has 128MB of RAM, but i am going to grill them just like i do RIM, that is a paltry amount and they should know better, RIM has obviously a small app footprint but they already multi-task fully, Apple should have seen this limitation before they even stepped into the market.
It's really easy to sit in the peanut gallery and critique decisions, offering up seemingly no-brainer conclusions...
? "Apple should have put 256 MB of RAM and allowed multitasking in the first iPhone... blah blah blah."
The problem is that with a tightly integrated device like the iPhone, there is almost no component choice that doesn't ripple out into a sea of engineering and/or financial trade-offs. It's just not that simple. The same is true of carrier choices, which are rife with political and business ramifications...
? "Apple should have gone with Verizon instead of AT&T because their network is better... blah blah blah."
We sound really naive when we reach conclusions based on woefully incomplete information.
Thompson
AT&T's rollout of 7.2 is nice, but VZW will have LTE starting next year (about a 30 city roll out) and LTE > HSPA+ by a fucking mile and VZW will have completed its full rollout by 2013, leaving AT&T in the dust.
Let's be a little more explicit: VZW will be starting its LTE conversion starting next year. It's very unlikely that VZW will have completed a total transition to LTE by 2013. They will be stuck with the problem of assuring backward compatibility with their existing CDMA network for a long time, especially in outlying areas. Your assertions conveniently ignore the fact that AT&T will also be rolling out its LTE during that period, although starting slightly later than VZW. However AT&T enjoys the advantage of LTE being backward compatible with its existing data network.
VZW undoubtedly has better network coverage today, but they are also facing a much harder job managing the LTE transition from today's incompatible CDMA technology. This will be somewhat akin to the painful analog to digital switchover of several years ago.
Also lets be real here, you can do voice/data at the same time on 3G but that is nil for iphone users seeing as how you cant multitask
That's of course incorrect. The iPhone can and does multitask.
If it didn't, my phone wouldn't ring while I listened to music. As most other people know, Apple keeps a tight leash on multitasking to control iPhone battery life, and while it's legitimate to disagree with the choices they made, they did so for considered reasons.
To address your specific point, Apple certainly does allow voice calling while maintaining active 3G data services in the background. The Mail app will also background, as will certain utility apps such as the timer, the alarm clock and so on. I don't believe that any third party apps are allowed to background other than by using Notification Services.
In my area (Midwest), VZW is the dominant carrier and has very good coverage. However I've been pleasantly surprised with AT&T after switching to them in mid-2008 after many years with VZW. That doesn't negate the problems people in SFO or NYC have with AT&T coverage, but it's incorrect to assume that their problems are everyone's problems. I've also had excellent experiences both with my local AT&T stores and when calling their customer service line.
Lastly it's naive to imagine that, had VZW landed the iPhone instead of AT&T, everything would have been rosy on their network. It's very clear in hindsight that nobody imagined the intensity with which iPhone users would consume cellular data bandwidth. We can't know to what degree, but it's certain that VZW too would have had its share of problems.
Incompetent, no. But to put GSM+CDMA radios into the same space as the current GSM radios for a phone that is the same size, with the same power consumption and same profit is likely impossible with the iPhone 3GS just out a few months now.
If you suggest Apple should would a device extra thick like the world-mode Blackberries, which likely also need a larger battery just to have the same duration do to power overhead and to raise the cost to still maintain profits or simply reduce profits altogether to the high extra feee from Qualcomm, then I?d say it?s improbably due to Apple?s stringent business model.
"Improbable", yes. But a year from now, better chips and better batteries could make things easier.
Let's be a little more explicit: VZW will be starting its LTE conversion starting next year. It's very unlikely that VZW will have completed a total transition to LTE by 2013. They will be stuck with the problem of assuring backward compatibility with their existing CDMA network for a long time, especially in outlying areas. Your assertions conveniently ignore the fact that AT&T will also be rolling out its LTE during that period, although starting slightly later than VZW. However AT&T enjoys the advantage of LTE being backward compatible with its existing data network.
VZW undoubtedly has better network coverage today, but they are also facing a much harder job managing the LTE transition from today's incompatible CDMA technology. This will be somewhat akin to the painful analog to digital switchover of several years ago.
its quite possible vzw will do what they did when they removed analog service. they gave existing customers (a small %.. less than 1%) an option to get digital phones for free without extending/making a new contract. of course, this might be a few years after LTE is out. who knows.
it will be a much bigger challenge for vzw to make the swap to LTE than ATT.
"Improbable", yes. But a year from now, better chips and better batteries could make things easier.
Everything being equal and Apple incuring no additional cost expect for the R&D, then sure, but I don?t think Apple?s legendary negotiating can get Qualcomm to bend on their high licensing costs and their reported 5.5% take of gross handset revenue.
At least, not enough that would satisfy Apple. To make a world-mode phone it?s not just for the phones on Verizon?s and/or Sprint?s network, but they are paying this even if the device is sold to and used on a GSM-based network.
This would mean high worldwide costs unless Apple wants to R&D a different device for the US than the rest of the world, which brings us back to Apple should just go ahead and keep it simple by making a separate CDMA-based iPhone. But then you have a logistics issue with Apple Stores having to stock two version of every device in each capacity and also have a rep from each carrier you?re now doing business with help activate phones. Seems like more than Apple?s boutique-like setup would go for.
Personally, I would much rather have other carriers get the iPhone simply so AT&T can get some alleviation on their network. I think T-Mobile?s 35M customers might be the best bet since it only requires an additional radio, not a different tech with additional licensing fees and already have an alliance with the parent company.
Its impossible for Apple to make one universal phone for all US carriers. Their networks are all too different.
Umm.. sorry. You've been mislead. There are only ( currently ) 2 kinds of networks in the USA. GSM ( almost everyone ) and CDMA ( Verizon & Sprint ) . Every other network "feature" EDGE, iDEN, HSP(U)DA, CMDA2000 EVDO etc are protocols on top of these. And are indeed custom to each network, but the integrated chips put out these days by qualcomm and the like are embedded in many different phone brands. They simply must support all the network features in the chip. It's the firmware that enables or disables features and protocols.
It is indeed not only possible to support multiple networks on one device, it's already being done ( Blackberry "international" class phones contain both CMDA and GSM radios for example).
I don't believe that Apple is likely to sell a phone that is unlocked for all networks, but one model they will sell that will work on all networks. Note the difference?
The carriers really want to get out of subsidizing phones. Its not really a good business model for them. That is why Apple and AT&T experimented with revenue sharing.
AT&T ended the revenue sharing model when the 3G came out.
Regardless of whether subsidizing is a good business model or not, it's the only thing the phone companies understand, and it's the only thing that lets them undercut their competitor when Apple is free of its exclusivity contract. Verizon can tout their network, but AT&T can give away the iPhone for free as their counter offer. See what I mean?
Umm.. sorry. You've been mislead. There are only ( currently ) 2 kinds of networks in the USA. GSM ( almost everyone ) and CDMA ( Verizon & Sprint ) . Every other network "feature" EDGE, iDEN, HSP(U)DA, CMDA2000 EVDO etc are protocols on top of these. And are indeed custom to each network, but the integrated chips put out these days by qualcomm and the like are embedded in many different phone brands. They simply must support all the network features in the chip. It's the firmware that enables or disables features and protocols.
It?s more than just the architecture of the network, there are many other considerations that make designing and building world-mode phones less than ideal. If it was a win-win then RiM would simply make every US-bound Blackberry also contain the GSM-based chips, too.
I don't believe that Apple is likely to sell a phone that is unlocked for all networks, but one model they will sell that will work on all networks. Note the difference?
Not sure I?m following this, but if you are saying they?ll release a different phone for each US carrier then that bring in a different logistical issue even if it just 2 carriers in total. That would mean Apple stores have to stock 2 version of each iPhone for each capacity. That tends to go against Apple?s usual modus operandi.
AT&T ended the revenue sharing model when the 3G came out.
Technically, I recall it being Apple who wanted out of the revenue sharing plan and Apple had to agree to additional exclusivity in order to break out of it.
Now all the carriers are selling heavily subsidized smartphones. They hate this state of affairs — and wish that American consumers would just pay full price for the phones, the way people do in Europe. T-Mobile recently introduced an option for customers to pay a lower monthly bill if they buy their own phones, and even offered to spread the handset cost over two years with no interest charges.
“They are trying to break the model and get away from the big subsidies that are going into these phones,” said John Hodulik, an analyst at UBS Securities. “There is something to that, but I’m not sure it will work because people want their brand-new shiny phones.”
NY Times
Actions speak louder than words, my friend. And in this case, the carrier's actions shout much louder than the analyst's words in that article (and you are on this board often enough to know what we think of analysts!)
I just went to Verizon's web site to test the analyst's claim in the article you linked to. Picking a simple, basic cell phone, the Moto W755, with a two year contract will get me the phone for free. Or I can purchase the phone outright for $249 and not have a contract. With the two year contract Verizon needs to recoup the cost of subsidizing the phone and giving it to you for free. So, a portion of my cell phone service must go towards that expense. And my month-to-month contract should be cheaper because they don't have to recoup the subsidy. Right?
Well guess what, the monthly service fees are exactly the same for both options! If I paid for my phone outright, it should be $10/month cheaper. Even if we figure the phone is marked up for a profit, and really costs less than $249, let's say half that, my monthly phone bill should be $5/month cheaper. But it's not.
Please explain exactly which part of this is the phone carrier wanting to get out of the practice of subsidizing the cost of phones?