Unless I am wrong and someone can jog my memory by describing a smart phone tv commercial before the iPhone ever hit the market.
I remember when the original Samsung BlackJack and Motorola Q hit the market, there was a ton of marketing towards them. Motorola advertised the Q as the smartphone version of the RAZR, and Samsung advertised the BlackJack as the smartphone version of the iPod. Obviously, neither were true, as the Q was MUCH better than a smartphone RAZR (not saying much, I know), and the BlackJack was never the cool, hip device Samsung wanted it to be because smartphones just weren't worth the asking price at the time. Both ended up doing very well, given the smartphone market back then, but neither were game changers like the iPhone is now.
I personally hope vershizon does NOT get the Iphone ever (although unlikely). As a former vershizon customer the cs dept treats u like crap because they can cause they are the largest network. I lived in an area where according to vzw's "MAP" i had full 3G coverage but yet i never had service. Called them up and after 30 days of bs i got outta my contract and went straight to att and got me an Iphone. I think an iphone on tmobile wld b good for competition but I am more than satisfied with att's service and would not leave anyway to go to tmobile unless they had a deal that was just too good to pass up. I say to hell with vershizon. Let them have fum with their new "ROID"......
Woah an analyst that makes sense! Who would have thought?
Everyone has been drinking the Verizon/iPhone koolaid, but nothing about that ever made any sense. T-Mobile is a logical choice and would be best for consumers and apple. It would mean very little (if any change) to the iPhone hardware itself and allow for some (hopefully aggressive) price competition.
Verizon isn't happening people, at least not in the next 2 years. Get over it.
I really don't understand why some people don't see the attraction of a VZ iPhone.
No matter what other US carrier Apple chooses to carry the iPhone another version of the iPhone will have to be made. It'll require FCC approval AFAIK. The 'new' iPhone won't be compatible with any other cellular network so users won't be able to take their phone and move to another cellular network, you'll be locked in.
So if Apple took the time and effort to make a T-Mob iPhone they'll be courting 35 million users, give or take a few million. Does this really make all that much sense? VZ has over 2x the subscribers to address. It's going to take a new iPhone incompatible with all the other cell networks either way, plus FCC approval ( I don't know how difficult that is but given that it's a governmental agency I would imagine its not trivial). Oh, and VZ happens to be the best rated cellular carrier in the US with the best 3g network. I think that the poor service of ATT is beginning to have a negative impact on the iPhone and Apple. Gruber recently said "call quality sucks. It doesn?t matter if it?s technically AT&T?s fault or Apple?s, since we don?t have a choice..." and I think he has a point.
While it may take extra effort to make a CMDA iPhone remember that the retards at Motorola were able to make GSM and CMDA versions of the RAZR. Surely if they can do it Apple can too. The best scenario would be for Apple to use that Qualcom chip that would allow the iPhone to work on GSM and CMDA networks. Then users could choose the carrier with best service for them and could move among VZ and ATT if they choose. The chip may cost more but with power Apple wields now they might be able to to get VZ to eat that cost. Does anyone know how much this chip adds to the cost of the iPhone? If its less than $75 i don't see this as a major obstacle.
Yuck- T- Mobile's map is even less full than AT&T's?
Do they still use Catherine Zeta Jones at least?
I have to agree. If people are not happy with AT&T, they will be pissed with T-Mobile. The Apple brand may suffer based simply on the network's low quality. It would make more sense for Apple to expand into T-Mobile, while maintaining AT&T, as these two use similar networks.
It makes sense that Apple will choose TMobile instead of Verizon. Verizon is anti-iPhone since day one. Every time Verizon debuts a new touch screen phone, it is featured as iPhone-killer. These latest ads about Droid has made it clear that Verizon hates iPhone, which is understandable.
Why then would Apple stoop to Verizon? TMobile makes more sense.
it seems to me that the most sense is to choose no one. they got a lot of flack over restricting the phone. and then resellers unlocking them without telling clients. which meant finding out that you are hosed when you take the phone to be repaired and they send you away etc.
so why not just unlock it and let folks go with whatever carrier is willing to have them (assuming the carrier can service the tech that Apple chooses to put in the phones). no more illegal unlocking, no more blaming Apple cause ATT jacked up rates etc. or cause ATT coverage blows in this or that area. and heck the fight between even two carriers could bring down prices, push ATT to get tethering up and running (cause t-mobile jumped to have it) and so on. win and win
He has a point. I can’t see Apple going with Verizon after directly attacking the iPhone. Have you ever heard of a carrier directly making ads that attack the mobile vendor’s product before? I haven’t.I am pretty sure that Verizon knew they had no chance of getting it at the time when they made that ad. In future, things can change, but for now it’s seems impossible.
I remember few months ago when Verizon stated that they will get the iPhone soon and Apple later said not gonna happen now. At that same time Apple was negotiating with China carriers. My guess is that Apple thought about building a CDMA iPhone for China as an alternative and thought about Verizon in the US if they decided to go that way. They probably contacted Verizon about it. But then they reached an agreement in China and decided to ditch the whole CDMA thing and that pissed Verizon. Given the recent ads war between Apple/AT&T and Verizon/Motorola I agree that Verizon iPhone won't happen anytime now. This is my theory.
About every six months we hear about the exclusivity contract ending soon. I don't think anyone knows what hell they're talking about. I have yet to see tangible evidence of the exclusivity contract ending between the company's at a specified time. AT&T has only said that it wouldn't be exclusive forever. I do recall hearing that the exclusivity contract was originally for 2yrs and then extended to 5yrs. But, I probably don't know what I'm talking about either. I think these articles are a waste of time because, so far, every article saying exclusivity ending at a specified time have been 100% wrong (Though I could see a TMobile iPhone before a Verizon iPhone). If any AT&T execs or Apple execs want to share the truth about the length of the exclusivity, we're all ears.
An existing exclusivity contract might actually be ending at a certain date, then they might keep extending it another round with a revised contract. There's no public comment on this, so I agree, the stories about exclusivity ending are completely unverifiable. The terms of any of these contracts would stay secret unless there is a court case, and even then, those records could be kept sealed.
Adding Tmob's 1700MHz 3G is relatively trivial for Apple whether they make a VZW iPhone or not.
I think there will be an iPhone for VZW eventually, it is too big to ignore. But for the sake of the US mobile phone market I'm pulling for Tmob because we need to have at least three competitive mobile carriers. VZW and ATT dominance is not good for the consumer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
I really don't understand why some people don't see the attraction of a VZ iPhone.
So T-Mobile is a possibility for an iPhone? Good luck. They have an even smaller but growing 3G footprint than AT&T. If they are the weakest of the four when it comes to coverage and network capacity, I am sure the iPhone would tax their network even more than AT&T. I like the idea of it happening, but the network strain will be an issue.
I predict a CDMA iPhone will be out in 2011, renamed the iPhone LTE. Supports CDMA/GSM/LTE (which is based off of UMTS). In case anyone is wondering, Verizon expects 100% LTE rollout by 2013 at the latest.
Verizon's CDMA network is slower than planned/future AT&T 3G of 7.2Mb and 14Mb and as we all know, does not support concurrent voice/data,,,,,which Apple is persistently advertising as a unique feature.
If its comes down to technology, AT&T wins hands down. The problem is you can't find those high speed signals unless you're in one of the top 10 metros and finding a 3G signal is impossible in anything smaller than half a million. Verizon upgraded most of their data to EV-DO, AT&T did as little as possible, and I'm not sure if T-Mobile even has a 3G network yet.
If its comes down to technology, AT&T wins hands down. The problem is you can't find those high speed signals unless you're in one of the top 10 metros and finding a 3G signal is impossible in anything smaller than half a million. Verizon upgraded most of their data to EV-DO, AT&T did as little as possible, and I'm not sure if T-Mobile even has a 3G network yet.
ATT's 3g network doesn't make sense to me. It sucks in New York and San Fran but in Lexington Kentucky, about a half million metro area, it's pretty good. I get faster download speeds on the 3g cellular network than I get at my business with a 3 Mbps DSL service. Go figure.
ATT's 3g network doesn't make sense to me. It sucks in New York and San Fran but in Lexington Kentucky, about a half million metro area, it's pretty good. I get faster download speeds on the 3g cellular network than I get at my business with a 3 Mbps DSL service. Go figure.
Less users with less smartphones per average user and less obstructions blocking throughput all readily come to mine.
When was the last time you were in NYC or SF? SF has apparently been completely switched to 850Mhz spectrum and my last trip to NYC was pretty, pretty, pretty good, but I was mostly in the Manhattan borough.
Less users with less smartphones per average user and less obstructions blocking throughput all readily come to mine.
When was the last time you were in NYC or SF? SF has apparently been completely switched to 850Mhz spectrum and my last trip to NYC was pretty, pretty, pretty good, but I was mostly in the Manhattan burrow.
Its been quite a while actually 1-2 years. Glad to hear its better.
I think I'm starting to see the pattern in NYC. In the summer time people are out and actively using their phones. The summer is also when the new iPhone launches, 3G in NYC is pretty much useless, because there are too many iPhones. In the winter time when there is less activity and AT&T makes network improvements to absorb the demand, 3G gets much better.
That seems to be the pattern over the past two years
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
ATT's 3g network doesn't make sense to me. It sucks in New York and San Fran but in Lexington Kentucky, about a half million metro area, it's pretty good. I get faster download speeds on the 3g cellular network than I get at my business with a 3 Mbps DSL service. Go figure.
Comments
Unless I am wrong and someone can jog my memory by describing a smart phone tv commercial before the iPhone ever hit the market.
I remember when the original Samsung BlackJack and Motorola Q hit the market, there was a ton of marketing towards them. Motorola advertised the Q as the smartphone version of the RAZR, and Samsung advertised the BlackJack as the smartphone version of the iPod. Obviously, neither were true, as the Q was MUCH better than a smartphone RAZR (not saying much, I know), and the BlackJack was never the cool, hip device Samsung wanted it to be because smartphones just weren't worth the asking price at the time. Both ended up doing very well, given the smartphone market back then, but neither were game changers like the iPhone is now.
T-Mobile doesn't lock down their stuff in the US because they can't...their network is full of cheap customers.
Yeah, all my tightwad friends are on T-Mobile. When they complain about the lack of coverage, I remind them that's why their service costs less.
Woah an analyst that makes sense! Who would have thought?
Everyone has been drinking the Verizon/iPhone koolaid, but nothing about that ever made any sense. T-Mobile is a logical choice and would be best for consumers and apple. It would mean very little (if any change) to the iPhone hardware itself and allow for some (hopefully aggressive) price competition.
Verizon isn't happening people, at least not in the next 2 years. Get over it.
I really don't understand why some people don't see the attraction of a VZ iPhone.
No matter what other US carrier Apple chooses to carry the iPhone another version of the iPhone will have to be made. It'll require FCC approval AFAIK. The 'new' iPhone won't be compatible with any other cellular network so users won't be able to take their phone and move to another cellular network, you'll be locked in.
So if Apple took the time and effort to make a T-Mob iPhone they'll be courting 35 million users, give or take a few million. Does this really make all that much sense? VZ has over 2x the subscribers to address. It's going to take a new iPhone incompatible with all the other cell networks either way, plus FCC approval ( I don't know how difficult that is but given that it's a governmental agency I would imagine its not trivial). Oh, and VZ happens to be the best rated cellular carrier in the US with the best 3g network. I think that the poor service of ATT is beginning to have a negative impact on the iPhone and Apple. Gruber recently said "call quality sucks. It doesn?t matter if it?s technically AT&T?s fault or Apple?s, since we don?t have a choice..." and I think he has a point.
While it may take extra effort to make a CMDA iPhone remember that the retards at Motorola were able to make GSM and CMDA versions of the RAZR. Surely if they can do it Apple can too. The best scenario would be for Apple to use that Qualcom chip that would allow the iPhone to work on GSM and CMDA networks. Then users could choose the carrier with best service for them and could move among VZ and ATT if they choose. The chip may cost more but with power Apple wields now they might be able to to get VZ to eat that cost. Does anyone know how much this chip adds to the cost of the iPhone? If its less than $75 i don't see this as a major obstacle.
VZ makes way me sense to me.
Yuck- T- Mobile's map is even less full than AT&T's?
Do they still use Catherine Zeta Jones at least?
I have to agree. If people are not happy with AT&T, they will be pissed with T-Mobile. The Apple brand may suffer based simply on the network's low quality. It would make more sense for Apple to expand into T-Mobile, while maintaining AT&T, as these two use similar networks.
Do they provide anything like AT&T's Visual Voicemail on any of their current Smart Phones?
I very much think, Apple will want them to, as part of their demands.
It makes sense that Apple will choose TMobile instead of Verizon. Verizon is anti-iPhone since day one. Every time Verizon debuts a new touch screen phone, it is featured as iPhone-killer. These latest ads about Droid has made it clear that Verizon hates iPhone, which is understandable.
Why then would Apple stoop to Verizon? TMobile makes more sense.
it seems to me that the most sense is to choose no one. they got a lot of flack over restricting the phone. and then resellers unlocking them without telling clients. which meant finding out that you are hosed when you take the phone to be repaired and they send you away etc.
so why not just unlock it and let folks go with whatever carrier is willing to have them (assuming the carrier can service the tech that Apple chooses to put in the phones). no more illegal unlocking, no more blaming Apple cause ATT jacked up rates etc. or cause ATT coverage blows in this or that area. and heck the fight between even two carriers could bring down prices, push ATT to get tethering up and running (cause t-mobile jumped to have it) and so on. win and win
He has a point. I can’t see Apple going with Verizon after directly attacking the iPhone. Have you ever heard of a carrier directly making ads that attack the mobile vendor’s product before? I haven’t.I am pretty sure that Verizon knew they had no chance of getting it at the time when they made that ad. In future, things can change, but for now it’s seems impossible.
I remember few months ago when Verizon stated that they will get the iPhone soon and Apple later said not gonna happen now. At that same time Apple was negotiating with China carriers. My guess is that Apple thought about building a CDMA iPhone for China as an alternative and thought about Verizon in the US if they decided to go that way. They probably contacted Verizon about it. But then they reached an agreement in China and decided to ditch the whole CDMA thing and that pissed Verizon. Given the recent ads war between Apple/AT&T and Verizon/Motorola I agree that Verizon iPhone won't happen anytime now. This is my theory.
About every six months we hear about the exclusivity contract ending soon. I don't think anyone knows what hell they're talking about. I have yet to see tangible evidence of the exclusivity contract ending between the company's at a specified time. AT&T has only said that it wouldn't be exclusive forever. I do recall hearing that the exclusivity contract was originally for 2yrs and then extended to 5yrs. But, I probably don't know what I'm talking about either. I think these articles are a waste of time because, so far, every article saying exclusivity ending at a specified time have been 100% wrong (Though I could see a TMobile iPhone before a Verizon iPhone). If any AT&T execs or Apple execs want to share the truth about the length of the exclusivity, we're all ears.
An existing exclusivity contract might actually be ending at a certain date, then they might keep extending it another round with a revised contract. There's no public comment on this, so I agree, the stories about exclusivity ending are completely unverifiable. The terms of any of these contracts would stay secret unless there is a court case, and even then, those records could be kept sealed.
I think there will be an iPhone for VZW eventually, it is too big to ignore. But for the sake of the US mobile phone market I'm pulling for Tmob because we need to have at least three competitive mobile carriers. VZW and ATT dominance is not good for the consumer.
I really don't understand why some people don't see the attraction of a VZ iPhone.
VZ makes way me sense to me.
I predict a CDMA iPhone will be out in 2011, renamed the iPhone LTE. Supports CDMA/GSM/LTE (which is based off of UMTS). In case anyone is wondering, Verizon expects 100% LTE rollout by 2013 at the latest.
Hence all the iPhone bashing.
Verizon's CDMA network is slower than planned/future AT&T 3G of 7.2Mb and 14Mb and as we all know, does not support concurrent voice/data,,,,,which Apple is persistently advertising as a unique feature.
If its comes down to technology, AT&T wins hands down. The problem is you can't find those high speed signals unless you're in one of the top 10 metros and finding a 3G signal is impossible in anything smaller than half a million. Verizon upgraded most of their data to EV-DO, AT&T did as little as possible, and I'm not sure if T-Mobile even has a 3G network yet.
If its comes down to technology, AT&T wins hands down. The problem is you can't find those high speed signals unless you're in one of the top 10 metros and finding a 3G signal is impossible in anything smaller than half a million. Verizon upgraded most of their data to EV-DO, AT&T did as little as possible, and I'm not sure if T-Mobile even has a 3G network yet.
ATT's 3g network doesn't make sense to me. It sucks in New York and San Fran but in Lexington Kentucky, about a half million metro area, it's pretty good. I get faster download speeds on the 3g cellular network than I get at my business with a 3 Mbps DSL service. Go figure.
ATT's 3g network doesn't make sense to me. It sucks in New York and San Fran but in Lexington Kentucky, about a half million metro area, it's pretty good. I get faster download speeds on the 3g cellular network than I get at my business with a 3 Mbps DSL service. Go figure.
Less users with less smartphones per average user and less obstructions blocking throughput all readily come to mine.
When was the last time you were in NYC or SF? SF has apparently been completely switched to 850Mhz spectrum and my last trip to NYC was pretty, pretty, pretty good, but I was mostly in the Manhattan borough.
Less users with less smartphones per average user and less obstructions blocking throughput all readily come to mine.
When was the last time you were in NYC or SF? SF has apparently been completely switched to 850Mhz spectrum and my last trip to NYC was pretty, pretty, pretty good, but I was mostly in the Manhattan burrow.
Its been quite a while actually 1-2 years. Glad to hear its better.
That seems to be the pattern over the past two years
ATT's 3g network doesn't make sense to me. It sucks in New York and San Fran but in Lexington Kentucky, about a half million metro area, it's pretty good. I get faster download speeds on the 3g cellular network than I get at my business with a 3 Mbps DSL service. Go figure.
but I was mostly in the Manhattan burrow.
Actually its borough,
Yes, yes it is. Multitasking can have its pitfalls.
Yes, yes it is. Multitasking can have its pitfalls.
Somebody had to dig those subways.