I think it?s a smart marketing move to suggest that they?re beefing up their network just in case Apple lets them sell the iPhone. It makes Verizon look proactive while making AT&T look even worse while having a secondary effect of keeping potential jumpers from going to AT&T for the iPhone despite not actually stating they?re getting the iPhone. Sun Tzu and P.T. Barnum would be proud.
Actually innovation would probably go thru the roof. Exclusivity benefits the carrier most. Look at how many customers ATT has gotten because of the iPhone. If the iPhone were available on all the networks it would force the other makers to up their game in turn making Apple up theirs. Phones here in the states are still yrs behind in what they can do overseas. We would be at their level if the playing field were even.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I don’t buy this reasoning from Verizon and I really don’t think there is a strong possibility of them getting any Apple device, yet if there is one your idea seems best. This seems like just a simple yet effective strategic maneuver.
Do we really know if they are investing any extra in their network or if any upgrades are merely from a standpoint of increased browser-and-app-heavy smartphone growth they expect for 2010?
I think it’s a smart marketing move to suggest that they’re beefing up their network just in case Apple lets them sell the iPhone. It makes Verizon look proactive while making AT&T look even worse while having a secondary effect of keeping potential jumpers from going to AT&T for the iPhone despite not actually stating they’re getting the iPhone. Sun Tzu and P.T. Barnum would be proud.
apple will have law suits and investor revolts if verizon does not come on the iphone train soon
and black berry is knocking on apple door w/ a 10 mill unit sale 1/4 .
yes YES yes YES in every way possible verizon does an incredible job out hyperboling even ole ' PT BARNUM
verizom makes an on going non stop ad for its FIOS network for 70 dollars a month . think about its 3 services for 79 or 89 bucks a month tele broadband TV ..and my time warner bill is 169 a month for the same same
so why have i not switched ??
BBBBBBBBB EEEEEE CAAAAZZZZZZZZZ AFTER ALL THE F ing hype my real verizon triple play charge is 180 s month
how the f can VERIZON DO IT ?? they can;t its all hype
ATT does zippo for iphone promotion
verizon when it get the porter house steak of cell phones to chew on . will sell the shit out of the iphone .
How about because Verizon historically has been the most abusive and restrictive of all carriers and only now is feigning any kind of customer choice because they have to? I mean their blackberry models didn't start sporting WiFi until a year or so ago!
How quickly people develop selective memory.
The entire tech punditry has ganged up on the iPhone - mostly because most of them are either in the Bay Area or NYC where there concentration of users caused abnormal network loading issues not seen in the rest of the country. But the "digerati" were quick to pile on AT&T as you put it. If AT&T were truly as bad as is fussed about, it wouldn't matter how good the iPhone was, it wouldn't have blockbuster sales three years in a row with industry topping customer satisfaction.
I've been in... 7 states now with my iPhone, and other then a few more dropped calls then I got on sprint (less then a handful) I have had just as good as coverage as sprint. And Verizon would be a step back for me as they don't even work at my house (changed my Verizon BB to AT&T to get coverage). It all depends on where you are. My friends parent's house none of the big three work - you have to go one town over near a state park where the only cell phone tower is.
Just like Verizon's current focus on "3G" - it's a marketing term. It has no relation to actual performance. Color that map to show the Verizon "3G" that is faster then AT&T's edge network and it would be quite different - and not nearly as exciting ad copy.
LIke megapixels in a digital camera where the raw number of pixels on it's own has little to do with the quality of the picture recorded by the camera the whole "3G" thing is blown way out of proportion. I don't blame Verizon for doing it, after all "the network" is the only compelling differentiator they have. They better enjoy it while it lasts - AT&T is building out, and if they can even the field then it's all over. Seems like they are making progress in the Bay Area
Actually innovation would probably go thru the roof. Exclusivity benefits the carrier most.
Really? What incentive do you think Apple had to create the iPhone?
Do you think if they had to deal with Verizion's historic restrictive and draconian controls over handset design that Apple would have ever developed the iPhone? I don't think so. Through their exclusive deal with AT&T Apple was able to wrestle control away of the handset from the carrier and for the first time (in the US anyway) give it to the consumer!
AT&T's reward for this risk - exclusive distribution of the iPhone guaranteeing a growth of their customer base.
It's a quid pro quo - each party gets a benefit. That's how business is supposed to work. Lop sided deals are unpopular for a reason.
I love how the significant the power shift that the iPhone brought to the US cellular market is continually overlooked and marginalized by people such as yourself. Shows a pretty shallow grasp of the significance of the iPhone in the US cellular market by people who make such comments. To put it another way:
You would not have the Droid on Verizon without the iPhone
Pretty damn innovative to me!
Quote:
Look at how many customers ATT has gotten because of the iPhone.
For a darn good reason - they went totally out on a limb with a totally unknown player in the handset manufacturing space. That was their risk - the reward was exclusivity if the handset turned out to be compelling. It was and paid off in more ways then they expected
Quote:
If the iPhone were available on all the networks it would force the other makers to up their game
I dunno, the entire industry seems to already be chasing (and failing to catch) the iPhone with it just on AT&T.
Quote:
in turn making Apple up theirs
Yes, because all the manufacturers were doing such a good job of driving Apple before the iPhone Actually they did drive Apple - their universally crappy products drove Apple to come out of no where and show them all up with Apple's very first entry. An entry, although universally derided by the tech industry for having "fatal" flaws, that managed to change the smartphone market literally overnight.
Your absolutely right - Apple needs the rest of the industry to drive them
Quote:
Phones here in the states are still yrs behind in what they can do overseas. We would be at their level if the playing field were even.
Your mixing handsets and networks. Many "overseas" locations cover a fraction of the surface area of the United states, and several countries had abysmal land line infrastructures. Rather then upgrading them, they skipped to wireless - double benefit on that, lower capital costs on wired infrastructure combined with dramatically less square milage equals a much better mobile network.
As for handsets, no one has bested the iPhone and since all I am interested in is an integrated smartphone, the rest of the industry is pretty irrelevant for me. #2 contender is coming from Google, another US company. Yup, we are so behind the rest of the world. As for semi-smartphones like many of the Nokia semi-smart and feature phones or dumb phones from other makers - oh well. High volume, low profit. Like much of the PC industry. I doubt Apple cares much about capturing that market, just like they couldn't care less about the bulk of the PC market. Not enough reward (profit) for the hassle. For all the millions sold, Netbooks haven't done much positive for the PC vendors - in fact, it seems to have hurt their bottom line pretty significantly for companies like Dell, cannibalizing their profits of other models pretty hard. Nokia, for all it's market share, has seen it's revenue take a pounding. We are lucky that Apple doesn't focus on market share and instead focuses on the true measure that counts: revenue!
Here's the bottom line: Apple doesn't need Verizon
Some people want an iPhone on Verizon. Verizon (now) want's the iPhone. But looking at Apple's balance sheet, they are doing just fine with their current strategy.
Indeed, by keeping with AT&T, they can remain in the drivers seat, asking for features or accommodations that they wouldn't be able to get if they had no leverage like an exclusive agreement to use. If every carrier had the iPhone and Apple wanted to implement something like visual voicemail how would they be able to get the carriers to do it? Historically carriers haven't exactly been known for innovation - or if they do add a feature like visual voicemail it typically comes with a fee (hello Verizon)
So no, I'm pretty happy with the way things are, thank you. Despite your argument, the real innovation happened BECAUSE of the iPhone exclusivity. The iPhone currently exists because of Apple's original exclusive agreement with AT&T - and AT&T gets FAR too little credit for making a MAJOR break with how business was done in the US cellular market. If you don't like AT&T, then get on other companies to suck less then the iPhone (or radical thought, pass Apple).
But inane comments like "the iPhone should be legislated on every carrier" are just nuts. If a carrier want's the phone, they should have to pay for it, not just get it handed to them. Want to talk about stifling innovation - what if it was mandated that handsets had to be on all carriers? Would there be near this excitement over the Droid? Would people even care? Then you would have the equally inane whiners carrying on about Apple's "monopoly" (just like with the iPod)
AT&T is building out, and if they can even the field then it's all over. Seems like they are making progress in the Bay Area
P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum...
Really? AT&T can and is upgrading their network.
Verizon is finding out it's much harder to duplicate the iPhone (three lackluster tries so far, still counting!)
Ever hear the saying "I may be fat but your stupid and I can diet?" Verizon has a significant problem right now. There is no reason why AT&T can't build out their network and by all accounts they are. These things don't happen over night - nothing about infrastructure moves quickly. Verizon has been laying fibre for five years in my area, and I'm still at least a year out from even being offered FIOS - which now is less appealing as they have changed their pricing to make it more expensive then the incumbent cable co
Quote:
is that enuff P.T. Barnum;s or you want more ???
big boy
Someone is a tad defensive...
Quote:
WHY sad because the rest of the country go f itself as far as cell phones go
IF you can't<< HOLD >> a call in N Y C . then you fail the country
I dunno, sounds like it sucks to be you in NYC. Life is just fine where I am and your crappy experience in no way diminishes my awesome experience. Rant all you want, my iPhone works just fine (and not just where I live, in large parts of the rest of the country where I have been).
I'm glad there are people who want to live in big cities like NYC or densely populated areas like the Bay Area - and hopefully they stay there
How about because Verizon historically has been the most abusive and restrictive of all carriers and only now is feigning any kind of customer choice because they have to? I mean their blackberry models didn't start sporting WiFi until a year or so ago!
How quickly people develop selective memory.
You shouldn't try to counter perceived myths with your own myths.
My former Verizon phone that I retired a few months ago was over 4 years old and had features that were absent on the iPhone until this: MMS, video recording, tethering (though via a cable), and support for several Bluetooth profiles beyond just the hands-free profiles that the iPhone supports.
Most of those missing Verizon phone features are things that only a handful of users are going to use such as disabled Bluetooth profiles. Or even wifi that you mentioned.
Quote:
If AT&T were truly as bad as is fussed about, it wouldn't matter how good the iPhone was, it wouldn't have blockbuster sales three years in a row with industry topping customer satisfaction.
Nonsense. The Motorola Razr had massive sales for years but was a really terrible phone. It was the fashionable cell phone to have. Just like the iPhone has become (except being a better phone the Razr ever was). The iPhone is the "must have" cell phone du jour.
Quote:
LIke megapixels in a digital camera where the raw number of pixels on it's own has little to do with the quality of the picture recorded by the camera the whole "3G" thing is blown way out of proportion. I don't blame Verizon for doing it, after all "the network" is the only compelling differentiator they have. They better enjoy it while it lasts - AT&T is building out, and if they can even the field then it's all over. Seems like they are making progress in the Bay Area
Please, it doesn't matter if AT&T builds out its network. There isn't going to be some mass exodus from Verizon in such an event as you're trying to imply. The smart phone market is a small segment of the cell phone market. There are plenty of people that still just want a phone and being able to browse the internet while sitting on the toilet at Starbucks isn't going to matter to them.
Here's the bottom line: Apple doesn't need Verizon
Some people want an iPhone on Verizon. Verizon (now) want's the iPhone. But looking at Apple's balance sheet, they are doing just fine with their current strategy.
There is nothing wrong with Apple's balance sheet --- it's the expectations of the Apple investors that is the BIG problem. Apple investors (and Wall Street analysts) expects Apple to go with Verizon in the next round.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
Really? AT&T can and is upgrading their network.
Verizon is finding out it's much harder to duplicate the iPhone (three lackluster tries so far, still counting!)
Ever hear the saying "I may be fat but your stupid and I can diet?" Verizon has a significant problem right now. There is no reason why AT&T can't build out their network and by all accounts they are. These things don't happen over night - nothing about infrastructure moves quickly. Verizon has been laying fibre for five years in my area, and I'm still at least a year out from even being offered FIOS - which now is less appealing as they have changed their pricing to make it more expensive then the incumbent cable co
It is a comparative exercise --- as long as Verizon sucks less than AT&T, Verizon will continue to be the "king" of the networks. And it isn't that hard because Verizon is already ahead right now, and staying ahead ain't all that difficult.
Verizon doesn't need a real iphone killer, period. AT&T is barely beating Verizon in retail net adds right now with the iphone --- buying market share by lowering margins. I don't know how Apple fans (who like to talk about Apple's fantastic profit margins with a single digit PC market share) would ignore the fact that Verizon wants to keep high margins.
First - Completely wrong on the analysis in China. the issue in China is the government not allowing mobile phones with WiFi plus 2 million gray market iPhones with WiFi. In addition the government owned network has set the price of the phone far too high for the market that continues to import gray market iPhones for less with more features users want.
Second - Completely wrong about Apple's strategy with the iPhone. Apple does not want the iPhone to become a commodity like the Droid - where the network provider makes the majority of the margin and the manufacturer just pumps out millions of devices with razor thin margins. It does impact economy of scale in addition to paying additional licensing fees to QualCom.
The one thing above that is half right is that the barrier is Apple.
It is not about Verizon - it is about Apple. Apple does not need to help Verizon make billions off the iPhone. Apple needs to protect its own margins and remain a premium player and not let the iPhone become the PC of the mobile phone market.
The first half of your post is completely irrelevant to the point that was being made. Why Apple made a special iPhone for China doesn't matter. The point is that they were willing to make a special version of the iPhone, and it apparently didn't cause a devastating splintering of their manufacturing capacity. So people's notion that doing that would somehow break the economy of scale in manufacturing are incorrect.
The last part of your post claims that by having an iPhone on Verizon would somehow make the iPhone a commodity and seriously eat into Apple's profit margin. Please explain that leap of logic. Obviously, Apple isn't going to give away the iPhone for free if they make a Verizon phone. The two companies would need to come to a business agreement. But that then leads back to the only barrier being that Apple and Verizon need to agree to do it. There are no significant technical design, manufacturing, or stock management barriers that would prevent it from happening. Apple and Verizon would only need to come to an agreement. They may or may not be able to agree on a price...thus the BARRIER! (So basically, even though the last bit of you post was meant to contradict mine, it in fact supports it...thanks! )
People repeatedly ask for this, and I've never once seen a solid answer to this question.
Perhaps further down the thread.....
Replying to my own post may be seen to be in bad form, but I had to note that, yet again, there has been no data-based response from anyone on this issue.
Don't know why this information should me any more or less confidential than say, number of subscribers.
Hasn't most of the developed world already abandoned CDMA technology some time ago?
I know it's been dropped here years back. The network was just switched off, after a transition period, on a particular date that was widely publicised and things have never been better. At the same time, before that even happened, everyone could tell that handset makers lost interest in CDMA tech as any available CDMA phones were decidely old-tech. (The Droid clearly breaks the rule)
It would seem to defeat all of their usual logic for Apple to make a special handset to satisfy one, or a small number, of what might be called redundant networks.
There aren?t too many names I can use that will make the context understand on this forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by benice
Hasn't most of the developed world already abandoned CDMA technology some time ago?
I know it's been dropped here years back. The network was just switched off, after a transition period, on a particular date that was widely publicised and things have never been better. At the same time, before that even happened, everyone could tell that handset makers lost interest in CDMA tech as any available CDMA phones were decidely old-tech. (The Droid clearly breaks the rule)
It would seem to defeat all of their usual logic for Apple to make a special handset to satisfy one, or a small number, of what might be called redundant networks.
Most don?t use it, but it?s far from being completely abandoned. Many smaller, poorer countries will be using it for a long time now that it?s invested. Even Verizon and S. Korea while having either LTE or 3GSM, respectively, will also maintain their CDMA network for a very long time. It?s paid for, low cost and works very well. I can?t say that about GSM?s audio codec.
There will be a lot CDMA-based phones in the future. Especially when you consider that Verizon and Sprint make up about 150M subscribers in a market that now wants consumer friendly smartphones. The Droid for Europe is the Milestone and of course is GSM/3GSM.
How come nobody talks about the fact that you can't do voice and data at the same time on the Verizon network? That's huge for the way I use the phone. Having had a 1st gen iPhone that was always a problem to be talking to somebody and not being able to answer a question on the net or send an email or picture etc.
I also like to stream pandora through my car stereo when driving. With verizon or edge you can't do that and be able to get phone calls. That's pure fail in my mind.
Its really comical that VZW has done more to get their network ready for the iPhone than ATT ever did and is only doing now 2 1/2 yrs later, and that's without a guarantee they'll get it. You guys keep forgetting that the ads attacking the iPhone are made by Motorola and not VZW. The ads attacking ATTs 3G is made by VZW. VZWs ads are aimed at people thinking about leaving VZW for ATT just to get the iPhone. I know several people that have and are sorry they did. You gotta give VZW some credit, they've softened their stance in restricting and/or turning off features on a phone. No the DROID is not a iPhone killer (I really hate that term) but its still a very good device.
How come nobody talks about the fact that you can't do voice and data at the same time on the Verizon network? That's huge for the way I use the phone. Having had a 1st gen iPhone that was always a problem to be talking to somebody and not being able to answer a question on the net or send an email or picture etc.
I also like to stream pandora through my car stereo when driving. With verizon or edge you can't do that and be able to get phone calls. That's pure fail in my mind.
Sheldon
Dude do you live in a cave? Both ATT and Apple have commercials about VZW phones not being able to go online during a phone. You can text and chat during one but no internet. There I spoke about it. Happy?
Dude do you live in a cave? Both ATT and Apple have commercials about VZW phones not being able to go online during a phone. You can text and chat during one but no internet. There I spoke about it. Happy?
Where the hell, in the apple ads, do they mention about "vzw" phones?
You know im kind of getting annoyed seeing people on here say Verizon is bashing the iphone. VZW has NOT based the iphone..the "iphone bashing" commercials are for the Droid and PAID by Motorola. VZW's logo appears because guess what? the PHONE is ONLY on VZW. The only way VZW has mentioned the iphone is with the "map for that" and "island of misfit toys" to which they are showing Apple they need to come to VZW.
Why is it you guys are so anti VZW? Because it cant make "Data and voice" simultaneously? VZW cant "talk and browse" at the same time,but you can sure as hell talk AND text at the same time. so what more do you need? you guys act like EVERYONE is watching a youtube video and talking to their friend at the same time. It's a luxury NOT a necessity. Talk and text is 100% fine with me until LTE is up and running, be it Q4 2010 or 2011. Apple will have made a phone for LTE by then anyway,so why cant they cash in for 1-2 years on a CDMA phone? and why does Apple have to only go to VZW? why cant they join multiple networks? As has been said before CDMA or GSM whichever they choose with the right amount given to them they will make.
I for one hope they DO go to VZW AND/OR T-Mobile. That will benefit ALL. VZW will NOT incur an "overload" as you all hope they do. People will stay with ATT,some may go, who knows, but what happened to ATT's network wont happen to VZW because its not like all the iphone subscribers will be running to them. As some of you have pointed out you are satisfied with it. So be it.
Bring on the iphone in 2010, I'm hopeful that it finds MULTIPLE new homes with NO Exclusivity agreement.
Well if the droid ads are targeting the iPhone, and Verizon isn't "paying" for it, and it's logos are on there, than why doesn't Verizon do anything about? Because it's totally making Verizon look bad.
And Talk & Text is 100% perfect for you, but you also gotta think about everyone else. If you want up to date technology at the moment, talking & browsing is a piece of art work. Now if everything was flipped around, & Verizon had talk & browse, and AT&T didn't, I would probably see you complaining about it.
BTW: we all aren't going anti-Verizon here, we're just speaking the truth, and what people want.
There is nothing wrong with Apple's balance sheet --- it's the expectations of the Apple investors that is the BIG problem. Apple investors (and Wall Street analysts) expects Apple to go with Verizon in the next round.
Its an overstatement to call it an expectation. An educated guess at best. The last analyst to make a prediction said they believed there was a 70% chance Apple would go to Verizon.
The analysts know that Apple has had some trouble keeping up with demand for the iPhone. As long as iPhone sales continue to increase Wall Street has nothing to complain about.
Quote:
Verizon doesn't need a real iphone killer, period. AT&T is barely beating Verizon in retail net adds right now with the iphone --- buying market share by lowering margins. I don't know how Apple fans (who like to talk about Apple's fantastic profit margins with a single digit PC market share) would ignore the fact that Verizon wants to keep high margins.
Back in January 2009, AT&T had 77 million subscribers - Verizon 72 million. Today AT&T has 81.6 million with no major acquisitions, Verizon has 89 million after acquiring 14 million. Verizon did not gain this lead through competition.
You continue to over play the argument that AT&T pays a high cost for iPhone subsidy, over the life of an iPhone contract AT&T will make back four to five times that subsidy.
Verizon isn't analogous to Apple, Verizon doesn't actually make anything. They provide wireless service.
Comments
I think it?s a smart marketing move to suggest that they?re beefing up their network just in case Apple lets them sell the iPhone. It makes Verizon look proactive while making AT&T look even worse while having a secondary effect of keeping potential jumpers from going to AT&T for the iPhone despite not actually stating they?re getting the iPhone. Sun Tzu and P.T. Barnum would be proud.
More P.T. Barnum
Actually innovation would probably go thru the roof. Exclusivity benefits the carrier most. Look at how many customers ATT has gotten because of the iPhone. If the iPhone were available on all the networks it would force the other makers to up their game in turn making Apple up theirs. Phones here in the states are still yrs behind in what they can do overseas. We would be at their level if the playing field were even.
I don’t buy this reasoning from Verizon and I really don’t think there is a strong possibility of them getting any Apple device, yet if there is one your idea seems best. This seems like just a simple yet effective strategic maneuver.
Do we really know if they are investing any extra in their network or if any upgrades are merely from a standpoint of increased browser-and-app-heavy smartphone growth they expect for 2010?
I think it’s a smart marketing move to suggest that they’re beefing up their network just in case Apple lets them sell the iPhone. It makes Verizon look proactive while making AT&T look even worse while having a secondary effect of keeping potential jumpers from going to AT&T for the iPhone despite not actually stating they’re getting the iPhone. Sun Tzu and P.T. Barnum would be proud.
apple will have law suits and investor revolts if verizon does not come on the iphone train soon
and black berry is knocking on apple door w/ a 10 mill unit sale 1/4 .
yes YES yes YES in every way possible verizon does an incredible job out hyperboling even ole ' PT BARNUM
verizom makes an on going non stop ad for its FIOS network for 70 dollars a month . think about its 3 services for 79 or 89 bucks a month tele broadband TV ..and my time warner bill is 169 a month for the same same
so why have i not switched ??
BBBBBBBBB EEEEEE CAAAAZZZZZZZZZ AFTER ALL THE F ing hype my real verizon triple play charge is 180 s month
how the f can VERIZON DO IT ?? they can;t its all hype
ATT does zippo for iphone promotion
verizon when it get the porter house steak of cell phones to chew on . will sell the shit out of the iphone .
yet soon the touch will triple iphone sales
How about because Verizon historically has been the most abusive and restrictive of all carriers and only now is feigning any kind of customer choice because they have to? I mean their blackberry models didn't start sporting WiFi until a year or so ago!
How quickly people develop selective memory.
The entire tech punditry has ganged up on the iPhone - mostly because most of them are either in the Bay Area or NYC where there concentration of users caused abnormal network loading issues not seen in the rest of the country. But the "digerati" were quick to pile on AT&T as you put it. If AT&T were truly as bad as is fussed about, it wouldn't matter how good the iPhone was, it wouldn't have blockbuster sales three years in a row with industry topping customer satisfaction.
I've been in... 7 states now with my iPhone, and other then a few more dropped calls then I got on sprint (less then a handful) I have had just as good as coverage as sprint. And Verizon would be a step back for me as they don't even work at my house (changed my Verizon BB to AT&T to get coverage). It all depends on where you are. My friends parent's house none of the big three work - you have to go one town over near a state park where the only cell phone tower is.
Just like Verizon's current focus on "3G" - it's a marketing term. It has no relation to actual performance. Color that map to show the Verizon "3G" that is faster then AT&T's edge network and it would be quite different - and not nearly as exciting ad copy.
LIke megapixels in a digital camera where the raw number of pixels on it's own has little to do with the quality of the picture recorded by the camera the whole "3G" thing is blown way out of proportion. I don't blame Verizon for doing it, after all "the network" is the only compelling differentiator they have. They better enjoy it while it lasts - AT&T is building out, and if they can even the field then it's all over. Seems like they are making progress in the Bay Area
P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum
More P.T. Barnum
is that enuff P.T. Barnum;s or you want more ???
big boy
in effect the iphone major market daily meltdown is a 3 hr window of heavy usage in 8 or 9 markets ny dallas san fram LA AND THE such .
ATT never ever had a good tower network in any market
verizon has had NYC FOR yrs upon yrs
i live in nyc so my verizon calls do go thru wall and sky scrapers
they have dozens of all types of towers boosters repeaters
ATT does not
sadly MR DR NO you are correct ABOUT the ATT IS GREAT ALL OVER except in the tall stacked buildings of the big apple of the hilly san fran
WHY sad because the rest of the country go f itself as far as cell phones go
IF you can't<< HOLD >> a call in N Y C . then you fail the country
AND IN nyc we are VERY LOUD AND VERY NASTY BUNCH TECKSTUD IS A PUSSY cat compared to irate ATT clients in the big apple with dropped CALLS .
we have no time to wait in line
we have a star bucks every 2 blocks cause we wont walk 3 to get coffee
get it MR DR NO ??
great post
Actually innovation would probably go thru the roof. Exclusivity benefits the carrier most.
Really? What incentive do you think Apple had to create the iPhone?
Do you think if they had to deal with Verizion's historic restrictive and draconian controls over handset design that Apple would have ever developed the iPhone? I don't think so. Through their exclusive deal with AT&T Apple was able to wrestle control away of the handset from the carrier and for the first time (in the US anyway) give it to the consumer!
AT&T's reward for this risk - exclusive distribution of the iPhone guaranteeing a growth of their customer base.
It's a quid pro quo - each party gets a benefit. That's how business is supposed to work. Lop sided deals are unpopular for a reason.
I love how the significant the power shift that the iPhone brought to the US cellular market is continually overlooked and marginalized by people such as yourself. Shows a pretty shallow grasp of the significance of the iPhone in the US cellular market by people who make such comments. To put it another way:
You would not have the Droid on Verizon without the iPhone
Pretty damn innovative to me!
Look at how many customers ATT has gotten because of the iPhone.
For a darn good reason - they went totally out on a limb with a totally unknown player in the handset manufacturing space. That was their risk - the reward was exclusivity if the handset turned out to be compelling. It was and paid off in more ways then they expected
If the iPhone were available on all the networks it would force the other makers to up their game
I dunno, the entire industry seems to already be chasing (and failing to catch) the iPhone with it just on AT&T.
in turn making Apple up theirs
Yes, because all the manufacturers were doing such a good job of driving Apple before the iPhone
Your absolutely right - Apple needs the rest of the industry to drive them
Phones here in the states are still yrs behind in what they can do overseas. We would be at their level if the playing field were even.
Your mixing handsets and networks. Many "overseas" locations cover a fraction of the surface area of the United states, and several countries had abysmal land line infrastructures. Rather then upgrading them, they skipped to wireless - double benefit on that, lower capital costs on wired infrastructure combined with dramatically less square milage equals a much better mobile network.
As for handsets, no one has bested the iPhone and since all I am interested in is an integrated smartphone, the rest of the industry is pretty irrelevant for me. #2 contender is coming from Google, another US company. Yup, we are so behind the rest of the world. As for semi-smartphones like many of the Nokia semi-smart and feature phones or dumb phones from other makers - oh well. High volume, low profit. Like much of the PC industry. I doubt Apple cares much about capturing that market, just like they couldn't care less about the bulk of the PC market. Not enough reward (profit) for the hassle. For all the millions sold, Netbooks haven't done much positive for the PC vendors - in fact, it seems to have hurt their bottom line pretty significantly for companies like Dell, cannibalizing their profits of other models pretty hard. Nokia, for all it's market share, has seen it's revenue take a pounding. We are lucky that Apple doesn't focus on market share and instead focuses on the true measure that counts: revenue!
Here's the bottom line: Apple doesn't need Verizon
Some people want an iPhone on Verizon. Verizon (now) want's the iPhone. But looking at Apple's balance sheet, they are doing just fine with their current strategy.
Indeed, by keeping with AT&T, they can remain in the drivers seat, asking for features or accommodations that they wouldn't be able to get if they had no leverage like an exclusive agreement to use. If every carrier had the iPhone and Apple wanted to implement something like visual voicemail how would they be able to get the carriers to do it? Historically carriers haven't exactly been known for innovation - or if they do add a feature like visual voicemail it typically comes with a fee (hello Verizon)
So no, I'm pretty happy with the way things are, thank you. Despite your argument, the real innovation happened BECAUSE of the iPhone exclusivity. The iPhone currently exists because of Apple's original exclusive agreement with AT&T - and AT&T gets FAR too little credit for making a MAJOR break with how business was done in the US cellular market. If you don't like AT&T, then get on other companies to suck less then the iPhone (or radical thought, pass Apple).
But inane comments like "the iPhone should be legislated on every carrier" are just nuts. If a carrier want's the phone, they should have to pay for it, not just get it handed to them. Want to talk about stifling innovation - what if it was mandated that handsets had to be on all carriers? Would there be near this excitement over the Droid? Would people even care? Then you would have the equally inane whiners carrying on about Apple's "monopoly" (just like with the iPod)
AT&T is building out, and if they can even the field then it's all over. Seems like they are making progress in the Bay Area
P.T. Barnum P.T. Barnum...
Really? AT&T can and is upgrading their network.
Verizon is finding out it's much harder to duplicate the iPhone (three lackluster tries so far, still counting!)
Ever hear the saying "I may be fat but your stupid and I can diet?" Verizon has a significant problem right now. There is no reason why AT&T can't build out their network and by all accounts they are. These things don't happen over night - nothing about infrastructure moves quickly. Verizon has been laying fibre for five years in my area, and I'm still at least a year out from even being offered FIOS - which now is less appealing as they have changed their pricing to make it more expensive then the incumbent cable co
is that enuff P.T. Barnum;s or you want more ???
big boy
Someone is a tad defensive...
WHY sad because the rest of the country go f itself as far as cell phones go
IF you can't<< HOLD >> a call in N Y C . then you fail the country
I dunno, sounds like it sucks to be you in NYC. Life is just fine where I am and your crappy experience in no way diminishes my awesome experience. Rant all you want, my iPhone works just fine (and not just where I live, in large parts of the rest of the country where I have been).
I'm glad there are people who want to live in big cities like NYC or densely populated areas like the Bay Area - and hopefully they stay there
great post
Thank you
How about because Verizon historically has been the most abusive and restrictive of all carriers and only now is feigning any kind of customer choice because they have to? I mean their blackberry models didn't start sporting WiFi until a year or so ago!
How quickly people develop selective memory.
You shouldn't try to counter perceived myths with your own myths.
My former Verizon phone that I retired a few months ago was over 4 years old and had features that were absent on the iPhone until this: MMS, video recording, tethering (though via a cable), and support for several Bluetooth profiles beyond just the hands-free profiles that the iPhone supports.
Most of those missing Verizon phone features are things that only a handful of users are going to use such as disabled Bluetooth profiles. Or even wifi that you mentioned.
If AT&T were truly as bad as is fussed about, it wouldn't matter how good the iPhone was, it wouldn't have blockbuster sales three years in a row with industry topping customer satisfaction.
Nonsense. The Motorola Razr had massive sales for years but was a really terrible phone. It was the fashionable cell phone to have. Just like the iPhone has become (except being a better phone the Razr ever was). The iPhone is the "must have" cell phone du jour.
LIke megapixels in a digital camera where the raw number of pixels on it's own has little to do with the quality of the picture recorded by the camera the whole "3G" thing is blown way out of proportion. I don't blame Verizon for doing it, after all "the network" is the only compelling differentiator they have. They better enjoy it while it lasts - AT&T is building out, and if they can even the field then it's all over. Seems like they are making progress in the Bay Area
Please, it doesn't matter if AT&T builds out its network. There isn't going to be some mass exodus from Verizon in such an event as you're trying to imply. The smart phone market is a small segment of the cell phone market. There are plenty of people that still just want a phone and being able to browse the internet while sitting on the toilet at Starbucks isn't going to matter to them.
Apple shouldn't! Verizon is evil, they bashed the iPhone in a series of ads and don't deserve to carry it.
Wow...just wow. Um, I hope you enjoy the holiday break from 1st grade. Hope Santa brings you plenty of fun toys to play with.
Verizon does not get above 1 mbps average.
AT&T gets 2.5 mbps average.
Verizon is stuck at less than 1 mbps average for at least two years.
AT&T is moving to over 7 mbps in 2010 - it is already there in 30 cities.
My numbers come directly from the carriers' websites. AT&T doesn't even advertise their network to get to your supposed speed.
You are also comparing average speed with max speed.
Here's the bottom line: Apple doesn't need Verizon
Some people want an iPhone on Verizon. Verizon (now) want's the iPhone. But looking at Apple's balance sheet, they are doing just fine with their current strategy.
There is nothing wrong with Apple's balance sheet --- it's the expectations of the Apple investors that is the BIG problem. Apple investors (and Wall Street analysts) expects Apple to go with Verizon in the next round.
Really? AT&T can and is upgrading their network.
Verizon is finding out it's much harder to duplicate the iPhone (three lackluster tries so far, still counting!)
Ever hear the saying "I may be fat but your stupid and I can diet?" Verizon has a significant problem right now. There is no reason why AT&T can't build out their network and by all accounts they are. These things don't happen over night - nothing about infrastructure moves quickly. Verizon has been laying fibre for five years in my area, and I'm still at least a year out from even being offered FIOS - which now is less appealing as they have changed their pricing to make it more expensive then the incumbent cable co
It is a comparative exercise --- as long as Verizon sucks less than AT&T, Verizon will continue to be the "king" of the networks. And it isn't that hard because Verizon is already ahead right now, and staying ahead ain't all that difficult.
Verizon doesn't need a real iphone killer, period. AT&T is barely beating Verizon in retail net adds right now with the iphone --- buying market share by lowering margins. I don't know how Apple fans (who like to talk about Apple's fantastic profit margins with a single digit PC market share) would ignore the fact that Verizon wants to keep high margins.
IMO all the above in wrong.
First - Completely wrong on the analysis in China. the issue in China is the government not allowing mobile phones with WiFi plus 2 million gray market iPhones with WiFi. In addition the government owned network has set the price of the phone far too high for the market that continues to import gray market iPhones for less with more features users want.
Second - Completely wrong about Apple's strategy with the iPhone. Apple does not want the iPhone to become a commodity like the Droid - where the network provider makes the majority of the margin and the manufacturer just pumps out millions of devices with razor thin margins. It does impact economy of scale in addition to paying additional licensing fees to QualCom.
The one thing above that is half right is that the barrier is Apple.
It is not about Verizon - it is about Apple. Apple does not need to help Verizon make billions off the iPhone. Apple needs to protect its own margins and remain a premium player and not let the iPhone become the PC of the mobile phone market.
The first half of your post is completely irrelevant to the point that was being made. Why Apple made a special iPhone for China doesn't matter. The point is that they were willing to make a special version of the iPhone, and it apparently didn't cause a devastating splintering of their manufacturing capacity. So people's notion that doing that would somehow break the economy of scale in manufacturing are incorrect.
The last part of your post claims that by having an iPhone on Verizon would somehow make the iPhone a commodity and seriously eat into Apple's profit margin. Please explain that leap of logic. Obviously, Apple isn't going to give away the iPhone for free if they make a Verizon phone. The two companies would need to come to a business agreement. But that then leads back to the only barrier being that Apple and Verizon need to agree to do it. There are no significant technical design, manufacturing, or stock management barriers that would prevent it from happening. Apple and Verizon would only need to come to an agreement. They may or may not be able to agree on a price...thus the BARRIER! (So basically, even though the last bit of you post was meant to contradict mine, it in fact supports it...thanks!
Are there any statistics that show the volume ofdata traffic in AT&T and Verizon? And what increase would the iPhone bring?
We really don't know how well Verizon will actually do.
People repeatedly ask for this, and I've never once seen a solid answer to this question.
Perhaps further down the thread.....
People repeatedly ask for this, and I've never once seen a solid answer to this question.
Perhaps further down the thread.....
Replying to my own post may be seen to be in bad form, but I had to note that, yet again, there has been no data-based response from anyone on this issue.
Don't know why this information should me any more or less confidential than say, number of subscribers.
I know it's been dropped here years back. The network was just switched off, after a transition period, on a particular date that was widely publicised and things have never been better. At the same time, before that even happened, everyone could tell that handset makers lost interest in CDMA tech as any available CDMA phones were decidely old-tech. (The Droid clearly breaks the rule)
It would seem to defeat all of their usual logic for Apple to make a special handset to satisfy one, or a small number, of what might be called redundant networks.
More P.T. Barnum
There aren?t too many names I can use that will make the context understand on this forum.
Hasn't most of the developed world already abandoned CDMA technology some time ago?
I know it's been dropped here years back. The network was just switched off, after a transition period, on a particular date that was widely publicised and things have never been better. At the same time, before that even happened, everyone could tell that handset makers lost interest in CDMA tech as any available CDMA phones were decidely old-tech. (The Droid clearly breaks the rule)
It would seem to defeat all of their usual logic for Apple to make a special handset to satisfy one, or a small number, of what might be called redundant networks.
Most don?t use it, but it?s far from being completely abandoned. Many smaller, poorer countries will be using it for a long time now that it?s invested. Even Verizon and S. Korea while having either LTE or 3GSM, respectively, will also maintain their CDMA network for a very long time. It?s paid for, low cost and works very well. I can?t say that about GSM?s audio codec.
There will be a lot CDMA-based phones in the future. Especially when you consider that Verizon and Sprint make up about 150M subscribers in a market that now wants consumer friendly smartphones. The Droid for Europe is the Milestone and of course is GSM/3GSM.
I also like to stream pandora through my car stereo when driving. With verizon or edge you can't do that and be able to get phone calls. That's pure fail in my mind.
Sheldon
How come nobody talks about the fact that you can't do voice and data at the same time on the Verizon network? That's huge for the way I use the phone. Having had a 1st gen iPhone that was always a problem to be talking to somebody and not being able to answer a question on the net or send an email or picture etc.
I also like to stream pandora through my car stereo when driving. With verizon or edge you can't do that and be able to get phone calls. That's pure fail in my mind.
Sheldon
Dude do you live in a cave? Both ATT and Apple have commercials about VZW phones not being able to go online during a phone. You can text and chat during one but no internet. There I spoke about it. Happy?
Dude do you live in a cave? Both ATT and Apple have commercials about VZW phones not being able to go online during a phone. You can text and chat during one but no internet. There I spoke about it. Happy?
Where the hell, in the apple ads, do they mention about "vzw" phones?
Yeah, maybe AT&T ads.. But not on Apple.
Where do you live?
You know im kind of getting annoyed seeing people on here say Verizon is bashing the iphone. VZW has NOT based the iphone..the "iphone bashing" commercials are for the Droid and PAID by Motorola. VZW's logo appears because guess what? the PHONE is ONLY on VZW. The only way VZW has mentioned the iphone is with the "map for that" and "island of misfit toys" to which they are showing Apple they need to come to VZW.
Why is it you guys are so anti VZW? Because it cant make "Data and voice" simultaneously? VZW cant "talk and browse" at the same time,but you can sure as hell talk AND text at the same time. so what more do you need? you guys act like EVERYONE is watching a youtube video and talking to their friend at the same time. It's a luxury NOT a necessity. Talk and text is 100% fine with me until LTE is up and running, be it Q4 2010 or 2011. Apple will have made a phone for LTE by then anyway,so why cant they cash in for 1-2 years on a CDMA phone? and why does Apple have to only go to VZW? why cant they join multiple networks? As has been said before CDMA or GSM whichever they choose with the right amount given to them they will make.
I for one hope they DO go to VZW AND/OR T-Mobile. That will benefit ALL. VZW will NOT incur an "overload" as you all hope they do. People will stay with ATT,some may go, who knows, but what happened to ATT's network wont happen to VZW because its not like all the iphone subscribers will be running to them. As some of you have pointed out you are satisfied with it. So be it.
Bring on the iphone in 2010, I'm hopeful that it finds MULTIPLE new homes with NO Exclusivity agreement.
Well if the droid ads are targeting the iPhone, and Verizon isn't "paying" for it, and it's logos are on there, than why doesn't Verizon do anything about? Because it's totally making Verizon look bad.
And Talk & Text is 100% perfect for you, but you also gotta think about everyone else. If you want up to date technology at the moment, talking & browsing is a piece of art work. Now if everything was flipped around, & Verizon had talk & browse, and AT&T didn't, I would probably see you complaining about it.
BTW: we all aren't going anti-Verizon here, we're just speaking the truth, and what people want.
There is nothing wrong with Apple's balance sheet --- it's the expectations of the Apple investors that is the BIG problem. Apple investors (and Wall Street analysts) expects Apple to go with Verizon in the next round.
Its an overstatement to call it an expectation. An educated guess at best. The last analyst to make a prediction said they believed there was a 70% chance Apple would go to Verizon.
The analysts know that Apple has had some trouble keeping up with demand for the iPhone. As long as iPhone sales continue to increase Wall Street has nothing to complain about.
Verizon doesn't need a real iphone killer, period. AT&T is barely beating Verizon in retail net adds right now with the iphone --- buying market share by lowering margins. I don't know how Apple fans (who like to talk about Apple's fantastic profit margins with a single digit PC market share) would ignore the fact that Verizon wants to keep high margins.
Back in January 2009, AT&T had 77 million subscribers - Verizon 72 million. Today AT&T has 81.6 million with no major acquisitions, Verizon has 89 million after acquiring 14 million. Verizon did not gain this lead through competition.
You continue to over play the argument that AT&T pays a high cost for iPhone subsidy, over the life of an iPhone contract AT&T will make back four to five times that subsidy.
Verizon isn't analogous to Apple, Verizon doesn't actually make anything. They provide wireless service.