So we have another example of a bunch of companies trying to do something they are not good at and wasting billions of $ only to fail in the end.
AT&T is not a application company, the are network provide and they should focus their investment there. Iphone was success with them because they only focus on the providing the service (i know they had network issue) image how bad it was if they did everything Apple is good at plus the network, it would have failed.
Ah ha! Could that be the sound of [GSM versions of] Pre and Pixi coming to AT&T? Sounds great! Palm Pre has an elegant method of implementing multi-tasking into the user interface. I do still prefer my iPhone as multi-tasking is not important to me personally. But I do regard Palm as worthy competition (if only they would develop their own sync software!) Nice to see more Android phones too.
I think Palm is close to being on Life Support.
Android hurts them more than iPhone does.
App development looks like crap on that thing. Android certainly is respectable.
When the dust settles, its iPhone and Android.
RIM will still have a business stronghold for a good while. In 3 years since the iPhone was introduced, I have seen little in updates to the Blackberry frankly. Just don't know why a normal user would pick a Blackberry unless they just have a no way Jose hangup with software keyboards.
Windows Mobile should just break out the coffin and Symbian will continue to lose share.
Why do you think Apple is getting hit with all the Nokia lawsuits?
They would be dumb to increase revenue by many billions of dollars? Please explain.
Apple might look at it as an old technology and would rather move forward to LTE thus inspiring VZ to expedite their roll out plans. Apple leads, others follow.
Except Apple would still be dumb to make a CDMA phone and the likelihood of even a dual one next time is still very slim.
I used to think that too. Now, I'm not so sure.
The Qualacomm dual chip won't be seen until the second half of this year, so whether it could be used in an iPhone is questionable right now. But Apple could still do it as others have, using two chips. It's not elegant, and uses more board space and power, but who knows?
I'm not sure about announcing it during January though, that could hurt sales.
The other question is whether Verizon will implement the new standard of voice/data that's recently been approved. Would Apple, and it's users want a network that didn't allow that?
Imagine users moving from AT&T finding out that they couldn't talk and browse?
The Qualacomm dual chip won't be seen until the second half of this year, so whether it could be used in an iPhone is questionable right now. But Apple could still do it as others have, using two chips. It's not elegant, and uses more board space and power, but who knows?
I'm not sure about announcing it during January though, that could hurt sales.
The other question is whether Verizon will implement the new standard of voice/data that's recently been approved. Would Apple, and it's users want a network that didn't allow that?
Imagine users moving from AT&T finding out that they couldn't talk and browse?
In order to make that statement, a person would have to know (at least):
1. How many Verizon and Sprint subscribers will buy a CDMA iPhone.
2. How long CDMA networks will be available to those subscribers.
3. How much additional cost there is in manufacturing a CDMA iPhone.
4. What margin will Apple receive on CDMA iPhones.
5. What margin is Apple modeling for all iPhones.
6. What is the value of exposing millions of new customers to Apple products.
7. How long will people keep their first CDMA iPhone, vis a vis the availability of
feasible multi-radio chips and the rollout of LTE networks.
Once a person knows all those things, they would have to make a complex calculation to determine if it is a good business idea. If you know all these things and have done the calculation and determined it is dumb, then you are correct.
Well you are just thinking of the USA.
My point about a CDMA phone being "dumb" is that it's a fading technology and pretty much not used anywhere except the USA. I think the conventional wisdom is that even if the entire USA was on CDMA, it probably wouldn't make sense to make a CDMA phone. It's a dead end technology.
So we have another example of a bunch of companies trying to do something they are not good at and wasting billions of $ only to fail in the end.
AT&T is not a application company, the are network provide and they should focus their investment there. Iphone was success with them because they only focus on the providing the service (i know they had network issue) image how bad it was if they did everything Apple is good at plus the network, it would have failed.
Exactly. ATT Wireless [McCaw Cellular] outsourced from the beginning it's app development for it's Call Center Suite and much more.
They used Siemens after the Openstep transition via Java.
Now I'm to believe their Call Center backend app experience, again outsourced to third parties, somehow means they are building an Apple Store for Droid java phones and figure the Droid platform being managed by Google is all they need to do?
I hear you and I thought of that too. We should note that several people have stated that Verizon has loosened up considerably and is not restricting other phones as much as they used to do (e.g. Droid). Also, I think having a carrier restrict the iPhone now is not nearly as much an issue as it would have been when the iPhone was first released. Back in 2007, all the capabilities of the iPhone were not known, so if AT&T had restricted it too much, people would never have seen all the possibilities. If Verizon, for example, were to restrict an iPhone on its network now, it would be a well-publicized competitive disadvantage to competing carriers who did not restrict it. You are correct in noting the app store issue. I have a feeling this is still an obstacle to any agreement between Apple and Verizon.
Verizon announced a while ago that manufacturers can have their own app store on their networked phones. I would assume that means Apple would have the iTunes and App Store. Verizon also said that they would have their own app store. Whether that means that all phones would be required to be able to use it as well isn't known, as Verizon hasn't made that clear.
But right now, pricing seems to be the big issue between Apple and Verizon.
My point about a CDMA phone being "dumb" is that it's a fading technology and pretty much not used anywhere except the USA. I think the conventional wisdom is that even if the entire USA was on CDMA, it probably wouldn't make sense to make a CDMA phone. It's a dead end technology.
It's used in Japan and on some Chinese networks. Probably for a total of around 250 million customers all told. That's not something to sneeze at.
It is directly because of competing platforms that innovation moves forward. If every one ran the same OS and development environment, there never would be anything innovative going on.
The iPhone happened because Apple was able to design and develop their own platform, pushing the market forward. Palm's webOS, while nearly not as popular as iPhone OS, did the same thing.
Innovation slows when the entire market is busy trying to be good-enough-me-too products that don't offer anything new to users.
You misunderstood. The references are to "app development" specifically. It is not "directly because of competing platforms that <app> innovation moves forward."
So we have another example of a bunch of companies trying to do something they are not good at and wasting billions of $ only to fail in the end.
AT&T is not a application company, the are network provide and they should focus their investment there. Iphone was success with them because they only focus on the providing the service (i know they had network issue) image how bad it was if they did everything Apple is good at plus the network, it would have failed.
Apple might look at it as an old technology and would rather move forward to LTE thus inspiring VZ to expedite their roll out plans. Apple leads, others follow.
That won't work, because LTE will need to fall back to CDMA on Verizon's network when LTE is not available, just like 3G falls back to Edge and GPRS. Apple needs a CDMA-capable phone to support Verizon within the five years. The buzz is growing; the Verizon iPhone is coming.
App development looks like crap on that thing. Android certainly is respectable.
When the dust settles, its iPhone and Android.
RIM will still have a business stronghold for a good while. In 3 years since the iPhone was introduced, I have seen little in updates to the Blackberry frankly. Just don't know why a normal user would pick a Blackberry unless they just have a no way Jose hangup with software keyboards.
Well they have been on life support for the past year or more. Palm has made quite the resurgence, but being exclusive to Sprint for so long was incredibly silly (or they were testing the water) They just went international and are now bringing the action to AT&T and Verizon, which gives the platform a much better chance at getting recognition and more widespread acceptance. As nice as the Pre is...Sprint? F*ck that lol.
RIM is successful because "It just works". People use phones as a communication device and the Blackberry has no superior in this regard. It doesnt have the eye candy that other platforms have (yet) or the webkit (yet) but the platform works and remarkably well.
Anyways, AT&T needs more phones other than the iPhone and 4 BlackBerrys so i see this as a great boost for AT&T. Hopefully the HTC HD2 makes its way to AT&T since the Nexus One is going to be on T-Mo and Verizon.
Verizon announced a while ago that manufacturers can have their own app store on their networked phones. I would assume that means Apple would have the iTunes and App Store. Verizon also said that they would have their own app store. Whether that means that all phones would be required to be able to use it as well isn't known, as Verizon hasn't made that clear.
But right now, pricing seems to be the big issue between Apple and Verizon.
Verizon also has not made clear if phones which only use the Verizon app store get a higher subsidy than phones which can also use non-Verizon app stores. I think the pricing and app store issues cannot be separated within the overall negotiation.
It's used in Japan and on some Chinese networks. Probably for a total of around 250 million customers all told. That's not something to sneeze at.
There are 500 million CMDA2000 users, 130 million EV-DO users, if the EV-DO users are a subset of the CDMA ones, I don't know, but I guess they would be.
Verizon also has not made clear if phones which only use the Verizon app store get a higher subsidy than phones which can also use non-Verizon app stores. I think the pricing and app store issues cannot be separated within the overall negotiation.
Well, I really can't say either way. But that would mean that all phones would be in the same boat because all phone manufacturers are making, or have made their own app stores, and it's not likely that they will give them up because they're making them the centerpiece of their operations. So they would all be at the same level there.
Comments
AT&T is not a application company, the are network provide and they should focus their investment there. Iphone was success with them because they only focus on the providing the service (i know they had network issue) image how bad it was if they did everything Apple is good at plus the network, it would have failed.
Ah ha! Could that be the sound of [GSM versions of] Pre and Pixi coming to AT&T? Sounds great! Palm Pre has an elegant method of implementing multi-tasking into the user interface. I do still prefer my iPhone as multi-tasking is not important to me personally. But I do regard Palm as worthy competition (if only they would develop their own sync software!) Nice to see more Android phones too.
I think Palm is close to being on Life Support.
Android hurts them more than iPhone does.
App development looks like crap on that thing. Android certainly is respectable.
When the dust settles, its iPhone and Android.
RIM will still have a business stronghold for a good while. In 3 years since the iPhone was introduced, I have seen little in updates to the Blackberry frankly. Just don't know why a normal user would pick a Blackberry unless they just have a no way Jose hangup with software keyboards.
Windows Mobile should just break out the coffin and Symbian will continue to lose share.
Why do you think Apple is getting hit with all the Nokia lawsuits?
They would be dumb to increase revenue by many billions of dollars? Please explain.
Apple might look at it as an old technology and would rather move forward to LTE thus inspiring VZ to expedite their roll out plans. Apple leads, others follow.
Except Apple would still be dumb to make a CDMA phone and the likelihood of even a dual one next time is still very slim.
I used to think that too. Now, I'm not so sure.
The Qualacomm dual chip won't be seen until the second half of this year, so whether it could be used in an iPhone is questionable right now. But Apple could still do it as others have, using two chips. It's not elegant, and uses more board space and power, but who knows?
I'm not sure about announcing it during January though, that could hurt sales.
The other question is whether Verizon will implement the new standard of voice/data that's recently been approved. Would Apple, and it's users want a network that didn't allow that?
Imagine users moving from AT&T finding out that they couldn't talk and browse?
I used to think that too. Now, I'm not so sure.
The Qualacomm dual chip won't be seen until the second half of this year, so whether it could be used in an iPhone is questionable right now. But Apple could still do it as others have, using two chips. It's not elegant, and uses more board space and power, but who knows?
I'm not sure about announcing it during January though, that could hurt sales.
The other question is whether Verizon will implement the new standard of voice/data that's recently been approved. Would Apple, and it's users want a network that didn't allow that?
Imagine users moving from AT&T finding out that they couldn't talk and browse?
Think PA Semi.
Oh, that is awesome. Ready or not, here goes AAPL to $300.
Well, check how much they fell today after that announcement, along with others made at CES.
In order to make that statement, a person would have to know (at least):
1. How many Verizon and Sprint subscribers will buy a CDMA iPhone.
2. How long CDMA networks will be available to those subscribers.
3. How much additional cost there is in manufacturing a CDMA iPhone.
4. What margin will Apple receive on CDMA iPhones.
5. What margin is Apple modeling for all iPhones.
6. What is the value of exposing millions of new customers to Apple products.
7. How long will people keep their first CDMA iPhone, vis a vis the availability of
feasible multi-radio chips and the rollout of LTE networks.
Once a person knows all those things, they would have to make a complex calculation to determine if it is a good business idea. If you know all these things and have done the calculation and determined it is dumb, then you are correct.
Well you are just thinking of the USA.
My point about a CDMA phone being "dumb" is that it's a fading technology and pretty much not used anywhere except the USA. I think the conventional wisdom is that even if the entire USA was on CDMA, it probably wouldn't make sense to make a CDMA phone. It's a dead end technology.
So we have another example of a bunch of companies trying to do something they are not good at and wasting billions of $ only to fail in the end.
AT&T is not a application company, the are network provide and they should focus their investment there. Iphone was success with them because they only focus on the providing the service (i know they had network issue) image how bad it was if they did everything Apple is good at plus the network, it would have failed.
Exactly. ATT Wireless [McCaw Cellular] outsourced from the beginning it's app development for it's Call Center Suite and much more.
They used Siemens after the Openstep transition via Java.
Now I'm to believe their Call Center backend app experience, again outsourced to third parties, somehow means they are building an Apple Store for Droid java phones and figure the Droid platform being managed by Google is all they need to do?
They'll waste billions and get nowhere.
I hear you and I thought of that too. We should note that several people have stated that Verizon has loosened up considerably and is not restricting other phones as much as they used to do (e.g. Droid). Also, I think having a carrier restrict the iPhone now is not nearly as much an issue as it would have been when the iPhone was first released. Back in 2007, all the capabilities of the iPhone were not known, so if AT&T had restricted it too much, people would never have seen all the possibilities. If Verizon, for example, were to restrict an iPhone on its network now, it would be a well-publicized competitive disadvantage to competing carriers who did not restrict it. You are correct in noting the app store issue. I have a feeling this is still an obstacle to any agreement between Apple and Verizon.
Verizon announced a while ago that manufacturers can have their own app store on their networked phones. I would assume that means Apple would have the iTunes and App Store. Verizon also said that they would have their own app store. Whether that means that all phones would be required to be able to use it as well isn't known, as Verizon hasn't made that clear.
But right now, pricing seems to be the big issue between Apple and Verizon.
Think PA Semi.
PA Semi won't be making radio chips. They will be making processors. Radio chips are a whole different ball game.
Well you are just thinking of the USA.
My point about a CDMA phone being "dumb" is that it's a fading technology and pretty much not used anywhere except the USA. I think the conventional wisdom is that even if the entire USA was on CDMA, it probably wouldn't make sense to make a CDMA phone. It's a dead end technology.
It's used in Japan and on some Chinese networks. Probably for a total of around 250 million customers all told. That's not something to sneeze at.
Hmm... I take issue with that comment.
It is directly because of competing platforms that innovation moves forward. If every one ran the same OS and development environment, there never would be anything innovative going on.
The iPhone happened because Apple was able to design and develop their own platform, pushing the market forward. Palm's webOS, while nearly not as popular as iPhone OS, did the same thing.
Innovation slows when the entire market is busy trying to be good-enough-me-too products that don't offer anything new to users.
You misunderstood. The references are to "app development" specifically. It is not "directly because of competing platforms that <app> innovation moves forward."
So we have another example of a bunch of companies trying to do something they are not good at and wasting billions of $ only to fail in the end.
AT&T is not a application company, the are network provide and they should focus their investment there. Iphone was success with them because they only focus on the providing the service (i know they had network issue) image how bad it was if they did everything Apple is good at plus the network, it would have failed.
AT&T is only a network provider? LOL
Apple might look at it as an old technology and would rather move forward to LTE thus inspiring VZ to expedite their roll out plans. Apple leads, others follow.
That won't work, because LTE will need to fall back to CDMA on Verizon's network when LTE is not available, just like 3G falls back to Edge and GPRS. Apple needs a CDMA-capable phone to support Verizon within the five years. The buzz is growing; the Verizon iPhone is coming.
I think Palm is close to being on Life Support.
Android hurts them more than iPhone does.
App development looks like crap on that thing. Android certainly is respectable.
When the dust settles, its iPhone and Android.
RIM will still have a business stronghold for a good while. In 3 years since the iPhone was introduced, I have seen little in updates to the Blackberry frankly. Just don't know why a normal user would pick a Blackberry unless they just have a no way Jose hangup with software keyboards.
Well they have been on life support for the past year or more. Palm has made quite the resurgence, but being exclusive to Sprint for so long was incredibly silly (or they were testing the water) They just went international and are now bringing the action to AT&T and Verizon, which gives the platform a much better chance at getting recognition and more widespread acceptance. As nice as the Pre is...Sprint? F*ck that lol.
RIM is successful because "It just works". People use phones as a communication device and the Blackberry has no superior in this regard. It doesnt have the eye candy that other platforms have (yet) or the webkit (yet) but the platform works and remarkably well.
Anyways, AT&T needs more phones other than the iPhone and 4 BlackBerrys so i see this as a great boost for AT&T. Hopefully the HTC HD2 makes its way to AT&T since the Nexus One is going to be on T-Mo and Verizon.
Verizon announced a while ago that manufacturers can have their own app store on their networked phones. I would assume that means Apple would have the iTunes and App Store. Verizon also said that they would have their own app store. Whether that means that all phones would be required to be able to use it as well isn't known, as Verizon hasn't made that clear.
But right now, pricing seems to be the big issue between Apple and Verizon.
Verizon also has not made clear if phones which only use the Verizon app store get a higher subsidy than phones which can also use non-Verizon app stores. I think the pricing and app store issues cannot be separated within the overall negotiation.
It's used in Japan and on some Chinese networks. Probably for a total of around 250 million customers all told. That's not something to sneeze at.
There are 500 million CMDA2000 users, 130 million EV-DO users, if the EV-DO users are a subset of the CDMA ones, I don't know, but I guess they would be.
Verizon also has not made clear if phones which only use the Verizon app store get a higher subsidy than phones which can also use non-Verizon app stores. I think the pricing and app store issues cannot be separated within the overall negotiation.
Well, I really can't say either way. But that would mean that all phones would be in the same boat because all phone manufacturers are making, or have made their own app stores, and it's not likely that they will give them up because they're making them the centerpiece of their operations. So they would all be at the same level there.