So then when I get a call and it starts in 3G and ends up in GPRS, what does that mean? There have been many calls where my 3G indicator ended up as a small circle when I was done.
GPRS isn't Edge. Think of Edge as 2.5G. GPRS is 2G. For some reason, AT&T phones do not like to handoff from 3G to Edge. This is more of a problem in large metropolitan cities (such as the one that I live in) since the fallback from 3G is Edge. In smaller metropolitan areas or in areas where the Edge signal is weak, it will properly fall back from 3G to GPRS. Usually for me, the phone will go from 3G to Edge. About a second or two later, the call is dropped. On some cases, the phone will go all the way from 3G to GPRS (skipping Edge). When it does that, I can maintain my calls.
The next-generation iPhone will be smaller than the current version.
No! Apple is keeping their size. If you're thinking and hoping for the iPhone Lite, than you're just listening to rumors. Apple built this phone to be bright and and a big widscreen iPod. And overall, it's an amazing and perfect size.
with all of the rumored announcements, the show on Wednesday is going to last all day. and one more thing and one more thing, and oh yeah, one more thing.
Whatever happens, expect the stock to drop another $10-15... then buy AAPL like there's no tomorrow...
I find that the fact that Verizon supposedly has better coverage a lie. I live in area that Verizon shows having 3G coverage and when I was tried out Verizon I could not make a call from my home. I actually live on top of hill and we did not have any coverage.
So my son buys me for Christmas 2008 a 16G iPhone and I have solid and strong AT&T coverage where we are at. I was somewhat surprised how well the phone works here. They I found out why, my home is 1/2 mile away from the 3G AT&T cell tower that serves the freeway near us.
All carriers have dead spots but for Verizon can not even cover the area I am at only a mile and half from the freeway really is surprising. My phone has worked great and does what I want and AT&T has been fine at home and anyplace my wife and I have to go from 80 miles north of Seattle to Los Angeles.
The information in the article may be generally correct about exclusivity ending in the future, but I don't think we're going to get any specific information about cell phone carrier changes during this announcement. The tablet could have multiple carriers, but I think that'd be as far as it goes as far as discussing the matter.
I believe this simply because Apple has become hardcore about their focus and message. The news of iPhone going to Verizon significantly muddies the message, which is not ideal for a brand new product launch. They'll want all news coverage to be about the tablet and tablet alone.
No! Apple is keeping their size. If you're thinking and hoping for the iPhone Lite, than you're just listening to rumors. Apple built this phone to be bright and and a big widscreen iPod. And overall, it's an amazing and perfect size.
No, I am not thinking about iPhone Lite. I am thinking about a smaller next-generation iPhone.
My guess is that the overall mass of the device will not change. Simply that the height/width will slightly decrease and that the device might actually thicken slightly.
Again, this is mostly to accommodate peripheral components like an autofocus camera. These issues weren't a factor with a music-only iPod, but they are factors with a multi-function device such as the iPhone/iPod touch.
No, I am not thinking about iPhone Lite. I am thinking about a smaller next-generation iPhone.
My guess is that the overall mass of the device will not change. Simply that the height/width will slightly decrease and that the device might actually thicken slightly.
Again, this is mostly to accommodate peripheral components like an autofocus camera. These issues weren't a factor with a music-only iPod, but they are factors with a multi-function device such as the iPhone/iPod touch.
The current iPhone have autofocus camera and we all know Apple don't design their hardware to accommodate current peripherals. Apple usually wait for peripherals to fit their designs. We might never see a change in the current iPhone design (screen size and home button will not go away). The current screen size is perfect and no one complains about it. Why mess with perfect?
Seems like everybody has forgotten about the uproar that came when Apple first announced that the iPhone was coming to Cingular (which became AT&T). There were a lot of people that were really upset clear back in January 2007. It was because the AT&T network was crap already. Adding the mediocre radio in the iPhone, coupled with its heavy data load made the network that much worse.
It's funny how often we get long-term memory loss.
The current iPhone have autofocus camera and we all know Apple don't design their hardware to accommodate current peripherals. Apple usually wait for peripherals to fit their designs. We might never see a change in the current iPhone design (screen size and home button will not go away). The current screen size is perfect for touch.
The same goes for the iPod Touch.
Well, we'll see.
I am not an employee of Apple Inc. I have no idea what their future product line will contain. I'm just making wild-ass speculative guesses based on my own personal understanding of the current state of consumer electronics and the possibility of where the trends lie with a healthy respect for what is actually a conceivable shipping design.
That said, I believe that Apple would benefit in switching to a form factor that reduces length and width by giving up a bit of thickness for the iPhone/iPod touch, due to the severe restraints in component availability.
2) I’d say the contract is likely up in the summer, after 3 full years on the market. Foolish for AT&T to make an agreement on a phone they never saw and have it start 6 months before it goes on sale.
I would obviously think this is ACTUALLY a 5 year deal, and that their 5 years are already up. Why? Because Apple and AT&T already signed a contract in 2005 and is now 2010. They signed it before there was an iPhone. But Apple keeps their word on a new product, even though it's not even built yet. That's why, in 2005 through 2007, they started working and building up any connections they needed to support the iPhone, which obviously would be a hassle to control by now. But other than that, I still don't believe that the Apple iPhone is going anywhere, anytime soon. Atleast not this year..
Seems like everybody has forgotten about the uproar that came when Apple first announced that the iPhone was coming to Cingular (which became AT&T). There were a lot of people that were really upset clear back in January 2007. It was because the AT&T network was crap already. Adding the mediocre radio in the iPhone, coupled with its heavy data load made the network that much worse.
It's funny how often we get long-term memory loss.
It was already AT&T, not Cingular when the iPhone debuted 2.5 years ago.
Also, no one really predicted the wild popularity of the iPhone. The massive data demands of the device did not manifest until Apple released the 3G version a year later, which was exacerbated by the debut of the App Store.
I would obviously think this is ACTUALLY a 5 year deal, and that their 5 years are already up. Why? Because Apple and AT&T already signed a contract in 2005 and is now 2010. They signed it before there was an iPhone. But Apple keeps their word on a new product, even though it's not even built yet. That's why, in 2005 through 2007, they started working and building up any connections they needed to support the iPhone, which obviously would be a hassle to control by now. But other than that, I still don't believe that the Apple iPhone is going anywhere, anytime soon. Atleast not this year..
This makes no sense.
The contract would only cover the point when the device was offered to the public. Plus, various rumors indicate that the iPhone was offered to Verizon at least once.
There is no chance of the iPhone disappearing from the AT&T network. The only question is whether or not it would appear on the Verizon service. There is no logic to removing a carrier, especially a GSM carrier with huge subscription numbers. The logical advancement is to add additional network coverage and to increase points of distribution. Apple would gain nothing by 86-ing AT&T.
Damn, how much longer for my Verizon iPhone. Another 2 years until LTE is out? And having had followed and used 3G on both ATT and Verizon before the iPhone came out, I clearly remember ATT just rolling out 3G in little metropolitan patches when Vzw and Sprint pretty much had the bulk of the nation covered in EVDO. The original iPhone didn't even do 3G for that exact reason, it was EDGE only.
I really hope those dual-network Qualcomm chips pan out. I would love an unlocked world phone that worked on what currently is a more reliable network in the US. Sadly I don't think this will happen until VZW 4G.
good luck when you want to look something up on the web when your in a call...
Why do people say this? Whenever our phones drop from 3G to Edge, you cannot go online while on a call. Maybe not everyone experiences this, but we do.
This whole thing where if you want the iPhone in the U.S you have to put up with just one carrier is wrong.
Phones are phones. As long as it works on a carriers network and meets the requirements of the carrier, it should be allowed to work.
It's in Apple's best interest to sell as many units as possible, to as many carriers as possible that is worth doing.
It's in the consumers interest to let the carriers compete on being carriers, not on what phones they have.
With competition we get lower prices and better quality, not this $100 a month rip-off we are experiencing now.
I couldn't agree more!! The huge response in other countries in the days after more carriers have been added to sell is a sign that those sad, sad exclusivity deals have been great for the carrier, but harmed Apple sales and consumers. I'm not exactly in the US, but I for one will be super happy when you guys can get an iPhone from any place you like (apple stores, telcos, best buy, the supermarket or wherever) and buy it whatever format you like (subsidised contract or outright and unlocked).
AT&T uses the world standard for 3G (UMTS/HSDPA with some HSPA showing up) that operate on the 850, 1900, and 2100MHz frequency bands (mostly 850 and 2100 from what I have seen). T-Mobile, on the other hand, runs on an exclusive and proprietary 1700MHz band.
That's not quite correct. The "world standard" for UMTS/HSDPA would be 1900/2100 MHz (paired spectrum, that means 1900 MHz upstream/ 2100 MHz downstream) which is used pretty much everywhere in the world, except for North (and partly South) America. So already AT&Ts frequencies 1900 (not paired with 2100 MHz!) and 850 MHz are somewhat special, while T-Mobile's 1700/2100 MHz pair (again, upstream/downstream) was indeed quite exclusive until recently.
"We don't remember hearing about AT&T's 'horrible network' before the iPhone--do you?"
Of course we didn't hear about AT&T's horrible network before the iPhone, they were still calling themselves Cingular even after the '04 merger, right up until '07. We heard about Cingular's horrible network before the iPhone!
their problem is that they kept quiet about the data hogs slowing their already poor net works
ATT should have sold less phones
or merged their wired systems with other carriers and shared the load
If I remember correctly, AT&T bought a wireless network (Cingular) to be able to stay into the telephone business, because income from landlines was diminishing rapidly.
To attract customers for a network with almost no coverage (because Cingular was relatively new to the game too), they had to have a very special phone.
This made it possible for Apple to negotiate the very unique deal they did. A phone company that dictated the terms instead of the other way around. It also resulted in unique features (like visual voice mail) and incredible low prices for data in the US.
Apple didn't get a foot in the door with other mobile phone company's because they didn't need Apple, and were extorting customers just fine themselves.
I think several company's had a good laugh at Apples proposals.
Of course AT&T didn't believe the iPhone would be such a big hit, even Apple was surprised. But it made AT&T a big player in mobile and Apple a big player in mobile phones.
Yes, this is a true statement. This has nothing to do with Verizon though. Rather, it's a CDMA issue. Voice calls on the CDMA network use the CDMA2000 circuit switched network (similar to GSM/EDGE 2G phone calling on GSM networks). EvDO, CDMA's version of 3G, does not handle voice communications (in fact, EvDO used to stand for Evolution, Data-Only until marketing got ahold of it. Now, it stands for Evolution, Data Optimized). As with GSM, when you are making calls on the 2G network, you cannot have simultaneous data. With GSM based 3G (UMTS/HSDPA/HSPA), both voice calls and data are routed on the same packet switched network. So, if you are using an AT&T 3G phone and start a call on the 3G network, you can talk and surf at the same time.
For many people, this is a severe limitation. For me, being both a Verizon and AT&T customer living in the Dallas/Fort Worth area (one of the most heavily congested areas for both networks), I actually prefer the way CDMA does it versus GSM. Since AT&T's network never seems to handoff 3G calls to 2G when I hit 3G dead zones, I deal with a TON of dropped calls, more so on my iPhone than with my BlackBerry Bold. With my Verizon Tour, I have far fewer drops (I have to loose signal completely to have a drop versus just loosing 3G). Even further, me working in IT, I know how critical QoS is. Part of the reason why there are so many dropped calls on AT&T is due to the fact that on the 3G network, calls are competing with data for bandwidth. With so many full-internet phones on their network (such as the iPhone and others that can fully access the internet without going through proxies), running out of bandwidth within your tower is a real possibility. When this happens, you drop as well. For me, having a separate network for voice and data is critical, even if it means that I can't surf while talking (unless I'm on a Wi-Fi network, which the majority of the time, I am).
I have a BB Tour on VerizonWireless also. Call stability is excellent but as you say, you can't talk and tether at the same time. At least it gives you an option of taking an incoming call or not so you can choose whether you will disconnect or not.
My understanding, however, is there is a newer version of CDMA that will allow simultaneous voice and data but VerizonWireless hasn't adopted it. Don't blame them, though, with LTE coming soon.
Comments
So then when I get a call and it starts in 3G and ends up in GPRS, what does that mean? There have been many calls where my 3G indicator ended up as a small circle when I was done.
GPRS isn't Edge. Think of Edge as 2.5G. GPRS is 2G. For some reason, AT&T phones do not like to handoff from 3G to Edge. This is more of a problem in large metropolitan cities (such as the one that I live in) since the fallback from 3G is Edge. In smaller metropolitan areas or in areas where the Edge signal is weak, it will properly fall back from 3G to GPRS. Usually for me, the phone will go from 3G to Edge. About a second or two later, the call is dropped. On some cases, the phone will go all the way from 3G to GPRS (skipping Edge). When it does that, I can maintain my calls.
No.
The next-generation iPhone will be smaller than the current version.
No! Apple is keeping their size. If you're thinking and hoping for the iPhone Lite, than you're just listening to rumors. Apple built this phone to be bright and and a big widscreen iPod. And overall, it's an amazing and perfect size.
with all of the rumored announcements, the show on Wednesday is going to last all day. and one more thing and one more thing, and oh yeah, one more thing.
Whatever happens, expect the stock to drop another $10-15... then buy AAPL like there's no tomorrow...
So my son buys me for Christmas 2008 a 16G iPhone and I have solid and strong AT&T coverage where we are at. I was somewhat surprised how well the phone works here. They I found out why, my home is 1/2 mile away from the 3G AT&T cell tower that serves the freeway near us.
All carriers have dead spots but for Verizon can not even cover the area I am at only a mile and half from the freeway really is surprising. My phone has worked great and does what I want and AT&T has been fine at home and anyplace my wife and I have to go from 80 miles north of Seattle to Los Angeles.
I believe this simply because Apple has become hardcore about their focus and message. The news of iPhone going to Verizon significantly muddies the message, which is not ideal for a brand new product launch. They'll want all news coverage to be about the tablet and tablet alone.
No! Apple is keeping their size. If you're thinking and hoping for the iPhone Lite, than you're just listening to rumors. Apple built this phone to be bright and and a big widscreen iPod. And overall, it's an amazing and perfect size.
No, I am not thinking about iPhone Lite. I am thinking about a smaller next-generation iPhone.
My guess is that the overall mass of the device will not change. Simply that the height/width will slightly decrease and that the device might actually thicken slightly.
Again, this is mostly to accommodate peripheral components like an autofocus camera. These issues weren't a factor with a music-only iPod, but they are factors with a multi-function device such as the iPhone/iPod touch.
No, I am not thinking about iPhone Lite. I am thinking about a smaller next-generation iPhone.
My guess is that the overall mass of the device will not change. Simply that the height/width will slightly decrease and that the device might actually thicken slightly.
Again, this is mostly to accommodate peripheral components like an autofocus camera. These issues weren't a factor with a music-only iPod, but they are factors with a multi-function device such as the iPhone/iPod touch.
The current iPhone have autofocus camera and we all know Apple don't design their hardware to accommodate current peripherals. Apple usually wait for peripherals to fit their designs. We might never see a change in the current iPhone design (screen size and home button will not go away). The current screen size is perfect and no one complains about it. Why mess with perfect?
The same goes for the iPod Touch.
It's funny how often we get long-term memory loss.
The current iPhone have autofocus camera and we all know Apple don't design their hardware to accommodate current peripherals. Apple usually wait for peripherals to fit their designs. We might never see a change in the current iPhone design (screen size and home button will not go away). The current screen size is perfect for touch.
The same goes for the iPod Touch.
Well, we'll see.
I am not an employee of Apple Inc. I have no idea what their future product line will contain. I'm just making wild-ass speculative guesses based on my own personal understanding of the current state of consumer electronics and the possibility of where the trends lie with a healthy respect for what is actually a conceivable shipping design.
That said, I believe that Apple would benefit in switching to a form factor that reduces length and width by giving up a bit of thickness for the iPhone/iPod touch, due to the severe restraints in component availability.
1)
2) I’d say the contract is likely up in the summer, after 3 full years on the market. Foolish for AT&T to make an agreement on a phone they never saw and have it start 6 months before it goes on sale.
I would obviously think this is ACTUALLY a 5 year deal, and that their 5 years are already up. Why? Because Apple and AT&T already signed a contract in 2005 and is now 2010. They signed it before there was an iPhone. But Apple keeps their word on a new product, even though it's not even built yet. That's why, in 2005 through 2007, they started working and building up any connections they needed to support the iPhone, which obviously would be a hassle to control by now. But other than that, I still don't believe that the Apple iPhone is going anywhere, anytime soon. Atleast not this year..
Seems like everybody has forgotten about the uproar that came when Apple first announced that the iPhone was coming to Cingular (which became AT&T). There were a lot of people that were really upset clear back in January 2007. It was because the AT&T network was crap already. Adding the mediocre radio in the iPhone, coupled with its heavy data load made the network that much worse.
It's funny how often we get long-term memory loss.
It was already AT&T, not Cingular when the iPhone debuted 2.5 years ago.
Also, no one really predicted the wild popularity of the iPhone. The massive data demands of the device did not manifest until Apple released the 3G version a year later, which was exacerbated by the debut of the App Store.
I would obviously think this is ACTUALLY a 5 year deal, and that their 5 years are already up. Why? Because Apple and AT&T already signed a contract in 2005 and is now 2010. They signed it before there was an iPhone. But Apple keeps their word on a new product, even though it's not even built yet. That's why, in 2005 through 2007, they started working and building up any connections they needed to support the iPhone, which obviously would be a hassle to control by now. But other than that, I still don't believe that the Apple iPhone is going anywhere, anytime soon. Atleast not this year..
This makes no sense.
The contract would only cover the point when the device was offered to the public. Plus, various rumors indicate that the iPhone was offered to Verizon at least once.
There is no chance of the iPhone disappearing from the AT&T network. The only question is whether or not it would appear on the Verizon service. There is no logic to removing a carrier, especially a GSM carrier with huge subscription numbers. The logical advancement is to add additional network coverage and to increase points of distribution. Apple would gain nothing by 86-ing AT&T.
Suckers...
I really hope those dual-network Qualcomm chips pan out. I would love an unlocked world phone that worked on what currently is a more reliable network in the US. Sadly I don't think this will happen until VZW 4G.
good luck when you want to look something up on the web when your in a call...
Why do people say this? Whenever our phones drop from 3G to Edge, you cannot go online while on a call. Maybe not everyone experiences this, but we do.
Let the carriers compete!!
This whole thing where if you want the iPhone in the U.S you have to put up with just one carrier is wrong.
Phones are phones. As long as it works on a carriers network and meets the requirements of the carrier, it should be allowed to work.
It's in Apple's best interest to sell as many units as possible, to as many carriers as possible that is worth doing.
It's in the consumers interest to let the carriers compete on being carriers, not on what phones they have.
With competition we get lower prices and better quality, not this $100 a month rip-off we are experiencing now.
I couldn't agree more!! The huge response in other countries in the days after more carriers have been added to sell is a sign that those sad, sad exclusivity deals have been great for the carrier, but harmed Apple sales and consumers. I'm not exactly in the US, but I for one will be super happy when you guys can get an iPhone from any place you like (apple stores, telcos, best buy, the supermarket or wherever) and buy it whatever format you like (subsidised contract or outright and unlocked).
AT&T uses the world standard for 3G (UMTS/HSDPA with some HSPA showing up) that operate on the 850, 1900, and 2100MHz frequency bands (mostly 850 and 2100 from what I have seen). T-Mobile, on the other hand, runs on an exclusive and proprietary 1700MHz band.
That's not quite correct. The "world standard" for UMTS/HSDPA would be 1900/2100 MHz (paired spectrum, that means 1900 MHz upstream/ 2100 MHz downstream) which is used pretty much everywhere in the world, except for North (and partly South) America. So already AT&Ts frequencies 1900 (not paired with 2100 MHz!) and 850 MHz are somewhat special, while T-Mobile's 1700/2100 MHz pair (again, upstream/downstream) was indeed quite exclusive until recently.
Of course we didn't hear about AT&T's horrible network before the iPhone, they were still calling themselves Cingular even after the '04 merger, right up until '07. We heard about Cingular's horrible network before the iPhone!
ATT IS DOING THEIR BEST AT LAYING WIRE
their problem is that they kept quiet about the data hogs slowing their already poor net works
ATT should have sold less phones
or merged their wired systems with other carriers and shared the load
If I remember correctly, AT&T bought a wireless network (Cingular) to be able to stay into the telephone business, because income from landlines was diminishing rapidly.
To attract customers for a network with almost no coverage (because Cingular was relatively new to the game too), they had to have a very special phone.
This made it possible for Apple to negotiate the very unique deal they did. A phone company that dictated the terms instead of the other way around. It also resulted in unique features (like visual voice mail) and incredible low prices for data in the US.
Apple didn't get a foot in the door with other mobile phone company's because they didn't need Apple, and were extorting customers just fine themselves.
I think several company's had a good laugh at Apples proposals.
Of course AT&T didn't believe the iPhone would be such a big hit, even Apple was surprised. But it made AT&T a big player in mobile and Apple a big player in mobile phones.
Yes, this is a true statement. This has nothing to do with Verizon though. Rather, it's a CDMA issue. Voice calls on the CDMA network use the CDMA2000 circuit switched network (similar to GSM/EDGE 2G phone calling on GSM networks). EvDO, CDMA's version of 3G, does not handle voice communications (in fact, EvDO used to stand for Evolution, Data-Only until marketing got ahold of it. Now, it stands for Evolution, Data Optimized). As with GSM, when you are making calls on the 2G network, you cannot have simultaneous data. With GSM based 3G (UMTS/HSDPA/HSPA), both voice calls and data are routed on the same packet switched network. So, if you are using an AT&T 3G phone and start a call on the 3G network, you can talk and surf at the same time.
For many people, this is a severe limitation. For me, being both a Verizon and AT&T customer living in the Dallas/Fort Worth area (one of the most heavily congested areas for both networks), I actually prefer the way CDMA does it versus GSM. Since AT&T's network never seems to handoff 3G calls to 2G when I hit 3G dead zones, I deal with a TON of dropped calls, more so on my iPhone than with my BlackBerry Bold. With my Verizon Tour, I have far fewer drops (I have to loose signal completely to have a drop versus just loosing 3G). Even further, me working in IT, I know how critical QoS is. Part of the reason why there are so many dropped calls on AT&T is due to the fact that on the 3G network, calls are competing with data for bandwidth. With so many full-internet phones on their network (such as the iPhone and others that can fully access the internet without going through proxies), running out of bandwidth within your tower is a real possibility. When this happens, you drop as well. For me, having a separate network for voice and data is critical, even if it means that I can't surf while talking (unless I'm on a Wi-Fi network, which the majority of the time, I am).
I have a BB Tour on VerizonWireless also. Call stability is excellent but as you say, you can't talk and tether at the same time. At least it gives you an option of taking an incoming call or not so you can choose whether you will disconnect or not.
My understanding, however, is there is a newer version of CDMA that will allow simultaneous voice and data but VerizonWireless hasn't adopted it. Don't blame them, though, with LTE coming soon.