I don't suppose you'd like to quantify your remark? Why would they spend time and resources making a phone that would only ship to one carrier in the US when they can build just one device that works in any country in the world, why introduce a phone that can only be used in the US and can't even be taken on holiday with you?
It's still not a good device to "take on holiday", unless you pay a lot of money, Apple sells mostly locked phones, and AT&T's international plans are expensive and starved. It is possible to jailbreak and try to get an in-country SIM, but then I bet I'm going to hear shrill screams of "thief" at that mention.
Outside of that, what I keep reading is that you want to just buy an inexpensive phone while out of the country anyway, so what you use in your own country doesn't matter.
Because, despite the fact that the iPhone has good worldwide sales, the truth of the matter is that the majority of iPhones sold are *still* from the U.S. To take this even further then, why deny the LARGEST CARRIER IN THE US the potential to DOUBLE APPLE'S SALES?
I'm just amazed that ANYONE would think adding VZW is a bad idea. If you don't like it, then don't buy it. It's that simple.
w00master
w00, with Asia Pacific representing fully one third of the world's population, Verizon's user base shrinks to relative insigificance comparatively. Apple has to balance it's efforts on a global scale, not just US concerns. Given the sustained growth world-wide, we here in the US have to get used to the unsettling concept that while we are currently the richest most influential nation, we are effectively only ONE nation, and wider regional markets like AP are where the most growth will take place in the the next decades. Apple is forward-looking enough to recognize that and develop to a global, not US-only strategy.
w00, with Asia Pacific representing fully one third of the world's population, Verizon's user base shrinks to relative insigificance comparatively. Apple has to balance it's efforts on a global scale, not just US concerns. Given the sustained growth world-wide, we here in the US have to get used to the unsettling concept that while we are currently the richest most influential nation, we are effectively only ONE nation, and wider regional markets like AP are where the most growth will take place in the the next decades. Apple is forward-looking enough to recognize that and develop to a global, not US-only strategy.
it really shouldn't be that big of a deal to have an alternate model that has a different G3 chip, it's not like it would be a from a ground up redesign, but rather just another variation that could sell an extra 5 to 10 million phones in a year.
I agree. While it might cost a large fortune to create a CDMA phone, and it's only market would be one carrier in the US, and only for a couple of years, that's still hundreds of millions in profits.
I expect that if Verizon and Apple could come to terms, the phone is already designed and ready for production.
Add to that, the US isn't even half the CDMA market by number of subscribers.
I don't expect that there is a design ready to go, but I expect that if it were to happen, it would still be very profitable.
I agree. While it might cost a large fortune to create a CDMA phone, and it's only market would be one carrier in the US, and only for a couple of years, that's still hundreds of millions in profits.
I expect that if Verizon and Apple could come to terms, the phone is already designed and ready for production.
I'd think it would be many billions. Even after LTE is in full swing their still going to use CDMA for voice so I'd expect 5-10 years out of it.
PS: I didn't read the blogs of the event but i knew Verizon wasn't announced as a future carrier because the stock didn't jump $10+/share that day.
Come on Apple. If they go multi-carrier in USA, I'm pretty sure their numbers would increase exponentially. A lot of people want the iPhone but not ATT. I hope this is the year Apple breaks its exclusivity. And not just with Verizon but Sprint and T-Mobile too.
We recall of course that Apple allegedly brought the iPhone to Verizon first - which means at that moment Apple was prepared to either A) build a CDMA-only phone for the Verizon network, or build a "world phone" device with full GSM/CDMA supporting chipset. The second seems more likely. So at the time there was not a worldphone chipset that did not suck battery life down rapidly. That has changed with the introduction of Qualcomm's multistandard chipsets based on their Snapdragon platform. These chipsets combine GSM/CDMA standards into one unit on a smaller nm footprint with significantly lower power demand, and supporting all the usual features: integrated HSPA+, GPS, Bluetooth, full high definition video recording and playback, Wi-Fi and mobile TV technologies.
IF Apple likes the chip technology offered by Qualcomm (over and above their own PASemi chips for example) then this becomes a practical approach. The question is not whether Apple can do it - I'm willing to bet they have had at least a CDMA prototype in operation in the labs since the beginning. The question is if they WANT to do it.
the story back then was that apple only wanted 1% of the global phone market. after verizon refused them and they fixed all the complaints with the iphone 3g sales skyrocketed.
It's still not a good device to "take on holiday", unless you pay a lot of money, Apple sells mostly locked phones, and AT&T's international plans are a expensive and starved. It is possible to jailbreak and try to get an in-country SIM, but then I bet I'm going to hear shrill screams of "thief".
Outside of that, what I keep reading is that you want to just buy an inexpensive phone while out of the country anyway, so what you use in your own country doesn't matter.
True enough Jeff - but have you tried to take a Verizon phone on vacation overseas? There are no good means of moving seamlessly around the world, without substituting a prepaid local card/phone - therein lays the serious issue - getting the various carriers to be more transparent about transferring control back and forth without gouging on the fees.
True enough Jeff - but have you tried to take a Verizon phone on vacation overseas? There are no good means of moving seamlessly around the world, without substituting a prepaid local
Then again, the majority of Americans do not have a passport and do not vacation overseas.
Consider Apples business model, currently they build one iPhone, they are all made in Asia somewhere, when a new iPhone comes out they have trouble matching demand, as it stands right now they place an order and the device can be shipped anywhere, your suggestion will split resources.
I believe they are already doing some custom stuff for China, although it is in the WiFi area, so why not add a CDMA for the americans
I believe they are already doing some custom stuff for China, although it is in the WiFi area, so why not add a CDMA for the americans
you have to fork the OS, code the software for the new radio, change the code when bugs are found, etc. Android originally came out for GSM as well and it took a lot of work by Motorola to build a CDMA network stack
Another thought about the verizon topic. When I watched the iPad presentation, I found it kind of awkward the way they announced the data plan options. Maybe it is just me, but Steve seemed very reluctant to pronounce AT&T as the service provider.
So I think there might be a chance that apple is waiting until the exclusivity is over and will then announce the Verizon iPhone. I am not sure it is worth the effort for the iPad as it is a stand alone device.
Poor Apple has to cope with being lumped into the other category.
If they're sensible they'll see to it that they start showing in the overall market share spots as well.
In their original (2007) intro of the phone they talked about the value (or a goal) of %1 of overall market share, but I'd be interested to know what they are now. On this reading it must be something less than 3.6% overall.
On the contrary, if they're sensible Apple will resist the temptation of trying to be "all things to all men" (like Google with the Android platform) too quickly.
IMHO, their gradually emerging strategy should proceed pretty much as it is now, with product placement and price diversification targeting achievable and sustainable steps.
I think it's only a matter of time before the "iPod Nano-esque" lower-end strategy is replicated in the iPhone world. As a matter of fact, the iPhone 3G, which can now be obtained pretty much for free on basic carrier price plans worldwide, is already evidence of this.
you have to fork the OS, code the software for the new radio, change the code when bugs are found, etc. Android originally came out for GSM as well and it took a lot of work by Motorola to build a CDMA network stack
I didn't know that, thanks for the info.
How much stuff needs to be changed ? I don't know much about the way phones work, I thought the chip would do all the stuff particular to its network and the software just works with some kind of data stream.
Everyone uses all of Nokia's "convergence devices" - smartphones and mobile computers - in calculating their market share. Nokia also breaks out their Eseries and Nseries phones - 10.7 million this quarter, 8.9 million last quarter - which is their smart phones.
If someone thinks I am wrong - please point out why.
You are wrong because not all Nokia's smartphones are E or N series. There are plenty of S60 (Symbian) phones, i.e. 5800 touch phone, that are not included. Just get over it, Apple is a niche player.
Oh, and in Q4 Nokia's smartphone market share was up 5%. In UK you can now get a Nokia smartphone with free GPS voice navigation for less than 99 Pounds as pre-paid, no contract. Apple has a hard time competing with that.
the story back then was that apple only wanted 1% of the global phone market. after verizon refused them and they fixed all the complaints with the iphone 3g sales skyrocketed.
Verizon with its minority share in terms of worldwide technology adoption but its solid presence in the USA in terms of subscribers would have represented the perfect opportunity for Apple to "test the waters" for its fledgling mobile device.
However, the uncertainty is over, the iPhone is a raging torrent of popularity and success, and so the point is moot.
But what a great fillip it would have given Verizon, and even greater incentive and impetus in the rollout of 4G/LTE with the best of the new-generation handsets in tow...
If adding CDMA was SO impossible, then explain why there are hundreds of choices for CDMA based phones now? The phone component is a small chunk of the iPhone. The main OS is what costs the most in development. Designing the hardware pales in comparison. The clone companies churn them out daily.
Apple could EASILY put a CDMA chipset instead of a GSM chipset inside the phone. The downside is that it would require 2 separate models to be on the market. Not a huge deal, but slightly confusing, although people are already used to phones being tied to a carrier the way it is.
The best solution though, would be a wold phone that had both CDMA and GSM capabilities. This is possible now, and would likely be the route that Apple would take to make this happen.
as many have noted, the definition of "smartphone" used for this "study" is preposterous. it includes many phones that are primitive compared to "super" smartphones from Apple, Android, RIM, and Palm. ok throw in the WinMo phones even. and maybe one or two Nokia models.
what is the definition for "super" smartphones? easy - they run a full web browser, not a dumbed-down "web" version. this was one of the big breakthroughs of the original iPhone in 2007. practically this requires a large touchscreen, but that need not be stated.
Comments
I don't suppose you'd like to quantify your remark? Why would they spend time and resources making a phone that would only ship to one carrier in the US when they can build just one device that works in any country in the world, why introduce a phone that can only be used in the US and can't even be taken on holiday with you?
It's still not a good device to "take on holiday", unless you pay a lot of money, Apple sells mostly locked phones, and AT&T's international plans are expensive and starved. It is possible to jailbreak and try to get an in-country SIM, but then I bet I'm going to hear shrill screams of "thief" at that mention.
Outside of that, what I keep reading is that you want to just buy an inexpensive phone while out of the country anyway, so what you use in your own country doesn't matter.
Because, despite the fact that the iPhone has good worldwide sales, the truth of the matter is that the majority of iPhones sold are *still* from the U.S. To take this even further then, why deny the LARGEST CARRIER IN THE US the potential to DOUBLE APPLE'S SALES?
I'm just amazed that ANYONE would think adding VZW is a bad idea. If you don't like it, then don't buy it. It's that simple.
w00master
w00, with Asia Pacific representing fully one third of the world's population, Verizon's user base shrinks to relative insigificance comparatively. Apple has to balance it's efforts on a global scale, not just US concerns. Given the sustained growth world-wide, we here in the US have to get used to the unsettling concept that while we are currently the richest most influential nation, we are effectively only ONE nation, and wider regional markets like AP are where the most growth will take place in the the next decades. Apple is forward-looking enough to recognize that and develop to a global, not US-only strategy.
w00, with Asia Pacific representing fully one third of the world's population, Verizon's user base shrinks to relative insigificance comparatively. Apple has to balance it's efforts on a global scale, not just US concerns. Given the sustained growth world-wide, we here in the US have to get used to the unsettling concept that while we are currently the richest most influential nation, we are effectively only ONE nation, and wider regional markets like AP are where the most growth will take place in the the next decades. Apple is forward-looking enough to recognize that and develop to a global, not US-only strategy.
it really shouldn't be that big of a deal to have an alternate model that has a different G3 chip, it's not like it would be a from a ground up redesign, but rather just another variation that could sell an extra 5 to 10 million phones in a year.
I agree. While it might cost a large fortune to create a CDMA phone, and it's only market would be one carrier in the US, and only for a couple of years, that's still hundreds of millions in profits.
I expect that if Verizon and Apple could come to terms, the phone is already designed and ready for production.
Add to that, the US isn't even half the CDMA market by number of subscribers.
I don't expect that there is a design ready to go, but I expect that if it were to happen, it would still be very profitable.
I agree. While it might cost a large fortune to create a CDMA phone, and it's only market would be one carrier in the US, and only for a couple of years, that's still hundreds of millions in profits.
I expect that if Verizon and Apple could come to terms, the phone is already designed and ready for production.
I'd think it would be many billions. Even after LTE is in full swing their still going to use CDMA for voice so I'd expect 5-10 years out of it.
PS: I didn't read the blogs of the event but i knew Verizon wasn't announced as a future carrier because the stock didn't jump $10+/share that day.
We recall of course that Apple allegedly brought the iPhone to Verizon first - which means at that moment Apple was prepared to either A) build a CDMA-only phone for the Verizon network, or
IF Apple likes the chip technology offered by Qualcomm (over and above their own PASemi chips for example) then this becomes a practical approach. The question is not whether Apple can do it - I'm willing to bet they have had at least a CDMA prototype in operation in the labs since the beginning. The question is if they WANT to do it.
the story back then was that apple only wanted 1% of the global phone market. after verizon refused them and they fixed all the complaints with the iphone 3g sales skyrocketed.
It's still not a good device to "take on holiday", unless you pay a lot of money, Apple sells mostly locked phones, and AT&T's international plans are a expensive and starved. It is possible to jailbreak and try to get an in-country SIM, but then I bet I'm going to hear shrill screams of "thief".
Outside of that, what I keep reading is that you want to just buy an inexpensive phone while out of the country anyway, so what you use in your own country doesn't matter.
True enough Jeff - but have you tried to take a Verizon phone on vacation overseas? There are no good means of moving seamlessly around the world, without substituting a prepaid local card/phone - therein lays the serious issue - getting the various carriers to be more transparent about transferring control back and forth without gouging on the fees.
A4 processer was the first thing that came to my mind.
Seems a bit strong for the iPhone / Touch, unless the screen resolution changes, and the iPad would be losing ground here.
But a custom Apple chip is sure welcome and expected !
True enough Jeff - but have you tried to take a Verizon phone on vacation overseas? There are no good means of moving seamlessly around the world, without substituting a prepaid local
Then again, the majority of Americans do not have a passport and do not vacation overseas.
Consider Apples business model, currently they build one iPhone, they are all made in Asia somewhere, when a new iPhone comes out they have trouble matching demand, as it stands right now they place an order and the device can be shipped anywhere, your suggestion will split resources.
I believe they are already doing some custom stuff for China, although it is in the WiFi area, so why not add a CDMA for the americans
I believe they are already doing some custom stuff for China, although it is in the WiFi area, so why not add a CDMA for the americans
you have to fork the OS, code the software for the new radio, change the code when bugs are found, etc. Android originally came out for GSM as well and it took a lot of work by Motorola to build a CDMA network stack
So I think there might be a chance that apple is waiting until the exclusivity is over and will then announce the Verizon iPhone. I am not sure it is worth the effort for the iPad as it is a stand alone device.
Poor Apple has to cope with being lumped into the other category.
If they're sensible they'll see to it that they start showing in the overall market share spots as well.
In their original (2007) intro of the phone they talked about the value (or a goal) of %1 of overall market share, but I'd be interested to know what they are now. On this reading it must be something less than 3.6% overall.
On the contrary, if they're sensible Apple will resist the temptation of trying to be "all things to all men" (like Google with the Android platform) too quickly.
IMHO, their gradually emerging strategy should proceed pretty much as it is now, with product placement and price diversification targeting achievable and sustainable steps.
I think it's only a matter of time before the "iPod Nano-esque" lower-end strategy is replicated in the iPhone world. As a matter of fact, the iPhone 3G, which can now be obtained pretty much for free on basic carrier price plans worldwide, is already evidence of this.
you have to fork the OS, code the software for the new radio, change the code when bugs are found, etc. Android originally came out for GSM as well and it took a lot of work by Motorola to build a CDMA network stack
I didn't know that, thanks for the info.
How much stuff needs to be changed ? I don't know much about the way phones work, I thought the chip would do all the stuff particular to its network and the software just works with some kind of data stream.
Everyone uses all of Nokia's "convergence devices" - smartphones and mobile computers - in calculating their market share. Nokia also breaks out their Eseries and Nseries phones - 10.7 million this quarter, 8.9 million last quarter - which is their smart phones.
If someone thinks I am wrong - please point out why.
http://www.nokia.com/about-nokia/fin...mation/q4-2009
You are wrong because not all Nokia's smartphones are E or N series. There are plenty of S60 (Symbian) phones, i.e. 5800 touch phone, that are not included. Just get over it, Apple is a niche player.
Oh, and in Q4 Nokia's smartphone market share was up 5%. In UK you can now get a Nokia smartphone with free GPS voice navigation for less than 99 Pounds as pre-paid, no contract. Apple has a hard time competing with that.
the story back then was that apple only wanted 1% of the global phone market. after verizon refused them and they fixed all the complaints with the iphone 3g sales skyrocketed.
Verizon with its minority share in terms of worldwide technology adoption but its solid presence in the USA in terms of subscribers would have represented the perfect opportunity for Apple to "test the waters" for its fledgling mobile device.
However, the uncertainty is over, the iPhone is a raging torrent of popularity and success, and so the point is moot.
But what a great fillip it would have given Verizon, and even greater incentive and impetus in the rollout of 4G/LTE with the best of the new-generation handsets in tow...
Apple could EASILY put a CDMA chipset instead of a GSM chipset inside the phone. The downside is that it would require 2 separate models to be on the market. Not a huge deal, but slightly confusing, although people are already used to phones being tied to a carrier the way it is.
The best solution though, would be a wold phone that had both CDMA and GSM capabilities. This is possible now, and would likely be the route that Apple would take to make this happen.
what is the definition for "super" smartphones? easy - they run a full web browser, not a dumbed-down "web" version. this was one of the big breakthroughs of the original iPhone in 2007. practically this requires a large touchscreen, but that need not be stated.