I've been visiting this site for over a year now and in my opinion most people here are not Apple fans. They are stockholders looking for inside information so they can manipulate the stock. Perhaps that's why every thread disintegrates into a slug fest. As this one has.
By the way, if you are a Tea Party member, you will need a flash enabled device to visit Glenn Beck's site!
For the record, I am very much NOT a memeber of the Tea Party...scary stuff!
I've long been skeptical about Apple offering a Verizon CDMA phone in the twilight of that technology. As time continues to run out on it, the option becomes less and less attractive as a business case.
Hold on a sec here. I've been reading about CDMA, GSM and "flavors" of 3G and 4G for years and a few things don't seem right. Or at least I don't have them straight.
I'm told one can discriminate wireless technologies as follows, without reference to the internals of each: 2G - a circuit-switched digital network. 3G - a network that's a mix of circuit and packet switching, for (I think) respectively voice and data. 4G - a network that's fully packet switched, finally leaving behind the telco heritage of circuit switching which goes all the way back to the earliest analog, party-line networks.
I'll certainly accept correction on the above, but if I'm in the ballpark, this leads to some other questions which need sorting out to make sense of where the iPhone (and telephony in general) is heading.
First, the current iPhone defaults to using a 3G signal whenever it's available, correct? And only steps down to 2G (GSM or "Edge") when it has to. And presumably later iPhones will prefer a 4G signal when 4G's rolled out. So as networks get built out with 3& 4G, the 2G signals become less and less relevant, no? At least to "smart phones." Or does the CDMA/GSM signal still have a core (or any) function in terms of the functioning of the higher G's? E.g., does the iPhone use 2G for voice and 3G for data?
If the 3 and 4G signals become as ubiquitous as 2G, and if they propagate at least as well as 2G signals, won't we see smart phones that don't have 2G built in at all (to save space and power)? And given the cost of deploying and broadcasting cell signals, won't all phones eventually be at least 3G so that the expense of broadcasting multiple signals (soon 3) withers away to at least only two over time?
Note: We've all seen plenty of Verizon vs. ATT 3G maps, but is there much more saturation of 2G than 3G in Verizon's own coverage today (and ATT's for that matter)? And for the forseeable future?
Second, as is often pointed out, not all 3G and certainly not all 4G signals are going to be the same (witness Sprint WiMax "4G" vs LTE vs ??? - ATT's "3.5 G" which will increase data speeds with tech that today's iPhones can use - and the wars over whose network can do more at once on 3G).
Yet we're told Apple makes one iPhone model for the world. Does that mean that every other country's Apple-licensed phone companies use GSM and 3G technology and frequency spectrum identical to AT&T's? And that only in America is there a crazy quilt of incompatible signals and frequencies at the 2, 3 and 4G levels?
Questions. I have questions. But the answers seem relevant to making this whole discussion intelligible.
If this happens it would not be a "jump to Verizon." A jump is when you leave one place and land on another instead. Apple isn't going to discontinue offering iPhones through AT&T.
I've long been skeptical about Apple offering a Verizon CDMA phone in the twilight of that technology. As time continues to run out on it, the option becomes less and less attractive as a business case. However mounting a counter-attack against Android may affect that calculation.
BTW, simply as one data point, put me down as someone who has experienced both very good coverage and excellent customer service from AT&T. But then I don't live in NYC or SFO.
CDMA is not a twilight technology. Furthermore, if CDMA is twilight, then what is GSM? The FUTURE?
Why add a smaller, probably less capable network to the mix. Although unpopular, I hate the idea of Apple developing and building more than one iPhone for the same version product - it ultimately takes away effort from making the product better when the effort is split.
Before anyone hollers it is nontrivial to do a phone - just cause Apple has one does not mean that you can 'just change the radio'. That is why it takes Engineers and a long approval process.
BTW: I have never had any problems with signal, dropped calls etc. and happen to think AT&T's coverage here and in the other portions of the country I have lived in has been good.
Making two versions of a phone does not equal fracturing their device lineup. Everything about the phone except for the GSM/CDMA chips would be the same. What - you think Apple would have a different OS for the CDMA iPhone?
I'm on my 3rd iPhone. The first two I had the coverage was extremely bad in San Francisco. And even worse in my specific area of San Francisco. And so I had switched back to the Blackberry. But about 4 months ago a friend swore up and own that the situation is largely resolved in San Fran. I bought another iPhone and I can easily tell you it's been totally fine here. Dropped calls almost don't exist in my area. Once a month or longer between a single dropped call where as I used to get 3 or 4 in a single conversation. I also own a VZ MiFi, which only did about 800k up and down. My Blackberry on VZ, same location did 1.7mb down and 80k up. Strange huh? Well, the iPhone blows those numbers away on AT&T in the same area now.
I'm sure not every place is as resolved as my area, but from my own point of view, AT&T has not only fixed any issues I had, they are doing better than VZ by far. I have no intension of switching to VZ as I honestly feel that would be a step backwards.
Even if this is true...I really wonder if Verizon's network could handle the bandwidth needed for the iPhone. While they do have a large range of 3G coverage, the speed is really lacking. It would take a big investment on Verizon's part to get a handle all the data that regular iPhone users expect. Then, of course, their is the issue with the other phone manufacturers that Verizon has in their arsenal. Wonder how that would feel about that. This will be interesting to watch.
Don't you know that a new revision of CDMA is already up and running in Asia??? Faster speeds on VZ 3G will come, but LTE will come just as quickly.
Good luck to all AT&T fans on that LTE network - opening in 2014?
CDMA is dead. The sooner those networks realise it, deal with the cost and reconfigure their network the better.
I've seen it done in 12-18 months alongside a high quality CDMA network and the changeover was seamless. Now thankfully no more awful CDMA products come and split the market even further, infuriating customers and killing everyone on differences and higher prices as a result.
Oh yeah - CDMA is dead - and GSM is very much alive. What an imbecile comment.
Piss on AT&T. Tethering is something that should have been on the phone from day 1 and it's now going into year 4. I'm jumping ship on the iphone and AT&T for sprint and the supersonic as soon as it hits since neither AT&T nor apple can provide the functionality I've been looking for over the last 3 years. Mediocre my ass.
Thankfully - you're not another AT&T ass-licker. Good 4u. I'm waiting for Droid2 - sick of waiting for the vz iPhone. Can't wait to unload my Storm.
Here we go again--same lame excuses: dead technology, too complicated, Apple doesn't care about market share, verizon's control...blah blah.
Money talks people. And market share definitely matters, if you don't believe it matters to Apple, there's a bridge up for sale in you know where.
CDMA is a dying technology, but one that is dying very slowly. By the time it is completely dead we're probably talking towards the end of this decade--no VZ iPhone till then? Ha. As for it's just too damn hard to make a CDMA iPhone...yeah I suppose every single other manufacturer manages it, but I guess Apple is the lazy kid in the class then? Right. As for control? Verizon just allowed the most open platform in the business on their network with no problems--they do not cripple their android headsets nor their blackberries or other smartphones. Why would they cripple an iPhone?
This has never been about CDMA and has been about the exclusivity contract--you see it hasn't gone to the other GSM carrier in the US for 3 years either. They will tap the CDMA market because they want to make a lot of money, and as long as CDMA is around, and it will be years and years in some form or another, they cannot ignore it. They can't ignore Android either--Google isn't sitting with one provider in the US, they are expanding and if you think Apple doesn't care about the growth of Android, again there's that bridge up for sale you can look into.
It's all about business.
First of all, if CDMA is dying, so is freaking GSM. Second of all - the reception on a CDMA iPhone will MUCH BETTER due to known superiority of CDMA when it comes to coverage. Everyone in the wireless world knows that. Just b/c GSM got adopted more widely b/c of earlier introduction doesn't mean GSM is superior. It's like the old VHS debate.
I agree. Though it's unpopular to say, I think the same can be said about Flash (I can already hear the Droid 2.0 ads, about all the "Do's" that Apple doesn't allow). For the iPad AND the iPhone I'd really like to see a ClickToFlash option. Anyone notice the timing of all this? In Boston I'm getting flooded with ads for the AT&T Backflip... I wonder if AT&T broke some agreement they had between Apple...Never seemed like there were any real Android phones on AT&T until this one... and sudenly there's all this talk of opening the iPhone to Verizon. Android is playing for keeps... Apple needs to take the fight to Verizon.
EDIT: To all those Verizon haters out there, you need to get over it... Google is the REAL threat... Everytime Apple has gotten hung up on old fueds it's hurt them....Look at their history with Microsoft... In interviews, Steve talked about his return to the company...That one of his biggest challenges was changing the attitude within the company that Microsoft had to die for Apple to win... Instead they opened up new partnerships, Steve completely changed the course of the company and the rest is history
Not gonna happen until LTE. There is no way Apple will agree to having an iPhone that can do data and voice at the same time. That would make Apple look like fools.
My contract is up in July, and I'm done, finished, and through with my iPhone. If they go to Verizon I am still done, because I refuse to deal with an outfit that nickels you for this, dimes and dollars you for that, and can never send a consistent bill.
With AT&T I get about 30% dropped calls. About one call in five I try to initiate gives me dead air. No ring sound, no clicks, no anything. Other times I make a call and the damned thing (or network) places the call I want AND a call to another number at the same time. I've been through two replacement phones, three new SIM cards. Nothing helps.
And in too many places I have been, I see folks around me on Verizon, Sprint, t-Mobile, and throways gabbing away when I can't even get a line. I do not consider Los Angeles International Airport a place where service should be marginal or spotty.
I like the features on the iPhone, but if I can't buy it to run on a decent SP, or from an SP that is honest, then I want no part of it no matter what features they may offer.
LTE is not yet the answer because Verizon users will still require something to fall back on should LTE be unavailable in a certain area, forcing the handset maker to include EVDO/CDMA2000 capability, thus still requiring the addition of a separate chip and associated hardware.
Bell Canada and Telus deployed their HSPA+ (21,6Mbps) last November. Their HSPA+ network is working alongside their CDMA/EVDO network. And since November, both carry the iPhone 3GS and other GSM-based handsets, and yes those phones do come with a SIM card, and no Apple did not make a separate phone for Bell Canada, and Telus. It's the same iPhone that Rogers Canada has been selling since 2008.
The phones that use the HSPA+ network of Bell and Telus have indeed nothing to fall back on, but as you can see, it is not required for a phone to be able to fall back on CDMA/EVDO, like you said. You have your proof right there. It certainly did not stop Bell and Telus from offering the iPhone and other GSM/HSPA/HSPA+ phones to their customers.
Additionally, the HSPA+ network that Bell and Telus rolled out last November will be their upgrade path to LTE. Verizon wanted to skip this step and go directly from CDMA to LTE. It is their choice, but had they chosen to go HSPA+ before going LTE, they would have been carrying the iPhone for a while now. It's been 3 years now, they could have deployed HSPA+ already. It took Bell and Telus something like 1.5 years to roll it out from the arrival of the iPhone exclusively to Rogers in summer 2008.
[Edit] UMTS/HSPA offer simultaneous voice and data services, just so that everyone knows.
While I personally think it makes sense to have more than one cell phone provider for the iPhone in the US, I just don't see it happening any time soon. I don't care what these supposed "experts" say. Until Apple comes right out and announces it, I'm not going to believe it. Do you have any idea how much control Apple has with AT&T? They bent over backwards for Apple. Technical arguments aside, Verizon is not about to cater so willingly to Apple's request. I think this, more than anything else, is why we won't see a Verizon iPhone.
Having said that, if Apple decided to go with an additional provider, it would be much more likely for a T-Mobile iPhone than a Verizon iPhone. T-Mobile would cater to Apple. Plus, as the article points out, it's much easier to make an iPhone version for T-Mobile's network than Verizon.
Comments
I've been visiting this site for over a year now and in my opinion most people here are not Apple fans. They are stockholders looking for inside information so they can manipulate the stock. Perhaps that's why every thread disintegrates into a slug fest. As this one has.
By the way, if you are a Tea Party member, you will need a flash enabled device to visit Glenn Beck's site!
For the record, I am very much NOT a memeber of the Tea Party...scary stuff!
I've long been skeptical about Apple offering a Verizon CDMA phone in the twilight of that technology. As time continues to run out on it, the option becomes less and less attractive as a business case.
Hold on a sec here. I've been reading about CDMA, GSM and "flavors" of 3G and 4G for years and a few things don't seem right. Or at least I don't have them straight.
I'm told one can discriminate wireless technologies as follows, without reference to the internals of each: 2G - a circuit-switched digital network. 3G - a network that's a mix of circuit and packet switching, for (I think) respectively voice and data. 4G - a network that's fully packet switched, finally leaving behind the telco heritage of circuit switching which goes all the way back to the earliest analog, party-line networks.
I'll certainly accept correction on the above, but if I'm in the ballpark, this leads to some other questions which need sorting out to make sense of where the iPhone (and telephony in general) is heading.
First, the current iPhone defaults to using a 3G signal whenever it's available, correct? And only steps down to 2G (GSM or "Edge") when it has to. And presumably later iPhones will prefer a 4G signal when 4G's rolled out. So as networks get built out with 3& 4G, the 2G signals become less and less relevant, no? At least to "smart phones." Or does the CDMA/GSM signal still have a core (or any) function in terms of the functioning of the higher G's? E.g., does the iPhone use 2G for voice and 3G for data?
If the 3 and 4G signals become as ubiquitous as 2G, and if they propagate at least as well as 2G signals, won't we see smart phones that don't have 2G built in at all (to save space and power)? And given the cost of deploying and broadcasting cell signals, won't all phones eventually be at least 3G so that the expense of broadcasting multiple signals (soon 3) withers away to at least only two over time? Second, as is often pointed out, not all 3G and certainly not all 4G signals are going to be the same (witness Sprint WiMax "4G" vs LTE vs ??? - ATT's "3.5 G" which will increase data speeds with tech that today's iPhones can use - and the wars over whose network can do more at once on 3G).
Yet we're told Apple makes one iPhone model for the world. Does that mean that every other country's Apple-licensed phone companies use GSM and 3G technology and frequency spectrum identical to AT&T's? And that only in America is there a crazy quilt of incompatible signals and frequencies at the 2, 3 and 4G levels?
Questions. I have questions. But the answers seem relevant to making this whole discussion intelligible.
E.g., does the iPhone use 2G for voice and 3G for data?
The iPhone 3G and 3GS uses GSM for voice, 3G for data. Data will slip to 2G/EDGE for data when the 3G signal isn't available.
If this happens it would not be a "jump to Verizon." A jump is when you leave one place and land on another instead. Apple isn't going to discontinue offering iPhones through AT&T.
I've long been skeptical about Apple offering a Verizon CDMA phone in the twilight of that technology. As time continues to run out on it, the option becomes less and less attractive as a business case. However mounting a counter-attack against Android may affect that calculation.
BTW, simply as one data point, put me down as someone who has experienced both very good coverage and excellent customer service from AT&T. But then I don't live in NYC or SFO.
CDMA is not a twilight technology. Furthermore, if CDMA is twilight, then what is GSM? The FUTURE?
Why add a smaller, probably less capable network to the mix. Although unpopular, I hate the idea of Apple developing and building more than one iPhone for the same version product - it ultimately takes away effort from making the product better when the effort is split.
Before anyone hollers it is nontrivial to do a phone - just cause Apple has one does not mean that you can 'just change the radio'. That is why it takes Engineers and a long approval process.
BTW: I have never had any problems with signal, dropped calls etc. and happen to think AT&T's coverage here and in the other portions of the country I have lived in has been good.
Making two versions of a phone does not equal fracturing their device lineup. Everything about the phone except for the GSM/CDMA chips would be the same. What - you think Apple would have a different OS for the CDMA iPhone?
I'm on my 3rd iPhone. The first two I had the coverage was extremely bad in San Francisco. And even worse in my specific area of San Francisco. And so I had switched back to the Blackberry. But about 4 months ago a friend swore up and own that the situation is largely resolved in San Fran. I bought another iPhone and I can easily tell you it's been totally fine here. Dropped calls almost don't exist in my area. Once a month or longer between a single dropped call where as I used to get 3 or 4 in a single conversation. I also own a VZ MiFi, which only did about 800k up and down. My Blackberry on VZ, same location did 1.7mb down and 80k up. Strange huh? Well, the iPhone blows those numbers away on AT&T in the same area now.
I'm sure not every place is as resolved as my area, but from my own point of view, AT&T has not only fixed any issues I had, they are doing better than VZ by far. I have no intension of switching to VZ as I honestly feel that would be a step backwards.
Good luck enjoying that LTE on AT&T!
Even if this is true...I really wonder if Verizon's network could handle the bandwidth needed for the iPhone. While they do have a large range of 3G coverage, the speed is really lacking. It would take a big investment on Verizon's part to get a handle all the data that regular iPhone users expect. Then, of course, their is the issue with the other phone manufacturers that Verizon has in their arsenal. Wonder how that would feel about that. This will be interesting to watch.
Don't you know that a new revision of CDMA is already up and running in Asia??? Faster speeds on VZ 3G will come, but LTE will come just as quickly.
Good luck to all AT&T fans on that LTE network - opening in 2014?
So sick of Verizon iPhone "news".
CDMA is dead. The sooner those networks realise it, deal with the cost and reconfigure their network the better.
I've seen it done in 12-18 months alongside a high quality CDMA network and the changeover was seamless. Now thankfully no more awful CDMA products come and split the market even further, infuriating customers and killing everyone on differences and higher prices as a result.
Oh yeah - CDMA is dead - and GSM is very much alive. What an imbecile comment.
Piss on AT&T. Tethering is something that should have been on the phone from day 1 and it's now going into year 4. I'm jumping ship on the iphone and AT&T for sprint and the supersonic as soon as it hits since neither AT&T nor apple can provide the functionality I've been looking for over the last 3 years. Mediocre my ass.
Thankfully - you're not another AT&T ass-licker. Good 4u. I'm waiting for Droid2 - sick of waiting for the vz iPhone. Can't wait to unload my Storm.
Here we go again--same lame excuses: dead technology, too complicated, Apple doesn't care about market share, verizon's control...blah blah.
Money talks people. And market share definitely matters, if you don't believe it matters to Apple, there's a bridge up for sale in you know where.
CDMA is a dying technology, but one that is dying very slowly. By the time it is completely dead we're probably talking towards the end of this decade--no VZ iPhone till then? Ha. As for it's just too damn hard to make a CDMA iPhone...yeah I suppose every single other manufacturer manages it, but I guess Apple is the lazy kid in the class then? Right. As for control? Verizon just allowed the most open platform in the business on their network with no problems--they do not cripple their android headsets nor their blackberries or other smartphones. Why would they cripple an iPhone?
This has never been about CDMA and has been about the exclusivity contract--you see it hasn't gone to the other GSM carrier in the US for 3 years either. They will tap the CDMA market because they want to make a lot of money, and as long as CDMA is around, and it will be years and years in some form or another, they cannot ignore it. They can't ignore Android either--Google isn't sitting with one provider in the US, they are expanding and if you think Apple doesn't care about the growth of Android, again there's that bridge up for sale you can look into.
It's all about business.
First of all, if CDMA is dying, so is freaking GSM. Second of all - the reception on a CDMA iPhone will MUCH BETTER due to known superiority of CDMA when it comes to coverage. Everyone in the wireless world knows that. Just b/c GSM got adopted more widely b/c of earlier introduction doesn't mean GSM is superior. It's like the old VHS debate.
I agree. Though it's unpopular to say, I think the same can be said about Flash (I can already hear the Droid 2.0 ads, about all the "Do's" that Apple doesn't allow). For the iPad AND the iPhone I'd really like to see a ClickToFlash option. Anyone notice the timing of all this? In Boston I'm getting flooded with ads for the AT&T Backflip... I wonder if AT&T broke some agreement they had between Apple...Never seemed like there were any real Android phones on AT&T until this one... and sudenly there's all this talk of opening the iPhone to Verizon. Android is playing for keeps... Apple needs to take the fight to Verizon.
EDIT: To all those Verizon haters out there, you need to get over it... Google is the REAL threat... Everytime Apple has gotten hung up on old fueds it's hurt them....Look at their history with Microsoft... In interviews, Steve talked about his return to the company...That one of his biggest challenges was changing the attitude within the company that Microsoft had to die for Apple to win... Instead they opened up new partnerships, Steve completely changed the course of the company and the rest is history
Not all people on this forum are cretins!
As a rule of thumb, sure, but I'd bet that news would be pretty beneficial to the stock value.
thats what they say every time
With AT&T I get about 30% dropped calls. About one call in five I try to initiate gives me dead air. No ring sound, no clicks, no anything. Other times I make a call and the damned thing (or network) places the call I want AND a call to another number at the same time. I've been through two replacement phones, three new SIM cards. Nothing helps.
And in too many places I have been, I see folks around me on Verizon, Sprint, t-Mobile, and throways gabbing away when I can't even get a line. I do not consider Los Angeles International Airport a place where service should be marginal or spotty.
I like the features on the iPhone, but if I can't buy it to run on a decent SP, or from an SP that is honest, then I want no part of it no matter what features they may offer.
Updated - 1 minute ago
\tBeck Talks: PRO-Life and Democrat...
\tInsider Extreme Exclusive: Social Injustice
\tInsider Extreme Documentary: Doomed to Repeat?
\tGlenn Beck's American Revival
\tFollow Glenn Beck on Twitter
\tFollow Stu on Twitter
\tStu Blog: James Cameron vs Glenn Beck
\tGlenn Beck: So This Is Change?
\tGlenn Beck: Dems admit ObamaCare = Socialism
\tGlenn Beck: If you can't beat em...cheat!
\tGet RSS feed
Apparently he has Windows Media Player, Real Player and Extreme Player content.
By the way, if you are a Tea Party member, you will need a flash enabled device to visit Glenn Beck's site!
The iPhone 3G and 3GS uses GSM for voice, 3G for data. Data will slip to 2G/EDGE for data when the 3G signal isn't available.
I think you will find that the iPhone 3G and 3GS also use 3G for voice, otherwise people would have trouble using them on 3G only networks.
LTE is not yet the answer because Verizon users will still require something to fall back on should LTE be unavailable in a certain area, forcing the handset maker to include EVDO/CDMA2000 capability, thus still requiring the addition of a separate chip and associated hardware.
Bell Canada and Telus deployed their HSPA+ (21,6Mbps) last November. Their HSPA+ network is working alongside their CDMA/EVDO network. And since November, both carry the iPhone 3GS and other GSM-based handsets, and yes those phones do come with a SIM card, and no Apple did not make a separate phone for Bell Canada, and Telus. It's the same iPhone that Rogers Canada has been selling since 2008.
The phones that use the HSPA+ network of Bell and Telus have indeed nothing to fall back on, but as you can see, it is not required for a phone to be able to fall back on CDMA/EVDO, like you said. You have your proof right there. It certainly did not stop Bell and Telus from offering the iPhone and other GSM/HSPA/HSPA+ phones to their customers.
Additionally, the HSPA+ network that Bell and Telus rolled out last November will be their upgrade path to LTE. Verizon wanted to skip this step and go directly from CDMA to LTE. It is their choice, but had they chosen to go HSPA+ before going LTE, they would have been carrying the iPhone for a while now. It's been 3 years now, they could have deployed HSPA+ already. It took Bell and Telus something like 1.5 years to roll it out from the arrival of the iPhone exclusively to Rogers in summer 2008.
[Edit] UMTS/HSPA offer simultaneous voice and data services, just so that everyone knows.
Having said that, if Apple decided to go with an additional provider, it would be much more likely for a T-Mobile iPhone than a Verizon iPhone. T-Mobile would cater to Apple. Plus, as the article points out, it's much easier to make an iPhone version for T-Mobile's network than Verizon.
Just my $.02
Why Verizon? There's T-Mobile and Sprint. Apple could go for them instead.
verizon has a great network
sadly its ego is the same as apples