This isn't my area of expertise. I assume any new Verizon iPhone service has to be new as the ability to both surf and call at the same time is essential and their 'old' network can't do that can it? Has Verizon truly got such a true 4G network nation wide yet?
Simultaneous talk/data is, to me, the most crucial of multi-tasks. I use both a lot and would be reluctant to switch carriers if they don't offer it. Oh, and price, of course.
It will be interesting to see if AT&T customers make the switch in the same numbers that are complaining.
I remember all the people that said the iPhone was too expensive, then the $99 version came out and not many folks bought it, or not as many people at they thought.
The kinder, gentler AT&T may have changed their logo but has destroyed their brand loyalty with me. I don't care if I have to pay to get out of my contract.
Verizon knows how to stay in front of the curve with technology - FIOS. AT&T only updates their technology when it's too late.
I think Apple really needs Verizon in the long run. With Android gaining ground every day, I think Apple needs as wide a base and with the help of as many carriers as possible. Here's an article that seems to point out the advantages of many vendors versus 1 issue:
Apple's sales in 2Q 2010 represented 22% of US smart phone market share while Android's was 34%. This is all due to Apple's decision to go with an exclusive carrier agreement. Android would have never taken hold had the iPhone been available on multiple carriers. Once the iPhone is available elsewhere, I'm afraid it will be too late to convert Android owners.
Apple is comfortable with 15-20% market share earning record profit per customer and this is where they will likely be in another year.
Seriously, what's this focus on marketshare over profits? Why would Apple care if a free OS is on more phones than iOS if Apple's focus on iOS is to sell HW. The other vendors using Android are doing so because they had no choice if they wanted to compete. Why does seem to baffle some people?
What was Moto's smartphone profiles last quarter? What were LG's and HTC's? Apple is the most profitable handset vendor in the world. Not just smartphones or "per customer" but for the entire world's market for selling cellular phones of any kind. They are they moat profitable PC maker, too. So tell me why it matters to them if they lead in profits?
If we are going to measure cellphone OSes why not mention the top dog, Symbian? Because feature phones arent smartphonea? But if it's all about marketshare then it shouldn't matter where it's installed. See how this metric is pointless as stated?
I guarantee that Android OS will eventually be shipped on MORE phones from a single carrier in a quarter than Apple will ship across on all its current and future iOS device types. The odds are too great. For example, Dell ships more copies of Windows on their PCs than Apple does in a quarter, and that's a paid OS. Just wait until Android strts getting used on "free" phones.
If 1/3 of the ATT customers all bailed and went to Verizon, then ATT service would rock; and I'd still be the one with a "world phone".
Your so-called world phone would do you little good with sky-high roaming charges in Europe because AT&T won't unlock your phone - even after you have fulfilled your contract. Way cheaper and practical to get a disposable phone over there. And how often are you touring the world that this is really an issue?
And I was with AT&T and the iPhone from the beginning in 2007. Their coverage sucked then and it has continued to suck, even without near the number of iPhones on their crappy network that there are today.
Seriously, what's this focus on marketshare over profits?
Ask Steve:
Once a company devises a great product, he says, it has a monopoly in that realm, and concentrates less on innovation than protecting its turf. ?The Mac user interface was a 10-year monopoly,? says Jobs. ?Who ended up running the company? Sales guys. At the critical juncture in the late ?80s, when they should have gone for market share, they went for profits. They made obscene profits for several years. And their products became mediocre. And then their monopoly ended with Windows 95. They behaved like a monopoly, and it came back to bite them, which always happens.?
I will be staying with AT&T. Great service where I live, REALLY fast 3G (faster than wi-fi at work thru DSL).
I hope they give iPhone to Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon. I sell phones and it just means more money in my pocket.
I love when verizon owners walk in my house. For some reason, right in a major part of the city, verizon has a little black hole in my house, no 3G and sometimes 1 bar for calls. Meanwhile, my iPhone stays at 5 bars on 4.0.2
Once a company devises a great product, he says, it has a monopoly in that realm, and concentrates less on innovation than protecting its turf. ?The Mac user interface was a 10-year monopoly,? says Jobs. ?Who ended up running the company? Sales guys. At the critical juncture in the late ?80s, when they should have gone for market share, they went for profits. They made obscene profits for several years. And their products became mediocre. And then their monopoly ended with Windows 95. They behaved like a monopoly, and it came back to bite them, which always happens.?
Once a company devises a great product, he says, it has a monopoly in that realm, and concentrates less on innovation than protecting its turf. ?The Mac user interface was a 10-year monopoly,? says Jobs. ?Who ended up running the company? Sales guys. At the critical juncture in the late ?80s, when they should have gone for market share, they went for profits. They made obscene profits for several years. And their products became mediocre. And then their monopoly ended with Windows 95. They behaved like a monopoly, and it came back to bite them, which always happens.?
Once a company devises a great product, he says, it has a monopoly in that realm, and concentrates less on innovation than protecting its turf. ?The Mac user interface was a 10-year monopoly,? says Jobs. ?Who ended up running the company? Sales guys. At the critical juncture in the late ?80s, when they should have gone for market share, they went for profits. They made obscene profits for several years. And their products became mediocre. And then their monopoly ended with Windows 95. They behaved like a monopoly, and it came back to bite them, which always happens.?
You?re using that out of context. The main focus of all publicly traded companies are profits. Jobs statements are a way to ensure and continue to get profits by expanding, not by acting like a monopoly. There has to be a tipping first, hence his use of the word ?conjecture?.
Do you really think that making a cheap phone that can be completely subsidized by the carrier or costs under $99 without a contract is what Jobs was talking about? If so, then why aren?t tehy doign that? Do you really think Dell going for marketshare with profit-less $400 PCs is what Jobs was talking about? If so, then why aren?t they doing this?
The reason is the tipping point for tier takes time. Think of it as a pyramid with expensive, low volume items on top and inexpensive, high volume items on the bottom. Also think of each price segment as a different ?market?. Let?s say it?s separated by $100 with the Macs. As we?ve seen with the Macs their notebook market reached its tipping point a year or two ago and they all dropped in price. They average selling price is now lower than it was but they are also making more profits from it. This is NOT a guaranteed causal relationship and raising the price isn?t as easy as dropping it.
With the iPhone, there are a couple things that can happen. Apple can make a cheaper iPhone, but the carriers might still subsidize it the same way pocket the difference, or Apple can make additional iPhone models. Note that they did this with the iPod only after the tipping point had been reached.
Apple does look to be nearing that tipping point, but it?s hard to tell as the iPhone is still sold out for weeks and still not released on all viable countries yet. Again, if the magical answer is marketshare then they wouldn?t have released to a single carrier in the US, they would have released a CDMA version along with a GSM version, they would have released many models at once to cover all types of buyers, and all the handset vendors that are now focusing on a select high-end models would never have had to follow Apple?s lead.
I just read it on my new to me 3GS because I will not but an iPhone that locks me into AT&T for another 2 years. I could have spent that$ on a new iPhone, but Apple lost out because they stubbornly stick with an awful carrier.
If these rumors aren't true and there is no alternate carrier iPhone then I'll eventually jump to Android. I know it's not the same, and they just ripped off iphone, but it's good enough.
The funny thing is that a lot of people saying their phone is better than an iPhone (well some to say the least) own cheap, crappy, $50 phones running android that I literally cringe when I look at the UI. That's a good article and I agree that apple is losing mind share because of AT&T obviously in the US, and the "antenna issue" practically worldwide. the only time I have ever "experienced" the problem is on YouTube videos and trolls ranting on forums such as appleinsider an gizmodo telling everyone that there "$50 android phone is way better than your s***y $800 iPhone!" and that everyone who disagrees with them is a 'fanboi' who's opinion is 'wrong'
This is really funny. Verizon in Q1 2010 had 92.8 million customers and this poll was a sample of 1000. And this is suppose to mean something?
You sound like a teabagger. They swore Obama would not get elected and that the polls were made up by MSM. Their logic? Neither they nor their friends were ever polled so the results must be made up.
Yes, Verizon gets a taste of its own medicine. Don't you hate it when they brag about their "superior" network, and it drops calls like AT&T's? Let's bring the Verizon network down, guys!
It will be great for ATT customers, like me, when 30 % or so of current iPhoners switch to VZ. ATT's network will be far better than it currently is with fewer users. I can't wait. (Metro New Yorker with no ATT problems over 2 years, 3G and now 4.)
Comments
This isn't my area of expertise. I assume any new Verizon iPhone service has to be new as the ability to both surf and call at the same time is essential and their 'old' network can't do that can it? Has Verizon truly got such a true 4G network nation wide yet?
Simultaneous talk/data is, to me, the most crucial of multi-tasks. I use both a lot and would be reluctant to switch carriers if they don't offer it. Oh, and price, of course.
It will be interesting to see if AT&T customers make the switch in the same numbers that are complaining.
I remember all the people that said the iPhone was too expensive, then the $99 version came out and not many folks bought it, or not as many people at they thought.
The kinder, gentler AT&T may have changed their logo but has destroyed their brand loyalty with me. I don't care if I have to pay to get out of my contract.
Verizon knows how to stay in front of the curve with technology - FIOS. AT&T only updates their technology when it's too late.
As an AT&T employee i personally cant wait to see iphone on Verizon so we can off load most of these whiners and get the network back.
Um, excuse me. When exactly did AT&T "have" the network? They have always sucked.
If you are truly an AT&T employee, you must deal with customers every day who want to punch you out. My sympathies.
I think Apple really needs Verizon in the long run. With Android gaining ground every day, I think Apple needs as wide a base and with the help of as many carriers as possible. Here's an article that seems to point out the advantages of many vendors versus 1 issue:
http://hubpages.com/hub/iPhone-versu...-Leap-Frogging
Apple's sales in 2Q 2010 represented 22% of US smart phone market share while Android's was 34%. This is all due to Apple's decision to go with an exclusive carrier agreement. Android would have never taken hold had the iPhone been available on multiple carriers. Once the iPhone is available elsewhere, I'm afraid it will be too late to convert Android owners.
Apple is comfortable with 15-20% market share earning record profit per customer and this is where they will likely be in another year.
Seriously, what's this focus on marketshare over profits? Why would Apple care if a free OS is on more phones than iOS if Apple's focus on iOS is to sell HW. The other vendors using Android are doing so because they had no choice if they wanted to compete. Why does seem to baffle some people?
What was Moto's smartphone profiles last quarter? What were LG's and HTC's? Apple is the most profitable handset vendor in the world. Not just smartphones or "per customer" but for the entire world's market for selling cellular phones of any kind. They are they moat profitable PC maker, too. So tell me why it matters to them if they lead in profits?
If we are going to measure cellphone OSes why not mention the top dog, Symbian? Because feature phones arent smartphonea? But if it's all about marketshare then it shouldn't matter where it's installed. See how this metric is pointless as stated?
I guarantee that Android OS will eventually be shipped on MORE phones from a single carrier in a quarter than Apple will ship across on all its current and future iOS device types. The odds are too great. For example, Dell ships more copies of Windows on their PCs than Apple does in a quarter, and that's a paid OS. Just wait until Android strts getting used on "free" phones.
If 1/3 of the ATT customers all bailed and went to Verizon, then ATT service would rock; and I'd still be the one with a "world phone".
Your so-called world phone would do you little good with sky-high roaming charges in Europe because AT&T won't unlock your phone - even after you have fulfilled your contract. Way cheaper and practical to get a disposable phone over there. And how often are you touring the world that this is really an issue?
And I was with AT&T and the iPhone from the beginning in 2007. Their coverage sucked then and it has continued to suck, even without near the number of iPhones on their crappy network that there are today.
Seriously, what's this focus on marketshare over profits?
Ask Steve:
Once a company devises a great product, he says, it has a monopoly in that realm, and concentrates less on innovation than protecting its turf. ?The Mac user interface was a 10-year monopoly,? says Jobs. ?Who ended up running the company? Sales guys. At the critical juncture in the late ?80s, when they should have gone for market share, they went for profits. They made obscene profits for several years. And their products became mediocre. And then their monopoly ended with Windows 95. They behaved like a monopoly, and it came back to bite them, which always happens.?
I hope they give iPhone to Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon. I sell phones and it just means more money in my pocket.
I love when verizon owners walk in my house. For some reason, right in a major part of the city, verizon has a little black hole in my house, no 3G and sometimes 1 bar for calls. Meanwhile, my iPhone stays at 5 bars on 4.0.2
Thats pretty much what I was thinking even more so when you start throwing around the term "significant number".
The 1000 people they polled where they all exiting a Apple store perhaps......
Ask Steve:
Once a company devises a great product, he says, it has a monopoly in that realm, and concentrates less on innovation than protecting its turf. ?The Mac user interface was a 10-year monopoly,? says Jobs. ?Who ended up running the company? Sales guys. At the critical juncture in the late ?80s, when they should have gone for market share, they went for profits. They made obscene profits for several years. And their products became mediocre. And then their monopoly ended with Windows 95. They behaved like a monopoly, and it came back to bite them, which always happens.?
very nice...straight from the SJ.........
Ask Steve:
Once a company devises a great product, he says, it has a monopoly in that realm, and concentrates less on innovation than protecting its turf. ?The Mac user interface was a 10-year monopoly,? says Jobs. ?Who ended up running the company? Sales guys. At the critical juncture in the late ?80s, when they should have gone for market share, they went for profits. They made obscene profits for several years. And their products became mediocre. And then their monopoly ended with Windows 95. They behaved like a monopoly, and it came back to bite them, which always happens.?
What's that from?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxBchGCjRK8
30 seconds you'll enjoy if you love the iPhone.
What's that from?
http://web.archive.org/web/200402012...d=4052227&p1=0
Courtesy of daringfireball.net.
Ask Steve:
Once a company devises a great product, he says, it has a monopoly in that realm, and concentrates less on innovation than protecting its turf. ?The Mac user interface was a 10-year monopoly,? says Jobs. ?Who ended up running the company? Sales guys. At the critical juncture in the late ?80s, when they should have gone for market share, they went for profits. They made obscene profits for several years. And their products became mediocre. And then their monopoly ended with Windows 95. They behaved like a monopoly, and it came back to bite them, which always happens.?
You?re using that out of context. The main focus of all publicly traded companies are profits. Jobs statements are a way to ensure and continue to get profits by expanding, not by acting like a monopoly. There has to be a tipping first, hence his use of the word ?conjecture?.
Do you really think that making a cheap phone that can be completely subsidized by the carrier or costs under $99 without a contract is what Jobs was talking about? If so, then why aren?t tehy doign that? Do you really think Dell going for marketshare with profit-less $400 PCs is what Jobs was talking about? If so, then why aren?t they doing this?
The reason is the tipping point for tier takes time. Think of it as a pyramid with expensive, low volume items on top and inexpensive, high volume items on the bottom. Also think of each price segment as a different ?market?. Let?s say it?s separated by $100 with the Macs. As we?ve seen with the Macs their notebook market reached its tipping point a year or two ago and they all dropped in price. They average selling price is now lower than it was but they are also making more profits from it. This is NOT a guaranteed causal relationship and raising the price isn?t as easy as dropping it.
With the iPhone, there are a couple things that can happen. Apple can make a cheaper iPhone, but the carriers might still subsidize it the same way pocket the difference, or Apple can make additional iPhone models. Note that they did this with the iPod only after the tipping point had been reached.
Apple does look to be nearing that tipping point, but it?s hard to tell as the iPhone is still sold out for weeks and still not released on all viable countries yet. Again, if the magical answer is marketshare then they wouldn?t have released to a single carrier in the US, they would have released a CDMA version along with a GSM version, they would have released many models at once to cover all types of buyers, and all the handset vendors that are now focusing on a select high-end models would never have had to follow Apple?s lead.
"It's just like the iPhone"
I have written my own take on the AT&T exclusivity issue here:
"It's just like the iPhone"
Great article.
I just read it on my new to me 3GS because I will not but an iPhone that locks me into AT&T for another 2 years. I could have spent that$ on a new iPhone, but Apple lost out because they stubbornly stick with an awful carrier.
If these rumors aren't true and there is no alternate carrier iPhone then I'll eventually jump to Android. I know it's not the same, and they just ripped off iphone, but it's good enough.
I have written my own take on the AT&T exclusivity issue here:
"It's just like the iPhone"
The funny thing is that a lot of people saying their phone is better than an iPhone (well some to say the least) own cheap, crappy, $50 phones running android that I literally cringe when I look at the UI. That's a good article and I agree that apple is losing mind share because of AT&T obviously in the US, and the "antenna issue" practically worldwide. the only time I have ever "experienced" the problem is on YouTube videos and trolls ranting on forums such as appleinsider an gizmodo telling everyone that there "$50 android phone is way better than your s***y $800 iPhone!" and that everyone who disagrees with them is a 'fanboi' who's opinion is 'wrong'
Being a generally satisfied Verizion FiOS (TV, Internet, and landline) customer I hope to be able to (re)negotiate a good package deal
This is really funny. Verizon in Q1 2010 had 92.8 million customers and this poll was a sample of 1000. And this is suppose to mean something?
You sound like a teabagger. They swore Obama would not get elected and that the polls were made up by MSM. Their logic? Neither they nor their friends were ever polled so the results must be made up.
Yes, Verizon gets a taste of its own medicine. Don't you hate it when they brag about their "superior" network, and it drops calls like AT&T's? Let's bring the Verizon network down, guys!
It will be great for ATT customers, like me, when 30 % or so of current iPhoners switch to VZ. ATT's network will be far better than it currently is with fewer users. I can't wait. (Metro New Yorker with no ATT problems over 2 years, 3G and now 4.)