I think that we need to drop the whole "troll" moniker and assign commenters who are continuously fixated like this to a merrier role - like "court jester" - perhaps. ...
I don't think they should lower their price - and I never said that. I think they should take lower margins (if they have to) to increase production in order to sell more units (even if the cost of producing those units is slightly higher than it would be manufacturing what they are now) and expand to CDMA carriers.
There's only two ways to lower the margin, either your production costs rise but you keep the product at the same price or you lower the cost of your product. Even if they did lower the cost that does not mean ATT will whom ultimately is the true seller. No other company sells their phones at such a high margin in that respect most economist will tell you that ATT is on the losing end of the exclusivity agreement. VZW does not pay as much per unit to Moto, HTC, RIM, etc… thus making more money per two year contract than ATT does. Now all you will argue how ATT got millions of subscribers due to the iPhone, yea they did but at a low margin. So it's ok for them to accept a lower margin but not Apple? ATT could sell it for more but the market has spoken and $199 is the going price for a smartphone and even a small increase would keep consumers away and on to another device.
Instead of Apple making a CDMA iPhone why doesn't Verizon instead upgrade their 3G network to support GSM HSPA capable hardware (cellphones and USB modems)? Here in Canada both Telus and Bell two of the biggest telecom carriers competing with Rogers opted to upgrade their CDMA network from EVDO+ 2.75G to GSM HSPA+ 3.5G. This made it easier on the company financially due to the scalability of HSPA, increased profits by making it easier for customers to move from one carrier to another with existing hardware and helped them provide a capable network for popular GSM handsets such as the iPhone. As it is now Verizon advertises averaging 600 Kbps to 1.4 Mbps on their CDMA 3G network. At least here in Canada the carriers didn't call it 3G until they could provide at least 3.2 Mbps. Even Rogers EDGE+ 2.75G is still faster than what Verizon tries to sell customers as 3G. HSPA 3G here was between 3.2 Mbps which then went to 7.2 Mbps before now offering HSPA+ 21 Mbps. Carriers here are already on an upgrade path for 100 Mbps in 2011.
Instead of Apple making a CDMA iPhone why doesn't Verizon instead upgrade their 3G network to support GSM HSPA...?
[...]
They were going to do that but the guy with the network patch on a flash drive lost it.
Seriously though, that is what they are doing, it's just that they are doing it with LTE. They will still use CDMA '2G' for voice for the time being, but that is a good thing as LTE will be power hungry tech for sometime and CDMA offers a great voice algorithm, it's in place, it's efficient and is tried-and-true.
"Our checks show that Apple is still struggling with yields on the mass production of the white iPhone 4."
What does the colour of the phone have to do with "yields", a concept related to the number of defects per wafer, and hence the fraction of dies that test OK and get packaged as saleable chips out of the fab? The wafer is the thingy that gets chopped into chips, and all phones of similar technical spec use the same chips inside, irrespective of their colour.
I love it when people ignorant of the basics try to talk technical.
What does the colour of the phone have to do with "yields", a concept related to the number of defects per wafer, and hence the fraction of dies that test OK and get packaged as saleable chips out of the fab? The wafer is the thingy that gets chopped into chips, and all phones of similar technical spec use the same chips inside, irrespective of their colour.
I love it when people ignorant of the basics try to talk technical.
While yield does refer to the number of chips on a wafer (though the sense you are using it would be a negative or adverse yield) that is not the only use, as you suggest. Maybe it?s different in Australia, but the term yield, in the sense of production, has its origins in Middle English. You can find the term heavily used in both American and British English, at the very least.
Instead of Apple making a CDMA iPhone why doesn't Verizon instead upgrade their 3G network to support GSM HSPA capable hardware (cellphones and USB modems)? Here in Canada both Telus and Bell two of the biggest telecom carriers competing with Rogers opted to upgrade their CDMA network from EVDO+ 2.75G to GSM HSPA+ 3.5G.
As noted earlier, Verizon's pretty much doing that with LTE. However, what Bell and Telus did (and what Verizon is doing) is very expensive. UMTS/HSPA uses a completely different air interface than EVDO. Both are called "CDMA" in one way or another, but would require completely separate towers, and the expense that goes with it. It's cheaper to simply maintain the current CDMA system. I can't blame Verizon for going EVDO for 3G.
In any case: Three million CDMA iPhones? That's it? That's about what the iPhone 4 sold in the first few days on AT&T alone. Additionally, there's a lot of pent-up demand for a Verizon iPhone, as noted in this thread and others. Verizon could sell ten million in the first month. The 3M phones are more likely going to Sprint, or some Asian carriers.
What are you talking about. Verizon always has altered phones from everyone else.
Last year Verizon just began allowing smart phones to have WiFi.
Why do we need a Verizon App Store. Carriers are terrible at software.
Verizon has always pretty much left their smartphones alone, without the Verizon UI's.
Whether the devices have wifi or not --- doesn't really have to do with Verizon doing evil things. It has to do with CDMA phones are more costlier to make, so stuff are left out to control cost. Just because 2 phones share the same name --- doesn't really mean that they are really the same phone. The GSM RAZR is a GPRS only phone --- it doesn't even have EDGE. The CDMA RAZR is a true 3G EV-DO phone.
If Verizon was selling the original iphone in 2007 --- it would have been a true 3G phone. You would be able to buy apps and have GPS navigation from day one. So you think it's a good thing for you to be able to buy the same GPS navigation app from the same companies at the same $3 a day price --- only years later.
Instead of Apple making a CDMA iPhone why doesn't Verizon instead upgrade their 3G network to support GSM HSPA capable hardware (cellphones and USB modems)? Here in Canada both Telus and Bell two of the biggest telecom carriers competing with Rogers opted to upgrade their CDMA network from EVDO+ 2.75G to GSM HSPA+ 3.5G. This made it easier on the company financially due to the scalability of HSPA, increased profits by making it easier for customers to move from one carrier to another with existing hardware and helped them provide a capable network for popular GSM handsets such as the iPhone. As it is now Verizon advertises averaging 600 Kbps to 1.4 Mbps on their CDMA 3G network. At least here in Canada the carriers didn't call it 3G until they could provide at least 3.2 Mbps. Even Rogers EDGE+ 2.75G is still faster than what Verizon tries to sell customers as 3G. HSPA 3G here was between 3.2 Mbps which then went to 7.2 Mbps before now offering HSPA+ 21 Mbps. Carriers here are already on an upgrade path for 100 Mbps in 2011.
As a Canadian myself, I completely disagree with you.
Telus and Bell jointly building a completely redundant HSPA+ network --- shows just how badly the Canadian government mis-manages the telecom industry. What we Canadians endure is Canadian government protecting 3 national carriers from foreign competition (remember the big fuss on whether WIND is really Canadian or not).
Telus has the extra money to build a completely redundant HSPA+ network --- precisely because Telus consumers are stuck with 3 year contracts with $720 ETF. 3 national carriers meant that Rogers had the stones to announce the original iphone pricing --- which was the second most idiotic pricing in the world (Norway's iphone pricing was the worst and that's because they have only 2 national carriers in Norway).
It is actually a very bad thing for us Canadians to have this redundant HSPA+ network.
Comments
I think that we need to drop the whole "troll" moniker and assign commenters who are continuously fixated like this to a merrier role - like "court jester" - perhaps. ...
Apply judiciously:
I don't think they should lower their price - and I never said that. I think they should take lower margins (if they have to) to increase production in order to sell more units (even if the cost of producing those units is slightly higher than it would be manufacturing what they are now) and expand to CDMA carriers.
There's only two ways to lower the margin, either your production costs rise but you keep the product at the same price or you lower the cost of your product. Even if they did lower the cost that does not mean ATT will whom ultimately is the true seller. No other company sells their phones at such a high margin in that respect most economist will tell you that ATT is on the losing end of the exclusivity agreement. VZW does not pay as much per unit to Moto, HTC, RIM, etc… thus making more money per two year contract than ATT does. Now all you will argue how ATT got millions of subscribers due to the iPhone, yea they did but at a low margin. So it's ok for them to accept a lower margin but not Apple? ATT could sell it for more but the market has spoken and $199 is the going price for a smartphone and even a small increase would keep consumers away and on to another device.
Last year Verizon just began allowing smart phones to have WiFi.
Why do we need a Verizon App Store. Carriers are terrible at software.
Verizon never said that --- in fact, Verizon never really alter smartphones in their history.
Verizon rejected the iphone because of distribution and tech support.
Instead of Apple making a CDMA iPhone why doesn't Verizon instead upgrade their 3G network to support GSM HSPA...?
[...]
They were going to do that but the guy with the network patch on a flash drive lost it.
Seriously though, that is what they are doing, it's just that they are doing it with LTE. They will still use CDMA '2G' for voice for the time being, but that is a good thing as LTE will be power hungry tech for sometime and CDMA offers a great voice algorithm, it's in place, it's efficient and is tried-and-true.
My question is will this be the IPHONE4 or IPHONE 5, if the rumor is true???
"Our checks show that Apple is still struggling with yields on the mass production of the white iPhone 4."
What does the colour of the phone have to do with "yields", a concept related to the number of defects per wafer, and hence the fraction of dies that test OK and get packaged as saleable chips out of the fab? The wafer is the thingy that gets chopped into chips, and all phones of similar technical spec use the same chips inside, irrespective of their colour.
I love it when people ignorant of the basics try to talk technical.
What does the colour of the phone have to do with "yields", a concept related to the number of defects per wafer, and hence the fraction of dies that test OK and get packaged as saleable chips out of the fab? The wafer is the thingy that gets chopped into chips, and all phones of similar technical spec use the same chips inside, irrespective of their colour.
I love it when people ignorant of the basics try to talk technical.
While yield does refer to the number of chips on a wafer (though the sense you are using it would be a negative or adverse yield) that is not the only use, as you suggest. Maybe it?s different in Australia, but the term yield, in the sense of production, has its origins in Middle English. You can find the term heavily used in both American and British English, at the very least.
Here we go again. I've heard this rumor so many times from so mant different sources. I believe it when I see it.
My question is will this be the IPHONE4 or IPHONE 5, if the rumor is true???
iPhone 4 still, I imagine. They need to seriously launch in many, many countries by end of this month or next.
Instead of Apple making a CDMA iPhone why doesn't Verizon instead upgrade their 3G network to support GSM HSPA capable hardware (cellphones and USB modems)? Here in Canada both Telus and Bell two of the biggest telecom carriers competing with Rogers opted to upgrade their CDMA network from EVDO+ 2.75G to GSM HSPA+ 3.5G.
As noted earlier, Verizon's pretty much doing that with LTE. However, what Bell and Telus did (and what Verizon is doing) is very expensive. UMTS/HSPA uses a completely different air interface than EVDO. Both are called "CDMA" in one way or another, but would require completely separate towers, and the expense that goes with it. It's cheaper to simply maintain the current CDMA system. I can't blame Verizon for going EVDO for 3G.
In any case: Three million CDMA iPhones? That's it? That's about what the iPhone 4 sold in the first few days on AT&T alone. Additionally, there's a lot of pent-up demand for a Verizon iPhone, as noted in this thread and others. Verizon could sell ten million in the first month. The 3M phones are more likely going to Sprint, or some Asian carriers.
What are you talking about. Verizon always has altered phones from everyone else.
Last year Verizon just began allowing smart phones to have WiFi.
Why do we need a Verizon App Store. Carriers are terrible at software.
Verizon has always pretty much left their smartphones alone, without the Verizon UI's.
Whether the devices have wifi or not --- doesn't really have to do with Verizon doing evil things. It has to do with CDMA phones are more costlier to make, so stuff are left out to control cost. Just because 2 phones share the same name --- doesn't really mean that they are really the same phone. The GSM RAZR is a GPRS only phone --- it doesn't even have EDGE. The CDMA RAZR is a true 3G EV-DO phone.
If Verizon was selling the original iphone in 2007 --- it would have been a true 3G phone. You would be able to buy apps and have GPS navigation from day one. So you think it's a good thing for you to be able to buy the same GPS navigation app from the same companies at the same $3 a day price --- only years later.
Instead of Apple making a CDMA iPhone why doesn't Verizon instead upgrade their 3G network to support GSM HSPA capable hardware (cellphones and USB modems)? Here in Canada both Telus and Bell two of the biggest telecom carriers competing with Rogers opted to upgrade their CDMA network from EVDO+ 2.75G to GSM HSPA+ 3.5G. This made it easier on the company financially due to the scalability of HSPA, increased profits by making it easier for customers to move from one carrier to another with existing hardware and helped them provide a capable network for popular GSM handsets such as the iPhone. As it is now Verizon advertises averaging 600 Kbps to 1.4 Mbps on their CDMA 3G network. At least here in Canada the carriers didn't call it 3G until they could provide at least 3.2 Mbps. Even Rogers EDGE+ 2.75G is still faster than what Verizon tries to sell customers as 3G. HSPA 3G here was between 3.2 Mbps which then went to 7.2 Mbps before now offering HSPA+ 21 Mbps. Carriers here are already on an upgrade path for 100 Mbps in 2011.
As a Canadian myself, I completely disagree with you.
Telus and Bell jointly building a completely redundant HSPA+ network --- shows just how badly the Canadian government mis-manages the telecom industry. What we Canadians endure is Canadian government protecting 3 national carriers from foreign competition (remember the big fuss on whether WIND is really Canadian or not).
Telus has the extra money to build a completely redundant HSPA+ network --- precisely because Telus consumers are stuck with 3 year contracts with $720 ETF. 3 national carriers meant that Rogers had the stones to announce the original iphone pricing --- which was the second most idiotic pricing in the world (Norway's iphone pricing was the worst and that's because they have only 2 national carriers in Norway).
It is actually a very bad thing for us Canadians to have this redundant HSPA+ network.