I don't understand this. Why would Verizon care which phone sells - Android vs. iPhone? As long as they have the data/voice contract, the actual phone sold is unimportant. What stake does Verizon have in seeing Android succeed over iPhone?
They want the same "lie back and relax" attitude from Apple as they got from Eric Schmidt. They want a Verizon logo on it. Forget that white apple on the back. Call it the VeriPhone. No, do it our way. No, we want some free junk apps on it that you can't take off. And we'll put an Android front end on it, with a calendar and everything. Updates will have to wait until my nephew, who does all the programming, gets around to it when he gets back from Unix camp. Want to bet? Verizon is a feudal organization.
What stake does Verizon have in seeing Android succeed over iPhone?
With anything but the iPhone they can bundle in "services". Much like useless extended warranties, the services are the real cash cow Verizon is fighting desperately to keep.
The problem is these services universly suck and most users can't wait to eliminate them - and Apple is intent on not letting their experience be tainted by other peoples crap. The best Verizon can hope for with Apple is, as someone else pointed out, free downloads in the Apple store. Verizon knows that most people won't bother to go out of their way to put the sucktastic Verizon services on when there are often better alternatives already. Without forced shovel ware the iPhone is much less valuable to Verizon.
Or so they think. I guess with millions of subscribers even if only 1% take the bait you can get some revenue, but you sure piss off your other customers.
I am not a fan of conspiracy theories... But something is going on!
3) Apple and Google are playing at being frenemies but secretly working together to break the carrier domination of the US cell industry, and cable company domination of access to the Internet and content.
Of all of these, the one that seems least likely, but makes most sense [to me] is an Apple-Google arrangement.
.
Very astute. I listened to the Daring Fireball podcast and was amazed that they have picked up on the fact that Jobs purposely left out the part of AppleTV that is the most intriquing, namely, that the iTV is actually designed for the future as a wireless client to have your iDevices port all your content directly to your TV, bypassing the cable and TV oligopoly entirely. You can send your DVD quality movies, or pics, from your iP4, your MLB.TV live from your iPad, or your content you subscribe to on any device, wirelessly, and the setup involves merely pressing the Airplay button on your device.
The future will eventually (hopefully) bypass the cable/TV folks, and you can stream whatever you desire, directly to your big screen/TV/Apple TV, etc, while using the Apps available on the device to subscribe.
The commentators said they think Jobs deliberately left out this most important detail so as not to unnecessarily rile up the cable/TV carrier bosses, while still calling it a mere "hobby" (wink, wink), which is codeword for "cable/TV carrier buster". One can only hope that it happens sooner rather than later.
Not that I want to gloat, but this is one of those very, very rare times when Apple has given us poor, beleagured UK customers the best deal. We can easily buy an unlocked SIM free iPhone from Apple, or buy a subsidised contract or pay as you iPhone with any one of 5 different carriers.
Funny thing is I just got back from Japan, where the iPhone is slowly gaining popularity (at least in Tokyo, - I didn't see a single one down in Okinawa). There iPhones are, like in the US, locked down to one carrier only. Walking around the streets if Akiba though I saw several stores offering SIM free iPhone 4s for the affordable price of $1500.
Wonder why Appke treats some markets well, but others so badly. I'll just try and remember this the next time I see the shocking UK iMac pricing.
Very astute. I listened to the Daring Fireball podcast and was amazed that they have picked up on the fact that Jobs purposely left out the part of AppleTV that is the most intriquing, namely, that the iTV is actually designed for the future as a wireless client to have your iDevices port all your content directly to your TV, bypassing the cable and TV oligopoly entirely. You can send your DVD quality movies, or pics, from your iP4, your MLB.TV live from your iPad, or your content you subscribe to on any device, wirelessly, and the setup involves merely pressing the Airplay button on your device.
The future will eventually (hopefully) bypass the cable/TV folks, and you can stream whatever you desire, directly to your big screen/TV/Apple TV, etc, while using the Apps available on the device to subscribe.
The commentators said they think Jobs deliberately left out this most important detail so as not to unnecessarily rile up the cable/TV carrier bosses, while still calling it a mere "hobby" (wink, wink), which is codeword for "cable/TV carrier buster". One can only hope that it happens sooner rather than later.
Ahhh.... very interesting!
I remember, a few years back, there were rumors:
-- Apple would buy Vivendi to get access to content
-- Apple would setup an MVNO to provide a virtual "carrier" for its phones
I suspect that Apple considered these options, but thought better of it. Apple is very careful of dissipating its resources and tries to avoid competing with potential suppliers of services and content.
With the approach you describe, Apple would not be a "competitor" to the cable / carriers-- rather they would be a big consumer of those who provide content and services (anyone who wants to make money from the Apple ecosystem).
The bigger the consumption, the bigger the leverage for Apple!
I think it was Senator "Fritz" Hollings that said: "There's too much consuming' goin' on out there".
... so, you think the ATV is really a "C&C Blaster"... I like that!
BTW, did you ever change your mind and buy another iP4?
Although it's clear ATT and Verizon have better service(s) than Tmobile and Sprint, the latter set have much better prices. I would really like to see an iPhone with a smaller monthly fee. This has been my biggest obstacle so far.
Well there is the $15 a month plan.
Verizon has never been interested in anything other than the bottom of the market. They out Sprinted Sprint years ago for the the bottom position. Expecting them to carry the premiere smart phone for cheap, is like expecting the local Toyota dealership to carry Ferrari parts at Toyota prices.
They are perfectly happy with second rate Android phones, just like they've been happy thru their entire existence to carry the lesser available phone models.
-- Apple would buy Vivendi to get access to content
-- Apple would setup an MVNO to provide a virtual "carrier" for its phones
I suspect that Apple considered these options, but thought better of it. Apple is very careful of dissipating its resources and tries to avoid competing with potential suppliers of services and content.
With the approach you describe, Apple would not be a "competitor" to the cable / carriers-- rather they would be a big consumer of those who provide content and services (anyone who wants to make money from the Apple ecosystem).
The bigger the consumption, the bigger the leverage for Apple!
I think it was Senator "Fritz" Hollings that said: "There's too much consuming' goin' on out there".
... so, you think the ATV is really a "C&C Blaster"... I like that!
BTW, did you ever change your mind and buy another iP4?
.
It's been killing me to await a fix that may not come, but I can't tolerate the dropped downloads/calls, so will make a decision next month, and buy a redesigned one if they fix it, selling mine on ebay. The denial of many still amazes me, as well as the illogical rationalizations. Wish they would just coat the antenna, and be done with it.
I hope Verizon never gets iPhone. Apple is showing the world that they don't need Verizon to rake in 39% of handset industry profits. Not just smart phones. All cell phones.
In fact, leaving Verizon out in the cold could come in very handy if anyone pulls the tired old monopoly card again. Oh, and good luck with that Oracle lawsuit, Google. Android clearly violates the Java license agreement that Oracle inherited from Sun. And there's legal precedent: Microsoft paid Sun $20 million for a similar violation. But this time Larry doesn't care about money. No way to buy your way out of this one, Schmidt.
So Verizon stands to lose all those generic Android clones as well as iPhone. They could go running to Microsoft in the hope that Windows Phone 7 will a) survive longer than KIN, and b) become profitable soon enough to save Verizon's smart phone business.
Or maybe Verizon could pull a bold move and, say, buy Nokia just to get the Meego OS. Desperate is as desperate does. Should be fun to watch.
But if Apple does make a CDMA phones what is to stop anyone from buying one from a reseller and activating it on Verizon ?
Verizon has an agreement with the other CDMA carriers that they will not activate other carrier's phones. I learned about this the hard way as a former Sprint Blackberry owner who had no Sprint coverage where I was moving.
They want to equip VCAST into the iPhones with an Verizon branded logo in them.
Vcast is a pile of ****. I think that's really the biggest obstacle; Verizon wants total control. I had an older phone that had lots of capabilities that were blocked by Verizon; I couldn't even put music on it without paying for it via Vcast. Verizon can't imagine just being a dumb pipe provider.
Comments
I don't understand this. Why would Verizon care which phone sells - Android vs. iPhone? As long as they have the data/voice contract, the actual phone sold is unimportant. What stake does Verizon have in seeing Android succeed over iPhone?
They want the same "lie back and relax" attitude from Apple as they got from Eric Schmidt. They want a Verizon logo on it. Forget that white apple on the back. Call it the VeriPhone. No, do it our way. No, we want some free junk apps on it that you can't take off. And we'll put an Android front end on it, with a calendar and everything. Updates will have to wait until my nephew, who does all the programming, gets around to it when he gets back from Unix camp. Want to bet? Verizon is a feudal organization.
What stake does Verizon have in seeing Android succeed over iPhone?
With anything but the iPhone they can bundle in "services". Much like useless extended warranties, the services are the real cash cow Verizon is fighting desperately to keep.
The problem is these services universly suck and most users can't wait to eliminate them - and Apple is intent on not letting their experience be tainted by other peoples crap. The best Verizon can hope for with Apple is, as someone else pointed out, free downloads in the Apple store. Verizon knows that most people won't bother to go out of their way to put the sucktastic Verizon services on when there are often better alternatives already. Without forced shovel ware the iPhone is much less valuable to Verizon.
Or so they think. I guess with millions of subscribers even if only 1% take the bait you can get some revenue, but you sure piss off your other customers.
I am not a fan of conspiracy theories... But something is going on!
3) Apple and Google are playing at being frenemies but secretly working together to break the carrier domination of the US cell industry, and cable company domination of access to the Internet and content.
Of all of these, the one that seems least likely, but makes most sense [to me] is an Apple-Google arrangement.
.
Very astute. I listened to the Daring Fireball podcast and was amazed that they have picked up on the fact that Jobs purposely left out the part of AppleTV that is the most intriquing, namely, that the iTV is actually designed for the future as a wireless client to have your iDevices port all your content directly to your TV, bypassing the cable and TV oligopoly entirely. You can send your DVD quality movies, or pics, from your iP4, your MLB.TV live from your iPad, or your content you subscribe to on any device, wirelessly, and the setup involves merely pressing the Airplay button on your device.
The future will eventually (hopefully) bypass the cable/TV folks, and you can stream whatever you desire, directly to your big screen/TV/Apple TV, etc, while using the Apps available on the device to subscribe.
The commentators said they think Jobs deliberately left out this most important detail so as not to unnecessarily rile up the cable/TV carrier bosses, while still calling it a mere "hobby" (wink, wink), which is codeword for "cable/TV carrier buster". One can only hope that it happens sooner rather than later.
Funny thing is I just got back from Japan, where the iPhone is slowly gaining popularity (at least in Tokyo, - I didn't see a single one down in Okinawa). There iPhones are, like in the US, locked down to one carrier only. Walking around the streets if Akiba though I saw several stores offering SIM free iPhone 4s for the affordable price of $1500.
Wonder why Appke treats some markets well, but others so badly. I'll just try and remember this the next time I see the shocking UK iMac pricing.
So put it on Sprint and TMobile already!!!!! Just giv eme a damn choice outside of ATT's crappy service!
Can't you unlock the iPhone 4 and take it to T-mobile? Using Edge speeds of course.
Can't you unlock the iPhone 4 and take it to T-mobile? Using Edge speeds of course.
yeah but that's the problem- the edge speeds.
Very astute. I listened to the Daring Fireball podcast and was amazed that they have picked up on the fact that Jobs purposely left out the part of AppleTV that is the most intriquing, namely, that the iTV is actually designed for the future as a wireless client to have your iDevices port all your content directly to your TV, bypassing the cable and TV oligopoly entirely. You can send your DVD quality movies, or pics, from your iP4, your MLB.TV live from your iPad, or your content you subscribe to on any device, wirelessly, and the setup involves merely pressing the Airplay button on your device.
The future will eventually (hopefully) bypass the cable/TV folks, and you can stream whatever you desire, directly to your big screen/TV/Apple TV, etc, while using the Apps available on the device to subscribe.
The commentators said they think Jobs deliberately left out this most important detail so as not to unnecessarily rile up the cable/TV carrier bosses, while still calling it a mere "hobby" (wink, wink), which is codeword for "cable/TV carrier buster". One can only hope that it happens sooner rather than later.
Ahhh.... very interesting!
I remember, a few years back, there were rumors:
-- Apple would buy Vivendi to get access to content
-- Apple would setup an MVNO to provide a virtual "carrier" for its phones
I suspect that Apple considered these options, but thought better of it. Apple is very careful of dissipating its resources and tries to avoid competing with potential suppliers of services and content.
With the approach you describe, Apple would not be a "competitor" to the cable / carriers-- rather they would be a big consumer of those who provide content and services (anyone who wants to make money from the Apple ecosystem).
The bigger the consumption, the bigger the leverage for Apple!
I think it was Senator "Fritz" Hollings that said: "There's too much consuming' goin' on out there".
... so, you think the ATV is really a "C&C Blaster"... I like that!
BTW, did you ever change your mind and buy another iP4?
.
Although it's clear ATT and Verizon have better service(s) than Tmobile and Sprint, the latter set have much better prices. I would really like to see an iPhone with a smaller monthly fee. This has been my biggest obstacle so far.
Well there is the $15 a month plan.
Verizon has never been interested in anything other than the bottom of the market. They out Sprinted Sprint years ago for the the bottom position. Expecting them to carry the premiere smart phone for cheap, is like expecting the local Toyota dealership to carry Ferrari parts at Toyota prices.
They are perfectly happy with second rate Android phones, just like they've been happy thru their entire existence to carry the lesser available phone models.
This site is MacRumors.com, not MacNews.com nor MacFacts.com.
Sorry.
It's hard to remember that sometimes as seriously as these rumors are taken, discussed or trolled
Ahhh.... very interesting!
I remember, a few years back, there were rumors:
-- Apple would buy Vivendi to get access to content
-- Apple would setup an MVNO to provide a virtual "carrier" for its phones
I suspect that Apple considered these options, but thought better of it. Apple is very careful of dissipating its resources and tries to avoid competing with potential suppliers of services and content.
With the approach you describe, Apple would not be a "competitor" to the cable / carriers-- rather they would be a big consumer of those who provide content and services (anyone who wants to make money from the Apple ecosystem).
The bigger the consumption, the bigger the leverage for Apple!
I think it was Senator "Fritz" Hollings that said: "There's too much consuming' goin' on out there".
... so, you think the ATV is really a "C&C Blaster"... I like that!
BTW, did you ever change your mind and buy another iP4?
.
It's been killing me to await a fix that may not come, but I can't tolerate the dropped downloads/calls, so will make a decision next month, and buy a redesigned one if they fix it, selling mine on ebay. The denial of many still amazes me, as well as the illogical rationalizations. Wish they would just coat the antenna, and be done with it.
In fact, leaving Verizon out in the cold could come in very handy if anyone pulls the tired old monopoly card again. Oh, and good luck with that Oracle lawsuit, Google. Android clearly violates the Java license agreement that Oracle inherited from Sun. And there's legal precedent: Microsoft paid Sun $20 million for a similar violation. But this time Larry doesn't care about money. No way to buy your way out of this one, Schmidt.
So Verizon stands to lose all those generic Android clones as well as iPhone. They could go running to Microsoft in the hope that Windows Phone 7 will a) survive longer than KIN, and b) become profitable soon enough to save Verizon's smart phone business.
Or maybe Verizon could pull a bold move and, say, buy Nokia just to get the Meego OS. Desperate is as desperate does. Should be fun to watch.
But if Apple does make a CDMA phones what is to stop anyone from buying one from a reseller and activating it on Verizon ?
Not too much I guess. As long as you're fluent in written Chinese. Nothing to it.
So... T-mobile or Sprint it shall be.
And both it will be. Verizon will simply get nailed as being the only carrier without the iPhone.
Jobs won't
Not that apple would ever do this, but it does have enough cash now that Apple could simply buy a 51% of Verizon outright. Now THAT would be funny.
But if Apple does make a CDMA phones what is to stop anyone from buying one from a reseller and activating it on Verizon ?
Verizon has an agreement with the other CDMA carriers that they will not activate other carrier's phones. I learned about this the hard way as a former Sprint Blackberry owner who had no Sprint coverage where I was moving.
They want to equip VCAST into the iPhones with an Verizon branded logo in them.
Vcast is a pile of ****. I think that's really the biggest obstacle; Verizon wants total control. I had an older phone that had lots of capabilities that were blocked by Verizon; I couldn't even put music on it without paying for it via Vcast. Verizon can't imagine just being a dumb pipe provider.
Garageband is bloat??? I use it every day of my life! Reload it and give it another try!
Please don't feed the Microsoft astroturfer drones.