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?
Very simple, Money, and lots of it. Here's why. Lets say ATT sells 1 million iPhones which they paid $600 for and VZW sells 1 million Droids they paid $500 for, and all those subscribers have almost identical plans for two years. Now the end of the two years VZW made $100 million more than ATT did. So yes it does matter what phone they choose to sell. Apple loves operating at a high margin but it comes at the expense of someone else and in this case ATT.
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.
OK, but how will that content reach your home?
Currently there are three ways: a wire from a local telco or cable company, a wireless signal from a wireless telco or a wireless signal from a satellite provider.
The only ones in that group that don't already offer television are the cell phone providers and they have restrictive monthly throughput limits that assume consumption of phone optimized content not HD video.
So in order to get sufficient data limits to permit watching HD video you need to buy your internet access from a company that also offers television and they are likely to structure their packages to make it cost effective to buy your television from them rather than Apple.
Currently there are three ways: a wire from a local telco or cable company, a wireless signal from a wireless telco or a wireless signal from a satellite provider.
The only ones in that group that don't already offer television are the cell phone providers and they have restrictive monthly throughput limits that assume consumption of phone optimized content not HD video.
So in order to get sufficient data limits to permit watching HD video you need to buy your internet access from a company that also offers television and they are likely to structure their packages to make it cost effective to buy your television from them rather than Apple.
Bingo!!! Check out the big brain on Bregalad. The easiest way to kill the likes of Apple TV and Google TV will be for the cable and telco (they're offering TV now as well) companies to cap data consumption in your homes. They'll make sure it'll be more cost effective for you to subscribe to their TV plans than you choosing what and when you want to watch it over the internet.
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.
How can that be legal?
If you continue your old contract or pay the ETF, the phone should free and clear!
Currently there are three ways: a wire from a local telco or cable company, a wireless signal from a wireless telco or a wireless signal from a satellite provider.
The only ones in that group that don't already offer television are the cell phone providers and they have restrictive monthly throughput limits that assume consumption of phone optimized content not HD video.
So in order to get sufficient data limits to permit watching HD video you need to buy your internet access from a company that also offers television and they are likely to structure their packages to make it cost effective to buy your television from them rather than Apple.
This smacks of an illegal tie-in. Cable companies are often given monopoly status, similar to a utility, to assure delivery of TV to an area at a [somewhat] regulated price and standard of service.
If they package their "monoply" TV offerings with Internet Access services to gain a competitive advantage, it could be illegal restrabint of trade.
I don't know what the solution is... But if they aren't careful, the governments will get involved-- and make it worse!
If apple doesn't come to an agreement with verizon, then them following happens:
Apple signs agreements with sprint & t-mobile, whom sell theiPhone 4 at a subsidized rate on a typical 2 year contract.
Apple also sells an unsubsidized fully unlocked cdma model from it's own stores and online, so those verizon customers who have to have one on verizon can still buy one if they got the extra cash, meanwhile the bulk of potential iphone customers who dislike at&t would probably opt to switch networks to sprint or t mobile to get the subsidized device.
This happens in many countries, with apple having 1 or 2 official carriers and also selling the phone unlocked for customers on other carriers.
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.
Link to statistic please? IIRC the stats that were shown were for smart phones only.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid
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.
Just goes to show how much you really know and understand. The lawsuit doesn't deal with any violation of the Java license agreement. Java, as in the language, is an open set of rules for a programming language. Android uses a language based on Java (i can't remember the exact name) which is clearly within legal bounds. The problem with the lawsuit is that the code they used in their language has copyright infringement on the code that Oracle licenses. Putting it in layman's term, Oracle is suing Google for copying.
Comparing KIN to WP7 is ignorance. Please continue trolling.
There's a reason why Verizon is still the biggest wireless provider and still without the iPhone. The number people who want a phone that just calls/txt far outweights the number of people who want the latest smartphone. As good as the iPhone is, truth is, not EVERYONE wants one...
It's also possible that apple could subsidise the iPhone at some point by signing up users to a 2 year contract whereby they pay apple a monthly fee (say $30) to get $30 credit each month to use in iTunes store/app store/bookstore.
So sell the phone for $299 with the $30 a month contract and then people can go and choose their own carrier and plan without having to sign a 2 year contract or even get a data plan if they don't want it. And people would also get to buy apps & content each monthmwithmthe credit.
Compaing to the KIN is a valid exercise. It was a Microsoft phone project (just like WP7) and Microsoft managed to muck up not just the phone and it's software, but also screwed up the carrier relationship, and even faile dbig time at the marketing. Everything about the Kin debacle is directly relevant to how Microsoft has failed with a phone related launch in the very recent past.
And let's not forget how Microsoft also completely lost the plot with windows mobile 6 by failing to adapt tl the apple/google phone experience.
MS are merely trying to play catchup with WP7, and based purely on past performance they are likey to fail.
Compaing to the KIN is a valid exercise. It was a Microsoft phone project (just like WP7) and Microsoft managed to muck up not just the phone and it's software, but also screwed up the carrier relationship, and even faile dbig time at the marketing. Everything about the Kin debacle is directly relevant to how Microsoft has failed with a phone related launch in the very recent past.
And let's not forget how Microsoft also completely lost the plot with windows mobile 6 by failing to adapt tl the apple/google phone experience.
MS are merely trying to play catchup with WP7, and based purely on past performance they are likey to fail.
Again, comparing Kin to WP7 is ignorance at best. Kin was NOT suppose to be a successor of WM6, it was meant to be a completely different platform. The marketing for Kin was clearly aimed at teenagers and social connected people. I don't think their carrier relationship was the problem with Kin. The failure of Kin was that it cost the same as a smartphone (at the time, iPhone 3Gs and Moto Droid) but lacked the key features of a smartphone. A person who could afford smartphone prices wasn't going to settle for a dumbphone. WP7 is not aimed towards teenagers, it's aimed towards people who actually want a smartphone.
I disagree. I don't think anyone at Verizon actually gives a damn if they are seen as Android company and a champion of Freedom on Cell Phones. In fact, I doubt many execs even understand the differences between the two platforms. All Verizon CEO knows is that he can customize Android to his liking, offer a custom verizon experience, while still having something that looks kind of like iPhone.
If the monetary terms are right the deal will be struck, and announced with great fanfare and excitement from both sides. Verizon can than make some custom apps for the app store.
This smacks of an illegal tie-in. Cable companies are often given monopoly status, similar to a utility, to assure delivery of TV to an area at a [somewhat] regulated price and standard of service.
If they package their "monopoly" TV offerings with Internet Access services to gain a competitive advantage, it could be illegal restraint of trade.
I don't know what the solution is... But if they aren't careful, the governments will get involved-- and make it worse!
.
I highly doubt the gov't will step in. If you have a choice of getting your services (Internet, TV, phone) from either the cable company or a telco and they both have capped how much internet access you have then where's the monopoly? Then add all the networks that have lucrative deals whom will side with the providers and we as consumers are doomed.
This is what I'm talking about on these message boards....95% of the businesses where the original owner dies and a 'CEO' takes over, eventually go out of business...Coke, Ford, McDonald's, Walmart are the exception...
...mainly because they have figured out the easiest business model is 'to sell a lot of crap at a small margin!'
Think about it, the largest beverage company in the world is Coke and what do they sell? Crap! Water with 11 spoonfuls of sugar in each 12 oz. can.
Or Diet Coke that causes brain lesions.
McDonald's, the largest restaurant chain in the world and what do they sell? Crap!
In fact, the McDonald's at Ground Zero has killed more Americans than the 19 terrorists did!
Verizon has missed the boat time and time again because of executive staff that have more foreskin than foresight....they should all be fired!
Apple is the second largest company, by market cap, in the world. A feat achieved in a friggin recession. What company is so daft as not to hitch their wagon to Apple. Oh yeah, NBC, HBO, Movie Industry, TV industry, cable Industry and, of course, Verizon.
Google didn't sell out to Verizon. They built Android and hoped that makers and carriers would do good things. Some did. Verizon didn't. Although I'd like Android to succeed as an OS, I fear that the Balkanization has killed it. All that's missing is the coffin.
Android/Blackberry/Featurephone on ATT: Loaded with bloatware, carrier branded phone, packaging and often theme.
Android/Blackberry/Featurephone on Verizon: Loaded with bloatware, carrier branded phone, packaging and often theme.
Iphone on ATT: Whatever steve wants, or ATT doesn't get the phone.
Iphone on Verizon:
Why do you people think it will be any different? You guys love painting big red as the culprit here, that they want to "control the experience" instead of letting apple handle it. But look at freaking ATT:
-Blocking Sideloading apps
-Putting Yahoo instead of Google on the backflip
-the torch has more att logos than you can shake a stick at.
They are doing the SAME THING you are saying Verizon will do, and yet they have the Iphone.
There is something else at work here. The biggest one is: Verizon doesn't need the iphone anymore. Their data profits are climbing nicely without paying apple royalties.
Yes, Big Red will stuff a phone fat with bloatware if you let it, but so will ATT. But, just like ATT they can be forced not to (The original Droid)
Apple needs to look at the dumb phone market. I wonder how many out there would love to have a sleek looking phone with a cool interface (no plastic buttons), great iOS, and with wifi, still get some of the benefits that apps may offer but not a mandatory need for the user.
The new iPod nano is just begging to be made into a flip phone.
In all seriousness, I'd be interested an Apple non-smart phone. Something small (iPhone and most smart phones are too big for my preference) that can sync my contact and calendar info. Just like my dumb Verizon phone from Motorola can easily do over Bluetooth. (Oh, and I can use BT to transfer files back and forth, too. So much for the "Verizon locks down all their phone" claims.) All iPods except the shuffle and new nano already have the contact/calendar feature, and it's been there since at least the 3rd generation iPod.
Anyway, throw in a basic music player along the lines of the new nano, not the disfunctional one in Apple's first attempt at an "iTunes phone" w/Moto, and you may just have a phone the non-smart phone crowd would be interested it. Remember, smart phones are still a minority of all cell phones sold.
Killer additional feature: This "dumb" phone can act as a wi-fi hot spot to share the 3G connection and tether to iPod touches, iPads, laptops, etc.
If apple doesn't come to an agreement with verizon, then them following happens:
Apple signs agreements with sprint & t-mobile, whom sell theiPhone 4 at a subsidized rate on a typical 2 year contract.
Apple also sells an unsubsidized fully unlocked cdma model from it's own stores and online, so those verizon customers who have to have one on verizon can still buy one if they got the extra cash, meanwhile the bulk of potential iphone customers who dislike at&t would probably opt to switch networks to sprint or t mobile to get the subsidized device.
This happens in many countries, with apple having 1 or 2 official carriers and also selling the phone unlocked for customers on other carriers.
it doesn't work that way. There is no such thing as an "unlocked" CDMA device. Locking occurs on the Carrier side, not on the device side. In order for a phone to work on Verizon, verizon has to approve the ESN that is unique to EACH device. Apple can't release a phone on verizon's network without Verizon allowing them too, period.
There are more differences between CDMA and GSM than the whole data/voice thing.
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?
Very simple, Money, and lots of it. Here's why. Lets say ATT sells 1 million iPhones which they paid $600 for and VZW sells 1 million Droids they paid $500 for, and all those subscribers have almost identical plans for two years. Now the end of the two years VZW made $100 million more than ATT did. So yes it does matter what phone they choose to sell. Apple loves operating at a high margin but it comes at the expense of someone else and in this case ATT.
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.
OK, but how will that content reach your home?
Currently there are three ways: a wire from a local telco or cable company, a wireless signal from a wireless telco or a wireless signal from a satellite provider.
The only ones in that group that don't already offer television are the cell phone providers and they have restrictive monthly throughput limits that assume consumption of phone optimized content not HD video.
So in order to get sufficient data limits to permit watching HD video you need to buy your internet access from a company that also offers television and they are likely to structure their packages to make it cost effective to buy your television from them rather than Apple.
OK, but how will that content reach your home?
Currently there are three ways: a wire from a local telco or cable company, a wireless signal from a wireless telco or a wireless signal from a satellite provider.
The only ones in that group that don't already offer television are the cell phone providers and they have restrictive monthly throughput limits that assume consumption of phone optimized content not HD video.
So in order to get sufficient data limits to permit watching HD video you need to buy your internet access from a company that also offers television and they are likely to structure their packages to make it cost effective to buy your television from them rather than Apple.
Bingo!!! Check out the big brain on Bregalad. The easiest way to kill the likes of Apple TV and Google TV will be for the cable and telco (they're offering TV now as well) companies to cap data consumption in your homes. They'll make sure it'll be more cost effective for you to subscribe to their TV plans than you choosing what and when you want to watch it over the internet.
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.
How can that be legal?
If you continue your old contract or pay the ETF, the phone should free and clear!
.
2007: Business blunder of the decade 1. "Verizon refuses the iPhone"
2010: Business blunder of the decade 2. "Verizon refuses the iPhone".
Apple is saying "Here....Verizon....I give you millions and millions of high paying customers".
Verizon's response: "No thanks. I must have control....I must put my logo on the iPhone".
Boneheads.
Time to buy some more AT&T stock.
verizon not wanting to break the trend starts a NEW decade of refusing success with the iphone
verizon changes ceo's maybe they have a chance now or wait till they get those hungry sprint and t-mobile to kick their arse
OK, but how will that content reach your home?
Currently there are three ways: a wire from a local telco or cable company, a wireless signal from a wireless telco or a wireless signal from a satellite provider.
The only ones in that group that don't already offer television are the cell phone providers and they have restrictive monthly throughput limits that assume consumption of phone optimized content not HD video.
So in order to get sufficient data limits to permit watching HD video you need to buy your internet access from a company that also offers television and they are likely to structure their packages to make it cost effective to buy your television from them rather than Apple.
This smacks of an illegal tie-in. Cable companies are often given monopoly status, similar to a utility, to assure delivery of TV to an area at a [somewhat] regulated price and standard of service.
If they package their "monoply" TV offerings with Internet Access services to gain a competitive advantage, it could be illegal restrabint of trade.
I don't know what the solution is... But if they aren't careful, the governments will get involved-- and make it worse!
.
Apple signs agreements with sprint & t-mobile, whom sell theiPhone 4 at a subsidized rate on a typical 2 year contract.
Apple also sells an unsubsidized fully unlocked cdma model from it's own stores and online, so those verizon customers who have to have one on verizon can still buy one if they got the extra cash, meanwhile the bulk of potential iphone customers who dislike at&t would probably opt to switch networks to sprint or t mobile to get the subsidized device.
This happens in many countries, with apple having 1 or 2 official carriers and also selling the phone unlocked for customers on other carriers.
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.
Link to statistic please? IIRC the stats that were shown were for smart phones only.
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.
Just goes to show how much you really know and understand. The lawsuit doesn't deal with any violation of the Java license agreement. Java, as in the language, is an open set of rules for a programming language. Android uses a language based on Java (i can't remember the exact name) which is clearly within legal bounds. The problem with the lawsuit is that the code they used in their language has copyright infringement on the code that Oracle licenses. Putting it in layman's term, Oracle is suing Google for copying.
Comparing KIN to WP7 is ignorance. Please continue trolling.
There's a reason why Verizon is still the biggest wireless provider and still without the iPhone. The number people who want a phone that just calls/txt far outweights the number of people who want the latest smartphone. As good as the iPhone is, truth is, not EVERYONE wants one...
So sell the phone for $299 with the $30 a month contract and then people can go and choose their own carrier and plan without having to sign a 2 year contract or even get a data plan if they don't want it. And people would also get to buy apps & content each monthmwithmthe credit.
And let's not forget how Microsoft also completely lost the plot with windows mobile 6 by failing to adapt tl the apple/google phone experience.
MS are merely trying to play catchup with WP7, and based purely on past performance they are likey to fail.
Compaing to the KIN is a valid exercise. It was a Microsoft phone project (just like WP7) and Microsoft managed to muck up not just the phone and it's software, but also screwed up the carrier relationship, and even faile dbig time at the marketing. Everything about the Kin debacle is directly relevant to how Microsoft has failed with a phone related launch in the very recent past.
And let's not forget how Microsoft also completely lost the plot with windows mobile 6 by failing to adapt tl the apple/google phone experience.
MS are merely trying to play catchup with WP7, and based purely on past performance they are likey to fail.
Again, comparing Kin to WP7 is ignorance at best. Kin was NOT suppose to be a successor of WM6, it was meant to be a completely different platform. The marketing for Kin was clearly aimed at teenagers and social connected people. I don't think their carrier relationship was the problem with Kin. The failure of Kin was that it cost the same as a smartphone (at the time, iPhone 3Gs and Moto Droid) but lacked the key features of a smartphone. A person who could afford smartphone prices wasn't going to settle for a dumbphone. WP7 is not aimed towards teenagers, it's aimed towards people who actually want a smartphone.
Open, as in woman of shady virtue.
And equally diseased.
If the monetary terms are right the deal will be struck, and announced with great fanfare and excitement from both sides. Verizon can than make some custom apps for the app store.
This smacks of an illegal tie-in. Cable companies are often given monopoly status, similar to a utility, to assure delivery of TV to an area at a [somewhat] regulated price and standard of service.
If they package their "monopoly" TV offerings with Internet Access services to gain a competitive advantage, it could be illegal restraint of trade.
I don't know what the solution is... But if they aren't careful, the governments will get involved-- and make it worse!
.
I highly doubt the gov't will step in. If you have a choice of getting your services (Internet, TV, phone) from either the cable company or a telco and they both have capped how much internet access you have then where's the monopoly? Then add all the networks that have lucrative deals whom will side with the providers and we as consumers are doomed.
...mainly because they have figured out the easiest business model is 'to sell a lot of crap at a small margin!'
Think about it, the largest beverage company in the world is Coke and what do they sell? Crap! Water with 11 spoonfuls of sugar in each 12 oz. can.
Or Diet Coke that causes brain lesions.
McDonald's, the largest restaurant chain in the world and what do they sell? Crap!
In fact, the McDonald's at Ground Zero has killed more Americans than the 19 terrorists did!
Verizon has missed the boat time and time again because of executive staff that have more foreskin than foresight....they should all be fired!
Apple is the second largest company, by market cap, in the world. A feat achieved in a friggin recession. What company is so daft as not to hitch their wagon to Apple. Oh yeah, NBC, HBO, Movie Industry, TV industry, cable Industry and, of course, Verizon.
What twits!
Pity
Think about it, the largest beverage company in the world is Coke and what do they sell? Crap! Water with 11 spoonfuls of sugar in each 12 oz. can.
Actually, there isn't any sugar in Coke. High-fructose-corn-syrup, but no sugar.
That changes around Passover, by the way. Sugar is kosher, HFCS is not. And kosher Coke is rather expensive.
Android/Blackberry/Featurephone on Verizon: Loaded with bloatware, carrier branded phone, packaging and often theme.
Iphone on ATT: Whatever steve wants, or ATT doesn't get the phone.
Iphone on Verizon:
Why do you people think it will be any different? You guys love painting big red as the culprit here, that they want to "control the experience" instead of letting apple handle it. But look at freaking ATT:
-Blocking Sideloading apps
-Putting Yahoo instead of Google on the backflip
-the torch has more att logos than you can shake a stick at.
They are doing the SAME THING you are saying Verizon will do, and yet they have the Iphone.
There is something else at work here. The biggest one is: Verizon doesn't need the iphone anymore. Their data profits are climbing nicely without paying apple royalties.
Yes, Big Red will stuff a phone fat with bloatware if you let it, but so will ATT. But, just like ATT they can be forced not to (The original Droid)
Apple needs to look at the dumb phone market. I wonder how many out there would love to have a sleek looking phone with a cool interface (no plastic buttons), great iOS, and with wifi, still get some of the benefits that apps may offer but not a mandatory need for the user.
The new iPod nano is just begging to be made into a flip phone.
In all seriousness, I'd be interested an Apple non-smart phone. Something small (iPhone and most smart phones are too big for my preference) that can sync my contact and calendar info. Just like my dumb Verizon phone from Motorola can easily do over Bluetooth. (Oh, and I can use BT to transfer files back and forth, too. So much for the "Verizon locks down all their phone" claims.) All iPods except the shuffle and new nano already have the contact/calendar feature, and it's been there since at least the 3rd generation iPod.
Anyway, throw in a basic music player along the lines of the new nano, not the disfunctional one in Apple's first attempt at an "iTunes phone" w/Moto, and you may just have a phone the non-smart phone crowd would be interested it. Remember, smart phones are still a minority of all cell phones sold.
Killer additional feature: This "dumb" phone can act as a wi-fi hot spot to share the 3G connection and tether to iPod touches, iPads, laptops, etc.
If apple doesn't come to an agreement with verizon, then them following happens:
Apple signs agreements with sprint & t-mobile, whom sell theiPhone 4 at a subsidized rate on a typical 2 year contract.
Apple also sells an unsubsidized fully unlocked cdma model from it's own stores and online, so those verizon customers who have to have one on verizon can still buy one if they got the extra cash, meanwhile the bulk of potential iphone customers who dislike at&t would probably opt to switch networks to sprint or t mobile to get the subsidized device.
This happens in many countries, with apple having 1 or 2 official carriers and also selling the phone unlocked for customers on other carriers.
it doesn't work that way. There is no such thing as an "unlocked" CDMA device. Locking occurs on the Carrier side, not on the device side. In order for a phone to work on Verizon, verizon has to approve the ESN that is unique to EACH device. Apple can't release a phone on verizon's network without Verizon allowing them too, period.
There are more differences between CDMA and GSM than the whole data/voice thing.