... I am an outsider looking in, as I am in Canada. It is just sort of hilarious to see the partisan sniping come out and how ridiculous some of the claims on either side are. Pathetic really.
It is hard to understand how someone can have an emotional attachment to their wireless carrier. They all suck in their own way.
You lack any understand of Steve Job. He has made all annoucement as they relate to Apple, only time he did not make them is when he was sick, well he is not sick so allowing someone else taking the limelight says Steve does not see this as any value to Apple.
If you saw what happen today, the markets ran up this morning and tanked after the market digressed the announcement, so Apple is down in an up market not normal for Apple.
Honestly, If Steve thought this was strategic move and valuable move the announce would have occurred in CA and Steve would have made the announce and explained why this was important to apple and then introduced VZ's CEO and let him explain the value to VZ customers, that did not happen.
All this tells me is Apple is not standing solidly behind this at this time at least. It like when Motorola announce the ROKR with Itunes, Steve was no where near that announcement and it failed. There are others things like this and when Steve distance himself, it means he not supporting it.
Steve did not announce every time they added a new carrier in any of the other countries - why would he do so now? Because he loves the US so much? VZ is just another, albeit large carrier - which is why Tim Cook was there to help announce the partnership, not Steve Jobs. This was about Verizon, not Apple. Steve handles the Apple-centric stuff, he lets the rest of the guys handle the other stuff.
Now stock reaction is typical, and previously Apple stock was UP in a DOWN market yesterday, so it becomes a wash in real terms. Apple is as solidly behind this as they are behind any carrier coming on board.
You are placing way too much emphasis on this as an Apple event (which it isn't - because Apple is selling more iPhones internationally than domestically) and not seeing it for the very much Verizon event - which is why it occurred the way it did with the people it did. It ISN'T an Apple event - Verizon is just another piece of the US wireless market they are adding into their framework, period.
How many people use this? Do you regularly put your phone on speaker so you can surf while talking? Come on.
It's funny how you think you can know this.
When I'm looking for a restaurant, or booking reservations or checking movie times, or checking the weather bug app for updates and forecasts, or adding something into my calendar, on making a quick note, or just pulling up a link I want to send to them - all while talking on the phone. Of course I use a wired or bluetooth headset most often, so going on speaker sounds silly to me, but hey - whatever works for you.
Not funny - it just works and that's why I think [I] can know this.
Anyway, again, just because you and other use your smartphones the way others used their dumb phones in the 90s is no reason to claim it is obscure. Obviously there are millions of people that don't care whatsoever. There are even more that have never used or owned a smartphone. What sad logic says that makes smartphones 'obscure'.
Even before Apple implemented 'multitasking' in iOS, one always had the ability to continue to browse or use data while on a call. It was there before copy and paste. It was there before tethering. It was there before MMS. It was there because it was considered an important ability to include. It was so obscure that Apple felt the need to promote it as an important feature in two ads. So obscure that of a small handful of questions at the Verizon event, it was one of the questions. So obscure that probably millions of people use it everyday without thinking about it.
You say most GSM user don't know about it. Have you conducted a poll? I'd love to see your results. If you haven't and are planning to, perhaps I could suggest a couple questions for you to include: "Have you ever, while walking, chewed gum at the same time? Is this an important feature? Have you ever, while talking on your cell phone, used the internet?"
My 70 year father looks things up on his iPhone 4 while talking on the phone. I am sorry your circle is less capable or inclined.
Who said anything about making "smartphones obscure". This feature does not define a smartphone.
Have I conducted a poll? No I havent. I rely, instead, on
1) the analysts I have already mentioned who think that millions of people will move to the iPhone as defectors from either Verizon Android phones, or AT&T iPhones, or somewhere else with no reference to this feature, no interest in it, no mention of it, and no concern about it's absence on Verizon.
2) The fact that millions of people are on Verizon - the majority carrier - and clearly dont care about this feature, on any smartphone platform.
3) The lack of movement from Android users to AT&T when AT&T started selling Android phones and the total dis-interest in Android forums about simultaneous voice and data.
. Your dad is an anecdote, my list is statistical.
I have no horse in this race. I live in the UK - and have no idea if my (GSM) phone offers this. If it mattered to APple - who I do care about as an investor and developer on iOS - then I would care about it. That is if Android had it and iPhone didnt and this was materially affecting growth of the iPhone platform ( as the reliance on one carrier clearly has).
But it isnt. Nobody cares. This thread contains the only part of the internet where it is even a remote issue.
When I'm looking for a restaurant, or booking reservations or checking movie times, or checking the weather bug app for updates and forecasts, or adding something into my calendar, on making a quick note, or just pulling up a link I want to send to them - all while talking on the phone. Of course I use a wired or bluetooth headset most often, so going on speaker sounds silly to me, but hey - whatever works for you.
Not funny - it just works and that's why I think [I] can know this.
Good for you but you are a statistical outlier. If you weren't a statistical outlier then Verizon would be bleeding customers to AT&T and they would "fix" their network. They dont care because they dont have to care. If it mattered to even 5% of their customers they would care.
Anecdotes are not statistics. Enjoy AT&T with it's data plans but most people just dont know, nor care. Most people dont read when talking. However you can stay where you are, on AT&T, so it shouldn't be an issue.
If it's such an oft-used feature or one that was so important, Verizon wouldn't be the largest network in America and there wouldn't be so many "relatively" happy Android users on the network.
Let's face it: AT&T has its pluses (voice/3G data at the same time, data download speeds, rollover minutes). Verizon has its pluses (more reliable network, broader 3G coverage, 5-device mobile hotspot for iPhone, Facetime over 3G [according to Boy Genius Report], better coverage in large cities).
Pick whichever is more suitable for your needs. Neither carrier is perfect and there's no reason to act like one is.
There is ONLY ONE DETERMING FACTOR in a CELLULAR NETWORK.
Coverage! Period.
Its irrelevant if x has rollover minutes, simultaneous voice/data, high speed etc....
What good is any of those if you CAN NOT USE THE DEVICE be it a phone, smart or dumb, mifi, or broadband device.
No coverage, poor coverage, or coverage that just doesn't work does no one any good.
You want coverage and reliable you get: VZW...
I got a great deal with x, but can't use it at work|school|home|part of commute|vacation spot etc... So how's that deal working if you can't use it 80% of the time? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
You want to cut costs, get minor features etc.. take your pick of carriers. They are not a commodity of equals.
When I need to use my device phone (smart or dumb) or mifi or wireless modem, then I expect it to work, period. Not oh well I got a great deal, so its ok to not work.
I've had VZW for DECADES, would not consider any one else, and have not. And I am very disappointed that it appears VZW caved into the cupertino tyrants, sad, really sad VZW!
And YES 100% I have an Android phone, and I am very pleased with it. I am also some one who decides what what phones several thousand users get, and it won't be anything from apple or rim! VZW is the agency carrier, and we put out an email, NO iphones, don't bother to ask! right after this disappointing news. Will probably have to send it out from now till February...
If it's such an oft-used feature or one that was so important, Verizon wouldn't be the largest network in America and there wouldn't be so many "relatively" happy Android users on the network.
That?s not a good argument because there are many other factors to consider. If I said "If it?s such an oft-used feature or one that was so important, AT&T wouldn't be the fastest growing network with less people leaving the network over Verizon, and there wouldn't be so many "relatively? happy iPhone users on the network.?
Good for you but you are a statistical outlier. If you weren't a statistical outlier then Verizon would be bleeding customers to AT&T and they would "fix" their network. They dont care because they dont have to care. If it mattered to even 5% of their customers they would care.
Anecdotes are not statistics. Enjoy AT&T with it's data plans but most people just dont know, nor care. Most people dont read when talking. However you can stay where you are, on AT&T, so it shouldn't be an issue.
But I seem to be (anecdotally) surrounded by people who do the same thing - consistently, frequently and with many others. So do I think this is a profound game-changer resulting in masses moving from VZ to ATT? Of course not. But the fact remains that like power windows on a car, having it and using it are nice features that would be missed if not available on VZ or any other carrier, by anyone who was used to being able to do that.
Let's face it: AT&T has its pluses (voice/3G data at the same time, data download speeds, rollover minutes). Verizon has its pluses (more reliable network, broader 3G coverage, 5-device mobile hotspot for iPhone, Facetime over 3G [according to Boy Genius Report], better coverage in large cities).
Pick whichever is more suitable for your needs. Neither carrier is perfect and there's no reason to act like one is.
I think we should be very careful what we say about the differences and similarities of the two phones.
For example,
Quote:
Unfortunately, the Verizon network will not accept FaceTime calls over the CDMA network. We just talked to Verizon at the event in New York City and there will be no FaceTime calls made over the Verizon network, just like AT&T. You'll still need WiFi to make calls to your friends and loved ones.
If we should say anything, lets, that is those of you that have an AT&T iPhone, post your most recent overall reception relative to specific locations that you've frequented most. It is useless to declare that "I get 5 bars" or "virtually none" without indicating where.
For those of us that love our iPhones, do we really care what service is chosen other than it provide the best experience for the user. Based on much of the rhetoric here, it is all over the place. Much of the complaints seem to come from non-users or trollers. However, there are some who are legitimately getting terrible or great reception. Should we chastize either. I don't think so.
Needless to say, there are a number of reasons to choose one over the other. But if you can't make a phone call, does it really matter if you don't get data at the same time. If it does, then the iPhone and/or Verizon shouldn't be a consideration.
We should also keep in mind that there is no perfect network. Some were there first. Some have established such a solid base that their towers can literally knock out a competitors services. And there are some communities that won't allow new or further installations for so-called aesthetic or perceived health issues. And because one brand of other cell phone work or doesn't work in certain regions, it doesn't mean that either choice of iPhone will equally act likewise.
So lets help each other help make the best choice. But in the end, if this is your first iPhone, don't forget you have at least 30 days to test it.
P.S. For what it is worth, my primary location is Metro Toronto. On Rogers, Great in Toronto (except a couple of spots around the airport and where the Humber meets the Gardner), down to the Peninsula, north to Orillia, east to Peterborough and west to Windsor. As well as in Vancouver, south to Seattle and east to Pitt Meadows. Great in Boston and along the I-95 to Worcester. As well as Shanghai, Beijing and London, UK. Note: International locations on Roaming. All in the last 6 months.
There is ONLY ONE DETERMING FACTOR in a CELLULAR NETWORK.
Coverage! Period.
Its irrelevant if x has rollover minutes, simultaneous voice/data, high speed etc....
What good is any of those if you CAN NOT USE THE DEVICE be it a phone, smart or dumb, mifi, or broadband device.
No coverage, poor coverage, or coverage that just doesn't work does no one any good.
You want coverage and reliable you get: VZW...
I got a great deal with x, but can't use it at work|school|home|part of commute|vacation spot etc... So how's that deal working if you can't use it 80% of the time? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
You want to cut costs, get minor features etc.. take your pick of carriers. They are not a commodity of equals.
When I need to use my device phone (smart or dumb) or mifi or wireless modem, then I expect it to work, period. Not oh well I got a great deal, so its ok to not work.
I've had VZW for DECADES, would not consider any one else, and have not. And I am very disappointed that it appears VZW caved into the cupertino tyrants, sad, really sad VZW!
And YES 100% I have an Android phone, and I am very pleased with it. I am also some one who decides what what phones several thousand users get, and it won't be anything from apple or rim! VZW is the agency carrier, and we put out an email, NO iphones, don't bother to ask! right after this disappointing news. Will probably have to send it out from now till February...
While YOUR usage may demand coverage be the end-all/be-all for the phone you choose, it is one one factor and to roundly dismiss everything else as immaterial flies in the face of the very real impact the iPhone had on ATT subscriber increases and the incredibly high demand by VZ customers for the iPhone. And since you carry your biases so forward in your reasoning I imagine I should be glad that my decisioners around what tech I get to use in my Fortune 50 company are not so arrantly irresponsible and make their decisions based on something so ridiculous. And if you were someone I had hired to manage my user infrastructure and device portfolio, you and I would be having a very serious and career impacting conversation right about now.
Who said anything about making "smartphones obscure". This feature does not define a smartphone.
No, you said
"SO obscure that most GSM users dont know about it, and have never used it. So unimportant that no analyst has ever discussed as an advantage of either AT&T and the iPhone, so uninviting that there been no rush of Android users to AT&T in the last few months, so unknown that Verizon sells millions of Android ( and other smartphones) regardless of this restriction. "
So, lack of use by some makes it obscure. Millions of people don't use smartphones. That doesn't make them obscure. That would be asinine logic, so? Using the same logic to say simultaneous voice/data is 'an obscure' feature is similarly asinine. Millions of people do use it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
Have I conducted a poll? No I havent. I rely, instead, on
1) the analysts I have already mentioned who think that millions of people will move to the iPhone as defectors from either Verizon Android phones, or AT&T iPhones, or somewhere else with no reference to this feature, no interest in it, no mention of it, and no concern about it's absence on Verizon.
Doesn't make it obscure. Perhaps it means it isn't the killer feature, but it doesn't make it obscure. Bad reasoning again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
2) The fact that millions of people are on Verizon - the majority carrier - and clearly dont care about this feature, on any smartphone platform.
Millions on Verizon don't use smartphones at all. Were you trying to use that to make a point? I hope not. Again, all this point means is it not critical to many. Neither are smartphones in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
3) The lack of movement from Android users to AT&T when AT&T started selling Android phones and the total dis-interest in Android forums about simultaneous voice and data.
Obviously Verizon has feature and capabilities that matter more to many people. No question. Like coverage and reliability. Does the fact that millions have stayed with AT&T mean that coverage and reliability don't matter at all? Does it make them 'statistically' irrelevant? Nope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
. Your dad is an anecdote, my list is statistical.
Not really. Your list is certainly approximates. It might be guesses. One thing it certainly is not, is relevant to why you think it is 'obscure'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
I have no horse in this race. I live in the UK - and have no idea if my (GSM) phone offers this. If it mattered to APple - who I do care about as an investor and developer on iOS - then I would care about it. That is if Android had it and iPhone didnt and this was materially affecting growth of the iPhone platform ( as the reliance on one carrier clearly has).
It matters a little to Apple. They did devote two ads just to that ability. That's more than they devoted to many other built in features. They included support for it before many other features people would have thought more critical. Obviously the realize it doesn't mater to millions or that for millions of others there are more important priorities they expect from their carrier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
But it isnt. Nobody cares. This thread contains the only part of the internet where it is even a remote issue.
There were maybe 5 questions asked at the Verizon event. Guess what one of the questions was about. The second I think. So few people care about it, it was one of the first questions asked.
Talking this afternoon to a co-worker in the US. He isn't a huge Apple follower, but is a fan and has iPhones and a Mac. I asked him if he'd be switching to Verizon. Only response? "No, they don't support browsing while talking-very lame".
You might not care about it. Tens of millions of users might not care about it. To say it is obscure or almost no one cares about it is just nonsense.
Bring on the iPhone nanoit has nothing to do with the OS and everything to do with the carrier. Whine to carriers to support it, not Apple.
Where did I say that it was the OS?! You probably need to read my post again. The Hotspot feature on the Verizon iPhone is not enabled by default. You need to activate it through Verizon. There are many GSM carriers world wide that offer the feature but iPhone users can't use it because it doesn't exist on the iPhone.. yet.
Everyone is assuming there will be an iPhone5 in June. I personally doubt that it will be released until later in the year (at the earliest). iPhone4 was released in June last year and the company still can't make enough of them to meet customer needs.
Here in Australia, you still have up to a 2week wait to get one.
There is ONLY ONE DETERMING FACTOR in a CELLULAR NETWORK.
Coverage! Period.
Its irrelevant if x has rollover minutes, simultaneous voice/data, high speed etc....
What good is any of those if you CAN NOT USE THE DEVICE be it a phone, smart or dumb, mifi, or broadband device.
You're being overly dramatic. This is not a black and white issue. Coverage matters in the sense of whether you can use the phone or not, but that's not how it usually plays out in the real world. More likely, a consumer has a choice of at least a few mobile providers who provide coverage, but at various degrees of reliability, and in this gray area, elements like rollover minutes, data speed, mobile-to-mobile, family networks, phone selection, and all that other jazz can make all the difference.
If I'm using my phone as a GPS in my car, giving me turn-by-turn voice instructions through TomTom, what happens when I get a phone call?
Does it drop the data connection, or does the call go to voicemail? Does that mean if I'm on the road for three hours I won't get any calls?
If it does take the call, what happens to the app?
a) does it quit the app entirely?
b) multi-task out of it, leaving it "on" but unable to retrieve nav data?
If b), will it then resume when the call is complete?
Just curious about the mechanics of this.
If you have the TomTom app, you're good to go. TomTom has all the maps on board, so the only data it will use is when it downloads traffic info. In my experience, TomTom will keep giving voice directions, even if you answer, and also if you exit the app/start playing music/whatever. It just keeps on blabbing directions.
To use your logic, subscription and print media is not new with apple, that announce has already been made, it just another print media that could be added.
You could be right on a new category, knowing Murdocks background there could be another category coming out of next weeks announcement. But again this backs my statement VZ is not strategic and Cook said it, the only purpose was to get a phone in VZ hands now verse waiting. VZ need this more than Apple.
Jobs has publicly stated they they want to change publishing just as they have music and video. That's why Jobs will be there.
Comments
... I am an outsider looking in, as I am in Canada. It is just sort of hilarious to see the partisan sniping come out and how ridiculous some of the claims on either side are. Pathetic really.
It is hard to understand how someone can have an emotional attachment to their wireless carrier. They all suck in their own way.
It is hard to understand how someone can have an emotional attachment to their wireless carrier. They all suck in their own way.
I have an emotional attachment to mine. I hate them with my entire being.
...but their network is usually pretty good
You lack any understand of Steve Job. He has made all annoucement as they relate to Apple, only time he did not make them is when he was sick, well he is not sick so allowing someone else taking the limelight says Steve does not see this as any value to Apple.
If you saw what happen today, the markets ran up this morning and tanked after the market digressed the announcement, so Apple is down in an up market not normal for Apple.
Honestly, If Steve thought this was strategic move and valuable move the announce would have occurred in CA and Steve would have made the announce and explained why this was important to apple and then introduced VZ's CEO and let him explain the value to VZ customers, that did not happen.
All this tells me is Apple is not standing solidly behind this at this time at least. It like when Motorola announce the ROKR with Itunes, Steve was no where near that announcement and it failed. There are others things like this and when Steve distance himself, it means he not supporting it.
Steve did not announce every time they added a new carrier in any of the other countries - why would he do so now? Because he loves the US so much? VZ is just another, albeit large carrier - which is why Tim Cook was there to help announce the partnership, not Steve Jobs. This was about Verizon, not Apple. Steve handles the Apple-centric stuff, he lets the rest of the guys handle the other stuff.
Now stock reaction is typical, and previously Apple stock was UP in a DOWN market yesterday, so it becomes a wash in real terms. Apple is as solidly behind this as they are behind any carrier coming on board.
You are placing way too much emphasis on this as an Apple event (which it isn't - because Apple is selling more iPhones internationally than domestically) and not seeing it for the very much Verizon event - which is why it occurred the way it did with the people it did. It ISN'T an Apple event - Verizon is just another piece of the US wireless market they are adding into their framework, period.
That's.. the point I'm making.
How many people use this? Do you regularly put your phone on speaker so you can surf while talking? Come on.
It's funny how you think you can know this.
When I'm looking for a restaurant, or booking reservations or checking movie times, or checking the weather bug app for updates and forecasts, or adding something into my calendar, on making a quick note, or just pulling up a link I want to send to them - all while talking on the phone. Of course I use a wired or bluetooth headset most often, so going on speaker sounds silly to me, but hey - whatever works for you.
Not funny - it just works and that's why I think [I] can know this.
Wow, someone took their arrogance pills today.
Anyway, again, just because you and other use your smartphones the way others used their dumb phones in the 90s is no reason to claim it is obscure. Obviously there are millions of people that don't care whatsoever. There are even more that have never used or owned a smartphone. What sad logic says that makes smartphones 'obscure'.
Even before Apple implemented 'multitasking' in iOS, one always had the ability to continue to browse or use data while on a call. It was there before copy and paste. It was there before tethering. It was there before MMS. It was there because it was considered an important ability to include. It was so obscure that Apple felt the need to promote it as an important feature in two ads. So obscure that of a small handful of questions at the Verizon event, it was one of the questions. So obscure that probably millions of people use it everyday without thinking about it.
You say most GSM user don't know about it. Have you conducted a poll? I'd love to see your results. If you haven't and are planning to, perhaps I could suggest a couple questions for you to include: "Have you ever, while walking, chewed gum at the same time? Is this an important feature? Have you ever, while talking on your cell phone, used the internet?"
My 70 year father looks things up on his iPhone 4 while talking on the phone. I am sorry your circle is less capable or inclined.
Who said anything about making "smartphones obscure". This feature does not define a smartphone.
Have I conducted a poll? No I havent. I rely, instead, on
1) the analysts I have already mentioned who think that millions of people will move to the iPhone as defectors from either Verizon Android phones, or AT&T iPhones, or somewhere else with no reference to this feature, no interest in it, no mention of it, and no concern about it's absence on Verizon.
2) The fact that millions of people are on Verizon - the majority carrier - and clearly dont care about this feature, on any smartphone platform.
3) The lack of movement from Android users to AT&T when AT&T started selling Android phones and the total dis-interest in Android forums about simultaneous voice and data.
. Your dad is an anecdote, my list is statistical.
I have no horse in this race. I live in the UK - and have no idea if my (GSM) phone offers this. If it mattered to APple - who I do care about as an investor and developer on iOS - then I would care about it. That is if Android had it and iPhone didnt and this was materially affecting growth of the iPhone platform ( as the reliance on one carrier clearly has).
But it isnt. Nobody cares. This thread contains the only part of the internet where it is even a remote issue.
When I'm looking for a restaurant, or booking reservations or checking movie times, or checking the weather bug app for updates and forecasts, or adding something into my calendar, on making a quick note, or just pulling up a link I want to send to them - all while talking on the phone. Of course I use a wired or bluetooth headset most often, so going on speaker sounds silly to me, but hey - whatever works for you.
Not funny - it just works and that's why I think [I] can know this.
Good for you but you are a statistical outlier. If you weren't a statistical outlier then Verizon would be bleeding customers to AT&T and they would "fix" their network. They dont care because they dont have to care. If it mattered to even 5% of their customers they would care.
Anecdotes are not statistics. Enjoy AT&T with it's data plans but most people just dont know, nor care. Most people dont read when talking. However you can stay where you are, on AT&T, so it shouldn't be an issue.
If it's such an oft-used feature or one that was so important, Verizon wouldn't be the largest network in America and there wouldn't be so many "relatively" happy Android users on the network.
Let's face it: AT&T has its pluses (voice/3G data at the same time, data download speeds, rollover minutes). Verizon has its pluses (more reliable network, broader 3G coverage, 5-device mobile hotspot for iPhone, Facetime over 3G [according to Boy Genius Report], better coverage in large cities).
Pick whichever is more suitable for your needs. Neither carrier is perfect and there's no reason to act like one is.
There is ONLY ONE DETERMING FACTOR in a CELLULAR NETWORK.
Coverage! Period.
Its irrelevant if x has rollover minutes, simultaneous voice/data, high speed etc....
What good is any of those if you CAN NOT USE THE DEVICE be it a phone, smart or dumb, mifi, or broadband device.
No coverage, poor coverage, or coverage that just doesn't work does no one any good.
You want coverage and reliable you get: VZW...
I got a great deal with x, but can't use it at work|school|home|part of commute|vacation spot etc... So how's that deal working if you can't use it 80% of the time? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
You want to cut costs, get minor features etc.. take your pick of carriers. They are not a commodity of equals.
When I need to use my device phone (smart or dumb) or mifi or wireless modem, then I expect it to work, period. Not oh well I got a great deal, so its ok to not work.
I've had VZW for DECADES, would not consider any one else, and have not. And I am very disappointed that it appears VZW caved into the cupertino tyrants, sad, really sad VZW!
And YES 100% I have an Android phone, and I am very pleased with it. I am also some one who decides what what phones several thousand users get, and it won't be anything from apple or rim! VZW is the agency carrier, and we put out an email, NO iphones, don't bother to ask! right after this disappointing news. Will probably have to send it out from now till February...
If it's such an oft-used feature or one that was so important, Verizon wouldn't be the largest network in America and there wouldn't be so many "relatively" happy Android users on the network.
That?s not a good argument because there are many other factors to consider. If I said "If it?s such an oft-used feature or one that was so important, AT&T wouldn't be the fastest growing network with less people leaving the network over Verizon, and there wouldn't be so many "relatively? happy iPhone users on the network.?
Good for you but you are a statistical outlier. If you weren't a statistical outlier then Verizon would be bleeding customers to AT&T and they would "fix" their network. They dont care because they dont have to care. If it mattered to even 5% of their customers they would care.
Anecdotes are not statistics. Enjoy AT&T with it's data plans but most people just dont know, nor care. Most people dont read when talking. However you can stay where you are, on AT&T, so it shouldn't be an issue.
But I seem to be (anecdotally) surrounded by people who do the same thing - consistently, frequently and with many others. So do I think this is a profound game-changer resulting in masses moving from VZ to ATT? Of course not. But the fact remains that like power windows on a car, having it and using it are nice features that would be missed if not available on VZ or any other carrier, by anyone who was used to being able to do that.
I've had VZW for DECADES,
So... back when it was Bell Atlantic Mobile, right? Because Verizon didn't exist until 2000.
I am very disappointed that it appears VZW caved into the cupertino tyrants, sad, really sad VZW!
To what the heck did they "cave"? If you like Verizon so much, there should be zero reason not to get iPhones.
Let's face it: AT&T has its pluses (voice/3G data at the same time, data download speeds, rollover minutes). Verizon has its pluses (more reliable network, broader 3G coverage, 5-device mobile hotspot for iPhone, Facetime over 3G [according to Boy Genius Report], better coverage in large cities).
Pick whichever is more suitable for your needs. Neither carrier is perfect and there's no reason to act like one is.
I think we should be very careful what we say about the differences and similarities of the two phones.
For example,
Unfortunately, the Verizon network will not accept FaceTime calls over the CDMA network. We just talked to Verizon at the event in New York City and there will be no FaceTime calls made over the Verizon network, just like AT&T. You'll still need WiFi to make calls to your friends and loved ones.
http://www.maclife.com/article/news/...r_cdma_network
If we should say anything, lets, that is those of you that have an AT&T iPhone, post your most recent overall reception relative to specific locations that you've frequented most. It is useless to declare that "I get 5 bars" or "virtually none" without indicating where.
For those of us that love our iPhones, do we really care what service is chosen other than it provide the best experience for the user. Based on much of the rhetoric here, it is all over the place. Much of the complaints seem to come from non-users or trollers. However, there are some who are legitimately getting terrible or great reception. Should we chastize either. I don't think so.
Needless to say, there are a number of reasons to choose one over the other. But if you can't make a phone call, does it really matter if you don't get data at the same time. If it does, then the iPhone and/or Verizon shouldn't be a consideration.
We should also keep in mind that there is no perfect network. Some were there first. Some have established such a solid base that their towers can literally knock out a competitors services. And there are some communities that won't allow new or further installations for so-called aesthetic or perceived health issues. And because one brand of other cell phone work or doesn't work in certain regions, it doesn't mean that either choice of iPhone will equally act likewise.
So lets help each other help make the best choice. But in the end, if this is your first iPhone, don't forget you have at least 30 days to test it.
P.S. For what it is worth, my primary location is Metro Toronto. On Rogers, Great in Toronto (except a couple of spots around the airport and where the Humber meets the Gardner), down to the Peninsula, north to Orillia, east to Peterborough and west to Windsor. As well as in Vancouver, south to Seattle and east to Pitt Meadows. Great in Boston and along the I-95 to Worcester. As well as Shanghai, Beijing and London, UK. Note: International locations on Roaming. All in the last 6 months.
There is ONLY ONE DETERMING FACTOR in a CELLULAR NETWORK.
Coverage! Period.
Its irrelevant if x has rollover minutes, simultaneous voice/data, high speed etc....
What good is any of those if you CAN NOT USE THE DEVICE be it a phone, smart or dumb, mifi, or broadband device.
No coverage, poor coverage, or coverage that just doesn't work does no one any good.
You want coverage and reliable you get: VZW...
I got a great deal with x, but can't use it at work|school|home|part of commute|vacation spot etc... So how's that deal working if you can't use it 80% of the time? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
You want to cut costs, get minor features etc.. take your pick of carriers. They are not a commodity of equals.
When I need to use my device phone (smart or dumb) or mifi or wireless modem, then I expect it to work, period. Not oh well I got a great deal, so its ok to not work.
I've had VZW for DECADES, would not consider any one else, and have not. And I am very disappointed that it appears VZW caved into the cupertino tyrants, sad, really sad VZW!
And YES 100% I have an Android phone, and I am very pleased with it. I am also some one who decides what what phones several thousand users get, and it won't be anything from apple or rim! VZW is the agency carrier, and we put out an email, NO iphones, don't bother to ask! right after this disappointing news. Will probably have to send it out from now till February...
While YOUR usage may demand coverage be the end-all/be-all for the phone you choose, it is one one factor and to roundly dismiss everything else as immaterial flies in the face of the very real impact the iPhone had on ATT subscriber increases and the incredibly high demand by VZ customers for the iPhone. And since you carry your biases so forward in your reasoning I imagine I should be glad that my decisioners around what tech I get to use in my Fortune 50 company are not so arrantly irresponsible and make their decisions based on something so ridiculous. And if you were someone I had hired to manage my user infrastructure and device portfolio, you and I would be having a very serious and career impacting conversation right about now.
Who said anything about making "smartphones obscure". This feature does not define a smartphone.
No, you said
"SO obscure that most GSM users dont know about it, and have never used it. So unimportant that no analyst has ever discussed as an advantage of either AT&T and the iPhone, so uninviting that there been no rush of Android users to AT&T in the last few months, so unknown that Verizon sells millions of Android ( and other smartphones) regardless of this restriction. "
So, lack of use by some makes it obscure. Millions of people don't use smartphones. That doesn't make them obscure. That would be asinine logic, so? Using the same logic to say simultaneous voice/data is 'an obscure' feature is similarly asinine. Millions of people do use it.
Have I conducted a poll? No I havent. I rely, instead, on
1) the analysts I have already mentioned who think that millions of people will move to the iPhone as defectors from either Verizon Android phones, or AT&T iPhones, or somewhere else with no reference to this feature, no interest in it, no mention of it, and no concern about it's absence on Verizon.
Doesn't make it obscure. Perhaps it means it isn't the killer feature, but it doesn't make it obscure. Bad reasoning again.
2) The fact that millions of people are on Verizon - the majority carrier - and clearly dont care about this feature, on any smartphone platform.
Millions on Verizon don't use smartphones at all. Were you trying to use that to make a point? I hope not. Again, all this point means is it not critical to many. Neither are smartphones in general.
3) The lack of movement from Android users to AT&T when AT&T started selling Android phones and the total dis-interest in Android forums about simultaneous voice and data.
Obviously Verizon has feature and capabilities that matter more to many people. No question. Like coverage and reliability. Does the fact that millions have stayed with AT&T mean that coverage and reliability don't matter at all? Does it make them 'statistically' irrelevant? Nope.
. Your dad is an anecdote, my list is statistical.
Not really. Your list is certainly approximates. It might be guesses. One thing it certainly is not, is relevant to why you think it is 'obscure'.
I have no horse in this race. I live in the UK - and have no idea if my (GSM) phone offers this. If it mattered to APple - who I do care about as an investor and developer on iOS - then I would care about it. That is if Android had it and iPhone didnt and this was materially affecting growth of the iPhone platform ( as the reliance on one carrier clearly has).
It matters a little to Apple. They did devote two ads just to that ability. That's more than they devoted to many other built in features. They included support for it before many other features people would have thought more critical. Obviously the realize it doesn't mater to millions or that for millions of others there are more important priorities they expect from their carrier.
But it isnt. Nobody cares. This thread contains the only part of the internet where it is even a remote issue.
There were maybe 5 questions asked at the Verizon event. Guess what one of the questions was about. The second I think. So few people care about it, it was one of the first questions asked.
Talking this afternoon to a co-worker in the US. He isn't a huge Apple follower, but is a fan and has iPhones and a Mac. I asked him if he'd be switching to Verizon. Only response? "No, they don't support browsing while talking-very lame".
You might not care about it. Tens of millions of users might not care about it. To say it is obscure or almost no one cares about it is just nonsense.
Bring on the iPhone nanoit has nothing to do with the OS and everything to do with the carrier. Whine to carriers to support it, not Apple.
Where did I say that it was the OS?! You probably need to read my post again. The Hotspot feature on the Verizon iPhone is not enabled by default. You need to activate it through Verizon. There are many GSM carriers world wide that offer the feature but iPhone users can't use it because it doesn't exist on the iPhone.. yet.
Here in Australia, you still have up to a 2week wait to get one.
Everyone is assuming there will be an iPhone5 in June. I personally doubt that it will be released until later in the year (at the earliest).
Why? The iPhone 2G came out something like four months before the 3G in the first international markets. People still bought it.
There is ONLY ONE DETERMING FACTOR in a CELLULAR NETWORK.
Coverage! Period.
Its irrelevant if x has rollover minutes, simultaneous voice/data, high speed etc....
What good is any of those if you CAN NOT USE THE DEVICE be it a phone, smart or dumb, mifi, or broadband device.
You're being overly dramatic. This is not a black and white issue. Coverage matters in the sense of whether you can use the phone or not, but that's not how it usually plays out in the real world. More likely, a consumer has a choice of at least a few mobile providers who provide coverage, but at various degrees of reliability, and in this gray area, elements like rollover minutes, data speed, mobile-to-mobile, family networks, phone selection, and all that other jazz can make all the difference.
So about this non-concurrent voice/data thing...
If I'm using my phone as a GPS in my car, giving me turn-by-turn voice instructions through TomTom, what happens when I get a phone call?
Does it drop the data connection, or does the call go to voicemail? Does that mean if I'm on the road for three hours I won't get any calls?
If it does take the call, what happens to the app?
a) does it quit the app entirely?
b) multi-task out of it, leaving it "on" but unable to retrieve nav data?
If b), will it then resume when the call is complete?
Just curious about the mechanics of this.
If you have the TomTom app, you're good to go. TomTom has all the maps on board, so the only data it will use is when it downloads traffic info. In my experience, TomTom will keep giving voice directions, even if you answer, and also if you exit the app/start playing music/whatever. It just keeps on blabbing directions.
From AnandTech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkfaV...embedded#at=24
To use your logic, subscription and print media is not new with apple, that announce has already been made, it just another print media that could be added.
You could be right on a new category, knowing Murdocks background there could be another category coming out of next weeks announcement. But again this backs my statement VZ is not strategic and Cook said it, the only purpose was to get a phone in VZ hands now verse waiting. VZ need this more than Apple.
Jobs has publicly stated they they want to change publishing just as they have music and video. That's why Jobs will be there.