I applaud carriers for rejecting Apple's terms. The result of acceptance is increased costs for ALL subscribers. What would be great is if the Big 3 (or 4, 5, 6) US carriers came together and negotiated common terms in the best interest of all carriers and consumers.
I guess it made sense financially for US Cellular. Looking at platform growth, why lay out cash for something with a slower adoption rate?
I'm from Europe and I don't understand why a provider should halve any say in what kind of phone I use.
I don't follow. Are you saying that US Cellular shouldn't have a choice in whether it sells the iPhone? It's a CDMA-based network so unless you can get a baseband flash it's not going to work like with an unlocked GSM-based device.
Perhaps this is why they are the sixth largest carrier in the US? And since at&t and Verizon have 58% of the market who gives a shit?
People might give a crap because AT&T and Verizion have crappy customer service and US Cellular's is excellent. I was planning on dumping AT&T for them if they got the iPhone. The only way this makes sense is if she's trying to sell to Sprint, who could Use the extra customers and more importantly its LTE infrastructure.
Apple also controls the end-to-end user experience when it comes to activating the phone: you do it through iTunes or more recently on the phone itself. There's no need to deal directly with the carrier for activation. Apple also forbids carriers from sticking their logos on the phone or on the screens. That's pretty amazing, and I like Apple for not compromising with carriers. If US Cellular doesn't want to play ball, so what?
Not entirely true, my iPhone has always said at&t at the top left of the screen
They probably had a simple financial choice: spend money on a 4G LTE network or subsidizing iPhones but not both. As a CDMA carrier, the longer you don't have a 4G network, the worse off you are going to be in the future, regardless of what phones you offer.
I predict they'll get the next iPhone with LTE built-in.
Is that? people who just take their iPhones to other carriers after an unlock?
AT&T has never offered to unlock an iPhone, even if it's out of contract. Verizon and Sprint will not activate an iPhone that was not initially provisioned for their network on day of sale.
The fear that customers will get an exclusive phone then unlock it and run off is kinda silly since you end up paying an ETF anyway to cover the full cost of the phone. And at least for AT&T, going to T-Mobile means a loss of 3G. Unless they really care than much about phones being exported to other countries, AT&T wouldn't loose that much business from unlocking their phones.
If the iPhone has LTE next year, then the standard will require that all subscriber info be stored on the SIM card, meaning an unlocked phone should work on all 3 networks.
AT&T has never offered to unlock an iPhone, even if it's out of contract. Verizon and Sprint will not activate an iPhone that was not initially provisioned for their network on day of sale.
I know. I don't mean that.
Quote:
The fear that customers will get an exclusive phone then unlock it and run off is kinda silly since you end up paying an ETF anyway to cover the full cost of the phone.
Or you just buy the unlocked one and use whatever carrier you want. Unless the carrier is a fricking idiot and doesn't let you, like these morons.
Quote:
If the iPhone has LTE next year, then the standard will require that all subscriber info be stored on the SIM card, meaning an unlocked phone should work on all 3 networks.
Except Sprint doesn't use LTE, and any attempt for them to do so would bankrupt them even more quickly than if they hadn't ponied up for the iPhone. It's not going to work on WiMAX, so the next iPhone will be limited to 3G on Sprint. Which is absolutely wretched if current testing is true.
and higher subsidies, an expense that makes iPhones more affordable to users and therefore more attractive.
I wonder how long Apple will be able to maintain those higher subsidies. My understanding is carriers subsidize iPhones by a hundred dollars more than the equivalent top of the range Android phones. Will carriers start pushing back, either demanding Apple reduces the unsubsidized price or raising the price consumers must pay?
I wonder how long Apple will be able to maintain those higher subsidies. My understanding is carriers subsidize iPhones by a hundred dollars more than the equivalent top of the range Android phones. Will carriers start pushing back, either demanding Apple reduces the unsubsidized price or raising the price consumers must pay?
As long as the public demand remains high the carriers don't really have much choice.
I'm from Europe and I don't understand why a provider should halve any say in what kind of phone I use.
The biggest reason carriers have so much say is that American consumers are conditioned to pay little or nothing upfront for a phone rather than pay the full purchase price and accept a lower monthly fee. T-Mobile tried offering such a plan last year, but it didn't work. Google, Nokia, etc. have tried offering SIM-free phones, but with little success.
Also, CDMA networks don't require SIM cards, meaning that carriers who use CDMA can decide which phones to carry. Most of the regional carriers, as well as Sprint and Verizon, chose CDMA about 10 years ago. This situation is changing a bit, since LTE requires SIMs, but unfortunately the other issue is spectrum incompatibility. US airwaves are pretty crowded and fragmented, so none of the carriers' LTE spectrum overlaps to a meaningful degree. Unless manufacturers make phones capable of several bands of LTE, it will be difficult to sell SIM-free LTE phones in the US.
Two carriers reject the iPhone just this week. Interesting to see how others will be able to negotiate more favorable terms....
They were two relatively small carriers, so I don't think it has much impact. Winning Sprint was a major coup for Apple, and if it reverses that carrier's subscriber losses, carriers will rethink their reluctance to accept Apple's steep terms.
Comments
I applaud carriers for rejecting Apple's terms. The result of acceptance is increased costs for ALL subscribers. What would be great is if the Big 3 (or 4, 5, 6) US carriers came together and negotiated common terms in the best interest of all carriers and consumers.
I guess it made sense financially for US Cellular. Looking at platform growth, why lay out cash for something with a slower adoption rate?
That would be price fixing which is illegal.
I'm from Europe and I don't understand why a provider should halve any say in what kind of phone I use.
I don't follow. Are you saying that US Cellular shouldn't have a choice in whether it sells the iPhone? It's a CDMA-based network so unless you can get a baseband flash it's not going to work like with an unlocked GSM-based device.
Perhaps this is why they are the sixth largest carrier in the US? And since at&t and Verizon have 58% of the market who gives a shit?
People might give a crap because AT&T and Verizion have crappy customer service and US Cellular's is excellent. I was planning on dumping AT&T for them if they got the iPhone. The only way this makes sense is if she's trying to sell to Sprint, who could Use the extra customers and more importantly its LTE infrastructure.
Perhaps this is why they are the sixth largest carrier in the US? And since at&t and Verizon have 58% of the market who gives a shit?
You said it man, WTFGAS!
With the loss of the enormous power and reach of US Cellular, soon dark skies will hover over anyone with an iPhone.
After all, just think about it!
What country contains Apple's HQ? The US!
What kind of phone is the iPhone? CELLULAR!
Put those two facts together and it's clear that once again the end is near. Apple has basically just conceded the entire US cellular market!
Thompson[/QUOTE]
What an idiotic rant!!!
I'm not saying you're wrong overall, but I think that a lot more than sheer greed went into the ditching of unlimited data.
Well, actually, if you think about it, V and AT&T were losing line customers for their other services like wired phone and DSL. I'm just say'n.
What an idiotic rant!!!
I think you need to recalibrate your sarcast-o-meter. It obviously didn't detect anything in the post you were trying to quote.
The problem is that they also lost the lucrative High Rollers.
Is that? people who just take their iPhones to other carriers after an unlock?
Apple also controls the end-to-end user experience when it comes to activating the phone: you do it through iTunes or more recently on the phone itself. There's no need to deal directly with the carrier for activation. Apple also forbids carriers from sticking their logos on the phone or on the screens. That's pretty amazing, and I like Apple for not compromising with carriers. If US Cellular doesn't want to play ball, so what?
Not entirely true, my iPhone has always said at&t at the top left of the screen
Not entirely true, my iPhone has always said at&t at the top left of the screen
That's a word, not a logo. It's a company name, not a logo.
And it's not physically on the device, which is the point.
I predict they'll get the next iPhone with LTE built-in.
Is that? people who just take their iPhones to other carriers after an unlock?
AT&T has never offered to unlock an iPhone, even if it's out of contract. Verizon and Sprint will not activate an iPhone that was not initially provisioned for their network on day of sale.
The fear that customers will get an exclusive phone then unlock it and run off is kinda silly since you end up paying an ETF anyway to cover the full cost of the phone. And at least for AT&T, going to T-Mobile means a loss of 3G. Unless they really care than much about phones being exported to other countries, AT&T wouldn't loose that much business from unlocking their phones.
If the iPhone has LTE next year, then the standard will require that all subscriber info be stored on the SIM card, meaning an unlocked phone should work on all 3 networks.
AT&T has never offered to unlock an iPhone, even if it's out of contract. Verizon and Sprint will not activate an iPhone that was not initially provisioned for their network on day of sale.
I know. I don't mean that.
The fear that customers will get an exclusive phone then unlock it and run off is kinda silly since you end up paying an ETF anyway to cover the full cost of the phone.
Or you just buy the unlocked one and use whatever carrier you want. Unless the carrier is a fricking idiot and doesn't let you, like these morons.
If the iPhone has LTE next year, then the standard will require that all subscriber info be stored on the SIM card, meaning an unlocked phone should work on all 3 networks.
Except Sprint doesn't use LTE, and any attempt for them to do so would bankrupt them even more quickly than if they hadn't ponied up for the iPhone. It's not going to work on WiMAX, so the next iPhone will be limited to 3G on Sprint. Which is absolutely wretched if current testing is true.
and higher subsidies, an expense that makes iPhones more affordable to users and therefore more attractive.
I wonder how long Apple will be able to maintain those higher subsidies. My understanding is carriers subsidize iPhones by a hundred dollars more than the equivalent top of the range Android phones. Will carriers start pushing back, either demanding Apple reduces the unsubsidized price or raising the price consumers must pay?
I wonder how long Apple will be able to maintain those higher subsidies. My understanding is carriers subsidize iPhones by a hundred dollars more than the equivalent top of the range Android phones. Will carriers start pushing back, either demanding Apple reduces the unsubsidized price or raising the price consumers must pay?
As long as the public demand remains high the carriers don't really have much choice.
I'm from Europe and I don't understand why a provider should halve any say in what kind of phone I use.
The biggest reason carriers have so much say is that American consumers are conditioned to pay little or nothing upfront for a phone rather than pay the full purchase price and accept a lower monthly fee. T-Mobile tried offering such a plan last year, but it didn't work. Google, Nokia, etc. have tried offering SIM-free phones, but with little success.
Also, CDMA networks don't require SIM cards, meaning that carriers who use CDMA can decide which phones to carry. Most of the regional carriers, as well as Sprint and Verizon, chose CDMA about 10 years ago. This situation is changing a bit, since LTE requires SIMs, but unfortunately the other issue is spectrum incompatibility. US airwaves are pretty crowded and fragmented, so none of the carriers' LTE spectrum overlaps to a meaningful degree. Unless manufacturers make phones capable of several bands of LTE, it will be difficult to sell SIM-free LTE phones in the US.
Two carriers reject the iPhone just this week. Interesting to see how others will be able to negotiate more favorable terms....
They were two relatively small carriers, so I don't think it has much impact. Winning Sprint was a major coup for Apple, and if it reverses that carrier's subscriber losses, carriers will rethink their reluctance to accept Apple's steep terms.