Them selling a phone called "iPhone LTE" that runs on their network when it isn't an LTE network sounds something like a problem.
For them and false advertising lawsuits, at least.
What makes you think that by next year Verizon and AT&T won't have sufficient LTE coverage to justify this? As I said earlier, Sprint is the issue, but I can't see Apple waiting on them to get moving on LTE (might take several years before they get critical mass).
Not good if you're on Sprint, but they made a bad choice (even if it seemed right at the time).
What makes you think that by next year Verizon and AT&T won't have sufficient LTE coverage to justify this?
Where did I say anything about that? And that's not the argument. They have LTE now. Sprint doesn't.
I don't think AT&T had sufficient 3G coverage to justify being able to sell the iPhone 3G when it came out, but that's the past.
Quote:
As I said earlier, Sprint is the issue, but I can't see Apple waiting on them to get moving on LTE (might take several years before they get critical mass).
I don't think that Apple would wait either. Just that they wouldn't name it after a technology that one of their primary carriers doesn't have.
Where did I say anything about that? And that's not the argument. They have LTE now. Sprint doesn't.
I don't think AT&T had sufficient 3G coverage to justify being able to sell the iPhone 3G when it came out, but that's the past.
I don't think that Apple would wait either. Just that they wouldn't name it after a technology that one of their primary carriers doesn't have.
I guess you missed the news about Sprint rolling out their LTE network. Sprint actually has far more towers than AT&T or Verizon. The problem is that it was divided between IDEN use for Netxtel and those for Sprint. With network vision, all towers will be repurposed to use the former 800Mhz IDEN band for Sprint LTE. This will result in decreasing the total number of towers, but vastly increasing the native Sprint towers and coverage map.
Clearwire, their old WiMax partner, will also be building out LTE as well. If Lightsquared can get approval, that would further supplement Sprint's LTE coverage. But Sprint does have a solid plan for transitioning to LTE. It really is not far behind AT&T.
For those of you that think WiMax was a mistake, please remember that Clear and Sprint would have lost that spectrum if it wasn't used. The FCC put certain conditions on the sale. There was no LTE ready equipment at the time so they really didn't have any other choice. If they didn't deploy WiMax equipment they would have lost it completely. Spectrum and bandwidth will extremely important in the future and Sprint has a lot of room to grow.
But anyway, my point is there are reasons Apple does what it does and those reasons are not typically "we need a new design every year to stay fresh", and acting as if they are makes for bad analysis.
Finally someone saying how Apple really works its design. I agree with EVERYTHING you said!! Most people here and everywhere lose this fact in their analysis of marketing. Apple is great at marketing their products BUT marketing doesn't drive their design.
Not saying it won't HAVE LTE, just that it wouldn't be called that.
A few more words: Apple didn't release the "iPhone HSPA" or the "iPhone HSDPA". Apple chooses the broad term for a level of telephony, not a branch of it (LTE, for example).
I have doubts about the device being called iPhone LTE (because it doesn't seem marketable) and doubts about it being called iPhone 4G (because it seems too confusing to the average user after the 5th generation being the iPhone 4S), but Sprint is rolling out LTE so I don't think that is an issue.
Even in 2012 LTE will still be limited. More limited than HSDPA and EV-DO was on AT&T and Verizon's networks, respectively, back in 2007.
Quote:
At Sprint?s Developer Conference, CEO Dan Hesse said that Sprint?s upcoming LTE rollout would cover some 125 million people by the end of 2012, and 250 million people by the end of 2013.
Why not iPhone LTE? The 3G followed this pattern (based on technology and arguably the most important improvement). Apple even went out of the way to mention that 4G isn't well defined at this point (partially due to marketing and disagreements about the spec itself). It's not like people will be confused whether or not future models beyond next year will have LTE capability.
Consider:
1st: iPhone
2nd: iPhone 3G (Tech)
3rd: iPhone 3GS (Tech/Performance - 'S is for speed')
4th: iPhone 4 (This is the exception...)
5th: iPhone 4S (Tech/Performance - Could be for Speed or Siri, but Siri at this point is a novelty and far from essential, despite what Google would have you believe)
6th: iPhone LTE (Tech)
Any thoughts?
Yeah but you probably wouldn't care to hear them. /s
However nice history lesson. BUT Apple IMO will never call the next iPhone the iPhone LTE because most consumers do not understand that tech moniker. They do know 4G so maybe it has a chance. My guess is it will be called iPhone 5.
I've given up. The reasoning is as sound as calling the 6th generation the iPhone 4 because it will be the 4th design change for the exterior. Words and phrases change meaning over time because too people use them incorrectly that it becomes the new standard so maybe Apple will have no choice but use this irrational nomenclature to best market the device.
I think Apple will have to eventually settle on a better naming scheme. What about calling the next one iPhone 12, for the year? At least with the year in the name it makes things a lot less confusing. You could even add the storage number to be even more precise like the iPhone 1264 for an iPhone released in 2012 with 64GB of storage.
I think Apple will have to eventually settle on a better naming scheme. What about calling the next one iPhone 12, for the year? At least with the year in the name it makes things a lot less confusing. You could even add the storage number to be even more precise like the iPhone 1264 for an iPhone released in 2012 with 64GB of storage.
You can also add a country code and carrier to the name to make it look more like an Intel part number. iPhone 1264T1776 to refer to the 2012 64GB US T-Mobile iPhone.
?maybe Apple will have no choice but use this irrational nomenclature to best market the device.
Eh, Apple will do whatever they want to do. People made fun of iPad, iTab, and iSlate. Didn't stop them.
I still wish Apple had called their tablet Slice. It's a revolution in computing in its own right, and it needs to have name more suited to a product that is first in its category, not some third run of a completely different type of device.
Yes. They are!!! Most consumers are not tech junkies like us. They could care less about naming conventions. Just that 5 comes after 4 and new owners probably didn't even know the time span between 4 and 4S.
Yes. They are!!! Most consumers are not tech junkies like us. They could care less about naming conventions. Just that 5 comes after 4 and new owners probably didn't even know the time span between 4 and 4S.
I don't see people asking where the iPhone 2 went.
Yes. They are!!! Most consumers are not tech junkies like us. They could care less about naming conventions. Just that 5 comes after 4 and new owners probably didn't even know the time span between 4 and 4S.
I think calling it the iPhone 5 has a very good chance simply because they have followed this for four phones in a row. 3G to 3GS, the 4 to 4S. Maybe that is a precedent they want to stick with. If so it would likely be called the iPhone 5 then 5GS or something similar. That is probably more likely than calling it an iPhone 6.
At the end of the day it really doesn't matter, people will just call it an iPhone and buy the latest iteration. Apple will call it whatever they like and who really cares? I am more interested in what it will include. I just pray that it has at least a 4" screen. That one change alone would get me to upgrade. 3.5" is just too small. If I had never used a 4.3" screen maybe I wouldn't care so much, but once you get used to it the iPhone screen really feels small. That is really my only complaint with making the switch.
Apple understands that refreshing is necessary from the technology standpoint AND the consumerism standpoint. I have an iPhone 4 and am still under my AT&T contract. I did not want to upgrade to 4S only to have a new phone come out six or eight months later, so I skipped much as I did the 3GS. Sure, some people upgrade with each new phone, but many are on the "every other" program, and the longer since the upgraded phone was released the less likely people are going to upgrade to it. That is, few people will upgrade to the 4S after it's been out for eight or ten months. The 4S was primarily put out to capitalize on the Christmas sales and unless there's a new phone in 2012, US sales will steadily decline throughout the year. A new phone in June will bring in those of us on "every other" timing to see if Siri is really the best thing since canned beer.
Comments
Is this really a problem?
Them selling a phone called "iPhone LTE" that runs on their network when it isn't an LTE network sounds something like a problem.
For them and false advertising lawsuits, at least.
Them selling a phone called "iPhone LTE" that runs on their network when it isn't an LTE network sounds something like a problem.
For them and false advertising lawsuits, at least.
What makes you think that by next year Verizon and AT&T won't have sufficient LTE coverage to justify this? As I said earlier, Sprint is the issue, but I can't see Apple waiting on them to get moving on LTE (might take several years before they get critical mass).
Not good if you're on Sprint, but they made a bad choice (even if it seemed right at the time).
What makes you think that by next year Verizon and AT&T won't have sufficient LTE coverage to justify this?
Where did I say anything about that? And that's not the argument. They have LTE now. Sprint doesn't.
I don't think AT&T had sufficient 3G coverage to justify being able to sell the iPhone 3G when it came out, but that's the past.
As I said earlier, Sprint is the issue, but I can't see Apple waiting on them to get moving on LTE (might take several years before they get critical mass).
I don't think that Apple would wait either. Just that they wouldn't name it after a technology that one of their primary carriers doesn't have.
Where did I say anything about that? And that's not the argument. They have LTE now. Sprint doesn't.
I don't think AT&T had sufficient 3G coverage to justify being able to sell the iPhone 3G when it came out, but that's the past.
I don't think that Apple would wait either. Just that they wouldn't name it after a technology that one of their primary carriers doesn't have.
I guess you missed the news about Sprint rolling out their LTE network. Sprint actually has far more towers than AT&T or Verizon. The problem is that it was divided between IDEN use for Netxtel and those for Sprint. With network vision, all towers will be repurposed to use the former 800Mhz IDEN band for Sprint LTE. This will result in decreasing the total number of towers, but vastly increasing the native Sprint towers and coverage map.
Clearwire, their old WiMax partner, will also be building out LTE as well. If Lightsquared can get approval, that would further supplement Sprint's LTE coverage. But Sprint does have a solid plan for transitioning to LTE. It really is not far behind AT&T.
For those of you that think WiMax was a mistake, please remember that Clear and Sprint would have lost that spectrum if it wasn't used. The FCC put certain conditions on the sale. There was no LTE ready equipment at the time so they really didn't have any other choice. If they didn't deploy WiMax equipment they would have lost it completely. Spectrum and bandwidth will extremely important in the future and Sprint has a lot of room to grow.
This articles gives more details.
http://s4gru.spruz.com/pt/New-Networ...today/blog.htm
But anyway, my point is there are reasons Apple does what it does and those reasons are not typically "we need a new design every year to stay fresh", and acting as if they are makes for bad analysis.
Finally someone saying how Apple really works its design. I agree with EVERYTHING you said!! Most people here and everywhere lose this fact in their analysis of marketing. Apple is great at marketing their products BUT marketing doesn't drive their design.
Bravo to you... sir.
One word: Sprint.
Not saying it won't HAVE LTE, just that it wouldn't be called that.
A few more words: Apple didn't release the "iPhone HSPA" or the "iPhone HSDPA". Apple chooses the broad term for a level of telephony, not a branch of it (LTE, for example).
I have doubts about the device being called iPhone LTE (because it doesn't seem marketable) and doubts about it being called iPhone 4G (because it seems too confusing to the average user after the 5th generation being the iPhone 4S), but Sprint is rolling out LTE so I don't think that is an issue.
Even in 2012 LTE will still be limited. More limited than HSDPA and EV-DO was on AT&T and Verizon's networks, respectively, back in 2007.
At Sprint?s Developer Conference, CEO Dan Hesse said that Sprint?s upcoming LTE rollout would cover some 125 million people by the end of 2012, and 250 million people by the end of 2013.
How could anyone possibly believe the next model will be the "iPhone 5"?
Umm because that's what everyone (consumers) are expecting. However, I predict, whatever Apple calls it people will be knocking down doors to buy it.
Umm because that's what everyone (consumers) are expecting.
No. They're NOT.
Why not iPhone LTE? The 3G followed this pattern (based on technology and arguably the most important improvement). Apple even went out of the way to mention that 4G isn't well defined at this point (partially due to marketing and disagreements about the spec itself). It's not like people will be confused whether or not future models beyond next year will have LTE capability.
Consider:
1st: iPhone
2nd: iPhone 3G (Tech)
3rd: iPhone 3GS (Tech/Performance - 'S is for speed')
4th: iPhone 4 (This is the exception...)
5th: iPhone 4S (Tech/Performance - Could be for Speed or Siri, but Siri at this point is a novelty and far from essential, despite what Google would have you believe)
6th: iPhone LTE (Tech)
Any thoughts?
Yeah but you probably wouldn't care to hear them. /s
However nice history lesson. BUT Apple IMO will never call the next iPhone the iPhone LTE because most consumers do not understand that tech moniker. They do know 4G so maybe it has a chance. My guess is it will be called iPhone 5.
My guess is it will be called iPhone 5.
I've given up. The reasoning is as sound as calling the 6th generation the iPhone 4 because it will be the 4th design change for the exterior. Words and phrases change meaning over time because too people use them incorrectly that it becomes the new standard so maybe Apple will have no choice but use this irrational nomenclature to best market the device.
I think Apple will have to eventually settle on a better naming scheme. What about calling the next one iPhone 12, for the year? At least with the year in the name it makes things a lot less confusing. You could even add the storage number to be even more precise like the iPhone 1264 for an iPhone released in 2012 with 64GB of storage.
You can also add a country code and carrier to the name to make it look more like an Intel part number. iPhone 1264T1776 to refer to the 2012 64GB US T-Mobile iPhone.
?maybe Apple will have no choice but use this irrational nomenclature to best market the device.
Eh, Apple will do whatever they want to do. People made fun of iPad, iTab, and iSlate. Didn't stop them.
I still wish Apple had called their tablet Slice. It's a revolution in computing in its own right, and it needs to have name more suited to a product that is first in its category, not some third run of a completely different type of device.
No. They're NOT.
Yes. They are!!!
Yes. They are!!!
I don't see people asking where the iPhone 2 went.
Yes. They are!!!
I think calling it the iPhone 5 has a very good chance simply because they have followed this for four phones in a row. 3G to 3GS, the 4 to 4S. Maybe that is a precedent they want to stick with. If so it would likely be called the iPhone 5 then 5GS or something similar. That is probably more likely than calling it an iPhone 6.
At the end of the day it really doesn't matter, people will just call it an iPhone and buy the latest iteration. Apple will call it whatever they like and who really cares? I am more interested in what it will include. I just pray that it has at least a 4" screen. That one change alone would get me to upgrade. 3.5" is just too small. If I had never used a 4.3" screen maybe I wouldn't care so much, but once you get used to it the iPhone screen really feels small. That is really my only complaint with making the switch.