Emphasizing what you said that this is all speculation...
I wasn't thinking about sales goals, but perhaps other issues like technical goals. For example, I'm sure Apple would love to sell a 3G version of the iPhone. Right now AT&T's 3G coverage is, however, pretty terrible anywhere but major cities. Perhaps Apple has an out to sell a 3G iPhones to someone other than AT&T if AT&T doesn't meet certain 3G deployment targets.
Apple did get AT&T to go along with supporting the new protocols required for their random access voicemail, after all. I can imagine (without giving Steve Jobs too much credit, and without considering AT&T's negotiating team to be idiots) that 3G support and/or other infrastructure goals might be part of Apple's deal.
I think AT&T already has a 3G network. No Wireless carrier has 3G everywhere.. if apple is waiting for that before releasing a 3G phone, they will be waiting a long, long time.
Sure, i'd like 3G network while visiting the farms or some remote spot in the mountains or some town with a name no one has ever heard of... will Apple be footing the bill for AT&t to deploy a network to places they can't make money from?. All major carriers has spotty coverage in remote areas. Heck, there are some areas where there is absolutely no coverage at all. The reason is called economics, not even Steve Jobs can violate the laws of economics. Apple should just make a 3G phone already.. i doubt that AT&T expanding their 3G coverage could be a condition. Again, If i were AT&T, i seriously doubt i would allow another company to dictate the economics of my company (ie, make me deploy 3G where i could never recoup the investment)... the only way i could see that happening is if AT&T had already promised that they were expanding their network and apple were like, ok, we'll wait but only this amount of time.
Also a second point. It's possible to make a phone that can access 3G and edge network at the same time. I think 3G had nothing to do with AT&t coverage and more to do with apple wanting the phone to have a certain form factor. Maybe they figured creating a phone that supports both edge and 3G would be too thick (hence why other phones are thicker than the iphone).
I think AT&T already has a 3G network. No Wireless carrier has 3G everywhere.. if apple is waiting for that before releasing a 3G phone, they will be waiting a long, long time...
Sure, i'd like 3G network while visiting the farms or some remote spot in the mountains or some town with a name no one has ever heard of...
You're not following what I'm saying. Yes, I know AT&T has 3G. I've looked at the coverage maps in my area. I've seen how 3G service ends not too far outside of Boston. I live in Nashua, NH. Nashua may not be The Great Metropolis, but it ain't no farm town, nor that incredibly obscure. Both Verizon and Sprint supply 3G coverage to Nashua. AT&T does not.
I'm not talking about Apple waiting until 3G is everywhere before releasing a 3G phone. (How you got that out of what I wrote, I don't know.) I was talking about quite the opposite, in fact: releasing a 3G phone BEFORE AT&T has 3G everywhere. Perhaps -- this is speculation about how Apple might have created a little wiggle room out of total 5-year lock-in with AT&T, after all -- Apple was able to say, "If we've got a 3G phone to sell, and you (AT&T) can't provide enough 3G service to the potential buyers for our 3G phone when we're ready to sell it, we reserve the right to sell that phone to other buyers."
You're not following what I'm saying. Yes, I know AT&T has 3G. I've looked at the coverage maps in my area. I've seen how 3G service ends not too far outside of Boston. I live in Nashua, NH. Nashua may not be The Great Metropolis, but it ain't no farm town, nor that incredibly obscure. Both Verizon and Sprint supply 3G coverage to Nashua. AT&T does not.
I'm not talking about Apple waiting until 3G is everywhere before releasing a 3G phone. (How you got that out of what I wrote, I don't know.) I was talking about quite the opposite, in fact: releasing a 3G phone BEFORE AT&T has 3G everywhere. Perhaps -- this is speculation about how Apple might have created a little wiggle room out of total 5-year lock-in with AT&T, after all -- Apple was able to say, "If we've got a 3G phone to sell, and you (AT&T) can't provide enough 3G service to the potential buyers for our 3G phone when we're ready to sell it, we reserve the right to sell that phone to other buyers."
What exactly is enough 3G coverage?. Also would apple be violating the terms of agreement if their iphone works where AT&T has coverage?. If a 3G iphone worked where At&T has 3G coverage, then AT&T would not be the exclusive provider of service for the iphone in those areas now would it?. I guess it would depend on exactly how exclusive this exclusive agreement is. If apple could do this, why wait.. what's the benefit to them of waiting?. If they can offer 3G service, they would have gone ahead. They cannot define what sufficient coverage is. That's a subjective definition. I am sure (i'd bet my salary) that AT&T has 3G coverage in places where Verizon does not.. does this now make verizon coverage not adequate?. I understand Nashua is personal to you but you cannot extrapolate from your situation.
What exactly is enough 3G coverage?. Also would apple be violating the terms of agreement if their iphone works where AT&T has coverage?. If a 3G iphone worked where At&T has 3G coverage, then AT&T would not be the exclusive provider of service for the iphone in those areas now would it?. I guess it would depend on exactly how exclusive this exclusive agreement is. If apple could do this, why wait.. what's the benefit to them of waiting?. If they can offer 3G service, they would have gone ahead. They cannot define what sufficient coverage is. That's a subjective definition. I am sure (i'd bet my salary) that AT&T has 3G coverage in places where Verizon does not.. does this now make verizon coverage not adequate?. I understand Nashua is personal to you but you cannot extrapolate from your situation.
"Enough" coverage would be whatever Apple managed to negotiate in this hypothetical clause in their contract with AT&T. "Enough" would have been defined in some measurable way, like percentage of the population reached, square miles at or above a given signal strength, or a list of towns and cities.
I never said anything about Apple having 3G now and holding back on it. This is speculation on how Apple might manage to have some wiggle room over the next five years. I've tried to Google up some comparative stats on 3G coverage by different carriers in the US but haven't found anything yet. I have the general impression that AT&T is well behind Verizon and Sprint in 3G deployment, perhaps ahead of T-Mobile.
If true, it certainly wouldn't have been unreasonable of Apple to say, "Once our 3G phone is ready to go, unless you've caught up to these other guys (or at least X% of what these other guys cover), we can sell our 3G phone to other buyers."
AT&T might accept terms like that if they felt sanguine about expanding their 3G coverage in time.
Comments
Emphasizing what you said that this is all speculation...
I wasn't thinking about sales goals, but perhaps other issues like technical goals. For example, I'm sure Apple would love to sell a 3G version of the iPhone. Right now AT&T's 3G coverage is, however, pretty terrible anywhere but major cities. Perhaps Apple has an out to sell a 3G iPhones to someone other than AT&T if AT&T doesn't meet certain 3G deployment targets.
Apple did get AT&T to go along with supporting the new protocols required for their random access voicemail, after all. I can imagine (without giving Steve Jobs too much credit, and without considering AT&T's negotiating team to be idiots) that 3G support and/or other infrastructure goals might be part of Apple's deal.
I think AT&T already has a 3G network. No Wireless carrier has 3G everywhere.. if apple is waiting for that before releasing a 3G phone, they will be waiting a long, long time.
Sure, i'd like 3G network while visiting the farms or some remote spot in the mountains or some town with a name no one has ever heard of... will Apple be footing the bill for AT&t to deploy a network to places they can't make money from?. All major carriers has spotty coverage in remote areas. Heck, there are some areas where there is absolutely no coverage at all. The reason is called economics, not even Steve Jobs can violate the laws of economics. Apple should just make a 3G phone already.. i doubt that AT&T expanding their 3G coverage could be a condition. Again, If i were AT&T, i seriously doubt i would allow another company to dictate the economics of my company (ie, make me deploy 3G where i could never recoup the investment)... the only way i could see that happening is if AT&T had already promised that they were expanding their network and apple were like, ok, we'll wait but only this amount of time.
Also a second point. It's possible to make a phone that can access 3G and edge network at the same time. I think 3G had nothing to do with AT&t coverage and more to do with apple wanting the phone to have a certain form factor. Maybe they figured creating a phone that supports both edge and 3G would be too thick (hence why other phones are thicker than the iphone).
I think AT&T already has a 3G network. No Wireless carrier has 3G everywhere.. if apple is waiting for that before releasing a 3G phone, they will be waiting a long, long time...
Sure, i'd like 3G network while visiting the farms or some remote spot in the mountains or some town with a name no one has ever heard of...
You're not following what I'm saying. Yes, I know AT&T has 3G. I've looked at the coverage maps in my area. I've seen how 3G service ends not too far outside of Boston. I live in Nashua, NH. Nashua may not be The Great Metropolis, but it ain't no farm town, nor that incredibly obscure. Both Verizon and Sprint supply 3G coverage to Nashua. AT&T does not.
I'm not talking about Apple waiting until 3G is everywhere before releasing a 3G phone. (How you got that out of what I wrote, I don't know.) I was talking about quite the opposite, in fact: releasing a 3G phone BEFORE AT&T has 3G everywhere. Perhaps -- this is speculation about how Apple might have created a little wiggle room out of total 5-year lock-in with AT&T, after all -- Apple was able to say, "If we've got a 3G phone to sell, and you (AT&T) can't provide enough 3G service to the potential buyers for our 3G phone when we're ready to sell it, we reserve the right to sell that phone to other buyers."
You're not following what I'm saying. Yes, I know AT&T has 3G. I've looked at the coverage maps in my area. I've seen how 3G service ends not too far outside of Boston. I live in Nashua, NH. Nashua may not be The Great Metropolis, but it ain't no farm town, nor that incredibly obscure. Both Verizon and Sprint supply 3G coverage to Nashua. AT&T does not.
I'm not talking about Apple waiting until 3G is everywhere before releasing a 3G phone. (How you got that out of what I wrote, I don't know.) I was talking about quite the opposite, in fact: releasing a 3G phone BEFORE AT&T has 3G everywhere. Perhaps -- this is speculation about how Apple might have created a little wiggle room out of total 5-year lock-in with AT&T, after all -- Apple was able to say, "If we've got a 3G phone to sell, and you (AT&T) can't provide enough 3G service to the potential buyers for our 3G phone when we're ready to sell it, we reserve the right to sell that phone to other buyers."
What exactly is enough 3G coverage?. Also would apple be violating the terms of agreement if their iphone works where AT&T has coverage?. If a 3G iphone worked where At&T has 3G coverage, then AT&T would not be the exclusive provider of service for the iphone in those areas now would it?. I guess it would depend on exactly how exclusive this exclusive agreement is. If apple could do this, why wait.. what's the benefit to them of waiting?. If they can offer 3G service, they would have gone ahead. They cannot define what sufficient coverage is. That's a subjective definition. I am sure (i'd bet my salary) that AT&T has 3G coverage in places where Verizon does not.. does this now make verizon coverage not adequate?. I understand Nashua is personal to you but you cannot extrapolate from your situation.
What exactly is enough 3G coverage?. Also would apple be violating the terms of agreement if their iphone works where AT&T has coverage?. If a 3G iphone worked where At&T has 3G coverage, then AT&T would not be the exclusive provider of service for the iphone in those areas now would it?. I guess it would depend on exactly how exclusive this exclusive agreement is. If apple could do this, why wait.. what's the benefit to them of waiting?. If they can offer 3G service, they would have gone ahead. They cannot define what sufficient coverage is. That's a subjective definition. I am sure (i'd bet my salary) that AT&T has 3G coverage in places where Verizon does not.. does this now make verizon coverage not adequate?. I understand Nashua is personal to you but you cannot extrapolate from your situation.
"Enough" coverage would be whatever Apple managed to negotiate in this hypothetical clause in their contract with AT&T. "Enough" would have been defined in some measurable way, like percentage of the population reached, square miles at or above a given signal strength, or a list of towns and cities.
I never said anything about Apple having 3G now and holding back on it. This is speculation on how Apple might manage to have some wiggle room over the next five years. I've tried to Google up some comparative stats on 3G coverage by different carriers in the US but haven't found anything yet. I have the general impression that AT&T is well behind Verizon and Sprint in 3G deployment, perhaps ahead of T-Mobile.
If true, it certainly wouldn't have been unreasonable of Apple to say, "Once our 3G phone is ready to go, unless you've caught up to these other guys (or at least X% of what these other guys cover), we can sell our 3G phone to other buyers."
AT&T might accept terms like that if they felt sanguine about expanding their 3G coverage in time.