That's exactly where I am. I'm satisfied with Verizon - and most of the people I talk to are on Verizon - so I'm not wild about leaving them for AT&T. But I've waited long enough to get an iPhone. My contract is up in April so I'll be waiting for news of a refresh or new model iPhone, and then switching.
That's exactly where I am. I'm satisfied with Verizon - and most of the people I talk to are on Verizon - so I'm not wild about leaving them for AT&T. But I've waited long enough to get an iPhone. My contract is up in April so I'll be waiting for news of a refresh or new model iPhone, and then switching.
Keep Verizon & get a Touch. Joind the legions who have- We helped pushed the iPod Touch to the top this quarter. Why compromise your phone signal?
Remember back in 2005 when Steve Jobs announced that OS X has been living a secret double life for the last 5 years? Remember that "Just in Case" building in Cupertino?
I am absolutely certain that Apple has a working CDMA iPhone ready for the "just in case" scenario in which AT&T does not play nice. They are using the hardware as leverage to push AT&T to make their service better knowing that is they don't, Apple will just not extend that exclusivity contract for another year.
I also bet that Apple is using the demo iPhone in talks with Verizon to make them put a better offer than AT&T on the table.
However, I would agree with Tim Cook that CDMA has no future and that it would be wrong for Apple to release a CDMA iPhone now. For start, that would solidify the usefulness of the CDMA network and prolong the transition to LTE in both Verizon and AT&T.
So releasing a CDMA phone would just extend the Status quo and prolong the adoption of a unified mobile communication standard worldwide. As Apple is selling one type of products worldwide, this will not be in their best interest.
What Apple can and is probably doing is leveraging the success of the iPhone to make Verison adapt the LTE faster.
Its interesting. AT&T can go 4G via minor software and hardware upgrade in the existing towers. That would however compromise the coverage of existing 3G and 2G iPhones. Verizon on the other hand would be forced to instal a whole new types of antennas to go 4G but it has no installed base to worry about.
That makes total sense expecially in light of the supposed CDMA CHinese iPhone. It must already exist.
That's exactly where I am. I'm satisfied with Verizon - and most of the people I talk to are on Verizon - so I'm not wild about leaving them for AT&T. But I've waited long enough to get an iPhone. My contract is up in April so I'll be waiting for news of a refresh or new model iPhone, and then switching.
Succinct and polite. Very good. But why are you called 'liposuctionguide'? Why are all your posts titled 'liposuctionguide'? Why do you provide a link to liposuctionguide?
Frankly, irrespective of GSM/CDMA or high/poor call quality, I doubt that there will be any partnership with Verizon unless it changes its luddite, crippling approach to a consumer being able to exploit handset functionality.
And, that will probably require a mindset change, i.e., a completely new top management.
Frankly, irrespective of GSM/CDMA or high/poor call quality, I doubt that there will be any partnership with Verizon unless it changes its luddite, crippling approach to a consumer being able to exploit handset functionality.
And, that will probably require a mindset change, i.e., a completely new top management.
Listen people orginally thought the exact same thing when the Razor phone went to Verizon. It would never work , it was crippled, etc yet the Razor became Verizon's biggest seller back when. People will buy it in droves and won't care as long as they can stay with Verizon.
Listen people orginally thought the exact same thing when the Razor phone went to Verizon. It would never work , it was crippled, etc yet the Razor became Verizon's biggest seller back when. People will buy it in droves and won't care as long as they can stay with Verizon.
Apple is selling the iPhone in 72 countries and counting. I don't see Jobs, or anyone else at Apple, making a carrier specific model of the iPhone, and I agree with Apple's position.
Once Verizon rolls out a compatible network then let's talk. Even then, they get what ATT gets.
I don't see Jobs, or anyone else at Apple, making a carrier specific model of the iPhone, and I agree with Apple's position.
I agree with you except for China. With its size, and because Apple already has to have WiFi (and maybe Bluetooth) disabled in the device and because of the number of potential current and future customers creating a CDMA iPhone for the Chinese market may be the best move.
However, China Unicom the 2nd largest carrier, has GSM. And it might be better for Apple as it's done plenty of times already with the iPhone to go with the 2nd largest instead of the largest so a GSM iPhone may still happen. China is that wild card where anything can happen.
Regarding a CDMA iPhone in the US, I still haven't gotten any answers to my questions on page 1. I expect these ill-considered replies from Teckstud, but not from Winterspan who has provided many useful posts.
... Even if Apple were to make a CDMA iPhone they would get more money and more control if they were to partner with Sprint. So the best way to get a better deal with a US CDMA-based carrier is to court Verizon to get Sprint to agree with pretty much anything anything that Apple wanted. ... How much are they paying for the Palm Pre? This strategy also works for getting more from AT&T.
I agree. It also seems to me that the worst situation for Apple would be to have a viable competitor product like the pre locked to an alternative network that they are not also using. If a Sprint customer has a choice between iPhone and pre, that's always going to be better for Apple than to have a large block of customers that cannot get the iPhone, but can get a reasonably competitive alternative product.
I don't know if the pre will ever be released, and I don't know if Apple sees it as competition but if it does and they do, then Apple would be prudent to have a version of the iPhone that works on the same networks as the pre.
This will hopefully inspire ATT to actually improve their other services like say maybe voice coverage. I get no signal/no service on my 3G constantly.
Sound better? Maybe less background hiss, but more difficulty distinguishing F from S and distinguishing a drop-out from no input. IMHO that's worse.
GSM has been known to have poorer voice quality from way back. It's very noticeable. GSM has a much more artificial quality to it, and is harder to understand, esp. under poor conditions.
No idea if the US is the same as the UK, but anyone considered the fact of AT&T and Verizon sharing networks specifically for the iPhone? In times of need (now) businesses will do crazy things to get the edge or just stay afloat. If figures are correct and the reason AT&T are doing so well is due to the iPhone verizon might take the hit, and buy a large proportion of line time on AT&T's network to get the slice of the Apple "cake" so to speak. Even if it costs them now once you have people switched with the backup of AT&T's network connection all is well. Gives them enough time to fully role out 4G with the HSM network as a back bone.
Sorta happened in the UK, O2 (Apples Carrier here) is now sharing masts etc with Vodaphone, another large player in the industry.
I think AT&T and verizon is an option as from what Im hearing over here, AT&T coverage is poor whereas Verizon is good, however AT&T have the iPhone. Merge the two, both businesses can make more money - sell more iPhones, have a higher volume of network traffic etc but increase coverage and reduce outgoings while rolling out the 4G service my sharing masts. Once 4G is properly rolled out and the majority of the recession is over then they will start worrying about beating each other once again
Often, companies do share towers in areas where more towers can't be erected. But the equipment on those towers is exclusive to each carrier.
I don't know if the pre will ever be released, and I don't know if Apple sees it as competition but if it does and they do, then Apple would be prudent to have a version of the iPhone that works on the same networks as the pre.
I think they do see it as competition, but mainly in the marketing realm, which has been stellar for an unreleased product that has faux-background apps. Of all the smartphones we've discussed it seems it's compared most to the iPhone, despite their being WinMo and Symbian phones that have 3rd-party background apps, if I'm not mistaken.
For real competition, the Pre will need an app store. They already have an SDK and since their apps are basically the same as Dashboard widgets using webcode to create local apps with HTML5's database feature they will be easy to support and make. I think the real test comes after their launch. Will it be enough for the average consumer or will their effort not be powerful enough.
Listen people orginally thought the exact same thing when the Razor phone went to Verizon. It would never work , it was crippled, etc yet the Razor became Verizon's biggest seller back when. People will buy it in droves and won't care as long as they can stay with Verizon.
The Razor didn't DO anything. The only claim to fame was its thinness.
In fact, people who bought it didn't even think it was good. The reviews weren't good. They bought it because it was thin. I know several people who bought it for that reason back then. They also thought the phone wasn't great, but that wasn't why they bought it.
It's very likely that Jobs likes to make thin products because people like to buy thin products.
You can't equate the Razor with a real feature phone much less a smartphone.
I think they do see it as competition, but mainly in the marketing realm, which has been stellar for an unreleased product that has faux-background apps. Of all the smartphones we've discussed it seems it's compared most to the iPhone, despite their being WinMo and Symbian phones that have 3rd-party background apps, if I'm not mistaken.
For real competition, the Pre will need an app store. They already have an SDK and since their apps are basically the same as Dashboard widgets using webcode to create local apps with HTML5's database feature they will be easy to support and make. I think the real test comes after their launch. Will it be enough for the average consumer or will their effort not be powerful enough.
The only thing the Pre has going for itself in the way of apps is that older apps will work in emulation, preserving the customer's ability to save some money at first, and save them from the dearth of new apps.
Apple is selling the iPhone in 72 countries and counting. I don't see Jobs, or anyone else at Apple, making a carrier specific model of the iPhone, and I agree with Apple's position.
Once Verizon rolls out a compatible network then let's talk. Even then, they get what ATT gets.
If you count countries or carriers, you are correct that it would seem to not make sense to make a carrier specific model. But Apple doesn't sell iPhones to countries or carriers, they sell them to customers (either directly or through the carriers). And there the math is very different.
I recall that roughly speaking, the US makes up about half of all iPhone sales. So sales are 50% ATT and 50% the rest of the world. But Verizon has a bigger subscriber base than ATT does. If you assume the same adoption rate for a Verizon-capable iPhone, then Apple would sell even more iPhones to Verizon customers than to ATT customers. So you'd be looking at an over 50% increase in sales by making a CDMA phone. All for a relatively easy change in the hardware. So financially and marketshare-wise it would make complete sense to offer a CDMA phone to Verizon customers.
That said, Apple doesn't really chase marketshare. They try to make great products and let the marketshare follow. Just like they ignore fairly large segements of the computer market, Apple will forgo going after cell phone marketshare in order to stick their overall strategy. If a Verizon CDMA phone doesn't fit in their vision, they won't make one regardless of how much money they could make doing it.
If you count countries or carriers, you are correct that it would seem to not make sense to make a carrier specific model. But Apple doesn't sell iPhones to countries or carriers, they sell them to customers (either directly or through the carriers). And there the math is very different.
If that were true Apple wouldn't have exclusive deals with carriers in countries that are entirely GSM-based. For example, they are with O2 in the UK, yet it's not the biggest carrier in that country. So if Apple's goal was short term marketshare they would have bypassed even going with the largest carrier and just sold their handset to every carrier from the start. Surely, whatever deal they had with AT&T to get the ball rolling with the iPhone wouldn't have transfered over more than a year later to the 80 other countries they now deal with. There are reasons that Apple is choosing to team with a carrier that is usually number 2 in the country instead of just going for absolute potential marketshare from the start.
Comments
That's exactly where I am. I'm satisfied with Verizon - and most of the people I talk to are on Verizon - so I'm not wild about leaving them for AT&T. But I've waited long enough to get an iPhone. My contract is up in April so I'll be waiting for news of a refresh or new model iPhone, and then switching.
Keep Verizon & get a Touch. Joind the legions who have- We helped pushed the iPod Touch to the top this quarter. Why compromise your phone signal?
All Verizon can really do at this point is pull out the check book and ask how many zeros do they need to write.
And offer better reception and sound quality.
Remember back in 2005 when Steve Jobs announced that OS X has been living a secret double life for the last 5 years? Remember that "Just in Case" building in Cupertino?
I am absolutely certain that Apple has a working CDMA iPhone ready for the "just in case" scenario in which AT&T does not play nice. They are using the hardware as leverage to push AT&T to make their service better knowing that is they don't, Apple will just not extend that exclusivity contract for another year.
I also bet that Apple is using the demo iPhone in talks with Verizon to make them put a better offer than AT&T on the table.
However, I would agree with Tim Cook that CDMA has no future and that it would be wrong for Apple to release a CDMA iPhone now. For start, that would solidify the usefulness of the CDMA network and prolong the transition to LTE in both Verizon and AT&T.
So releasing a CDMA phone would just extend the Status quo and prolong the adoption of a unified mobile communication standard worldwide. As Apple is selling one type of products worldwide, this will not be in their best interest.
What Apple can and is probably doing is leveraging the success of the iPhone to make Verison adapt the LTE faster.
Its interesting. AT&T can go 4G via minor software and hardware upgrade in the existing towers. That would however compromise the coverage of existing 3G and 2G iPhones. Verizon on the other hand would be forced to instal a whole new types of antennas to go 4G but it has no installed base to worry about.
That makes total sense expecially in light of the supposed CDMA CHinese iPhone. It must already exist.
So do you figure Apple is stupid, incompetent, corrupt, or all three?
No but your inane provocative questioning is.
That's exactly where I am. I'm satisfied with Verizon - and most of the people I talk to are on Verizon - so I'm not wild about leaving them for AT&T. But I've waited long enough to get an iPhone. My contract is up in April so I'll be waiting for news of a refresh or new model iPhone, and then switching.
Succinct and polite. Very good. But why are you called 'liposuctionguide'? Why are all your posts titled 'liposuctionguide'? Why do you provide a link to liposuctionguide?
A polite spammer is still a spammer.
And, that will probably require a mindset change, i.e., a completely new top management.
Frankly, irrespective of GSM/CDMA or high/poor call quality, I doubt that there will be any partnership with Verizon unless it changes its luddite, crippling approach to a consumer being able to exploit handset functionality.
And, that will probably require a mindset change, i.e., a completely new top management.
Listen people orginally thought the exact same thing when the Razor phone went to Verizon. It would never work , it was crippled, etc yet the Razor became Verizon's biggest seller back when. People will buy it in droves and won't care as long as they can stay with Verizon.
Listen people orginally thought the exact same thing when the Razor phone went to Verizon. It would never work , it was crippled, etc yet the Razor became Verizon's biggest seller back when. People will buy it in droves and won't care as long as they can stay with Verizon.
Apple is selling the iPhone in 72 countries and counting. I don't see Jobs, or anyone else at Apple, making a carrier specific model of the iPhone, and I agree with Apple's position.
Once Verizon rolls out a compatible network then let's talk. Even then, they get what ATT gets.
I don't see Jobs, or anyone else at Apple, making a carrier specific model of the iPhone, and I agree with Apple's position.
I agree with you except for China. With its size, and because Apple already has to have WiFi (and maybe Bluetooth) disabled in the device and because of the number of potential current and future customers creating a CDMA iPhone for the Chinese market may be the best move.
However, China Unicom the 2nd largest carrier, has GSM. And it might be better for Apple as it's done plenty of times already with the iPhone to go with the 2nd largest instead of the largest so a GSM iPhone may still happen. China is that wild card where anything can happen.
Regarding a CDMA iPhone in the US, I still haven't gotten any answers to my questions on page 1. I expect these ill-considered replies from Teckstud, but not from Winterspan who has provided many useful posts.
... Even if Apple were to make a CDMA iPhone they would get more money and more control if they were to partner with Sprint. So the best way to get a better deal with a US CDMA-based carrier is to court Verizon to get Sprint to agree with pretty much anything anything that Apple wanted. ... How much are they paying for the Palm Pre? This strategy also works for getting more from AT&T.
I agree. It also seems to me that the worst situation for Apple would be to have a viable competitor product like the pre locked to an alternative network that they are not also using. If a Sprint customer has a choice between iPhone and pre, that's always going to be better for Apple than to have a large block of customers that cannot get the iPhone, but can get a reasonably competitive alternative product.
I don't know if the pre will ever be released, and I don't know if Apple sees it as competition but if it does and they do, then Apple would be prudent to have a version of the iPhone that works on the same networks as the pre.
Sound better? Maybe less background hiss, but more difficulty distinguishing F from S and distinguishing a drop-out from no input. IMHO that's worse.
GSM has been known to have poorer voice quality from way back. It's very noticeable. GSM has a much more artificial quality to it, and is harder to understand, esp. under poor conditions.
No idea if the US is the same as the UK, but anyone considered the fact of AT&T and Verizon sharing networks specifically for the iPhone? In times of need (now) businesses will do crazy things to get the edge or just stay afloat. If figures are correct and the reason AT&T are doing so well is due to the iPhone verizon might take the hit, and buy a large proportion of line time on AT&T's network to get the slice of the Apple "cake" so to speak. Even if it costs them now once you have people switched with the backup of AT&T's network connection all is well. Gives them enough time to fully role out 4G with the HSM network as a back bone.
Sorta happened in the UK, O2 (Apples Carrier here) is now sharing masts etc with Vodaphone, another large player in the industry.
I think AT&T and verizon is an option as from what Im hearing over here, AT&T coverage is poor whereas Verizon is good, however AT&T have the iPhone. Merge the two, both businesses can make more money - sell more iPhones, have a higher volume of network traffic etc but increase coverage and reduce outgoings while rolling out the 4G service my sharing masts. Once 4G is properly rolled out and the majority of the recession is over then they will start worrying about beating each other once again
Often, companies do share towers in areas where more towers can't be erected. But the equipment on those towers is exclusive to each carrier.
I don't know if the pre will ever be released, and I don't know if Apple sees it as competition but if it does and they do, then Apple would be prudent to have a version of the iPhone that works on the same networks as the pre.
I think they do see it as competition, but mainly in the marketing realm, which has been stellar for an unreleased product that has faux-background apps. Of all the smartphones we've discussed it seems it's compared most to the iPhone, despite their being WinMo and Symbian phones that have 3rd-party background apps, if I'm not mistaken.
For real competition, the Pre will need an app store. They already have an SDK and since their apps are basically the same as Dashboard widgets using webcode to create local apps with HTML5's database feature they will be easy to support and make. I think the real test comes after their launch. Will it be enough for the average consumer or will their effort not be powerful enough.
Listen people orginally thought the exact same thing when the Razor phone went to Verizon. It would never work , it was crippled, etc yet the Razor became Verizon's biggest seller back when. People will buy it in droves and won't care as long as they can stay with Verizon.
The Razor didn't DO anything. The only claim to fame was its thinness.
In fact, people who bought it didn't even think it was good. The reviews weren't good. They bought it because it was thin. I know several people who bought it for that reason back then. They also thought the phone wasn't great, but that wasn't why they bought it.
It's very likely that Jobs likes to make thin products because people like to buy thin products.
You can't equate the Razor with a real feature phone much less a smartphone.
I think they do see it as competition, but mainly in the marketing realm, which has been stellar for an unreleased product that has faux-background apps. Of all the smartphones we've discussed it seems it's compared most to the iPhone, despite their being WinMo and Symbian phones that have 3rd-party background apps, if I'm not mistaken.
For real competition, the Pre will need an app store. They already have an SDK and since their apps are basically the same as Dashboard widgets using webcode to create local apps with HTML5's database feature they will be easy to support and make. I think the real test comes after their launch. Will it be enough for the average consumer or will their effort not be powerful enough.
The only thing the Pre has going for itself in the way of apps is that older apps will work in emulation, preserving the customer's ability to save some money at first, and save them from the dearth of new apps.
Apple is selling the iPhone in 72 countries and counting. I don't see Jobs, or anyone else at Apple, making a carrier specific model of the iPhone, and I agree with Apple's position.
Once Verizon rolls out a compatible network then let's talk. Even then, they get what ATT gets.
If you count countries or carriers, you are correct that it would seem to not make sense to make a carrier specific model. But Apple doesn't sell iPhones to countries or carriers, they sell them to customers (either directly or through the carriers). And there the math is very different.
I recall that roughly speaking, the US makes up about half of all iPhone sales. So sales are 50% ATT and 50% the rest of the world. But Verizon has a bigger subscriber base than ATT does. If you assume the same adoption rate for a Verizon-capable iPhone, then Apple would sell even more iPhones to Verizon customers than to ATT customers. So you'd be looking at an over 50% increase in sales by making a CDMA phone. All for a relatively easy change in the hardware. So financially and marketshare-wise it would make complete sense to offer a CDMA phone to Verizon customers.
That said, Apple doesn't really chase marketshare. They try to make great products and let the marketshare follow. Just like they ignore fairly large segements of the computer market, Apple will forgo going after cell phone marketshare in order to stick their overall strategy. If a Verizon CDMA phone doesn't fit in their vision, they won't make one regardless of how much money they could make doing it.
If you count countries or carriers, you are correct that it would seem to not make sense to make a carrier specific model. But Apple doesn't sell iPhones to countries or carriers, they sell them to customers (either directly or through the carriers). And there the math is very different.
If that were true Apple wouldn't have exclusive deals with carriers in countries that are entirely GSM-based. For example, they are with O2 in the UK, yet it's not the biggest carrier in that country. So if Apple's goal was short term marketshare they would have bypassed even going with the largest carrier and just sold their handset to every carrier from the start. Surely, whatever deal they had with AT&T to get the ball rolling with the iPhone wouldn't have transfered over more than a year later to the 80 other countries they now deal with. There are reasons that Apple is choosing to team with a carrier that is usually number 2 in the country instead of just going for absolute potential marketshare from the start.