I remember the RAZR very well. Several of my friends had them. One guy even bought four for his family, and that was when they were selling for $500 apiece!
He didn't like it from the beginning, and was really ticked when the price kept dropping so rapidly. It had almost no features to speak of. He didn't like the "buttons" which were hard to press, but were done that way so when it was closed, they would allow the phone to remain thin.
These seems to have been the universal thoughts about the phone.
Later versions, and there have been a lot of them, added more features, as expected. But the first ones which started the initial craze very fairly simple, and were sold on looks (shock!).
When the RAZR went to Verizon I immediately bought and then immediately returned it- you could not change the pic on the front and it was lightly thicker than the GSM versions. The best thing about it was it fit perfectly into a suit of sportsjacket pocket- big deal.
These are some of the problems Apple is having with Chinese carriers as well.
I don't offhand remember whether it was China Mobile (though I think it was), Or China Unicom, which Apple is supposedly in final talks with now, but one of them, or both for all I know, demanded that they, and not Apple, run the App Store in China. They wanted to decide which apps made it in, take command of what happened with updates, what to do with an app later if they wanted to remove it (perhaps the government wanting to remove it?), and supposedly wanted the 30% cut as well.
The CDMA+EVDO chips set costs about $20 or less. QCOM makes GSM+UMTS+CDMA+EVDO combo, but even though the incremental costs may not be much, I suspect other costs would add up. Personally I do not think that roaming to GSM land overseas is that important for the majority of the folks. Besides it is too expensive and averaged person is better off getting local cheap prepaid phone with SIM card in Europe, Asia, etc.
Technically the CDMA+EVDO iPhone should outperform the ATT 3G phone. Voice is typically carried over the CDMA channel, while data goes over the EVDO channel. In WCMDA/UMTS/3G voice is mixed in the same channel with data... when there is too much data, the whole system is compromised.
CDMA+EVDO use synch tech so hand-offs are easier than with UMTS asynch WCDMA. Power control is also easier with CDMA more energy efficient than WCDMA.
I suspect Apple likes the economies of scale of making a single radio phone and the control that ATT allows. VZ may have seen the light and is willing to give the control that Apple wants. VZ does have a lot of hi end clients, corporations, etc. So it should be interesting.
And, among those who also thought the phone was really poorly designed (and that Verizon's service was no better or worse than that of ATT). \
Most people believe that one service, or the other, isn't as good as what they have. To believe otherwise is to admit that you made a mistake. No one has ever had an ugly child.
The truth is that what we know about the competition is what we have heard, and not from actual experience. Even if we have dealt with the competition, and the experience was bad, that doesn't mean that experience was universal. That and technology, meaning capabilities, changes rapidly in this space. So what might have been a problem a couple years ago, isn't a problem today.
The point of advertising is to make users of competing products believe that your service is better. More monies are spent acquiring new customers, than is spent keeping the ones you already have.
I had used both Verizon and Sprint prior to getting an iPhone. Sprint was just horrible, and apparently the experience is pretty much universal, as evidenced by their shrinking customer numbers. My service with Verizon was no better, and no worse, than what I am getting right now with ATT, but that's just me, a sample of one.
The only problem I have with ATT's service is the frequency used, and not the service itself. Those problems should disappear when the carriers shift to the 700 Mhz band. I was a Radarman in the Navy during the late '60s, and I can tell you a universal truth about frequencies: the lower the better for obstacle penetration, and 700 Mhz is lower than anything currently in use by any carrier.
The problem is that Apple didn't just do it in the US or in the first four EU countries months later while still selling the original iPhone. They did it in every country that legally allowed them to do carrier exclusivity and SIM locking. This is after the 3G version arrived and well after the iPhone proved itself to be a market driver. On top of that, they are still doing it with their talks to Chinese carriers. Instead of just going full throttle into the China's fast growing and vast cellular community they are trying to now get China Unicom, their 2nd largest carrier, to agree to exclusivity for certain demands.
I think that is enough proof that Apple has plans well beyond a few hot seasons of increased unit sales, otherwise why continue doing it in over again... country after country... model after model... year after year? One potential reason, if they aren't paired with a carrier they will lose control of things that the carriers they've partnered with have agreed to in legally binding contracts. They've already done plenty of things already that have never been done before with a carrier/vendor collaboration. Things that we probably never considered and things that other carrier and cellphone vendors thought we not possible. To drop it would affect how those services would continue and potentially destroy parts of the ecosystem they are trying to create and control.
When the RAZR went to Verizon I immediately bought and then immediately returned it- you could not change the pic on the front and it was lightly thicker than the GSM versions. The best thing about it was it fit perfectly into a suit of sportsjacket pocket- big deal.
Remember that the GSM verizon was only rated at GPRS, it didn't even have EDGE.
Verizon's RAZR was a true 3G ev-do phone --- it was a true formula 1 race car (high 3G speed) that has terrible gas mileage (short battery life) without refinements (it's slightly bigger than GSM cousin) and without frills like cupholders.
Mostly, they have CDMA-based networks too, but I think they are only in certain regions. If Apple wanted to keep a single radio standard for the iPhone it would be best to go with China Unicom. This makes me think that courting China Mobile is just a tactic like courting Verizon was.
Mostly, they have CDMA-based networks too, but I think they are only in certain regions. If Apple wanted to keep a single radio standard for the iPhone it would be best to go with China Unicom. This makes me think that courting China Mobile is just a tactic like courting Verizon was.
???
China is all GSM. What they are migrating from is 2.5G. On May 17 China Unicom is lighting up their 3G network in 55 cities (population about 350,000,000). China Unicom has also announced that they will begin selling iPhone in those cities on that date. Apple has been mum about that.
Mostly, they have CDMA-based networks too, but I think they are only in certain regions. If Apple wanted to keep a single radio standard for the iPhone it would be best to go with China Unicom. This makes me think that courting China Mobile is just a tactic like courting Verizon was.
Hopefully for more concessions from att [better coverage] more towers, etc., cu (?).
China is all GSM. What they are migrating from is 2.5G. On May 17 China Unicom is lighting up their 3G network in 55 cities (population about 350,000,000). China Unicom has also announced that they will begin selling iPhone in those cities on that date. Apple has been mum about that.
There is plenty of information about China's mixed network. Wikipedia is a good starting point as there are annotations to supporting sites.
However, it does appear that I mispoke about China Unicom is mixed. It appears that they sold their CDMA network to China Telecom in 2008. There last reporting of a CDMA network is from September of that year. (stats)
• China Mobile — GSM and TD-SCDMA — 415 million cellular subscribers
• China Unicom — GSM and WCDMA — 138 million cellular subscribers
• China Telecom — CDMA and CDMA2000 — 43 million cellular subscribers
There is plenty of information about China's mixed network. Wikipedia is a good starting point as there are annotations to supporting sites.
However, it does appear that I mispoke about China Unicom is mixed. It appears that they sold their CDMA network to China Telecom in 2008. There last reporting of a CDMA network is from September of that year. (stats)
? China Mobile ? GSM and TD-SCDMA ? 415 million cellular subscribers
? China Unicom ? GSM and WCDMA ? 138 million cellular subscribers
? China Telecom ? CDMA and CDMA2000 ? 43 million cellular subscribers
Kinda makes you wonder why they (allegedly) couldn't come to some kind of agreement with China Mobile... especially since they went with at&t because they were the "biggest and best".
Kinda makes you wonder why they (allegedly) couldn't come to some kind of agreement with China Mobile... especially since they went with at&t because they were the "biggest and best".
Oh yeah, AT&T was technically the largest when they inked the deal. I had forgotten that Verizon was slightly behind and only jumped ahead after a buyout.
I think this solidifies my stance that Apple has plans for the iPhone that is well beyond the short-sided, "they could sell many more units if they made a CDMA iPhone/unlocked the iPhone/sold iPhone to <insert carrier>", remarks. If was just about selling more units then Apple should have bent over backwards to sell not only to China Mobile's 415M userbase, but to all the carriers for a 600M userbase.
Kinda makes you wonder why they (allegedly) couldn't come to some kind of agreement with China Mobile... especially since they went with at&t because they were the "biggest and best".
Now I know I'm going to get some flack for writing this from someone, but Asian countries are very nationalistic. I did a fair amount of business over there for more than a few years, and I know people who also do business over there.
It's not a criticism per se, but a fact. You have to be very careful. In China, for example, they simply don't want foreigners to have any more control over a business than absolutely necessary. From what I can remember, most businesses must be owned 51% by a Chinese company. You're required to sign over the family jewels first. Very tough!
They only give in if they have absolutely no choice, and even then, you have to be careful.
There is plenty of information about China's mixed network. Wikipedia is a good starting point as there are annotations to supporting sites.
However, it does appear that I mispoke about China Unicom is mixed. It appears that they sold their CDMA network to China Telecom in 2008. There last reporting of a CDMA network is from September of that year. (stats)
? China Mobile ? GSM and TD-SCDMA ? 415 million cellular subscribers
? China Unicom ? GSM and WCDMA ? 138 million cellular subscribers
? China Telecom ? CDMA and CDMA2000 ? 43 million cellular subscribers
Looks like we both mis-spoke. Thanks for the info.
Kinda makes you wonder why they (allegedly) couldn't come to some kind of agreement with China Mobile... especially since they went with at&t because they were the "biggest and best".
Sometimes the biggest and baddest think they bring more to the table than they actually do. It's called hubris, and causes people/firms to do stupid things.
This is part of what I was saying earlier about China. There's no other country where this sort of thing would be allowed, even in Russia, where patent, copyright and trademark law is ignored as much as possible if it's owned by foreigners.
The fact that these knockoffs are sold in major stores with no interference by the government, which knows it's happening, shows why doing business there is difficult.
Actually, the government encourages this kind of thing.
I remember reading, a while back, about the counterfeit "Samsung" products coming out of the counterfeit "Samsung" factory, which had a big "Samsung" sign on the front.
You got the impression, in the interview with the people running this operation, that they sort of had the idea that because they faithfully copied Samsung products in their Samsung plant that they were Samsung, in every way that mattered, and the fact that the actual Samsung people thought they should be killed with fire was just sort of splitting hairs.
I have no idea how you do business with that mentality, if it's being done with the tacit approval of the government.
Comments
Count me among those that bought it because it was thin.
The laser etched number pad was pretty cool, too.
I remember the RAZR very well. Several of my friends had them. One guy even bought four for his family, and that was when they were selling for $500 apiece!
He didn't like it from the beginning, and was really ticked when the price kept dropping so rapidly. It had almost no features to speak of. He didn't like the "buttons" which were hard to press, but were done that way so when it was closed, they would allow the phone to remain thin.
These seems to have been the universal thoughts about the phone.
Later versions, and there have been a lot of them, added more features, as expected. But the first ones which started the initial craze very fairly simple, and were sold on looks (shock!).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razr
When the RAZR went to Verizon I immediately bought and then immediately returned it- you could not change the pic on the front and it was lightly thicker than the GSM versions. The best thing about it was it fit perfectly into a suit of sportsjacket pocket- big deal.
I doubt if Verizon would be allowed to buy T-Mobile.
Not to mention I doubt T-Mobile's parent company wants to sell it's only US business.
These are some of the problems Apple is having with Chinese carriers as well.
I don't offhand remember whether it was China Mobile (though I think it was), Or China Unicom, which Apple is supposedly in final talks with now, but one of them, or both for all I know, demanded that they, and not Apple, run the App Store in China. They wanted to decide which apps made it in, take command of what happened with updates, what to do with an app later if they wanted to remove it (perhaps the government wanting to remove it?), and supposedly wanted the 30% cut as well.
I can only imagine Apple's reaction to that!
Two words come to mind: Drop dead.
Technically the CDMA+EVDO iPhone should outperform the ATT 3G phone. Voice is typically carried over the CDMA channel, while data goes over the EVDO channel. In WCMDA/UMTS/3G voice is mixed in the same channel with data... when there is too much data, the whole system is compromised.
CDMA+EVDO use synch tech so hand-offs are easier than with UMTS asynch WCDMA. Power control is also easier with CDMA more energy efficient than WCDMA.
I suspect Apple likes the economies of scale of making a single radio phone and the control that ATT allows. VZ may have seen the light and is willing to give the control that Apple wants. VZ does have a lot of hi end clients, corporations, etc. So it should be interesting.
Thank you, sir.
And, among those who also thought the phone was really poorly designed (and that Verizon's service was no better or worse than that of ATT).
Most people believe that one service, or the other, isn't as good as what they have. To believe otherwise is to admit that you made a mistake. No one has ever had an ugly child.
The truth is that what we know about the competition is what we have heard, and not from actual experience. Even if we have dealt with the competition, and the experience was bad, that doesn't mean that experience was universal. That and technology, meaning capabilities, changes rapidly in this space. So what might have been a problem a couple years ago, isn't a problem today.
The point of advertising is to make users of competing products believe that your service is better. More monies are spent acquiring new customers, than is spent keeping the ones you already have.
I had used both Verizon and Sprint prior to getting an iPhone. Sprint was just horrible, and apparently the experience is pretty much universal, as evidenced by their shrinking customer numbers. My service with Verizon was no better, and no worse, than what I am getting right now with ATT, but that's just me, a sample of one.
The only problem I have with ATT's service is the frequency used, and not the service itself. Those problems should disappear when the carriers shift to the 700 Mhz band. I was a Radarman in the Navy during the late '60s, and I can tell you a universal truth about frequencies: the lower the better for obstacle penetration, and 700 Mhz is lower than anything currently in use by any carrier.
The problem is that Apple didn't just do it in the US or in the first four EU countries months later while still selling the original iPhone. They did it in every country that legally allowed them to do carrier exclusivity and SIM locking. This is after the 3G version arrived and well after the iPhone proved itself to be a market driver. On top of that, they are still doing it with their talks to Chinese carriers. Instead of just going full throttle into the China's fast growing and vast cellular community they are trying to now get China Unicom, their 2nd largest carrier, to agree to exclusivity for certain demands.
I think that is enough proof that Apple has plans well beyond a few hot seasons of increased unit sales, otherwise why continue doing it in over again... country after country... model after model... year after year? One potential reason, if they aren't paired with a carrier they will lose control of things that the carriers they've partnered with have agreed to in legally binding contracts. They've already done plenty of things already that have never been done before with a carrier/vendor collaboration. Things that we probably never considered and things that other carrier and cellphone vendors thought we not possible. To drop it would affect how those services would continue and potentially destroy parts of the ecosystem they are trying to create and control.
And China Unicom is gsm.
When the RAZR went to Verizon I immediately bought and then immediately returned it- you could not change the pic on the front and it was lightly thicker than the GSM versions. The best thing about it was it fit perfectly into a suit of sportsjacket pocket- big deal.
Remember that the GSM verizon was only rated at GPRS, it didn't even have EDGE.
Verizon's RAZR was a true 3G ev-do phone --- it was a true formula 1 race car (high 3G speed) that has terrible gas mileage (short battery life) without refinements (it's slightly bigger than GSM cousin) and without frills like cupholders.
And China Unicom is gsm.
Mostly, they have CDMA-based networks too, but I think they are only in certain regions. If Apple wanted to keep a single radio standard for the iPhone it would be best to go with China Unicom. This makes me think that courting China Mobile is just a tactic like courting Verizon was.
Mostly, they have CDMA-based networks too, but I think they are only in certain regions. If Apple wanted to keep a single radio standard for the iPhone it would be best to go with China Unicom. This makes me think that courting China Mobile is just a tactic like courting Verizon was.
???
China is all GSM. What they are migrating from is 2.5G. On May 17 China Unicom is lighting up their 3G network in 55 cities (population about 350,000,000). China Unicom has also announced that they will begin selling iPhone in those cities on that date. Apple has been mum about that.
Mostly, they have CDMA-based networks too, but I think they are only in certain regions. If Apple wanted to keep a single radio standard for the iPhone it would be best to go with China Unicom. This makes me think that courting China Mobile is just a tactic like courting Verizon was.
Hopefully for more concessions from att [better coverage] more towers, etc., cu (?).
???
China is all GSM. What they are migrating from is 2.5G. On May 17 China Unicom is lighting up their 3G network in 55 cities (population about 350,000,000). China Unicom has also announced that they will begin selling iPhone in those cities on that date. Apple has been mum about that.
There is plenty of information about China's mixed network. Wikipedia is a good starting point as there are annotations to supporting sites.
However, it does appear that I mispoke about China Unicom is mixed. It appears that they sold their CDMA network to China Telecom in 2008. There last reporting of a CDMA network is from September of that year. (stats)
There is plenty of information about China's mixed network. Wikipedia is a good starting point as there are annotations to supporting sites.
However, it does appear that I mispoke about China Unicom is mixed. It appears that they sold their CDMA network to China Telecom in 2008. There last reporting of a CDMA network is from September of that year. (stats)
Kinda makes you wonder why they (allegedly) couldn't come to some kind of agreement with China Mobile... especially since they went with at&t because they were the "biggest and best".
Kinda makes you wonder why they (allegedly) couldn't come to some kind of agreement with China Mobile... especially since they went with at&t because they were the "biggest and best".
Oh yeah, AT&T was technically the largest when they inked the deal. I had forgotten that Verizon was slightly behind and only jumped ahead after a buyout.
I think this solidifies my stance that Apple has plans for the iPhone that is well beyond the short-sided, "they could sell many more units if they made a CDMA iPhone/unlocked the iPhone/sold iPhone to <insert carrier>", remarks. If was just about selling more units then Apple should have bent over backwards to sell not only to China Mobile's 415M userbase, but to all the carriers for a 600M userbase.
Kinda makes you wonder why they (allegedly) couldn't come to some kind of agreement with China Mobile... especially since they went with at&t because they were the "biggest and best".
Now I know I'm going to get some flack for writing this from someone, but Asian countries are very nationalistic. I did a fair amount of business over there for more than a few years, and I know people who also do business over there.
It's not a criticism per se, but a fact. You have to be very careful. In China, for example, they simply don't want foreigners to have any more control over a business than absolutely necessary. From what I can remember, most businesses must be owned 51% by a Chinese company. You're required to sign over the family jewels first. Very tough!
They only give in if they have absolutely no choice, and even then, you have to be careful.
There is plenty of information about China's mixed network. Wikipedia is a good starting point as there are annotations to supporting sites.
However, it does appear that I mispoke about China Unicom is mixed. It appears that they sold their CDMA network to China Telecom in 2008. There last reporting of a CDMA network is from September of that year. (stats)
Looks like we both mis-spoke. Thanks for the info.
Kinda makes you wonder why they (allegedly) couldn't come to some kind of agreement with China Mobile... especially since they went with at&t because they were the "biggest and best".
Sometimes the biggest and baddest think they bring more to the table than they actually do. It's called hubris, and causes people/firms to do stupid things.
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.
In China, Knockoff Cellphones Are a Hit
I'm sure this is making Chinese negotiations all the more complicated.
In China, Knockoff Cellphones Are a Hit
This is part of what I was saying earlier about China. There's no other country where this sort of thing would be allowed, even in Russia, where patent, copyright and trademark law is ignored as much as possible if it's owned by foreigners.
The fact that these knockoffs are sold in major stores with no interference by the government, which knows it's happening, shows why doing business there is difficult.
Actually, the government encourages this kind of thing.
You got the impression, in the interview with the people running this operation, that they sort of had the idea that because they faithfully copied Samsung products in their Samsung plant that they were Samsung, in every way that mattered, and the fact that the actual Samsung people thought they should be killed with fire was just sort of splitting hairs.
I have no idea how you do business with that mentality, if it's being done with the tacit approval of the government.