I'm currently on Verizon (and have been for the past 6 years) and am planning on switching to AT&T this summer for the new iPhone. I would love it if they release the iPhone on Verizon this summer, but I know that's too soon (even if it is possible).
It makes me mad because I want to get an iPhone this summer, but I love Verizon and I don't think I could wait another year or two for a Verizon version.
I guess I'll just be switching to AT&T this summer, but I've heard the service isn't as good as Verizon...
I'm in the same boat. I love my touch, and hate it when I don't have a network. With a potentially new iphone this summer, I may collapse and switch and live with ATT until there's something decent on Verizon and switch back...
And, unless I missed something, CDMA phones don't have swappable SIM cards. So how the hell is that going to work?
For how many people is the lack of a SIM really going to be a problem? I know the people that travel a lot might want it, but once a device is on a network, it's kind of moot. When I had CDMA, I never fussed about something that wasn't there, nor do I fuss about it when it is there in my GSM phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zorinlynx
How often do you find yourself calling customer service?
I've been on Sprint with my Treo 650 since 2005 and I've had to call customer service zero (0) times. Yes, ZERO.
Their network is incredibly reliable and I've had absolutely no problems with them.
Everyone seems to complain about how bad Sprint's customer service is, but... Seriously, why are you calling customer service so much?
If people don't need to call customer service very often, then it shouldn't cost much to upgrade customer service to something that's workable. Preferably something where the customer can get someone that's in the same local region so the customer and CSR is likely to be acclimated to each other's accents and dialect. Heck, with one CSR, a simple replacement mic piece on the CSR's end might have saved a lot of time and communication problems.
I do not hear good things about Sprint, but their everything for $80 a month (I think) is a pretty good deal.
I have unlimited everything with Sprint (texts, tethering, internet, TV) and 1500 anytime minutes for $50/month, all in. It's an awesome deal. If I could get an iPhone on that plan then I would. But AT&Ts rates are just crazy expensive.
2011? Dream on. This just ain't happening, folks...... sounds to me like idle speculation.
I wish this speculation were idle. As soon as it dies down another article pops up with more foolish analyst speculation stating, "If Apple sold the iPhone on more carriers they'd sell more iPhones" or "If Apple lowered the price they'd sell more iPhones."
I have unlimited everything with Sprint (texts, tethering, internet, TV) and 1500 anytime minutes for $50/month, all in. It's an awesome deal. If I could get an iPhone on that plan then I would. But AT&Ts rates are just crazy expensive.
AT&T is more expensive than Sprint's SERO but on par with the three major carriers normal plans, with Sprint and T-Mobile being the cheapest because they have to, then AT&T and then Verizon in last with their nickel and diming options which they can do since they are top dog in coverage and subscribers right now.
But using SERO as proof of AT&T being overpriced is a poor argument. For starters, SERO is an acronym for Sprint Employee Referral Offer. It is not offered to everyone as standard and so it shouldn't be compared to standard plans. However, in a vain attempt to stop their hemorrhaging subscriber base they have been forced to do some drastic things. It's now pretty easy to get on a SERO plan, but you have to understand why they are doing it.
PS: Note that the original iPhone's unlimited data plan was only $20/month when data plans were $40-$50 across the board on all carriers when it launched.
If Sprint had 78 million subscribers (like AT&T) instead of loosing a million subscribers a quarter, their rates would be the identical to AT&T.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SprintLuvr
I have unlimited everything with Sprint (texts, tethering, internet, TV) and 1500 anytime minutes for $50/month, all in. It's an awesome deal. If I could get an iPhone on that plan then I would. But AT&Ts rates are just crazy expensive.
OMG! I've never heard that before. How absolutely nerve racking for that guy. It's like a conversation with Teckstud.
You're just upset because all my dreams are being realized while all your excuses and explanations of why things aren't necessary are being disregarded .
I'm amazed with some of you. Seriously. First of all, (lets go on this long shot assumption) lets say Apple does decide to go with Verizon Wireless. Why do any of you think that they would then abandon GSM? What kind of logic is that? Second, who cares where this so called study comes from? In the end, it's complete LOGIC that Apple will eventually have to expand to other US carriers. If you HONESTLY believe that this is not necessary and only AT&T is fine, then I seriously would LOVE to smoke what you are smoking. Why? Because at some point, it is literally IMPOSSIBLE for Apple to expand and sell more iPhones. There's an ENORMOUS percentage of Americans that will NEVER leave their wireless networks and yet desire an iPhone. Do you honestly believe that Apple will continue to hold them out? Give me a break.
The only way long term for Apple to double their U.S. sales is to open the device up to other carriers. It is a 100% certainty that this will happen.
Actually. Apple can easily double and triple their iPhone shares by just getting current ATT customers to switch to an iPhone. The iPhone is still a small percentage of ATT customer's phone. This may not be as beneficial to ATT as a new customer. But Apple still makes money and gain market shares with each sale of an iPhone.
Offer a special iPhone package, like they did with the original iPhone, and Apple will benefit greatly just from current ATT customers switching to an iPhone to get the plan.
For now, Apple's growth stops (in the US) when there's no more people willing to switch to ATT AND when all ATT customers (that wants an iPhone) are using an iPhone.
I am getting rid of my iphone until i can get someone besides ATT and their absurb 3g rates. Only two more months left on the contract. I would love to see Sprint, Verizon, Alltel etc be able to distribute the iphone. This vendor lock, corporate bargaining shit needs to end.
I don't see what will change with Verizon as their rates are basically the same. I Really don't see rates for data coming down for any of the carriers any time soon.
Maybe when LTE shows up the government will force vendor locks to end.
that was my first thought. it seems they are pushing one iphone related rumour out every week...
This is getting ridiculous. Enough with the "Apple needs an iPhone on the Verizon network ".
Here in Canada, Bell and Telus are creating a HSPA network just to bridge the gap to LTE (and also fight Rogers on a level playing field), eventually abandoning their CDMA infrastructure.
Why would Apple create a "CDMA" version when in 2 years, LTE will be prevalent across NA and the world.
In an ironic twist, Apple is already using a CDMA-like chip...UMTS uses WCDMA for it's air interface..so Qualcomm still makes (not as much as a pure CDMA2000 chip) money on the patent.
And BTW Citigroup there are LTE / HSPA / EDGE chips as well.
Why on earth would I want to do that? CDMA is a superior technology. GSM vs. CDMA is like VHS vs. BetaMax, or even PC vs. Mac. Popularity (and especially not ubiquity) and superiority seldom go hand-and-hand.
Actually, that's completely untrue. By any measure, GSM is superior to CDMA as a standard.* GSM is less widely deployed (that means fewer towers) in North America due to its youth here, and that's why you're inclined to call it a lesser "technology." Your statement is the logical equivalent of "Driving is a superior means of travel to flying because the airport is further from my house than my garage."
Next time you decide to publish your thoughts, please stick to your usual "ZOMG VERIPHONETOUCH CDMA>GSM LOL BC U DONT EVEN KNO!!!1!" This way, people will be able to identify it as garbage without having to actually read it.
*I'm using the word "standard" for simplicity's sake. I'm aware that CDMA is not itself a "standard." For what it's worth, referring to both terms as "technologies," as seen above, is even more useless. For clarity, I'm referring to networks descended from GSM and CDMA networks,
A research note from Citigroup sent out late on Tuesday stresses that the US cellular market is quickly hitting a wall in terms of growth and that even the iPhone can't save AT&T from the same fate.
The Apple employee whose job is to read and summarize this stuff probably got a good chuckle from this note as he/she wrote a summary for Cook/Schiller.
"US market saturated with cellphones? Yes. With smartphones? Not when they see what we're doing next.
Max of 20-25% of ATT customers would get an iPhone? Not when they see what we're doing next.
Few switchers from Verizon/Sprint/Tmobile? Not when they see what we're doing next.
Actually, that's completely untrue. By any measure, GSM is superior to CDMA as a standard.* GSM is less widely deployed (that means fewer towers) in North America due to its youth here, and that's why you're inclined to call it a lesser "technology." Your statement is the logical equivalent of "Driving is a superior means of travel to flying because the airport is further from my house than my garage."
To add, Apple probably thought which cell technology has the most penetration WORLDWIDE; there is no question GSM rules the roost. 3 Billion connections in 2008
The Apple employee whose job is to read and summarize this stuff probably got a good chuckle from this note as he/she wrote a summary for Cook/Schiller.
"US market saturated with cellphones? Yes. With smartphones? Not when they see what we're doing next.
Max of 20-25% of ATT customers would get an iPhone? Not when they see what we're doing next.
Few switchers from Verizon/Sprint/Tmobile? Not when they see what we're doing next.
Silly analysts."
20-25% of AT&T customers using an iPhone seems astronomically high to me. That would be 15-20M of AT&T's current 78M subscriber base, which included all their cheap pay as go customers. That would mean 1 out of 4 or 5 phones sold is an iPhone with a $69/month plan. I think that is also about 8% of all phones in the US, regardless of carrier, being iPhones.
If the iPhone had to be available for sale with every service provider, it's "game over" for all other smartphones.
All of the others only exist because there is a huge number of people who prefer their current provider over AT&T, so they'll settle for inferior devices to stay with the phone company of their choice.
If that barrier is knocked down, then the iPhone will rule!
Comments
I'm currently on Verizon (and have been for the past 6 years) and am planning on switching to AT&T this summer for the new iPhone. I would love it if they release the iPhone on Verizon this summer, but I know that's too soon (even if it is possible).
It makes me mad because I want to get an iPhone this summer, but I love Verizon and I don't think I could wait another year or two for a Verizon version.
I guess I'll just be switching to AT&T this summer, but I've heard the service isn't as good as Verizon...
I'm in the same boat. I love my touch, and hate it when I don't have a network. With a potentially new iphone this summer, I may collapse and switch and live with ATT until there's something decent on Verizon and switch back...
And, unless I missed something, CDMA phones don't have swappable SIM cards. So how the hell is that going to work?
For how many people is the lack of a SIM really going to be a problem? I know the people that travel a lot might want it, but once a device is on a network, it's kind of moot. When I had CDMA, I never fussed about something that wasn't there, nor do I fuss about it when it is there in my GSM phone.
How often do you find yourself calling customer service?
I've been on Sprint with my Treo 650 since 2005 and I've had to call customer service zero (0) times. Yes, ZERO.
Their network is incredibly reliable and I've had absolutely no problems with them.
Everyone seems to complain about how bad Sprint's customer service is, but... Seriously, why are you calling customer service so much?
If people don't need to call customer service very often, then it shouldn't cost much to upgrade customer service to something that's workable. Preferably something where the customer can get someone that's in the same local region so the customer and CSR is likely to be acclimated to each other's accents and dialect. Heck, with one CSR, a simple replacement mic piece on the CSR's end might have saved a lot of time and communication problems.
I do not hear good things about Sprint, but their everything for $80 a month (I think) is a pretty good deal.
I have unlimited everything with Sprint (texts, tethering, internet, TV) and 1500 anytime minutes for $50/month, all in. It's an awesome deal. If I could get an iPhone on that plan then I would. But AT&Ts rates are just crazy expensive.
2011? Dream on. This just ain't happening, folks...... sounds to me like idle speculation.
I wish this speculation were idle. As soon as it dies down another article pops up with more foolish analyst speculation stating, "If Apple sold the iPhone on more carriers they'd sell more iPhones" or "If Apple lowered the price they'd sell more iPhones."
I have unlimited everything with Sprint (texts, tethering, internet, TV) and 1500 anytime minutes for $50/month, all in. It's an awesome deal. If I could get an iPhone on that plan then I would. But AT&Ts rates are just crazy expensive.
AT&T is more expensive than Sprint's SERO but on par with the three major carriers normal plans, with Sprint and T-Mobile being the cheapest because they have to, then AT&T and then Verizon in last with their nickel and diming options which they can do since they are top dog in coverage and subscribers right now.
But using SERO as proof of AT&T being overpriced is a poor argument. For starters, SERO is an acronym for Sprint Employee Referral Offer. It is not offered to everyone as standard and so it shouldn't be compared to standard plans. However, in a vain attempt to stop their hemorrhaging subscriber base they have been forced to do some drastic things. It's now pretty easy to get on a SERO plan, but you have to understand why they are doing it.
PS: Note that the original iPhone's unlimited data plan was only $20/month when data plans were $40-$50 across the board on all carriers when it launched.
I wish this speculation were idle. As soon as it dies down another article pops up ......
The conspiracy theorist in me is beginning to think that Verizon is the one throwing it out there......
The conspiracy theorist in me is beginning to think that Verizon is the one throwing it out there......
It would be a good tactic. If I head of such things at Verizon I'd leak such info.
I have unlimited everything with Sprint (texts, tethering, internet, TV) and 1500 anytime minutes for $50/month, all in. It's an awesome deal. If I could get an iPhone on that plan then I would. But AT&Ts rates are just crazy expensive.
OMG! I've never heard that before. How absolutely nerve racking for that guy. It's like a conversation with Teckstud.
You're just upset because all my dreams are being realized while all your excuses and explanations of why things aren't necessary are being disregarded .
I'm amazed with some of you. Seriously. First of all, (lets go on this long shot assumption) lets say Apple does decide to go with Verizon Wireless. Why do any of you think that they would then abandon GSM? What kind of logic is that? Second, who cares where this so called study comes from? In the end, it's complete LOGIC that Apple will eventually have to expand to other US carriers. If you HONESTLY believe that this is not necessary and only AT&T is fine, then I seriously would LOVE to smoke what you are smoking. Why? Because at some point, it is literally IMPOSSIBLE for Apple to expand and sell more iPhones. There's an ENORMOUS percentage of Americans that will NEVER leave their wireless networks and yet desire an iPhone. Do you honestly believe that Apple will continue to hold them out? Give me a break.
The only way long term for Apple to double their U.S. sales is to open the device up to other carriers. It is a 100% certainty that this will happen.
Actually. Apple can easily double and triple their iPhone shares by just getting current ATT customers to switch to an iPhone. The iPhone is still a small percentage of ATT customer's phone. This may not be as beneficial to ATT as a new customer. But Apple still makes money and gain market shares with each sale of an iPhone.
Offer a special iPhone package, like they did with the original iPhone, and Apple will benefit greatly just from current ATT customers switching to an iPhone to get the plan.
For now, Apple's growth stops (in the US) when there's no more people willing to switch to ATT AND when all ATT customers (that wants an iPhone) are using an iPhone.
They couldn't even predict their own company's approach to near bankruptcy.
I am getting rid of my iphone until i can get someone besides ATT and their absurb 3g rates. Only two more months left on the contract. I would love to see Sprint, Verizon, Alltel etc be able to distribute the iphone. This vendor lock, corporate bargaining shit needs to end.
I don't see what will change with Verizon as their rates are basically the same. I Really don't see rates for data coming down for any of the carriers any time soon.
Maybe when LTE shows up the government will force vendor locks to end.
The conspiracy theorist in me is beginning to think that Verizon is the one throwing it out there......
that was my first thought. it seems they are pushing one iphone related rumour out every week...
that was my first thought. it seems they are pushing one iphone related rumour out every week...
This is getting ridiculous. Enough with the "Apple needs an iPhone on the Verizon network ".
Here in Canada, Bell and Telus are creating a HSPA network just to bridge the gap to LTE (and also fight Rogers on a level playing field), eventually abandoning their CDMA infrastructure.
Why would Apple create a "CDMA" version when in 2 years, LTE will be prevalent across NA and the world.
In an ironic twist, Apple is already using a CDMA-like chip...UMTS uses WCDMA for it's air interface..so Qualcomm still makes (not as much as a pure CDMA2000 chip) money on the patent.
And BTW Citigroup there are LTE / HSPA / EDGE chips as well.
http://www.3g.co.uk/PR/Jan2009/Two_N..._and_3G_3G.htm
Like alphajack said , no wonder Citigroup is in dire straits.
Why on earth would I want to do that? CDMA is a superior technology. GSM vs. CDMA is like VHS vs. BetaMax, or even PC vs. Mac. Popularity (and especially not ubiquity) and superiority seldom go hand-and-hand.
Actually, that's completely untrue. By any measure, GSM is superior to CDMA as a standard.* GSM is less widely deployed (that means fewer towers) in North America due to its youth here, and that's why you're inclined to call it a lesser "technology." Your statement is the logical equivalent of "Driving is a superior means of travel to flying because the airport is further from my house than my garage."
Next time you decide to publish your thoughts, please stick to your usual "ZOMG VERIPHONETOUCH CDMA>GSM LOL BC U DONT EVEN KNO!!!1!" This way, people will be able to identify it as garbage without having to actually read it.
*I'm using the word "standard" for simplicity's sake. I'm aware that CDMA is not itself a "standard." For what it's worth, referring to both terms as "technologies," as seen above, is even more useless. For clarity, I'm referring to networks descended from GSM and CDMA networks,
A research note from Citigroup sent out late on Tuesday stresses that the US cellular market is quickly hitting a wall in terms of growth and that even the iPhone can't save AT&T from the same fate.
The Apple employee whose job is to read and summarize this stuff probably got a good chuckle from this note as he/she wrote a summary for Cook/Schiller.
"US market saturated with cellphones? Yes. With smartphones? Not when they see what we're doing next.
Max of 20-25% of ATT customers would get an iPhone? Not when they see what we're doing next.
Few switchers from Verizon/Sprint/Tmobile? Not when they see what we're doing next.
Silly analysts."
Actually, that's completely untrue. By any measure, GSM is superior to CDMA as a standard.* GSM is less widely deployed (that means fewer towers) in North America due to its youth here, and that's why you're inclined to call it a lesser "technology." Your statement is the logical equivalent of "Driving is a superior means of travel to flying because the airport is further from my house than my garage."
To add, Apple probably thought which cell technology has the most penetration WORLDWIDE; there is no question GSM rules the roost. 3 Billion connections in 2008
http://www.gsmworld.com/about-us/history.htm
as I stated above, it's ironic the GSM crew decided to use WCDMA for UMTS/HSPA
The Apple employee whose job is to read and summarize this stuff probably got a good chuckle from this note as he/she wrote a summary for Cook/Schiller.
"US market saturated with cellphones? Yes. With smartphones? Not when they see what we're doing next.
Max of 20-25% of ATT customers would get an iPhone? Not when they see what we're doing next.
Few switchers from Verizon/Sprint/Tmobile? Not when they see what we're doing next.
Silly analysts."
20-25% of AT&T customers using an iPhone seems astronomically high to me. That would be 15-20M of AT&T's current 78M subscriber base, which included all their cheap pay as go customers. That would mean 1 out of 4 or 5 phones sold is an iPhone with a $69/month plan. I think that is also about 8% of all phones in the US, regardless of carrier, being iPhones.
All of the others only exist because there is a huge number of people who prefer their current provider over AT&T, so they'll settle for inferior devices to stay with the phone company of their choice.
If that barrier is knocked down, then the iPhone will rule!