Not useful? Dude- who is the largest cell phone carrier in the US? I do believe however slightly that you are mistaken and that there would be a market in the US. for a CDMA version as well.
However, the version of CDMA used by Verizon, Sprint, Telus and Bell Canada is NOT the same as the one used in Asia. They are completely incompatible.
Not useful? Dude- who is the largest cell phone carrier in the US? I do believe however slightly that you are mistaken and that there would be a market in the US. for a CDMA version as well.
Not enough for Apple to bother with. It's not that there isn't a market.
What you forget is that Apple is taking business away from Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile. That's where these new iPhone subscriptions are coming from after all.
So sure, Apple would get more business, but not as much as you think they would, and they may not get overall as good a deal from any other carriers if they supported more than one.
Once LTE is in enough places, then it would pay for Apple to be willing to get less back from AT&T and Verizon, as they would be selling the same phone and increased sales would more than make up for it.
But otherwise, it's not likely that Apple agrees with you. And why should we think that you know more than them?
However, the version of CDMA used by Verizon, Sprint, Telus and Bell Canada is NOT the same as the one used in Asia. They are completely incompatible.
Ok- even if they're not, that doesn't mean that there isn't a market for it. The dance with the AT&T devil won't allow it. Or will that change too eventually?
Right- Apple has no interest in 86.6 million Verizon subscribers alone.
No- make that
Apple would rather try to wean customers from Verizon and the others rather than just sell to them directly and additionally.
Will you stop with the stupid smilies already and use them for what they were intended? They don't make your lack of understanding look any better.
Apparently, you don't bother to read what other posters are actually saying before responding. You certainly didn't understand my post, and it was written especially for you, very simple.
Will you stop with the stupid smilies already and use them for what they were intended? They don't make your lack of understanding look any better.
Apparently, you don't bother to read what other posters are actually saying before responding. You certainly didn't understand my post, and it was written especially for you, very simple.
Technically literate people seem to be hard to convince, eh?
It doesn't really matter. Situations change, and so should their forecasts.
As Apple says; they're not economists. These guys aren't either, and economists had exceptionally poor results in their own forecasts.
If I expected the economy to drop the way it did, I would have sold Apple when it was $200. The best I can do here is to understand that Apple is a very good company. They have very good products, are exceptionally conservative in their finances (too conservative for some), and are spending good amounts in R&D, as Jobs said they would during the downturn as others are slacking off there.
The stock is bouncing back in a bumpy way, and will get back to $200 at some point. It will move higher after that.
But when it was in the high 70's, that was hard to see, and the economy was in free fall.
I did not say anywhere that this specific guy mattered one way or another to me. My question was simply, wasn't this the same guy that was really bearish on Apple for the longest time (indeed, predicted a price of something like $70 or so, even after Apple had rebounded to the low $100s).
Oh, one clarification: you and I have a very different types of folks in mind when we say "economists". I pay no attention to Wall Street economists. Dime a dozen, and follow rather than lead. When I talk about economists, I usually mean folks like Krugman, Shiller, Feldstein. And, they do matter.
Oh come on Apple, just drop the cash and build a nation wide LTE network that can power every iphone, ipod, and mac. You've got the cash!
Wireless service provision would be one lousy business for Apple to get into. I'd rather they just kept the cash in the bank and stuck to their existing strategy.
When I talk about economists, I usually mean folks like Krugman, Shiller, Feldstein. And, they do matter.
They only matter when they explain the past. They can't seem to look ahead any better than anyone else.
The problem is that economics is not a science in any way. It's a matter of guesswork. Educated guesswork, but guesswork all the same. None of their theories whether from the extreme right or left every seem able to capture what is going to happen more than a very few months in the future, and I can do about s well as they in that area.
They have massive amounts of data to use, but economies are based on people's feeling as as much as that data. And that's where they fail. That's why all economic models I've ever seen are feeble attempts to quantify what isn't yet quantifiable.
I am personally offended that Microsoft is coming out with an OLED screen on the new Zune HD, without knowing if Apple will offer same on the Touch or iPhone.
I have secretly hoped for OLED tech in the next generation, but is it possible that MS won this round? Is it now only about market share and price point - meaning that if MS does put out a product with a better display that they will suffer for it because it is more expensive (assumption)? Did Apple overlook this obvious and simple upgrade? UGH!
I am personally offended that Microsoft is coming out with an OLED screen on the new Zune HD, without knowing if Apple will offer same on the Touch or iPhone.
I have secretly hoped for OLED tech in the next generation, but is it possible that MS won this round? Is it now only about market share and price point - meaning that if MS does put out a product with a better display that they will suffer for it because it is more expensive (assumption)? Did Apple overlook this obvious and simple upgrade? UGH!
Will you stop with the stupid smilies already and use them for what they were intended? They don't make your lack of understanding look any better.
Apparently, you don't bother to read what other posters are actually saying before responding. You certainly didn't understand my post, and it was written especially for you, very simple.
Ok, since it was written especially for me, I reread it and see your point- somewhat.\
I still don't understand why you think it's Apple and not AT&T that is keeping iPhone from expanding into other US markets?
They only matter when they explain the past. They can't seem to look ahead any better than anyone else.
The problem is that economics is not a science in any way. It's a matter of guesswork. Educated guesswork, but guesswork all the same. None of their theories whether from the extreme right or left every seem able to capture what is going to happen more than a very few months in the future, and I can do about s well as they in that area.
They have massive amounts of data to use, but economies are based on people's feeling as as much as that data. And that's where they fail. That's why all economic models I've ever seen are feeble attempts to quantify what isn't yet quantifiable.
The mistake that people make way too often -- perhaps you do too -- is to simplistically look to economic models and economists to say "what" and "when" at the same time. No model can. Anyone who claims to be able to do that is a charlatan.
All that any good model can do is to describe tendencies in a system -- e.g., such as, "at a P/E of 25, the stock market is overvalued, and will correct in the other direction". It cannot tell you when it will correct. For that, you need astrology. Similarly, economics can tell you that if the price went up people would demand less, and companies would supply more, that things would move to an equilibrium. But nobody's actually documented an "equilibrium." It does not mean it does not happen, and often.
The reason that economic predictions "fail" is that people also adjust their behaviors to expectations and predictions -- i.e., the system is not, unlike in a great deal of the natural world, deterministic (or relatively so). It is behavioral. Those are extremely difficult to predict with certainty. For instance, if I thought that everyone thought that stocks will go up, I should/will buy today. That, in turn, will make stocks go up because the demand for stocks went up, making one buy even more... and so on. But an objective person can step back and look at it -- as for example, Shiller did with the stock market in 2001 and with the housing market in 2007 -- and say that prices have deviated from fundamentals, and that things will correct. But one can't (just as Shiller didn't) say when.
More importantly, the role of any good model is really only to get you to think about "what if" or enable you, as a consumer, producer, investor, etc., to make "if-then" judgments. Without that, there is no basis for forecasting or planning anything. And without planning, there can be no resource allocation, and without resource allocation, all economic activity will grind to a halt. Period.
To say that it is not a "science" is extreme: then we should strike the phrase "social science" altogether. Economics is at least as good as any other branch of social science in its predictive validity.
You just expect too much of it, or are looking at the wrong models, or listening to the wrong economists.
Ok, since it was written especially for me, I reread it and see your point- somewhat.\
I still don't understand why you think it's Apple and not AT&T that is keeping iPhone from expanding into other US markets?
It's both.
Apple needed something from a carrier, and AT&T gave it to them. But it also costs AT&T something.
When two companies join in a business venture, which is what this is, they must both benefit.
If only one benefits than it is a bad venture,
Here, it seems that both are benefitting.
Apple got AT&T to give up wide swaths of control. Never before had a carrier allowed a manufacturer to control music, apps, phone features, and to also have to re-write its mail software to allow something such as "Visual Voicemail", a major step up from what came before, even on the Blackberry.
AT&T wanted the phone so badly that they agreed to whatever Apple was willing to produce?even before they saw anything! They also gave Apple large amounts of money.
Who else was willing to do that? Verizon? apparently not.
So naturally, AT&T asked for a several year exclusive in the USA contract. That seems fair. Apple doesn't seem to be regretting it. After all, it was the successful launch of the iPhone that gave Apple the strong position it had in negotiations with the other carriers worldwide.
Once the contract is over, maybe things will change
The mistake that people make way too often -- perhaps you do too -- is to simplistically look to economic models and economists to say "what" and "when" at the same time. No model can. Anyone who claims to be able to do that is a charlatan.
I'm not looking at this simplistically. I understand it pretty well.
Quote:
All that any good model can do is to describe tendencies in a system -- e.g., such as, "at a P/E of 25, the stock market is overvalued, and will correct in the other direction". It cannot tell you when it will correct. For that, you need astrology. Similarly, economics can tell you that if the price went up people would demand less, and companies would supply more, that things would move to an equilibrium. But nobody's actually documented an "equilibrium." It does not mean it does not happen, and often.
Economics is far more than that. If that was all it is then people wouldn't be getting Phd's in it. economics 101 would be the beginning and the end.
I look at economic models all the time. they are very interesting. but the value to a model is its predictive validity. and that's where things fall apart.
The government and businesses employ tens of thousands of economists. They are plugging data into their models constantly. They look for trends, hoping to predict what will happen next week, next month, in six months, a year, two years. But they rarely get it right for more than a low batting average.
Remember Long Term Capital? They had several Nobel Prize economists as owners of the fund. They came up with these complex models. They crashed very badly, and almost took the entire market with them. What happened? They forgot that their models only took average moves into account. they never looked at what would happen with a big swing.
What about all these economists working for the other hedge funds that crashed? The brokerage funds? None of them saw what turned out to be obvious, and look at where we are!
Quote:
The reason that economic predictions "fail" is that people also adjust their behaviors to expectations and predictions -- i.e., the system is not, unlike in a great deal of the natural world, deterministic (or relatively so). It is behavioral. Those are extremely difficult to predict with certainty. For instance, if I thought that everyone thought that stocks will go up, I should/will buy today. That, in turn, will make stocks go up because the demand for stocks went up, making one buy even more... and so on. But an objective person can step back and look at it -- as for example, Shiller did with the stock market in 2001 and with the housing market in 2007 -- and say that prices have deviated from fundamentals, and that things will correct. But one can't (just as Shiller didn't) say when.
I'm not arguing with you there. In fact, that's what I was telling you.
Economists need to be psychologists as well.
Some of these guys get into a groove for a while, but then crash just like everyone else. It's a matter of luck for them too.
Quote:
More importantly, the role of any good model is really only to get you to think about "what if" or enable you, as a consumer, producer, investor, etc., to make "if-then" judgments. Without that, there is no basis for forecasting or planning anything. And without planning, there can be no resource allocation, and without resource allocation, all economic activity will grind to a halt. Period.
Of course. But the consumer can't evaluate any of this. Even "sophisticated investors" got taken by Madoff and others.
Quote:
To say that it is not a "science" is extreme: then we should strike the phrase "social science" altogether. Economics is at least as good as any other branch of social science in its predictive validity.
My degrees are in psychology and biology, with a minor in physics.
I gave up on psychology early, because it's really a pseudo-science right now, like all of the other social sciences, which is what economics is.
Since its not ethical to experiment on people, we have no way of doing a proper experiment in a way that will satisfy the rigorous rules we use in the other sciences. That makes much of social science a very inexact area of research.
We can't get a million people and put them in an area by themselves and do social science on them the way the Soviets almost did when they moved populations around like sheep.
Therefor, much theory is not verified in practice. The common, (and fun!) practice of using undergrad students for subjects in experiments is nice, but it doesn't represent enough of the complex world we live in.
And that's why we have Friedman on the one side, and Galbraith on the other, both addressing the same situation, but coming out with totally different theories.
Quote:
You just expect too much of it, or are looking at the wrong models, or listening to the wrong economists.
Yes, I expect it to work somewhat. That is too much to expect.
So far, all the models are wrong, and so are the ones making them.
Apple needed something from a carrier, and AT&T gave it to them. But it also costs AT&T something.
When two companies join in a business venture, which is what this is, they must both benefit.
If only one benefits than it is a bad venture,
Here, it seems that both are benefitting.
Apple got AT&T to give up wide swaths of control. Never before had a carrier allowed a manufacturer to control music, apps, phone features, and to also have to re-write its mail software to allow something such as "Visual Voicemail", a major step up from what came before, even on the Blackberry.
AT&T wanted the phone so badly that they agreed to whatever Apple was willing to produce—even before they saw anything! They also gave Apple large amounts of money.
Who else was willing to do that? Verizon? apparently not.
So naturally, AT&T asked for a several year exclusive in the USA contract. That seems fair. Apple doesn't seem to be regretting it. After all, it was the successful launch of the iPhone that gave Apple the strong position it had in negotiations with the other carriers worldwide.
Once the contract is over, maybe things will change
But that requires LTE
Perfect. Thank you- that makes sense.
Now I wonder how Apple feels about the AT&T service issues. It's like the baby and the bath water.
It does seem like AT&T is benefitting more in the long term with their mediocre service of the last 2 years.
Now I wonder how Apple feels about the AT&T service issues. It's like the baby and the bath water.
It does seem like AT&T is benefitting more in the long term with their mediocre service of the last 2 years.
AT&T stated that sales of the iPhone were so much higher than they expected that they couldn't keep up with the network traffic. Supposedly, neither they nor Apple expected quite as much data usage as they had.
AT&T's got over 20,000 towers, maybe by now, 30,000. They just said that they were adding 2,100 more this year. That's a lot of expansion.
I would imagine that if the iPhone was with Verizon instead, things wouldn't be that much better.
Comments
Oh come on Apple, just drop the cash and build a nation wide LTE network that can power every iphone, ipod, and mac. You've got the cash!
It will take every penny that Apple has, plus another $50 billion or so. do you have any spare change lying around?
Not useful?
However, the version of CDMA used by Verizon, Sprint, Telus and Bell Canada is NOT the same as the one used in Asia. They are completely incompatible.
Not useful?
Not enough for Apple to bother with. It's not that there isn't a market.
What you forget is that Apple is taking business away from Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile. That's where these new iPhone subscriptions are coming from after all.
So sure, Apple would get more business, but not as much as you think they would, and they may not get overall as good a deal from any other carriers if they supported more than one.
Once LTE is in enough places, then it would pay for Apple to be willing to get less back from AT&T and Verizon, as they would be selling the same phone and increased sales would more than make up for it.
But otherwise, it's not likely that Apple agrees with you. And why should we think that you know more than them?
Oh come on Apple, just drop the cash and build a nation wide LTE network that can power every iphone, ipod, and mac. You've got the cash!
you have to buy the frequencies from the FCC first, and i think they are all bought up
Not enough for Apple to bother with.
Right- Apple has no interest in 86.6 million Verizon subscribers alone.
No- make that
Apple would rather try to wean customers from Verizon and the others rather than just sell to them directly and additionally.
Since the last time Apple upgraded the Mini, iMac and MacPro, they kept the old versions around and sold them for half price.
However, the version of CDMA used by Verizon, Sprint, Telus and Bell Canada is NOT the same as the one used in Asia. They are completely incompatible.
Ok- even if they're not, that doesn't mean that there isn't a market for it. The dance with the AT&T devil won't allow it. Or will that change too eventually?
Right- Apple has no interest in 86.6 million Verizon subscribers alone.
No- make that
Apple would rather try to wean customers from Verizon and the others rather than just sell to them directly and additionally.
Will you stop with the stupid smilies already and use them for what they were intended? They don't make your lack of understanding look any better.
Apparently, you don't bother to read what other posters are actually saying before responding. You certainly didn't understand my post, and it was written especially for you, very simple.
Will you stop with the stupid smilies already and use them for what they were intended? They don't make your lack of understanding look any better.
Apparently, you don't bother to read what other posters are actually saying before responding. You certainly didn't understand my post, and it was written especially for you, very simple.
Technically literate people seem to be hard to convince, eh?
It doesn't really matter. Situations change, and so should their forecasts.
As Apple says; they're not economists. These guys aren't either, and economists had exceptionally poor results in their own forecasts.
If I expected the economy to drop the way it did, I would have sold Apple when it was $200. The best I can do here is to understand that Apple is a very good company. They have very good products, are exceptionally conservative in their finances (too conservative for some), and are spending good amounts in R&D, as Jobs said they would during the downturn as others are slacking off there.
The stock is bouncing back in a bumpy way, and will get back to $200 at some point. It will move higher after that.
But when it was in the high 70's, that was hard to see, and the economy was in free fall.
I did not say anywhere that this specific guy mattered one way or another to me. My question was simply, wasn't this the same guy that was really bearish on Apple for the longest time (indeed, predicted a price of something like $70 or so, even after Apple had rebounded to the low $100s).
Oh, one clarification: you and I have a very different types of folks in mind when we say "economists". I pay no attention to Wall Street economists. Dime a dozen, and follow rather than lead. When I talk about economists, I usually mean folks like Krugman, Shiller, Feldstein. And, they do matter.
Oh come on Apple, just drop the cash and build a nation wide LTE network that can power every iphone, ipod, and mac. You've got the cash!
Wireless service provision would be one lousy business for Apple to get into. I'd rather they just kept the cash in the bank and stuck to their existing strategy.
When I talk about economists, I usually mean folks like Krugman, Shiller, Feldstein. And, they do matter.
They only matter when they explain the past. They can't seem to look ahead any better than anyone else.
The problem is that economics is not a science in any way. It's a matter of guesswork. Educated guesswork, but guesswork all the same. None of their theories whether from the extreme right or left every seem able to capture what is going to happen more than a very few months in the future, and I can do about s well as they in that area.
They have massive amounts of data to use, but economies are based on people's feeling as as much as that data. And that's where they fail. That's why all economic models I've ever seen are feeble attempts to quantify what isn't yet quantifiable.
I have secretly hoped for OLED tech in the next generation, but is it possible that MS won this round? Is it now only about market share and price point - meaning that if MS does put out a product with a better display that they will suffer for it because it is more expensive (assumption)? Did Apple overlook this obvious and simple upgrade?
I am personally offended that Microsoft is coming out with an OLED screen on the new Zune HD, without knowing if Apple will offer same on the Touch or iPhone.
I have secretly hoped for OLED tech in the next generation, but is it possible that MS won this round? Is it now only about market share and price point - meaning that if MS does put out a product with a better display that they will suffer for it because it is more expensive (assumption)? Did Apple overlook this obvious and simple upgrade?
Relax, Apple will do OLED better.
Will you stop with the stupid smilies already and use them for what they were intended? They don't make your lack of understanding look any better.
Apparently, you don't bother to read what other posters are actually saying before responding. You certainly didn't understand my post, and it was written especially for you, very simple.
Ok, since it was written especially for me, I reread it and see your point- somewhat.
I still don't understand why you think it's Apple and not AT&T that is keeping iPhone from expanding into other US markets?
They only matter when they explain the past. They can't seem to look ahead any better than anyone else.
The problem is that economics is not a science in any way. It's a matter of guesswork. Educated guesswork, but guesswork all the same. None of their theories whether from the extreme right or left every seem able to capture what is going to happen more than a very few months in the future, and I can do about s well as they in that area.
They have massive amounts of data to use, but economies are based on people's feeling as as much as that data. And that's where they fail. That's why all economic models I've ever seen are feeble attempts to quantify what isn't yet quantifiable.
The mistake that people make way too often -- perhaps you do too -- is to simplistically look to economic models and economists to say "what" and "when" at the same time. No model can. Anyone who claims to be able to do that is a charlatan.
All that any good model can do is to describe tendencies in a system -- e.g., such as, "at a P/E of 25, the stock market is overvalued, and will correct in the other direction". It cannot tell you when it will correct. For that, you need astrology. Similarly, economics can tell you that if the price went up people would demand less, and companies would supply more, that things would move to an equilibrium. But nobody's actually documented an "equilibrium." It does not mean it does not happen, and often.
The reason that economic predictions "fail" is that people also adjust their behaviors to expectations and predictions -- i.e., the system is not, unlike in a great deal of the natural world, deterministic (or relatively so). It is behavioral. Those are extremely difficult to predict with certainty. For instance, if I thought that everyone thought that stocks will go up, I should/will buy today. That, in turn, will make stocks go up because the demand for stocks went up, making one buy even more... and so on. But an objective person can step back and look at it -- as for example, Shiller did with the stock market in 2001 and with the housing market in 2007 -- and say that prices have deviated from fundamentals, and that things will correct. But one can't (just as Shiller didn't) say when.
More importantly, the role of any good model is really only to get you to think about "what if" or enable you, as a consumer, producer, investor, etc., to make "if-then" judgments. Without that, there is no basis for forecasting or planning anything. And without planning, there can be no resource allocation, and without resource allocation, all economic activity will grind to a halt. Period.
To say that it is not a "science" is extreme: then we should strike the phrase "social science" altogether. Economics is at least as good as any other branch of social science in its predictive validity.
You just expect too much of it, or are looking at the wrong models, or listening to the wrong economists.
Ok, since it was written especially for me, I reread it and see your point- somewhat.
I still don't understand why you think it's Apple and not AT&T that is keeping iPhone from expanding into other US markets?
It's both.
Apple needed something from a carrier, and AT&T gave it to them. But it also costs AT&T something.
When two companies join in a business venture, which is what this is, they must both benefit.
If only one benefits than it is a bad venture,
Here, it seems that both are benefitting.
Apple got AT&T to give up wide swaths of control. Never before had a carrier allowed a manufacturer to control music, apps, phone features, and to also have to re-write its mail software to allow something such as "Visual Voicemail", a major step up from what came before, even on the Blackberry.
AT&T wanted the phone so badly that they agreed to whatever Apple was willing to produce?even before they saw anything! They also gave Apple large amounts of money.
Who else was willing to do that? Verizon? apparently not.
So naturally, AT&T asked for a several year exclusive in the USA contract. That seems fair. Apple doesn't seem to be regretting it. After all, it was the successful launch of the iPhone that gave Apple the strong position it had in negotiations with the other carriers worldwide.
Once the contract is over, maybe things will change
But that requires LTE
The mistake that people make way too often -- perhaps you do too -- is to simplistically look to economic models and economists to say "what" and "when" at the same time. No model can. Anyone who claims to be able to do that is a charlatan.
I'm not looking at this simplistically. I understand it pretty well.
All that any good model can do is to describe tendencies in a system -- e.g., such as, "at a P/E of 25, the stock market is overvalued, and will correct in the other direction". It cannot tell you when it will correct. For that, you need astrology. Similarly, economics can tell you that if the price went up people would demand less, and companies would supply more, that things would move to an equilibrium. But nobody's actually documented an "equilibrium." It does not mean it does not happen, and often.
Economics is far more than that. If that was all it is then people wouldn't be getting Phd's in it. economics 101 would be the beginning and the end.
I look at economic models all the time. they are very interesting. but the value to a model is its predictive validity. and that's where things fall apart.
The government and businesses employ tens of thousands of economists. They are plugging data into their models constantly. They look for trends, hoping to predict what will happen next week, next month, in six months, a year, two years. But they rarely get it right for more than a low batting average.
Remember Long Term Capital? They had several Nobel Prize economists as owners of the fund. They came up with these complex models. They crashed very badly, and almost took the entire market with them. What happened? They forgot that their models only took average moves into account. they never looked at what would happen with a big swing.
What about all these economists working for the other hedge funds that crashed? The brokerage funds? None of them saw what turned out to be obvious, and look at where we are!
The reason that economic predictions "fail" is that people also adjust their behaviors to expectations and predictions -- i.e., the system is not, unlike in a great deal of the natural world, deterministic (or relatively so). It is behavioral. Those are extremely difficult to predict with certainty. For instance, if I thought that everyone thought that stocks will go up, I should/will buy today. That, in turn, will make stocks go up because the demand for stocks went up, making one buy even more... and so on. But an objective person can step back and look at it -- as for example, Shiller did with the stock market in 2001 and with the housing market in 2007 -- and say that prices have deviated from fundamentals, and that things will correct. But one can't (just as Shiller didn't) say when.
I'm not arguing with you there. In fact, that's what I was telling you.
Economists need to be psychologists as well.
Some of these guys get into a groove for a while, but then crash just like everyone else. It's a matter of luck for them too.
More importantly, the role of any good model is really only to get you to think about "what if" or enable you, as a consumer, producer, investor, etc., to make "if-then" judgments. Without that, there is no basis for forecasting or planning anything. And without planning, there can be no resource allocation, and without resource allocation, all economic activity will grind to a halt. Period.
Of course. But the consumer can't evaluate any of this. Even "sophisticated investors" got taken by Madoff and others.
To say that it is not a "science" is extreme: then we should strike the phrase "social science" altogether. Economics is at least as good as any other branch of social science in its predictive validity.
My degrees are in psychology and biology, with a minor in physics.
I gave up on psychology early, because it's really a pseudo-science right now, like all of the other social sciences, which is what economics is.
Since its not ethical to experiment on people, we have no way of doing a proper experiment in a way that will satisfy the rigorous rules we use in the other sciences. That makes much of social science a very inexact area of research.
We can't get a million people and put them in an area by themselves and do social science on them the way the Soviets almost did when they moved populations around like sheep.
Therefor, much theory is not verified in practice. The common, (and fun!) practice of using undergrad students for subjects in experiments is nice, but it doesn't represent enough of the complex world we live in.
And that's why we have Friedman on the one side, and Galbraith on the other, both addressing the same situation, but coming out with totally different theories.
You just expect too much of it, or are looking at the wrong models, or listening to the wrong economists.
Yes, I expect it to work somewhat. That is too much to expect.
So far, all the models are wrong, and so are the ones making them.
It's both.
Apple needed something from a carrier, and AT&T gave it to them. But it also costs AT&T something.
When two companies join in a business venture, which is what this is, they must both benefit.
If only one benefits than it is a bad venture,
Here, it seems that both are benefitting.
Apple got AT&T to give up wide swaths of control. Never before had a carrier allowed a manufacturer to control music, apps, phone features, and to also have to re-write its mail software to allow something such as "Visual Voicemail", a major step up from what came before, even on the Blackberry.
AT&T wanted the phone so badly that they agreed to whatever Apple was willing to produce—even before they saw anything! They also gave Apple large amounts of money.
Who else was willing to do that? Verizon? apparently not.
So naturally, AT&T asked for a several year exclusive in the USA contract. That seems fair. Apple doesn't seem to be regretting it. After all, it was the successful launch of the iPhone that gave Apple the strong position it had in negotiations with the other carriers worldwide.
Once the contract is over, maybe things will change
But that requires LTE
Perfect. Thank you- that makes sense.
Now I wonder how Apple feels about the AT&T service issues. It's like the baby and the bath water.
It does seem like AT&T is benefitting more in the long term with their mediocre service of the last 2 years.
Perfect. Thank you- that makes sense.
Now I wonder how Apple feels about the AT&T service issues. It's like the baby and the bath water.
It does seem like AT&T is benefitting more in the long term with their mediocre service of the last 2 years.
AT&T stated that sales of the iPhone were so much higher than they expected that they couldn't keep up with the network traffic. Supposedly, neither they nor Apple expected quite as much data usage as they had.
AT&T's got over 20,000 towers, maybe by now, 30,000. They just said that they were adding 2,100 more this year. That's a lot of expansion.
I would imagine that if the iPhone was with Verizon instead, things wouldn't be that much better.