I don't buy that logic as it would completely make the exclusive deal with AT&T pointless if Apple could release a nearly identical iPhone with a different model number. I'd bet money that Cingular gets exclusive rights to the US market for a set amount of years regardless of changes made to the iPhone line.
I'd agree with you, except for the fact that Cingular/ATT has been so very careful to avoid spelling out their agreement with Apple in detail. Seems like if they really did have a five-year lock on all US-released Apple phones, period, no questions asked, they would've announced it by now.
Perhaps at a press conference with a giant banner backdrop that says, "Ha ha Verizon. Neener neener neener."
Methinks that since that hasn't happened, there's some kind of loophole in there somewhere, or perhaps it's not as long a term as ATT wanted to give the impression of it being. Remember, Stevie has a somewhat notorious history of making agreements his way.
I'd agree with you, except for the fact that Cingular/ATT has been so very careful to avoid spelling out their agreement with Apple in detail. Seems like if they really did have a five-year lock on all US-released Apple phones, period, no questions asked, they would've announced it by now.
Perhaps at a press conference with a giant banner backdrop that says, "Ha ha Verizon. Neener neener neener."
Methinks that since that hasn't happened, there's some kind of loophole in there somewhere, or perhaps it's not as long a term as ATT wanted to give the impression of it being. Remember, Stevie has a somewhat notorious history of making agreements his way.
.
You do make some valid points.
1) Jobs is a shrewd deal maker and the terms always favor Apple more.
2) If I were CIngular and thought I may lose potential customers if they thought they could wait out the 2 years with there current carrier until the offer the iPhone I may let them know.
1) Jobs is a shrewd deal maker and the terms always favor Apple more.
2) If I were CIngular and thought I may lose potential customers if they thought they could wait out the 2 years with there current carrier until the offer the iPhone I may let them know.
Yeah. Something just smells funny, y'know?
Let's just say I won't be utterly shocked if 2009 rolls around and I can use some form of iPhone on Sprint or Verizon.
Let's just say I won't be utterly shocked if 2009 rolls around and I can use some form of iPhone on Sprint or Verizon.
.
The only problem with that is that Apple would have to commit to produce CDMA versions as well.
CDMA is more power hungery than GSM, even though I;'m on Sprint.
If you go to PhoneScoop, and compare phones that have both versions, you will find that the CDMA versions have less talk and standby battery life. That could be a problem for a phone with both Bluetooth and WiFi.
The only problem with that is that Apple would have to commit to produce CDMA versions as well.
CDMA is more power hungery than GSM, even though I;'m on Sprint.
If you go to PhoneScoop, and compare phones that have both versions, you will find that the CDMA versions have less talk and standby battery life. That could be a problem for a phone with both Bluetooth and WiFi.
Apple will eventually have to make a CDMA version in any case... while GSM is much more popular overseas, CDMA is the most popular technology in the US. And Cingular/ATT, big as it is, is only a bit more than 25% of the US wireless market.
Yep, CDMA is more power-hungry than GSM. But it has distinct advantages over GSM as well (soft handoffs, greater tower capacity, a generally greater tolerance for weak signals, and if all else is equal probably a lower likelihood of dropping the call... despite what Cingular says in its ads). Its limitations re: power consumption haven't prevented phonemakers from coming out with CDMA versions of their phones, even power-hungry 3G phones. The RAZR would be a good example.
And, if you think about it, it's probably helpful that we won't see a CDMA version 'til at least 2009. Gives Apple a chance to fine-tune the power management, and potentially use better battery technology as well (Li-polymer, Silver-zinc, Li-sulphur).
Far as PhoneScoop goes, I used to practically live there. Very good site, though if you check out the carrier forums there, have your BS filter on- a LOT of cellphone salesmen and fanbois hang out there, and of course THEIR carrier and/or favorite phone maker can do no wrong.
I also highly recommend HowardForums, which tends to be slightly more polite.
Apple will eventually have to make a CDMA version in any case... while GSM is much more popular overseas, CDMA is the most popular technology in the US. And Cingular/ATT, big as it is, is only a bit more than 25% of the US wireless market.
Yep, CDMA is more power-hungry than GSM. But it has distinct advantages over GSM as well (soft handoffs, greater tower capacity, a generally greater tolerance for weak signals, and if all else is equal probably a lower likelihood of dropping the call... despite what Cingular says in its ads). Its limitations re: power consumption haven't prevented phonemakers from coming out with CDMA versions of their phones, even power-hungry 3G phones. The RAZR would be a good example.
And, if you think about it, it's probably helpful that we won't see a CDMA version 'til at least 2009. Gives Apple a chance to fine-tune the power management, and potentially use better battery technology as well (Li-polymer, Silver-zinc, Li-sulphur).
Far as PhoneScoop goes, I used to practically live there. Very good site, though if you check out the carrier forums there, have your BS filter on- a LOT of cellphone salesmen and fanbois hang out there, and of course THEIR carrier and/or favorite phone maker can do no wrong.
I also highly recommend HowardForums, which tends to be slightly more polite.
.
I prefer CDMA to GSM. I'm just trying to find a reason why Apple may not choose to come out with one. The reason is that there has already been criticism of the stated talk time, and the fact that a standby time hasn't even been given. The fact that both would be even shorter with CDMA could be a stumbling block. Otherwise, I think CDMA is superior to GSM in most every way. The other issues are less tangible to most folks though. Dropped calls are more likely to be blamed on the carrier than on the method of transmission.
I don't really hang out at the forums. But the site itself is almost a requirement if you need phone info. I like the fact that they link to the FCC's test reports. I'm hoping that we will see on for the iPhone once the testing is complete.
I prefer CDMA to GSM. I'm just trying to find a reason why Apple may not choose to come out with one. The reason is that there has already been criticism of the stated talk time, and the fact that a standby time hasn't even been given. The fact that both would be even shorter with CDMA could be a stumbling block. Otherwise, I think CDMA is superior to GSM in most every way. The other issues are less tangible to most folks though. Dropped calls are more likely to be blamed on the carrier than on the method of transmission.
How much of the battery's life is due to the phone radio, as in, how much would it really change?
Standby time is not really a problem for my CDMA phone, I never turn it off, it never dies and I only charge it once a week. The phone's battery is also three years old, but for some reason, the effective talk time is reduced a lot, but the standby time hasn't changed much.
How much of the battery's life is due to the phone radio, as in, how much would it really change?
Standby time is not really a problem for my CDMA phone, I never turn it off, it never dies and I only charge it once a week. The phone's battery is also three years old, but for some reason, the effective talk time is reduced a lot, but the standby time hasn't changed much.
Go to Phonescoop and check out the phones that have both models you will see the difference. The site allows you to pick models and make direct comparisons, so it's easy.
The problem is that we are not talking about basic phones here. PDA phones already make heavier demands on the battery than do regular phones. Add the wireless extras, and battery life sucks. I use my Treo for many things, and so I plug it into the charger every night. My old color Palm IIIC could easily go for a week without charging, but not any of my PDA phone versions.
How much of the battery's life is due to the phone radio, as in, how much would it really change?
Standby time is not really a problem for my CDMA phone, I never turn it off, it never dies and I only charge it once a week. The phone's battery is also three years old, but for some reason, the effective talk time is reduced a lot, but the standby time hasn't changed much.
You only charge it once a week? May i ask what phone you use?
Whats wrong with Lithium Polymer? I thought that type battery was good?
Anyway people what do you think the chances are of more "gestures" being available when the phone is released.
I too am under the mpression that Li-Poly is better than Li-Ion. I've read that it has about 10-12% longer output for the same size battery and it can be formed into more irregular shapes so the battery can be designed around the phone instead of the other way around.
I too am under the mpression that Li-Poly is better than Li-Ion. I've read that it has about 10-12% longer output for the same size battery and it can be formed into more irregular shapes so the battery can be designed around the phone instead of the other way around.
Some info on this wold be great.
I remember differently, that Lithium Polymer is more flexible with respect to shape, but doesn't store as much charge per weight. I don't remember the relative weight differences though, maybe LiPoly is allows a smaller but heavier battery for the unit charge.
In all seriousness does it really matter. You know what he iphone looks like so whats the point in duscussing the possible shape of the phone in respect to the battery. Li Po is better than Li ion in terns of usage. All major companies use Li Po these days in all their new products. I think all Nokia n ranges do as do SE's.
Although what concerns me is that no standby time was ever given for the iphone only a talk(usage) time. This either means its very poor or Apple are trying to make it better.
I prefer CDMA to GSM. I'm just trying to find a reason why Apple may not choose to come out with one. The reason is that there has already been criticism of the stated talk time, and the fact that a standby time hasn't even been given. The fact that both would be even shorter with CDMA could be a stumbling block.
You may be overthinking it, Mel. \
Remember, Cingular/ATT wasn't the first carrier Apple offered the iPhone to... Verizon was. Which would've necessitated a CDMA iPhone. I don't think Apple would've entered into serious negotiations with Verizon unless they could deliver a CDMA iPhone that would be well-received by the market, and part of that includes having acceptable talk and standby times (even on the GSM iPhone, talk time was mentioned during the Stevenote).
In fact, the above makes me wonder... were the very first iPhone prototypes actually CDMA then? They would've had to show Verizon something, I think. Hmm...
Remember, Cingular/ATT wasn't the first carrier Apple offered the iPhone to... Verizon was. Which would've necessitated a CDMA iPhone. I don't think Apple would've entered into serious negotiations with Verizon unless they could deliver a CDMA iPhone that would be well-received by the market, and part of that includes having acceptable talk and standby times (even on the GSM iPhone, talk time was mentioned during the Stevenote).
In fact, the above makes me wonder... were the very first iPhone prototypes actually CDMA then? They would've had to show Verizon something, I think. Hmm...
I wonder if Apple actually seriously considered a CDMA phone.
Even if Apple chose CDMA in the US, they would have to chose GSM outside North America.
Wanting to only get in bed with AT&T means that they can work with only one company and only one phone build in the US. Less time and money spent working out the logistics of the creating new interoperability between hardware and network services.
if I were in Jobs position I'd start negotiations will all the major competitors of the company I really wanted to pair with in order to strengthen my bargaining position.
Verizon's remarks about the iPhone had a bit of a "sour grapes" rings to me.
Even if Apple chose CDMA in the US, they would have to chose GSM outside North America.
Which really isn't a big deal. CDMA technology is mature, inexpensive, and well understood. It's not difficult at all to make a phone in both CDMA and GSM 'flavors'... the RAZR is, for example.
Quote:
1. Wanting to only get in bed with AT&T means that they can work with only one company and only one phone build in the US. Less time and money spent working out the logistics of the creating new interoperability between hardware and network services.
Again, it's not really a large hurdle. Motorola doesn't seem to have any problem cranking out both GSM and CDMA RAZRs for the US market, in fact, they're happy to, since the US market is split almost 50-50 between CDMA and GSM (with CDMA being a bit ahead) and doing so effectively doubles their revenues here.
At some point, Apple will have to make a CDMA iPhone if they really truly want to cash in on the US market. Cingular/ATT is only a little more than 25% of the US market... would not Apple want to eventually sell to the entire market? This is one of the things that makes me think that the exclusivity clause of the Apple-ATT contract either has loopholes for new models or is of a shorter duration than ATT is giving the impression of it being.
Quote:
2. If I were in Jobs position I'd start negotiations will all the major competitors of the company I really wanted to pair with in order to strengthen my bargaining position.
Perhaps, but here's the thing... what if Verizon had said "Yes."??? What does Steve say then? "Um... err... just kidding. Heh."
I think it's more realistic to believe that Jobs had a Plan A (Verizon, whom he approached first) and a Plan B (ATT/Cingular), and he was only too happy to play them off against one another in order to secure better terms for Apple. But he was likely prepared to go with either. If you think about it, these two carriers were the only realistic partners for Apple in the US market, what with the only other potentials being T-Mobile (too small) and Sprint-Nextel (going through merger hell, generally underperforming, and in the midst of a not-fun major technology migration from iDEN to CDMA for its Nextel customers).
Basically, Jobs shopped the iPhone to 'everyone who made sense' in the US. Since the technological hurdles of making both a CDMA and a GSM version aren't high, it's logical to assume that he was willing to go with whomever came closer to meeting his terms, i.e. whomever needed the iPhone more. That was ATT.
Quote:
3. Verizon's remarks about the iPhone had a bit of a "sour grapes" rings to me.
Of course. Jobs gave them a shot at it, but on terms that Verizon wasn't willing to agree to, and now its in the hands of Verizon's #1 competitor, who's going to club them over the head with it mercilessly until and unless Verizon gets their own version, which even in a best case scenario won't be for awhile.
They're also pissed because they're used to a world in which the carriers have always told the phonemakers what they want and the phonemakers then jump to it (even majors like Nokia and Motorola). The carriers had the power, the control. Apple went directly in the face of that, and Verizon was just not used to it. I can only imagine what the negotiations must've been like:
Comments
I don't buy that logic as it would completely make the exclusive deal with AT&T pointless if Apple could release a nearly identical iPhone with a different model number. I'd bet money that Cingular gets exclusive rights to the US market for a set amount of years regardless of changes made to the iPhone line.
I'd agree with you, except for the fact that Cingular/ATT has been so very careful to avoid spelling out their agreement with Apple in detail. Seems like if they really did have a five-year lock on all US-released Apple phones, period, no questions asked, they would've announced it by now.
Perhaps at a press conference with a giant banner backdrop that says, "Ha ha Verizon. Neener neener neener."
Methinks that since that hasn't happened, there's some kind of loophole in there somewhere, or perhaps it's not as long a term as ATT wanted to give the impression of it being. Remember, Stevie has a somewhat notorious history of making agreements his way.
.
I'd agree with you, except for the fact that Cingular/ATT has been so very careful to avoid spelling out their agreement with Apple in detail. Seems like if they really did have a five-year lock on all US-released Apple phones, period, no questions asked, they would've announced it by now.
Perhaps at a press conference with a giant banner backdrop that says, "Ha ha Verizon. Neener neener neener."
Methinks that since that hasn't happened, there's some kind of loophole in there somewhere, or perhaps it's not as long a term as ATT wanted to give the impression of it being. Remember, Stevie has a somewhat notorious history of making agreements his way.
.
You do make some valid points.
1) Jobs is a shrewd deal maker and the terms always favor Apple more.
2) If I were CIngular and thought I may lose potential customers if they thought they could wait out the 2 years with there current carrier until the offer the iPhone I may let them know.
You do make some valid points.
1) Jobs is a shrewd deal maker and the terms always favor Apple more.
2) If I were CIngular and thought I may lose potential customers if they thought they could wait out the 2 years with there current carrier until the offer the iPhone I may let them know.
Yeah. Something just smells funny, y'know?
Let's just say I won't be utterly shocked if 2009 rolls around and I can use some form of iPhone on Sprint or Verizon.
.
Yeah. Something just smells funny, y'know?
Let's just say I won't be utterly shocked if 2009 rolls around and I can use some form of iPhone on Sprint or Verizon.
.
The only problem with that is that Apple would have to commit to produce CDMA versions as well.
CDMA is more power hungery than GSM, even though I;'m on Sprint.
If you go to PhoneScoop, and compare phones that have both versions, you will find that the CDMA versions have less talk and standby battery life. That could be a problem for a phone with both Bluetooth and WiFi.
The only problem with that is that Apple would have to commit to produce CDMA versions as well.
CDMA is more power hungery than GSM, even though I;'m on Sprint.
If you go to PhoneScoop, and compare phones that have both versions, you will find that the CDMA versions have less talk and standby battery life. That could be a problem for a phone with both Bluetooth and WiFi.
Apple will eventually have to make a CDMA version in any case... while GSM is much more popular overseas, CDMA is the most popular technology in the US. And Cingular/ATT, big as it is, is only a bit more than 25% of the US wireless market.
Yep, CDMA is more power-hungry than GSM. But it has distinct advantages over GSM as well (soft handoffs, greater tower capacity, a generally greater tolerance for weak signals, and if all else is equal probably a lower likelihood of dropping the call... despite what Cingular says in its ads). Its limitations re: power consumption haven't prevented phonemakers from coming out with CDMA versions of their phones, even power-hungry 3G phones. The RAZR would be a good example.
And, if you think about it, it's probably helpful that we won't see a CDMA version 'til at least 2009. Gives Apple a chance to fine-tune the power management, and potentially use better battery technology as well (Li-polymer, Silver-zinc, Li-sulphur).
Far as PhoneScoop goes, I used to practically live there. Very good site, though if you check out the carrier forums there, have your BS filter on- a LOT of cellphone salesmen and fanbois hang out there, and of course THEIR carrier and/or favorite phone maker can do no wrong.
I also highly recommend HowardForums, which tends to be slightly more polite.
.
.
Anyway people what do you think the chances are of more "gestures" being available when the phone is released.
Apple will eventually have to make a CDMA version in any case... while GSM is much more popular overseas, CDMA is the most popular technology in the US. And Cingular/ATT, big as it is, is only a bit more than 25% of the US wireless market.
Yep, CDMA is more power-hungry than GSM. But it has distinct advantages over GSM as well (soft handoffs, greater tower capacity, a generally greater tolerance for weak signals, and if all else is equal probably a lower likelihood of dropping the call... despite what Cingular says in its ads). Its limitations re: power consumption haven't prevented phonemakers from coming out with CDMA versions of their phones, even power-hungry 3G phones. The RAZR would be a good example.
And, if you think about it, it's probably helpful that we won't see a CDMA version 'til at least 2009. Gives Apple a chance to fine-tune the power management, and potentially use better battery technology as well (Li-polymer, Silver-zinc, Li-sulphur).
Far as PhoneScoop goes, I used to practically live there. Very good site, though if you check out the carrier forums there, have your BS filter on- a LOT of cellphone salesmen and fanbois hang out there, and of course THEIR carrier and/or favorite phone maker can do no wrong.
I also highly recommend HowardForums, which tends to be slightly more polite.
.
I prefer CDMA to GSM. I'm just trying to find a reason why Apple may not choose to come out with one. The reason is that there has already been criticism of the stated talk time, and the fact that a standby time hasn't even been given. The fact that both would be even shorter with CDMA could be a stumbling block. Otherwise, I think CDMA is superior to GSM in most every way. The other issues are less tangible to most folks though. Dropped calls are more likely to be blamed on the carrier than on the method of transmission.
I don't really hang out at the forums. But the site itself is almost a requirement if you need phone info. I like the fact that they link to the FCC's test reports. I'm hoping that we will see on for the iPhone once the testing is complete.
I prefer CDMA to GSM. I'm just trying to find a reason why Apple may not choose to come out with one. The reason is that there has already been criticism of the stated talk time, and the fact that a standby time hasn't even been given. The fact that both would be even shorter with CDMA could be a stumbling block. Otherwise, I think CDMA is superior to GSM in most every way. The other issues are less tangible to most folks though. Dropped calls are more likely to be blamed on the carrier than on the method of transmission.
How much of the battery's life is due to the phone radio, as in, how much would it really change?
Standby time is not really a problem for my CDMA phone, I never turn it off, it never dies and I only charge it once a week. The phone's battery is also three years old, but for some reason, the effective talk time is reduced a lot, but the standby time hasn't changed much.
How much of the battery's life is due to the phone radio, as in, how much would it really change?
Standby time is not really a problem for my CDMA phone, I never turn it off, it never dies and I only charge it once a week. The phone's battery is also three years old, but for some reason, the effective talk time is reduced a lot, but the standby time hasn't changed much.
Go to Phonescoop and check out the phones that have both models you will see the difference. The site allows you to pick models and make direct comparisons, so it's easy.
The problem is that we are not talking about basic phones here. PDA phones already make heavier demands on the battery than do regular phones. Add the wireless extras, and battery life sucks. I use my Treo for many things, and so I plug it into the charger every night. My old color Palm IIIC could easily go for a week without charging, but not any of my PDA phone versions.
How much of the battery's life is due to the phone radio, as in, how much would it really change?
Standby time is not really a problem for my CDMA phone, I never turn it off, it never dies and I only charge it once a week. The phone's battery is also three years old, but for some reason, the effective talk time is reduced a lot, but the standby time hasn't changed much.
You only charge it once a week? May i ask what phone you use?
You only charge it once a week? May i ask what phone you use?
Sanyo SCP 4900.
Whats wrong with Lithium Polymer? I thought that type battery was good?
Anyway people what do you think the chances are of more "gestures" being available when the phone is released.
I too am under the mpression that Li-Poly is better than Li-Ion. I've read that it has about 10-12% longer output for the same size battery and it can be formed into more irregular shapes so the battery can be designed around the phone instead of the other way around.
Some info on this wold be great.
I too am under the mpression that Li-Poly is better than Li-Ion. I've read that it has about 10-12% longer output for the same size battery and it can be formed into more irregular shapes so the battery can be designed around the phone instead of the other way around.
Some info on this wold be great.
I remember differently, that Lithium Polymer is more flexible with respect to shape, but doesn't store as much charge per weight. I don't remember the relative weight differences though, maybe LiPoly is allows a smaller but heavier battery for the unit charge.
Although what concerns me is that no standby time was ever given for the iphone only a talk(usage) time. This either means its very poor or Apple are trying to make it better.
Hope that helps my YHOO stock.
I prefer CDMA to GSM. I'm just trying to find a reason why Apple may not choose to come out with one. The reason is that there has already been criticism of the stated talk time, and the fact that a standby time hasn't even been given. The fact that both would be even shorter with CDMA could be a stumbling block.
You may be overthinking it, Mel.
Remember, Cingular/ATT wasn't the first carrier Apple offered the iPhone to... Verizon was. Which would've necessitated a CDMA iPhone. I don't think Apple would've entered into serious negotiations with Verizon unless they could deliver a CDMA iPhone that would be well-received by the market, and part of that includes having acceptable talk and standby times (even on the GSM iPhone, talk time was mentioned during the Stevenote).
In fact, the above makes me wonder... were the very first iPhone prototypes actually CDMA then? They would've had to show Verizon something, I think. Hmm...
.
You may be overthinking it, Mel.
Remember, Cingular/ATT wasn't the first carrier Apple offered the iPhone to... Verizon was. Which would've necessitated a CDMA iPhone. I don't think Apple would've entered into serious negotiations with Verizon unless they could deliver a CDMA iPhone that would be well-received by the market, and part of that includes having acceptable talk and standby times (even on the GSM iPhone, talk time was mentioned during the Stevenote).
In fact, the above makes me wonder... were the very first iPhone prototypes actually CDMA then? They would've had to show Verizon something, I think. Hmm...
I wonder if Apple actually seriously considered a CDMA phone.
Even if Apple chose CDMA in the US, they would have to chose GSM outside North America.
Which really isn't a big deal. CDMA technology is mature, inexpensive, and well understood. It's not difficult at all to make a phone in both CDMA and GSM 'flavors'... the RAZR is, for example.
1. Wanting to only get in bed with AT&T means that they can work with only one company and only one phone build in the US. Less time and money spent working out the logistics of the creating new interoperability between hardware and network services.
Again, it's not really a large hurdle. Motorola doesn't seem to have any problem cranking out both GSM and CDMA RAZRs for the US market, in fact, they're happy to, since the US market is split almost 50-50 between CDMA and GSM (with CDMA being a bit ahead) and doing so effectively doubles their revenues here.
At some point, Apple will have to make a CDMA iPhone if they really truly want to cash in on the US market. Cingular/ATT is only a little more than 25% of the US market... would not Apple want to eventually sell to the entire market? This is one of the things that makes me think that the exclusivity clause of the Apple-ATT contract either has loopholes for new models or is of a shorter duration than ATT is giving the impression of it being.
2. If I were in Jobs position I'd start negotiations will all the major competitors of the company I really wanted to pair with in order to strengthen my bargaining position.
Perhaps, but here's the thing... what if Verizon had said "Yes."??? What does Steve say then? "Um... err... just kidding. Heh."
I think it's more realistic to believe that Jobs had a Plan A (Verizon, whom he approached first) and a Plan B (ATT/Cingular), and he was only too happy to play them off against one another in order to secure better terms for Apple. But he was likely prepared to go with either. If you think about it, these two carriers were the only realistic partners for Apple in the US market, what with the only other potentials being T-Mobile (too small) and Sprint-Nextel (going through merger hell, generally underperforming, and in the midst of a not-fun major technology migration from iDEN to CDMA for its Nextel customers).
Basically, Jobs shopped the iPhone to 'everyone who made sense' in the US. Since the technological hurdles of making both a CDMA and a GSM version aren't high, it's logical to assume that he was willing to go with whomever came closer to meeting his terms, i.e. whomever needed the iPhone more. That was ATT.
3. Verizon's remarks about the iPhone had a bit of a "sour grapes" rings to me.
Of course. Jobs gave them a shot at it, but on terms that Verizon wasn't willing to agree to, and now its in the hands of Verizon's #1 competitor, who's going to club them over the head with it mercilessly until and unless Verizon gets their own version, which even in a best case scenario won't be for awhile.
They're also pissed because they're used to a world in which the carriers have always told the phonemakers what they want and the phonemakers then jump to it (even majors like Nokia and Motorola). The carriers had the power, the control. Apple went directly in the face of that, and Verizon was just not used to it. I can only imagine what the negotiations must've been like:
You want WHAT again, Steve?
They probably ain't laughing now.
.
http://theappleblog.com/2007/04/04/d...er-40-minutes/
First mistake was indeed having a fixed battery.