As a current AT&T/ Cingulat user, and past Sprint and T-mobile user, I have found that AT&T' service to be courteous and helpful, . . .
GSM has served my phone purposes well. I do use the device to make phone calls- perhaps that is my problem. . . .
To simply keep saying "sucks" adds nothing to our undestanding of your problem. One cannot generalize so superficially-- indeed, if AT&T were THAT bad, why would they be in the dominant position they are?
It you were at a table with me, and pints of beer all around, I could pleasantly discuss with you all of this from A-Z. However, it order to get the point across, I have to be blunt and a jerk. My apologies.
1. I have spent a substantial period of my life studying and implementing signal processing technologies. Have you? I know what GSM is. I know was GPRS is. I know what EDGE is. Do you?
2. Everyone I've ever brought it up with has had some bad experience with any given cellular service. It's pretty even all around. The nexus is 2003-2004. Whatever service you were using in 2003-2004 is bound to be the one you had a customer service problem with.
3. I am glad you made the mistake of saying "I do make phone calls." GSM has poor data rates and poor spectrum utilization. It's a 1988 technology developed in a part of the world that has been the shithole of EE technological development since the day Fourier died. And it shows. The quantization of the signal is reduced in order to fit enough users per cell. So the voice quality is bad. On GSM networks, it sounds like you're talking to a Cylon, circa 1978.
So, the end of the story is that any action against Qualcomm isn't going to make the iPhone a good phone. It's a shitty phone, because it uses GSM. It's a crippled device because it uses EDGE. The iPhone is the equivalent of the DeLorean: high priced, underpowered, but still awesome in a strange way. Apple has the marketing muscle to make it sell, but I'm not touching it until it's 3G. As a tool it's marginalized until it's 3G. And not fucking half-assed 3GSM "3G," but rather full blown, 1Mbps real-world-performance & high spectrum utilization 3G like W-CDMA or CDMA2000 (aka HSDPA, EVDO)
It you were at a table with me, and pints of beer all around, I could pleasantly discuss with you all of this from A-Z. However, it order to get the point across, I have to be blunt and a jerk. My apologies.
1. I have spent a substantial period of my life studying and implementing signal processing technologies. Have you? I know what GSM is. I know was GPRS is. I know what EDGE is. Do you?
2. Everyone I've ever brought it up with has had some bad experience with any given cellular service. It's pretty even all around. The nexus is 2003-2004. Whatever service you were using in 2003-2004 is bound to be the one you had a customer service problem with.
3. I am glad you made the mistake of saying "I do make phone calls." GSM has poor data rates and poor spectrum utilization. It's a 1988 technology developed in a part of the world that has been the shithole of EE technological development since the day Fourier died. And it shows. The quantization of the signal is reduced in order to fit enough users per cell. So the voice quality is bad. On GSM networks, it sounds like you're talking to a Cylon, circa 1978.
So, the end of the story is that any action against Qualcomm isn't going to make the iPhone a good phone. It's a shitty phone, because it uses GSM. It's a crippled device because it uses EDGE. The iPhone is the equivalent of the DeLorean: high priced, underpowered, but still awesome in a strange way. Apple has the marketing muscle to make it sell, but I'm not touching it until it's 3G. As a tool it's marginalized until it's 3G. And not fucking half-assed 3GSM "3G," but rather full blown, 1Mbps real-world-performance & high spectrum utilization 3G like W-CDMA or CDMA2000 (aka HSDPA, EVDO)
I've always agreed that CDMA is better than GSM, but we have some strong GSM supporters here, mostly from where it reigns as king.
Really? Why do you think Apple spent 3 years in the development.
To make a really good phone, maybe?
Quote:
They negotiated the AT&T deal over a year ago. They've been working together to throw the switch.
Think about the billions of dollars at stake.
Sure, but Apple apparently went to Verizon first. That should tell you something as well. And Apple does not have the ability to suddenly make ATT's network great... only ATT can do that, and they've been trying their best ever since the merger in '04, with uneven results.
Apple is betting not that ATT will be the best (despite their public 'attaboys') but that it will be 'good enough', and that EDGE also will be 'good enough'. And, hopefully, it will be. But in some parts of the country, its going to be quite a ride. And a lot of people are going to complain about EDGE, Wifi or no.
If the network is so bad, why did Apple put their precious reputation on the line with it?
ATT's network isn't so much 'bad', as it is relentlessly mediocre. Apple went with ATT because
1) Verizon didn't want to do the iPhone on Apple's terms, and turned them down
2) Sprint's a basket case currently, thanks to its recent merger, and
3) No one after 'the Big Three' was big enough... sorry, T-Mobile, Alltel, etc.
ATT was big enough and willing to deal. End o' story.
But, ATT did crimp the iPhone's style somewhat even on the drawing board, by having 3G coverage that was so limited that Apple could not go with 3G on the first iteration of the iPhone. \
Quote:
If there is a serious problem, the iPhone could fail. I would think that Apple has tested this plenty. I just don't see them thinking,"What the hell. if it works, it works".
Of course Apple has tested it, ATT as well... that's obvious, and happens with even the most entry-level handset. And I think ATT's network will muddle through... it just won't be optimal, that's all. That's not the history of that network. They're just hoping for 'good enough' here, and it should be. I just wouldn't expect 'great', overall.
Quote:
Just think about this. In a few years, Apple could be selling 50 million phones a year, if it is sucessful. That's big bucks. Bugger bucks than Apple has ever seen.
[cha-ching! calculations]
...Do you think Apple would risk all of that if they thought the network was so crappy?
Again, it's not a 'crappy' network, its just a mediocre one, that's lagging in reliability and 3G coverage compared to its best competition. But Apple did not have a lot of options. Given Verizon's intransigence, Sprint's obvious recent problems, and T-Mobile's small size and 'even slower than ATT' 3G deployment, ATT was the flawed, but inevitable choice. \
Apple however is putting a brave face on it, and is publicly calling ATT the best in public, even though privately, they know better. But saying anything else would be foolish. And it has convinced a lot of Apple fans and prospective iPhone buyers that ATT is 'teh awesome'.
In a year or two, ATT's network reliability and 3G coverage should be good enough that these issues will seem quaint. That's what $6 billion plus a year in capital expenditures will buy you (and no, ATT is not doing that for Apple's sake, they'd be doing the exact same thing even if there were no iPhone, otherwise their lunch would be eaten by Verizon, Sprint, et cetera. 'Fine EDGE' is a different, and much less expensive, story.). Its the timespan between now and then that will be interesting... hopefully not too interesting.
I've always agreed that CDMA is better than GSM, but we have some strong GSM supporters here, mostly from where it reigns as king.
GSM as a technology is crap. That was the point all along when I said "GSM sucks." Technologically, GSM objectively sucks. If someone likes it because the network he's on uses it, that's a issue of narcissism, not technology. It's much harder to answer the question: "Does narcissism suck?"
I've always agreed that CDMA is better than GSM, but we have some strong GSM supporters here, mostly from where it reigns as king.
Well, GSM 'reigns as king' in Europe only because it was mandated by regulators to be. Back in the '90s, they wanted all of Europe on one technology, and they chose GSM. The carriers did NOT have a choice... it was GSM or the highway, by law.
This is not to say that GSM is a steaming pile... you can provide good service with it, and many carriers worldwide do. But I think its telling that the air-interface on 3G GSM borrows heavily from CDMA (i.e WCDMA). There's just significant advantages, in terms of soft handoffs/call reliability, tower capacity, and tolerance for weaker signals, on CDMA's side. On GSM's side, the battery life on handsets is better. But everything else being equal, yeah, I'd go CDMA.
(My good friend feels the same way. He's an engineer for Motorola, in, yep, their cell phone division. His work product goes into both types of handsets.)
To simply keep saying "sucks" adds nothing to our undestanding of your problem. One cannot generalize so superficially-- indeed, if [name obscured] were THAT bad, why would they be in the dominant position they are?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
I agree, saying something sucks doesn't really add much to the discussion.
GSM as a technology is crap. That was the point all along when I said "GSM sucks." Technologically, GSM objectively sucks. If someone likes it because the network he's on uses it, that's a issue of narcissism, not technology. It's much harder to answer the question: "Does narcissism suck?"
I think it would be more accurate to say that GSM is old, not that it sucks. It still performs quite well, and I find that even when I am outside of 3G coverage these days, which is happening less and less often, the voice quality on GSM networks as they are implemented here in Ireland and other European countries that I travel l to frequently is excellent as long as you use a good handset. Myself? I won't be buying an iPhone until they add W-CDMA/UMTS/HSDPA. Currently posting this from a 3.6 Mbps HSDPA connection, which will be upgraded to 14.4 Mbps soon.
I currently pay €16.52 + VAT for my 3.6 Mbps HSDPA connection with a 10 GB monthly download limit. I want to be able to use a data plan like that on my iPhone with third party applications, as well as using it as a high speed modem. If I can't do that, it's no sale.
Here's a story AI should get on. Apple got off kind of lucky in a way for NOT having 3G in the iPhone, as many 3G chipsets/phones are affected by this bombshell ruling:
The case involves phones based on two types of high-speed wireless technology, EV-DO -- for which Qualcomm is the dominant chip supplier -- and W-CDMA.
ATT's network isn't so much 'bad', as it is relentlessly mediocre. Apple went with ATT because
1) Verizon didn't want to do the iPhone on Apple's terms, and turned them down
2) Sprint's a basket case currently, thanks to its recent merger, and
3) No one after 'the Big Three' was big enough... sorry, T-Mobile, Alltel, etc.
ATT was big enough and willing to deal. End o' story.
We don't know if any of that is true though. There have been plenty of those who have doubted it. I'm not so sure myself. I think it's more likely that Apple has both a CDMA and a GSM design, and wanted to go with both ATT and Verison, but gave up the CDMA version when Verison didn't play along. They decided that for whatever reason, they didn't want to go to Sprint.
As most 3G is actually based on CDMA, though it isn't CDMA as we know it, as Splinemodel has pointed out now, and as I have done in the past, Apple must have a model that handles that for the networks that are actual 3G, around the world, or they won't be able to go to those markets this year, and early next.
Quote:
But, ATT did crimp the iPhone's style somewhat even on the drawing board, by having 3G coverage that was so limited that Apple could not go with 3G on the first iteration of the iPhone. \
I'm going to wait to see just how cramped it really is before I'll feel qualified to comment on it.
Quote:
Of course Apple has tested it, ATT as well... that's obvious, and happens with even the most entry-level handset. And I think ATT's network will muddle through... it just won't be optimal, that's all. That's not the history of that network. They're just hoping for 'good enough' here, and it should be. I just wouldn't expect 'great', overall.
It won't be optimal. Yes. Optimal. That's the word.
And how many things are optimal? Very few. If this works well enough for most people, and it no doubt will, then that's all that will matter for now.
When they then come out with the 3G model, which Jobs did say they would, way back in January, then that will appear to be a bonus, and Apple will add features that the phone doesn't have now, because of the speed of the present service.
Quote:
Again, it's not a 'crappy' network, its just a mediocre one, that's lagging in reliability and 3G coverage compared to its best competition. But Apple did not have a lot of options. Given Verizon's intransigence, Sprint's obvious recent problems, and T-Mobile's small size and 'even slower than ATT' 3G deployment, ATT was the flawed, but inevitable choice. \
It isn't even a mediocre one. It's an average one. Remember that?average. People here always like to exaggerate. We see a spread that doesn't exist in the real world. Things that are fair are said to be dreadful, things that are good, are said to be superb. I always account for those exaggerations.
Quote:
Apple however is putting a brave face on it, and is publicly calling ATT the best in public, even though privately, they know better. But saying anything else would be foolish. And it has convinced a lot of Apple fans and prospective iPhone buyers that ATT is 'teh awesome'.
A company always refers to its partners as "the best". I never concern myself with that. It's to be expected. They would say that about Verison too, even though I don't know even one person who has had anything other than a bad experience with their billing and customer service departments.
Quote:
In a year or two, ATT's network reliability and 3G coverage should be good enough that these issues will seem quaint. That's what $6 billion plus a year in capital expenditures will buy you (and no, ATT is not doing that for Apple's sake, they'd be doing the exact same thing even if there were no iPhone, otherwise their lunch would be eaten by Verizon, Sprint, et cetera. 'Fine EDGE' is a different, and much less expensive, story.). Its the timespan between now and then that will be interesting... hopefully not too interesting.
.
All cell providers have gotten better over time, and will continue to, do so.
When I first got Sprint, about 6 years ago, there was pretty spotty coverage here in NYC, but now, it's just fine. I even get a strong signal where Verison doesn't have one. My friends with Cingular, ne ATT, have seen the same thing happen. It seems as though Verison has been the slowest to upgrade, as they have always been rated as the best, so the others have been catching up.
Nothing remains static.
ATT is better than either of its two halves before, because they have the benefit of both tower networks to fill in where before they had holes.
Don't put ATT down so much, like it or not, it's not so bad. The only real problem is the still limited 3G service, and we know that will be improving.
If anything, I would blame Apple for not designing the phone so as to include 3G now, so that where it is available, and when it will be available more widely, current customers would be able to take advantage of it.
Sweet post, you beat just about everyone on that news!
Except that as Apple has used, and I think still does, Broadcom chips in the past, there is no reason to believe that they are not using Broadcom chips in the phones that they, no doubt, have running in their labs right now.
That would render this entire issue moot for them.
Except that as Apple has used, and I think still does, Broadcom chips in the past, there is no reason to believe that they are not using Broadcom chips in the phones that they, no doubt, have running in their labs right now.
That would render this entire issue moot for them.
Yeah, Apple's not affected by the ban, that's been known from the outset, if it wasn't clear already.
The potential problems caused by the ban are an issue for the iPhone's competitors, not the iPhone.
Yeah, Apple's not affected by the ban, that's been known from the outset, if it wasn't clear already.
The potential problems caused by the ban are an issue for the iPhone's competitors, not the iPhone.
.
Richt. Except that the reasons given in articles in Forbes, among others, including here, about why it's because Apple doesn't have any 3G phone they are all right, while that is not the only reason.
We don't have boardroom spies (lol), but by the same token, this isn't exactly rocket science. If you know the players (carriers) and what they had to offer, and understand Apple's needs, its not difficult to come to the same conclusions.
It's also in line with much of what's been reported, and is not particularly speculative... its a fact that Verizon turned them down, its a fact that Sprint's been embroiled in a merger mess, its a fact that T-Mobile, Alltel, et cetera are far smaller than the Big Three carriers, and that T-Mobile lags in 3G deployment. No analytical genius is required here... the broad picture is reasonably clear to anyone who really follows or works with this stuff.
Quote:
I think it's more likely that Apple has both a CDMA and a GSM design, and wanted to go with both ATT and Verison, but gave up the CDMA version when Verison didn't play along.
I have heard no solid reports of that at all (but would like to, as it would be interesting). Not dismissing it, just saying I haven't heard that Apple originally wanted to go multi-carrier in the US.
Quote:
As most 3G is actually based on CDMA, though it isn't CDMA as we know it, as Splinemodel has pointed out now, and as I have done in the past, Apple must have a model that handles that for the networks that are actual 3G, around the world, or they won't be able to go to those markets this year, and early next.
Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. If you're saying that it would've been terribly difficult for Apple to make both a CDMA/EVDO version and GSM/WCDMA version at the same time, no, it isn't that hard, really. Many cell phone makers routinely release versions of their phones on multiple technologies (the RAZR, to name just one example). The chipsets needed are widely available, the issues are well-known. Its not an enormous hurdle.
Quote:
I'm going to wait to see just how cramped it really is before I'll feel qualified to comment on it.
That's a bit like saying "I'll go try dialup before I feel qualified to comment that it's slow." Some things are just known issues, Mel. EDGE is slow. The 'Fine EDGE' upgrades may help a bit, but its still slow.
Quote:
It won't be optimal. Yes. Optimal. That's the word.
Thanks. That's why I used it.
Quote:
And how many things are optimal? Very few. If this works well enough for most people, and it no doubt will, then that's all that will matter for now.
When they then come out with the 3G model, which Jobs did say they would, way back in January, then that will appear to be a bonus, and Apple will add features that the phone doesn't have now, because of the speed of the present service.
3G will appear to be a bonus to the uncritical. The critical or knowledgeable user will go, "It's about time. What took you so long?" But I would say that uncritical users outnumber knowledgeable ones, so it won't be anywhere near fatal. Plus, the UI, brilliant design, etc. will make many users, both critical and uncritical, very forgiving of any iPhone 1.0 flaws.
Quote:
It isn't even a mediocre [network]. It's an average one. Remember that—average.
I did:
mediocre
adjective
2. \tlacking exceptional quality or ability; "a novel of average merit"; "only a fair performance of the sonata"; "in fair health"; "the caliber of the students has gone from mediocre to above average"; "the performance was middling at best" [syn: average]
3. \tpoor to middling in quality; "there have been good and mediocre and bad artists"
Mediocre doesn't mean bad. Mediocre and average are largely the same thing, though it can imply 'low average' as well. And that's an accurate assessment of ATT's overall network and customer service at present. They may improve in the future.
Quote:
A company always refers to its partners as "the best". I never concern myself with that. It's to be expected. They would say that about Verison too, even though I don't know even one person who has had anything other than a bad experience with their billing and customer service departments.
Yes, but if they said that about Verizon, they would actually be correct, overall
It's not just me saying it either... compare churn rates, look at national surveys. Even Stan Sigman, the CEO of ATT/Cingular himself, has stated in interviews that Verizon is the benchmark that he's trying to match, and that he hopes to get there by end of '07. We'll see.
That said, there are definitely things I hate about Verizon too. Their insistence on crippling OBEX (object exchange) on most of their phones annoys a lot of people. They have no postpaid plans below $40, and no family share plans below $70. And they are a bit arrogant. This is why they're sometimes referred to as the 'Apple of the wireless world'. Which, on second thought, actually makes me dislike them a bit less.
Quote:
All cell providers have gotten better over time, and will continue to, do so.
Yes, but few are spending quite as much money as ATT/Cingular is to do so. It is a very big deal to them, and one of the nicer things I can say about the company. It's just that its been slow going.
It took them a long time to integrate the Cingular and old ATT Wireless networks (which wasn't just two networks, but several... GSM, TDMA, analog, 3G, etc.), and its been taking them a long time to get their 3G really going. Their challenges are huge, but the resources they're putting towards solving them are huge as well.
Quote:
ATT is better than either of its two halves before, because they have the benefit of both tower networks to fill in where before they had holes.
In areas where network integration is complete (which is most places by now), this can be somewhat true. But for a long time, before network integration was finished, things were a mess.
Keep in mind too, that merging with the old ATT Wireless didn't just bring in more towers... it also brought in 21 million more customers, i.e. the old ATT Wireless customers. Tower capacity increased, but so did load. Its not like they got the additional infrastructure but didn't have to support the additional customers. And ATT Wireless was in a pretty sorry state, network-wise, when Cingular bought them out. This was another thing that Cingular had to fix.
Quote:
Don't put ATT down so much, like it or not, it's not so bad. The only real problem is the still limited 3G service, and we know that will be improving.
I'm not putting them down, I'm just telling it like it is. They are mediocre, or average, as you like to put it, overall. This is not the same thing as 'bad', 'crappy', or 'sucks'. Now, the old ATT Wireless, pre-merger, sucked. They had a monthly customer churn rate of as high as 3.7%, more than twice than what ATT has today, more than triple what Verizon has. Customers were running screaming from them. ATT is far better than that.
But are they great? No. Are they even good, overall? No, though like any carrier, even the bad ones, they may be good in certain locations. But, they may become good overall, in 1-2 years, if things go according to plan. This is my hope.
Quote:
If anything, I would blame Apple for not designing the phone so as to include 3G now, so that where it is available, and when it will be available more widely, current customers would be able to take advantage of it.
3G now wasn't a good idea, and I actually support Apple in their decision.
Sure, people in the areas where ATT actually has good 3G coverage would be ecstatic, but everyone else (a sizeable majority) would have been screwed. EDGE is slow, I think that's a complaint we're going to hear repeatedly from iPhone users until Apple finally DOES release a 3G iPhone, but hey, at least EDGE's coverage is great.
Better a slow data connection than none at all. \
In closing, please understand that I'm not 'picking on' ATT. I'm just soberly assessing where they're at now. And if you read some interviews, even ATT execs admit that they've got a ways to go. Here's a quote from Stan Sigman, ATT/Cingular CEO himself, in a Business Week interview:
I don't think it's time for us to go out touting on a national basis that we have the best network until we do have the best network. I know where our network stacks up. There's absolutely no reason why we can't have as good a network as Verizon has. If we don't, we failed to execute.
Verizon is the best? Are you kidding? Every phone they sell, they remove the manufacturers OS and put on their own piece of crap, non-intuitive, ridiculously oogly, crippled menu system.
Comparing Verizon to Apple is just wrong.
Is there really any proof that they were Apple's first choice? I think it's more likely that Apple approached all the carriers and since Verizon wouldn't agree to give Apple control of the above items, and others probably, they were turned down.
Verizon has the best... customer service (though that is supremely relative).
Given that one of the terms that Apple negotiated with Cingular is that Apple will control customer support, that is also supremely irrelevant. Apple has negotiated that question out of the picture, and if Verizon was not willing to agree to this, then Apple did the right thing by not going with them.
Verizon has the best network and customer service (though that is supremely relative).
No one said they don't stick their evil and horrible branding all over their phones, disable OBEX, turn off bluetooth and the like.
Yep, overall, they do seem to have the best network in the US. Their customer service is only second-best, however... T-Mobile consistently wins the national surveys like JD Power in that area, has done so for years.
But, as you say, Verizon's policies are a different matter. Their disabling of OBEX is moronic, at best. I have heard of few other policies in the wireless world that have brought more badwill to a company than that one.
Given that one of the terms that Apple negotiated with Cingular is that Apple will control customer support, that is also supremely irrelevant. Apple has negotiated that question out of the picture, and if Verizon was not willing to agree to this, then Apple did the right thing by not going with them.
I can understand how Apple will control technical customer support with the iPhone... that makes sense. But I don't understand how Apple is going to take care of billing and things like that, which presumably would be through ATT/Cingular's billing system, not Apple's. ATT reps would seem to be the experts in that, having dealt with it for years.
I guess I'm wondering if Apple will take care of all customer support for the iPhone, if you follow.
Comments
As a current AT&T/ Cingulat user, and past Sprint and T-mobile user, I have found that AT&T' service to be courteous and helpful, . . .
GSM has served my phone purposes well. I do use the device to make phone calls- perhaps that is my problem. . . .
To simply keep saying "sucks" adds nothing to our undestanding of your problem. One cannot generalize so superficially-- indeed, if AT&T were THAT bad, why would they be in the dominant position they are?
It you were at a table with me, and pints of beer all around, I could pleasantly discuss with you all of this from A-Z. However, it order to get the point across, I have to be blunt and a jerk. My apologies.
1. I have spent a substantial period of my life studying and implementing signal processing technologies. Have you? I know what GSM is. I know was GPRS is. I know what EDGE is. Do you?
2. Everyone I've ever brought it up with has had some bad experience with any given cellular service. It's pretty even all around. The nexus is 2003-2004. Whatever service you were using in 2003-2004 is bound to be the one you had a customer service problem with.
3. I am glad you made the mistake of saying "I do make phone calls." GSM has poor data rates and poor spectrum utilization. It's a 1988 technology developed in a part of the world that has been the shithole of EE technological development since the day Fourier died. And it shows. The quantization of the signal is reduced in order to fit enough users per cell. So the voice quality is bad. On GSM networks, it sounds like you're talking to a Cylon, circa 1978.
So, the end of the story is that any action against Qualcomm isn't going to make the iPhone a good phone. It's a shitty phone, because it uses GSM. It's a crippled device because it uses EDGE. The iPhone is the equivalent of the DeLorean: high priced, underpowered, but still awesome in a strange way. Apple has the marketing muscle to make it sell, but I'm not touching it until it's 3G. As a tool it's marginalized until it's 3G. And not fucking half-assed 3GSM "3G," but rather full blown, 1Mbps real-world-performance & high spectrum utilization 3G like W-CDMA or CDMA2000 (aka HSDPA, EVDO)
It you were at a table with me, and pints of beer all around, I could pleasantly discuss with you all of this from A-Z. However, it order to get the point across, I have to be blunt and a jerk. My apologies.
1. I have spent a substantial period of my life studying and implementing signal processing technologies. Have you? I know what GSM is. I know was GPRS is. I know what EDGE is. Do you?
2. Everyone I've ever brought it up with has had some bad experience with any given cellular service. It's pretty even all around. The nexus is 2003-2004. Whatever service you were using in 2003-2004 is bound to be the one you had a customer service problem with.
3. I am glad you made the mistake of saying "I do make phone calls." GSM has poor data rates and poor spectrum utilization. It's a 1988 technology developed in a part of the world that has been the shithole of EE technological development since the day Fourier died. And it shows. The quantization of the signal is reduced in order to fit enough users per cell. So the voice quality is bad. On GSM networks, it sounds like you're talking to a Cylon, circa 1978.
So, the end of the story is that any action against Qualcomm isn't going to make the iPhone a good phone. It's a shitty phone, because it uses GSM. It's a crippled device because it uses EDGE. The iPhone is the equivalent of the DeLorean: high priced, underpowered, but still awesome in a strange way. Apple has the marketing muscle to make it sell, but I'm not touching it until it's 3G. As a tool it's marginalized until it's 3G. And not fucking half-assed 3GSM "3G," but rather full blown, 1Mbps real-world-performance & high spectrum utilization 3G like W-CDMA or CDMA2000 (aka HSDPA, EVDO)
I've always agreed that CDMA is better than GSM, but we have some strong GSM supporters here, mostly from where it reigns as king.
Really? Why do you think Apple spent 3 years in the development.
To make a really good phone, maybe?
They negotiated the AT&T deal over a year ago. They've been working together to throw the switch.
Think about the billions of dollars at stake.
Sure, but Apple apparently went to Verizon first. That should tell you something as well. And Apple does not have the ability to suddenly make ATT's network great... only ATT can do that, and they've been trying their best ever since the merger in '04, with uneven results.
Apple is betting not that ATT will be the best (despite their public 'attaboys') but that it will be 'good enough', and that EDGE also will be 'good enough'. And, hopefully, it will be. But in some parts of the country, its going to be quite a ride. And a lot of people are going to complain about EDGE, Wifi or no.
.
Just remember this:
If the network is so bad, why did Apple put their precious reputation on the line with it?
ATT's network isn't so much 'bad', as it is relentlessly mediocre. Apple went with ATT because
1) Verizon didn't want to do the iPhone on Apple's terms, and turned them down
2) Sprint's a basket case currently, thanks to its recent merger, and
3) No one after 'the Big Three' was big enough... sorry, T-Mobile, Alltel, etc.
ATT was big enough and willing to deal. End o' story.
But, ATT did crimp the iPhone's style somewhat even on the drawing board, by having 3G coverage that was so limited that Apple could not go with 3G on the first iteration of the iPhone.
If there is a serious problem, the iPhone could fail. I would think that Apple has tested this plenty. I just don't see them thinking,"What the hell. if it works, it works".
Of course Apple has tested it, ATT as well... that's obvious, and happens with even the most entry-level handset. And I think ATT's network will muddle through... it just won't be optimal, that's all. That's not the history of that network. They're just hoping for 'good enough' here, and it should be. I just wouldn't expect 'great', overall.
Just think about this. In a few years, Apple could be selling 50 million phones a year, if it is sucessful. That's big bucks. Bugger bucks than Apple has ever seen.
[cha-ching! calculations]
...Do you think Apple would risk all of that if they thought the network was so crappy?
Again, it's not a 'crappy' network, its just a mediocre one, that's lagging in reliability and 3G coverage compared to its best competition. But Apple did not have a lot of options. Given Verizon's intransigence, Sprint's obvious recent problems, and T-Mobile's small size and 'even slower than ATT' 3G deployment, ATT was the flawed, but inevitable choice.
Apple however is putting a brave face on it, and is publicly calling ATT the best in public, even though privately, they know better. But saying anything else would be foolish. And it has convinced a lot of Apple fans and prospective iPhone buyers that ATT is 'teh awesome'.
In a year or two, ATT's network reliability and 3G coverage should be good enough that these issues will seem quaint. That's what $6 billion plus a year in capital expenditures will buy you (and no, ATT is not doing that for Apple's sake, they'd be doing the exact same thing even if there were no iPhone, otherwise their lunch would be eaten by Verizon, Sprint, et cetera. 'Fine EDGE' is a different, and much less expensive, story.). Its the timespan between now and then that will be interesting... hopefully not too interesting.
.
I've always agreed that CDMA is better than GSM, but we have some strong GSM supporters here, mostly from where it reigns as king.
GSM as a technology is crap. That was the point all along when I said "GSM sucks." Technologically, GSM objectively sucks. If someone likes it because the network he's on uses it, that's a issue of narcissism, not technology. It's much harder to answer the question: "Does narcissism suck?"
I've always agreed that CDMA is better than GSM, but we have some strong GSM supporters here, mostly from where it reigns as king.
Well, GSM 'reigns as king' in Europe only because it was mandated by regulators to be. Back in the '90s, they wanted all of Europe on one technology, and they chose GSM. The carriers did NOT have a choice... it was GSM or the highway, by law.
This is not to say that GSM is a steaming pile... you can provide good service with it, and many carriers worldwide do. But I think its telling that the air-interface on 3G GSM borrows heavily from CDMA (i.e WCDMA). There's just significant advantages, in terms of soft handoffs/call reliability, tower capacity, and tolerance for weaker signals, on CDMA's side. On GSM's side, the battery life on handsets is better. But everything else being equal, yeah, I'd go CDMA.
(My good friend feels the same way. He's an engineer for Motorola, in, yep, their cell phone division. His work product goes into both types of handsets.)
.
To simply keep saying "sucks" adds nothing to our undestanding of your problem. One cannot generalize so superficially-- indeed, if [name obscured] were THAT bad, why would they be in the dominant position they are?
I agree, saying something sucks doesn't really add much to the discussion.
Microsoft sucks.
GSM as a technology is crap. That was the point all along when I said "GSM sucks." Technologically, GSM objectively sucks. If someone likes it because the network he's on uses it, that's a issue of narcissism, not technology. It's much harder to answer the question: "Does narcissism suck?"
I think it would be more accurate to say that GSM is old, not that it sucks. It still performs quite well, and I find that even when I am outside of 3G coverage these days, which is happening less and less often, the voice quality on GSM networks as they are implemented here in Ireland and other European countries that I travel l to frequently is excellent as long as you use a good handset. Myself? I won't be buying an iPhone until they add W-CDMA/UMTS/HSDPA. Currently posting this from a 3.6 Mbps HSDPA connection, which will be upgraded to 14.4 Mbps soon.
I currently pay €16.52 + VAT for my 3.6 Mbps HSDPA connection with a 10 GB monthly download limit. I want to be able to use a data plan like that on my iPhone with third party applications, as well as using it as a high speed modem. If I can't do that, it's no sale.
Actually, you weren't first. I beat both you and AI by a day:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...t=75197&page=2
Yesterday, 10:11 PM \t #49
TBaggins
Registered User
\t
Here's a story AI should get on. Apple got off kind of lucky in a way for NOT having 3G in the iPhone, as many 3G chipsets/phones are affected by this bombshell ruling:
The case involves phones based on two types of high-speed wireless technology, EV-DO -- for which Qualcomm is the dominant chip supplier -- and W-CDMA.
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/070607/qualc...dcom.html?.v=6
.
Sweet post, you beat just about everyone on that news!
ATT's network isn't so much 'bad', as it is relentlessly mediocre. Apple went with ATT because
1) Verizon didn't want to do the iPhone on Apple's terms, and turned them down
2) Sprint's a basket case currently, thanks to its recent merger, and
3) No one after 'the Big Three' was big enough... sorry, T-Mobile, Alltel, etc.
ATT was big enough and willing to deal. End o' story.
We don't know if any of that is true though. There have been plenty of those who have doubted it. I'm not so sure myself. I think it's more likely that Apple has both a CDMA and a GSM design, and wanted to go with both ATT and Verison, but gave up the CDMA version when Verison didn't play along. They decided that for whatever reason, they didn't want to go to Sprint.
As most 3G is actually based on CDMA, though it isn't CDMA as we know it, as Splinemodel has pointed out now, and as I have done in the past, Apple must have a model that handles that for the networks that are actual 3G, around the world, or they won't be able to go to those markets this year, and early next.
But, ATT did crimp the iPhone's style somewhat even on the drawing board, by having 3G coverage that was so limited that Apple could not go with 3G on the first iteration of the iPhone.
I'm going to wait to see just how cramped it really is before I'll feel qualified to comment on it.
Of course Apple has tested it, ATT as well... that's obvious, and happens with even the most entry-level handset. And I think ATT's network will muddle through... it just won't be optimal, that's all. That's not the history of that network. They're just hoping for 'good enough' here, and it should be. I just wouldn't expect 'great', overall.
It won't be optimal. Yes. Optimal. That's the word.
And how many things are optimal? Very few. If this works well enough for most people, and it no doubt will, then that's all that will matter for now.
When they then come out with the 3G model, which Jobs did say they would, way back in January, then that will appear to be a bonus, and Apple will add features that the phone doesn't have now, because of the speed of the present service.
Again, it's not a 'crappy' network, its just a mediocre one, that's lagging in reliability and 3G coverage compared to its best competition. But Apple did not have a lot of options. Given Verizon's intransigence, Sprint's obvious recent problems, and T-Mobile's small size and 'even slower than ATT' 3G deployment, ATT was the flawed, but inevitable choice.
It isn't even a mediocre one. It's an average one. Remember that?average. People here always like to exaggerate. We see a spread that doesn't exist in the real world. Things that are fair are said to be dreadful, things that are good, are said to be superb. I always account for those exaggerations.
Apple however is putting a brave face on it, and is publicly calling ATT the best in public, even though privately, they know better. But saying anything else would be foolish. And it has convinced a lot of Apple fans and prospective iPhone buyers that ATT is 'teh awesome'.
A company always refers to its partners as "the best". I never concern myself with that. It's to be expected. They would say that about Verison too, even though I don't know even one person who has had anything other than a bad experience with their billing and customer service departments.
In a year or two, ATT's network reliability and 3G coverage should be good enough that these issues will seem quaint. That's what $6 billion plus a year in capital expenditures will buy you (and no, ATT is not doing that for Apple's sake, they'd be doing the exact same thing even if there were no iPhone, otherwise their lunch would be eaten by Verizon, Sprint, et cetera. 'Fine EDGE' is a different, and much less expensive, story.). Its the timespan between now and then that will be interesting... hopefully not too interesting.
.
All cell providers have gotten better over time, and will continue to, do so.
When I first got Sprint, about 6 years ago, there was pretty spotty coverage here in NYC, but now, it's just fine. I even get a strong signal where Verison doesn't have one. My friends with Cingular, ne ATT, have seen the same thing happen. It seems as though Verison has been the slowest to upgrade, as they have always been rated as the best, so the others have been catching up.
Nothing remains static.
ATT is better than either of its two halves before, because they have the benefit of both tower networks to fill in where before they had holes.
Don't put ATT down so much, like it or not, it's not so bad. The only real problem is the still limited 3G service, and we know that will be improving.
If anything, I would blame Apple for not designing the phone so as to include 3G now, so that where it is available, and when it will be available more widely, current customers would be able to take advantage of it.
Sweet post, you beat just about everyone on that news!
Except that as Apple has used, and I think still does, Broadcom chips in the past, there is no reason to believe that they are not using Broadcom chips in the phones that they, no doubt, have running in their labs right now.
That would render this entire issue moot for them.
Sweet post, you beat just about everyone on that news!
Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week, you folks have been great.
.
Except that as Apple has used, and I think still does, Broadcom chips in the past, there is no reason to believe that they are not using Broadcom chips in the phones that they, no doubt, have running in their labs right now.
That would render this entire issue moot for them.
Yeah, Apple's not affected by the ban, that's been known from the outset, if it wasn't clear already.
The potential problems caused by the ban are an issue for the iPhone's competitors, not the iPhone.
.
Yeah, Apple's not affected by the ban, that's been known from the outset, if it wasn't clear already.
The potential problems caused by the ban are an issue for the iPhone's competitors, not the iPhone.
.
Richt. Except that the reasons given in articles in Forbes, among others, including here, about why it's because Apple doesn't have any 3G phone they are all right, while that is not the only reason.
We don't know if any of that is true though.
We don't have boardroom spies (lol), but by the same token, this isn't exactly rocket science. If you know the players (carriers) and what they had to offer, and understand Apple's needs, its not difficult to come to the same conclusions.
It's also in line with much of what's been reported, and is not particularly speculative... its a fact that Verizon turned them down, its a fact that Sprint's been embroiled in a merger mess, its a fact that T-Mobile, Alltel, et cetera are far smaller than the Big Three carriers, and that T-Mobile lags in 3G deployment. No analytical genius is required here... the broad picture is reasonably clear to anyone who really follows or works with this stuff.
I think it's more likely that Apple has both a CDMA and a GSM design, and wanted to go with both ATT and Verison, but gave up the CDMA version when Verison didn't play along.
I have heard no solid reports of that at all (but would like to, as it would be interesting). Not dismissing it, just saying I haven't heard that Apple originally wanted to go multi-carrier in the US.
As most 3G is actually based on CDMA, though it isn't CDMA as we know it, as Splinemodel has pointed out now, and as I have done in the past, Apple must have a model that handles that for the networks that are actual 3G, around the world, or they won't be able to go to those markets this year, and early next.
Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. If you're saying that it would've been terribly difficult for Apple to make both a CDMA/EVDO version and GSM/WCDMA version at the same time, no, it isn't that hard, really. Many cell phone makers routinely release versions of their phones on multiple technologies (the RAZR, to name just one example). The chipsets needed are widely available, the issues are well-known. Its not an enormous hurdle.
I'm going to wait to see just how cramped it really is before I'll feel qualified to comment on it.
That's a bit like saying "I'll go try dialup before I feel qualified to comment that it's slow." Some things are just known issues, Mel. EDGE is slow. The 'Fine EDGE' upgrades may help a bit, but its still slow.
It won't be optimal. Yes. Optimal. That's the word.
Thanks. That's why I used it.
And how many things are optimal? Very few. If this works well enough for most people, and it no doubt will, then that's all that will matter for now.
When they then come out with the 3G model, which Jobs did say they would, way back in January, then that will appear to be a bonus, and Apple will add features that the phone doesn't have now, because of the speed of the present service.
3G will appear to be a bonus to the uncritical. The critical or knowledgeable user will go, "It's about time. What took you so long?" But I would say that uncritical users outnumber knowledgeable ones, so it won't be anywhere near fatal. Plus, the UI, brilliant design, etc. will make many users, both critical and uncritical, very forgiving of any iPhone 1.0 flaws.
It isn't even a mediocre [network]. It's an average one. Remember that—average.
I did:
mediocre
adjective
2. \tlacking exceptional quality or ability; "a novel of average merit"; "only a fair performance of the sonata"; "in fair health"; "the caliber of the students has gone from mediocre to above average"; "the performance was middling at best" [syn: average]
3. \tpoor to middling in quality; "there have been good and mediocre and bad artists"
Mediocre doesn't mean bad. Mediocre and average are largely the same thing, though it can imply 'low average' as well. And that's an accurate assessment of ATT's overall network and customer service at present. They may improve in the future.
A company always refers to its partners as "the best". I never concern myself with that. It's to be expected. They would say that about Verison too, even though I don't know even one person who has had anything other than a bad experience with their billing and customer service departments.
Yes, but if they said that about Verizon, they would actually be correct, overall
It's not just me saying it either... compare churn rates, look at national surveys. Even Stan Sigman, the CEO of ATT/Cingular himself, has stated in interviews that Verizon is the benchmark that he's trying to match, and that he hopes to get there by end of '07. We'll see.
That said, there are definitely things I hate about Verizon too. Their insistence on crippling OBEX (object exchange) on most of their phones annoys a lot of people. They have no postpaid plans below $40, and no family share plans below $70. And they are a bit arrogant. This is why they're sometimes referred to as the 'Apple of the wireless world'. Which, on second thought, actually makes me dislike them a bit less.
All cell providers have gotten better over time, and will continue to, do so.
Yes, but few are spending quite as much money as ATT/Cingular is to do so. It is a very big deal to them, and one of the nicer things I can say about the company. It's just that its been slow going.
It took them a long time to integrate the Cingular and old ATT Wireless networks (which wasn't just two networks, but several... GSM, TDMA, analog, 3G, etc.), and its been taking them a long time to get their 3G really going. Their challenges are huge, but the resources they're putting towards solving them are huge as well.
ATT is better than either of its two halves before, because they have the benefit of both tower networks to fill in where before they had holes.
In areas where network integration is complete (which is most places by now), this can be somewhat true. But for a long time, before network integration was finished, things were a mess.
Keep in mind too, that merging with the old ATT Wireless didn't just bring in more towers... it also brought in 21 million more customers, i.e. the old ATT Wireless customers. Tower capacity increased, but so did load. Its not like they got the additional infrastructure but didn't have to support the additional customers. And ATT Wireless was in a pretty sorry state, network-wise, when Cingular bought them out. This was another thing that Cingular had to fix.
Don't put ATT down so much, like it or not, it's not so bad. The only real problem is the still limited 3G service, and we know that will be improving.
I'm not putting them down, I'm just telling it like it is. They are mediocre, or average, as you like to put it, overall. This is not the same thing as 'bad', 'crappy', or 'sucks'. Now, the old ATT Wireless, pre-merger, sucked. They had a monthly customer churn rate of as high as 3.7%, more than twice than what ATT has today, more than triple what Verizon has. Customers were running screaming from them. ATT is far better than that.
But are they great? No. Are they even good, overall? No, though like any carrier, even the bad ones, they may be good in certain locations. But, they may become good overall, in 1-2 years, if things go according to plan. This is my hope.
If anything, I would blame Apple for not designing the phone so as to include 3G now, so that where it is available, and when it will be available more widely, current customers would be able to take advantage of it.
3G now wasn't a good idea, and I actually support Apple in their decision.
Sure, people in the areas where ATT actually has good 3G coverage would be ecstatic, but everyone else (a sizeable majority) would have been screwed. EDGE is slow, I think that's a complaint we're going to hear repeatedly from iPhone users until Apple finally DOES release a 3G iPhone, but hey, at least EDGE's coverage is great.
Better a slow data connection than none at all.
In closing, please understand that I'm not 'picking on' ATT. I'm just soberly assessing where they're at now. And if you read some interviews, even ATT execs admit that they've got a ways to go. Here's a quote from Stan Sigman, ATT/Cingular CEO himself, in a Business Week interview:
I don't think it's time for us to go out touting on a national basis that we have the best network until we do have the best network. I know where our network stacks up. There's absolutely no reason why we can't have as good a network as Verizon has. If we don't, we failed to execute.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...5/b3958094.htm
The interview as a whole is a good read, I recommend it.
And yes, ATT/Cingular has improved in the 18 months since that interview, but so has Verizon and ATT's other competition.
.
Comparing Verizon to Apple is just wrong.
Is there really any proof that they were Apple's first choice? I think it's more likely that Apple approached all the carriers and since Verizon wouldn't agree to give Apple control of the above items, and others probably, they were turned down.
No one said they don't stick their evil and horrible branding all over their phones, disable OBEX, turn off bluetooth and the like.
Frankly if Verizon wanted to do that to the iPhone I can see why Apple went AT&T (cut of the service contract aside).
Verizon has the best... customer service (though that is supremely relative).
Given that one of the terms that Apple negotiated with Cingular is that Apple will control customer support, that is also supremely irrelevant. Apple has negotiated that question out of the picture, and if Verizon was not willing to agree to this, then Apple did the right thing by not going with them.
Verizon has the best network and customer service (though that is supremely relative).
No one said they don't stick their evil and horrible branding all over their phones, disable OBEX, turn off bluetooth and the like.
Yep, overall, they do seem to have the best network in the US. Their customer service is only second-best, however... T-Mobile consistently wins the national surveys like JD Power in that area, has done so for years.
But, as you say, Verizon's policies are a different matter. Their disabling of OBEX is moronic, at best. I have heard of few other policies in the wireless world that have brought more badwill to a company than that one.
.
Given that one of the terms that Apple negotiated with Cingular is that Apple will control customer support, that is also supremely irrelevant. Apple has negotiated that question out of the picture, and if Verizon was not willing to agree to this, then Apple did the right thing by not going with them.
I can understand how Apple will control technical customer support with the iPhone... that makes sense. But I don't understand how Apple is going to take care of billing and things like that, which presumably would be through ATT/Cingular's billing system, not Apple's. ATT reps would seem to be the experts in that, having dealt with it for years.
I guess I'm wondering if Apple will take care of all customer support for the iPhone, if you follow.
.