Well, sssssheeeeeeeeeeeeessh!!! Do they or do they not have a 10 year exclusive arrangement with ATT in the USA??????? I want 3G on T-Mobile and I want it now!!!!
You get what you pay for. T-Mobile's coverage is worse than ATT. T-Mobile has only begun 3G, it will be some time for 3G to expand very far.
More coverage does not equal better coverage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
I have a hacked iPhone on T-Mobile's network in Michigan. It sounds comparably better then an iPhone running on AT&T's network in the same area (I have several friends using AT&T). I have no idea why this is the case, and this fact probably is location dependent. Nonetheless, I wouldn't give AT&T a penny if my life depended on it, and I love rubbing it in that my hacked phone sound better. T-Mobile also has better family plan rates.
This isn't surprising at all and further supports that more coverage does not equal better coverage. T-Mobile does consistently score at least as good as AT&T in call quality in most regions. And 3G for T-Mobile isn't as far off as TenoBell implies. Not that T-Mobile's lack of 3G is really a valid argument for current iPhone users anyways.
Well, sssssheeeeeeeeeeeeessh!!! Do they or do they not have a 10 year exclusive arrangement with ATT in the USA??????? I want 3G on T-Mobile and I want it now!!!!
What are you talking about? What comment are you referring to?
Absolutely wrong. Everything apple has said has contradicted that, and it defies common sense.
If I say I will run 20 marathons in 2008, does that mean I've run 19 marathons through 2007 and will run one more in 2008?
Or does it mean I'll run 20 marathons in 2008?
The first "interpretation" is simply absurd.
We just went through this in another thread, this is at least the fifth time apple has made the statement "in 2008" - nobody has shown that they've ever said "by the end of 2008".
The only way you can reason as you have is because you ignore cause and effect. Your logic is broken. "In" means all the days INCLUDING the very last one. You don't understand that?
We're discussing the difference between "IN" and "by the END of". We're not discussing anything else.
As you're so fixated on the word "in". What date do think "in" means?
Well, sssssheeeeeeeeeeeeessh!!! Do they or do they not have a 10 year exclusive arrangement with ATT in the USA??????? I want 3G on T-Mobile and I want it now!!!!
So far we have 10 years and 5 years. I thought I had read somewhere when the iPhone first came out that it was 2 years. Pick a number and take your chances.
In our part of the country and in the areas I normally travel to, Verizon clearly has the best coverage/service. While I prefer a phone that's a phone not a Swiss Army knife, I'd be interested if the iPhone ever goes CDMA with Verizon.
So far we have 10 years and 5 years. I thought I had read somewhere when the iPhone first came out that it was 2 years. Pick a number and take your chances.
In our part of the country and in the areas I normally travel to, Verizon clearly has the best coverage/service. While I prefer a phone that's a phone not a Swiss Army knife, I'd be interested if the iPhone ever goes CDMA with Verizon.
I think the two years came from misunderstanding that the individual phone contract was two years.
It's interesting. I think that Cooks remarks gives us hope that CDMA might be a possibility.
I think the two years came from misunderstanding that the individual phone contract was two years.
It's interesting. I think that Cooks remarks gives us hope that CDMA might be a possibility.
Could be. One of the problems I see with a long term exclusive contract with one carrier, say much beyond 2 - 3 years, is that you've saturated your customer base and are pretty much limited to iPhone users moving to a newer iPhone and a few new customers to the plan. So it seems logical that after Apple has squeezed all the money they can from the life of the exclusive AT&T contract, they'll open the phone to other carriers, including CDMA ones.
For handset makers like Apple, I think it would make far more sense to offer the phones unlocked. Yes, it would mean that the iPhone would cost more than it does now. However, to reduce the perception of sticker shock, Apple could offer a monthly financing plan - so an iPhone with a list price of $699 instead costs $24.99/month for 3 years (which is highly profitable, since the interest rate is 17.2%). The price of the service plan would then be reduced by a similar amount because there is no phone to subsidize. Customers choosing the financing plan would end up paying a similar amount per month to what they are paying now without being locked to a specific carrier.
For handset makers like Apple, I think it would make far more sense to offer the phones unlocked. Yes, it would mean that the iPhone would cost more than it does now. However, to reduce the perception of sticker shock, Apple could offer a monthly financing plan - so an iPhone with a list price of $699 instead costs $24.99/month for 3 years (which is highly profitable, since the interest rate is 17.2%). The price of the service plan would then be reduced by a similar amount because there is no phone to subsidize. Customers choosing the financing plan would end up paying a similar amount per month to what they are paying now without being locked to a specific carrier.
The price of a iphone service plan with AT&T is the same as a regular priced voice plan + a regular priced data plan. And AT&T doesn't give you a discount on their postpaid plans when you bring your own GSM phone.
For handset makers like Apple, I think it would make far more sense to offer the phones unlocked. Yes, it would mean that the iPhone would cost more than it does now. However, to reduce the perception of sticker shock, Apple could offer a monthly financing plan - so an iPhone with a list price of $699 instead costs $24.99/month for 3 years (which is highly profitable, since the interest rate is 17.2%). The price of the service plan would then be reduced by a similar amount because there is no phone to subsidize. Customers choosing the financing plan would end up paying a similar amount per month to what they are paying now without being locked to a specific carrier.
You're assuming that Apple is doing what they said they are not doing, which is having the carrier subsidize the phones.
The very fact that you can buy the phones for what Apple now sells them, before buying any contract at all, shows that that is the actual profitable price to Apple. If Apple wanted to make more profit, to make up for what they might get from the carriers, perhaps they might have to raise the price by $50, as they would be selling many more phones than now.
You're all assuming that locking the iPhone was Apples' idea. Go back to the original article.
Quote:
Cook made the observation when asked why Apple hadn't seen fit to offer either an unlocked version or multi-carrier offerings from the outset, noting that the particular conditions of the US and the initial launch made it impractical to try and satisfy every carrier and user. For Americans, Apple would have had to release at least two iPhones -- one for CDMA networks and one for GSM -- potentially making the learning process overly complex for the public.
This model could change over time, he says, but the ultimate plan is to provide the best possible experience early on. The existing tie-in with AT&T gave Apple a large amount of coverage while allowing both companies to be themselves, and a simple experience for first-time users.
My suspicion is that entering a completely new field Apple felt that it need some help and handholding. They went to Cingular who provided the help but at the cost of a locked phone. It will be interesting to see if Apple provides only unlocked phones after their contract with Cingular/ATT runs out.
Comments
You get what you pay for. T-Mobile's coverage is worse than ATT. T-Mobile has only begun 3G, it will be some time for 3G to expand very far.
More coverage does not equal better coverage.
I have a hacked iPhone on T-Mobile's network in Michigan. It sounds comparably better then an iPhone running on AT&T's network in the same area (I have several friends using AT&T). I have no idea why this is the case, and this fact probably is location dependent. Nonetheless, I wouldn't give AT&T a penny if my life depended on it, and I love rubbing it in that my hacked phone sound better. T-Mobile also has better family plan rates.
This isn't surprising at all and further supports that more coverage does not equal better coverage. T-Mobile does consistently score at least as good as AT&T in call quality in most regions. And 3G for T-Mobile isn't as far off as TenoBell implies. Not that T-Mobile's lack of 3G is really a valid argument for current iPhone users anyways.
Well, sssssheeeeeeeeeeeeessh!!! Do they or do they not have a 10 year exclusive arrangement with ATT in the USA???????
What are you talking about? What comment are you referring to?
I'
Absolutely wrong. Everything apple has said has contradicted that, and it defies common sense.
If I say I will run 20 marathons in 2008, does that mean I've run 19 marathons through 2007 and will run one more in 2008?
Or does it mean I'll run 20 marathons in 2008?
The first "interpretation" is simply absurd.
We just went through this in another thread, this is at least the fifth time apple has made the statement "in 2008" - nobody has shown that they've ever said "by the end of 2008".
The only way you can reason as you have is because you ignore cause and effect. Your logic is broken. "In" means all the days INCLUDING the very last one. You don't understand that?
We're discussing the difference between "IN" and "by the END of". We're not discussing anything else.
As you're so fixated on the word "in". What date do think "in" means?
Well, sssssheeeeeeeeeeeeessh!!! Do they or do they not have a 10 year exclusive arrangement with ATT in the USA???????
It's been thought to be five years.
I want 3G on T-Mobile and I want it now!!!!
Hey Veruca! This thread might interest you: Wireless bill threatens iPhone exclusivity.
It's been thought to be five years.
So far we have 10 years and 5 years. I thought I had read somewhere when the iPhone first came out that it was 2 years. Pick a number and take your chances.
In our part of the country and in the areas I normally travel to, Verizon clearly has the best coverage/service. While I prefer a phone that's a phone not a Swiss Army knife, I'd be interested if the iPhone ever goes CDMA with Verizon.
So far we have 10 years and 5 years. I thought I had read somewhere when the iPhone first came out that it was 2 years. Pick a number and take your chances.
In our part of the country and in the areas I normally travel to, Verizon clearly has the best coverage/service. While I prefer a phone that's a phone not a Swiss Army knife, I'd be interested if the iPhone ever goes CDMA with Verizon.
I think the two years came from misunderstanding that the individual phone contract was two years.
It's interesting. I think that Cooks remarks gives us hope that CDMA might be a possibility.
More coverage does not equal better coverage.
A weak signal is certainly better than no signal,
And 3G for T-Mobile isn't as far off as TenoBell implies.
T-Mobile is rumored to begin 3G roll out by the summer. It will take some time before its nation wide.
I think the two years came from misunderstanding that the individual phone contract was two years.
It's interesting. I think that Cooks remarks gives us hope that CDMA might be a possibility.
Could be. One of the problems I see with a long term exclusive contract with one carrier, say much beyond 2 - 3 years, is that you've saturated your customer base and are pretty much limited to iPhone users moving to a newer iPhone and a few new customers to the plan. So it seems logical that after Apple has squeezed all the money they can from the life of the exclusive AT&T contract, they'll open the phone to other carriers, including CDMA ones.
For handset makers like Apple, I think it would make far more sense to offer the phones unlocked. Yes, it would mean that the iPhone would cost more than it does now. However, to reduce the perception of sticker shock, Apple could offer a monthly financing plan - so an iPhone with a list price of $699 instead costs $24.99/month for 3 years (which is highly profitable, since the interest rate is 17.2%). The price of the service plan would then be reduced by a similar amount because there is no phone to subsidize. Customers choosing the financing plan would end up paying a similar amount per month to what they are paying now without being locked to a specific carrier.
The price of a iphone service plan with AT&T is the same as a regular priced voice plan + a regular priced data plan. And AT&T doesn't give you a discount on their postpaid plans when you bring your own GSM phone.
The price of a iphone service plan with AT&T is the same as a regular priced voice plan + a regular priced data plan.
Actually the iPhone data plan is $20 less than regular priced data plans.
For handset makers like Apple, I think it would make far more sense to offer the phones unlocked. Yes, it would mean that the iPhone would cost more than it does now. However, to reduce the perception of sticker shock, Apple could offer a monthly financing plan - so an iPhone with a list price of $699 instead costs $24.99/month for 3 years (which is highly profitable, since the interest rate is 17.2%). The price of the service plan would then be reduced by a similar amount because there is no phone to subsidize. Customers choosing the financing plan would end up paying a similar amount per month to what they are paying now without being locked to a specific carrier.
You're assuming that Apple is doing what they said they are not doing, which is having the carrier subsidize the phones.
The very fact that you can buy the phones for what Apple now sells them, before buying any contract at all, shows that that is the actual profitable price to Apple. If Apple wanted to make more profit, to make up for what they might get from the carriers, perhaps they might have to raise the price by $50, as they would be selling many more phones than now.
$699 is absurd.
Cook made the observation when asked why Apple hadn't seen fit to offer either an unlocked version or multi-carrier offerings from the outset, noting that the particular conditions of the US and the initial launch made it impractical to try and satisfy every carrier and user. For Americans, Apple would have had to release at least two iPhones -- one for CDMA networks and one for GSM -- potentially making the learning process overly complex for the public.
This model could change over time, he says, but the ultimate plan is to provide the best possible experience early on. The existing tie-in with AT&T gave Apple a large amount of coverage while allowing both companies to be themselves, and a simple experience for first-time users.
My suspicion is that entering a completely new field Apple felt that it need some help and handholding. They went to Cingular who provided the help but at the cost of a locked phone. It will be interesting to see if Apple provides only unlocked phones after their contract with Cingular/ATT runs out.