A lot were either free or close to it. Motorola started whoring it up pretty bad with the RAZR after only a year or two. That's why the RAZR brand doesn't mean too much anymore.
That and the fact that every phonemaker has thin phones now.
.
And the fact that its useless for anything but making calls.
If Apple came out with a world phone, both GSM & CDMA, then there would be no market they could not enter.
iirc, Qualcomm created a chip with 3G UMTS (like the rumoured 3G iPhone) as well as CDMA (like Verizon's network, instead of GSM) - but I'm not sure it's so easy to create a new iPhone with different chips just like that. I also don't think they'll want the extra size of supporting several different networks - it'd have to be a different iPhone.
Besides, Apple may be more focussed on where it wants to be in 2 years time than on building multiple models for multiple networks today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tailpipe
Nokia must be peeing in its proverbial pants. Of course, Apple isn't gunning for Nokia; it's got RIM in its sights. Terminate with extreme prejudice.
Is it targeting RIM? Or Nokia? The iPhone seems to be uniquely trying to create a new device... it is targeting an idea that Apple (or steve) has envisaged (a target which happens to take market share from Nokia, RIM, & Apple's own iPods).
Or in other words - the iPod has incredible market & mindshare, and Apple is planning on evolving that concept, morphing it into a 'Mainstream Wi-Fi Mobile Platform' (as they called it). If they tried to make the iPhone do everything the RIM does, they'd miss defining the future.
edit: That's not to say they won't add other functions. Just that the iPhone/iTouch designers are creating an amazing unique device... without being held back by other ideas. It's almost like many other RIM-competitive functions are an after thought that is not allowed to define the core device in any way, but can be added if it fits within the model.
iirc, Qualcomm created a chip with 3G UMTS (like the rumoured 3G iPhone) as well as CDMA (like Verizon's network, instead of GSM) - but I'm not sure it's so easy to create a new iPhone with different chips just like that. I also don't think they'll want the extra size of supporting several different networks - it'd have to be a different iPhone.
Besides, Apple may be more focussed on where it wants to be in 2 years time than on building multiple models for multiple networks today.
I don't see it happening either. First of all, I don't see the AT&T deal allowing this even if I thought Apple wanted to. Secondly, While adding a CDMA version would sell enough units to justify the R&D, I don't think it's big enough [for Apple] to justify having a CDMA version. The average person couldn't tell you what CDMA or GSM is and Apple run by Jobs will hold true to his desire give his designers, salespeople, and the public an absolute focus.
Quote:
Is it targeting RIM? Or Nokia? The iPhone seems to be uniquely trying to create a new device... it is targeting an idea that Apple (or steve) has envisaged (a target which happens to take market share from Nokia, RIM, & Apple's own iPods).
Or in other words - the iPod has incredible market & mindshare, and Apple is planning on evolving that concept, morphing it into a 'Mainstream Wi-Fi Mobile Platform' (as they called it). If they tried to make the iPhone do everything the RIM does, they'd miss defining the future.
edit: That's not to say they won't add other functions. Just that the iPhone/iTouch designers are creating an amazing unique device... without being held back by other ideas. It's almost like many other RIM-competitive functions are an after thought that is not allowed to define the core device in any way, but can be added if it fits within the model.
I don't see Apple as targeting one single company. Many iPhone users are coming to the smartphone market from cheap non-smartphones, too. Apple will be pulling customers from all manufactures and all types of phones.
I suffered with a Verizon RAZR for two years, and let me tell you, I never wanted to punch a phone in the face as much and as often as I did that one. It was a trainwreck.
Secondly, While adding a CDMA version would sell enough units to justify the R&D, I don't think it's big enough to justify having a CDMA version.
Um, really?
CDMA is over 50 percent of the market in Apple's home country, the US of A. It's big in Korea as well. Worldwide, there's over 430 million CDMA users.
Sure, GSM is more popular worldwide, and by quite a wide margin. But given the benefit-to-cost ratio of putting it out, an eventual CDMA version seems like a no-brainer for Apple.
IF they can come to terms with the big CDMA carriers. \
Yeah. If I'm right Apple won't release a CDMA version, if I'm wrong they will. If it were me I'd release a CDMA version, but I'm not the focused, tyrannical, grudge holding CEO of Apple.
Yeah. If I'm right Apple won't release a CDMA version, if I'm wrong they will. If it were me I'd release a CDMA version, but I'm not the focused, tyrannical, grudge holding CEO of Apple.
Because it doesn't cost a tremendous amount of money to engineer a CDMA version, and CDMA will be Verizon's mainstay for another couple of years, at least.
Why miss out on all that revenue?
.
It's called a contract, and it's between Apple and ATT.
It's called a contract, and it's between Apple and ATT.
Yep, but contracts run out. And the Apple-ATT one increasingly looks like its not the five-year one originally reported, more like two years, with an option to go five. An option which Apple probably won't pick up. So we are perhaps only one year away from Apple going multicarrier in the US.
After all, why sell to only 25% of the US market, when you can sell to all of it? \
Yep, but contracts run out. And the Apple-ATT one increasingly looks like its not the five-year one originally reported, more like two years, with an option to go five. An option which Apple probably won't pick up. So we are perhaps only one year away from Apple going multicarrier in the US.
.
Increasingly? What evidence is there about the length of the contract since it was signed over a year ago?
Increasingly? What evidence is there about the length of the contract since it was signed over a year ago?
There's not direct evidence from the horse's mouth, since ATT and Apple did not choose to announce the details of their contract (and there are good reasons for this, if you think about them).
But, if you follow the reporting on the ATT-Apple relationship, it was often reported as a "five year deal" early on (though Apple and ATT themselves used the vague term "multi-year" deal a lot, IIRC).
Then later, it somehow transitioned to a "two year deal" in many stories. For example, this one from the Times Online:
Hotz’s intervention means the US phone can run without AT&T, with whom Apple has a two-year exclusive deal. AT&T has paid undisclosed millions for the deal.
In my defense, I do plenty of calculations and research on this forum.
Fair enough.
And yeah, ATT is NOT the dominant monster megalith some people think. Verizon is very nearly as large, and Sprint's not too far behind. Between them, the Big Three US carriers have almost 75% of the US market. I would think Apple would eventually want to sell to all of the Big Three, plus perhaps T-Mobile as well.
No, I will not calculate their exact combined marketshare number for you.
Is Apple's current U..S iPhone service formally tied to AT&T for five years (from the initial roll out)? Is there an option that would allow Apple and/or iPhone users to go with a different service provider (without hacking/breaking the iPhone)? I would LOVE to buy an iPhone, but AT&T service would make the device merely an "i". Is this arrangement with AT&T set in granite?
Personally, being a US citizen I will continue to use AT&T
Is that really important? (serious question).
I mean I pick Vodafone as my mobile network because it is the cheapest and provides good service (and I like to support the underdog). Telstra is the only Australian owned network but they're a monopoly in fixed line services and they play nasty, and I don't want to support that.
Phone wise I pick whichever I like best (none are made in Australia)
I mean.. should the European users ignore Apple and stick with Nokia to support EU companies?
Phone wise I pick whichever I like best (none are made in Australia)
That was the point of my post. i prefer the iPhone and will prefer it more when it's 3G. If it's only GSM then I have only one choice for a carrier: AT&T. Verizon and Sprint are CDMA, and T-Mobiel uses different frequencies for 3G data that will not be compatible with a 3G iPhone.
So... I'd rather be under contract than pay more for a cellphone that is unlocked, because I won't be using it on other US carriers. For travel I have unlocked it and used it on foreign networks with other SIMs. I will continue to do that if possible and will keep my 2G iPhone as an unlocked backup for travel until the new one is unlockable.
Comments
A lot were either free or close to it. Motorola started whoring it up pretty bad with the RAZR after only a year or two. That's why the RAZR brand doesn't mean too much anymore.
That and the fact that every phonemaker has thin phones now.
.
And the fact that its useless for anything but making calls.
And the fact that its useless for anything, including making calls.
t, ftfy.
t, ftfy.
Thanks.
If Apple came out with a world phone, both GSM & CDMA, then there would be no market they could not enter.
iirc, Qualcomm created a chip with 3G UMTS (like the rumoured 3G iPhone) as well as CDMA (like Verizon's network, instead of GSM) - but I'm not sure it's so easy to create a new iPhone with different chips just like that. I also don't think they'll want the extra size of supporting several different networks - it'd have to be a different iPhone.
Besides, Apple may be more focussed on where it wants to be in 2 years time than on building multiple models for multiple networks today.
Nokia must be peeing in its proverbial pants. Of course, Apple isn't gunning for Nokia; it's got RIM in its sights. Terminate with extreme prejudice.
Is it targeting RIM? Or Nokia? The iPhone seems to be uniquely trying to create a new device... it is targeting an idea that Apple (or steve) has envisaged (a target which happens to take market share from Nokia, RIM, & Apple's own iPods).
Or in other words - the iPod has incredible market & mindshare, and Apple is planning on evolving that concept, morphing it into a 'Mainstream Wi-Fi Mobile Platform' (as they called it). If they tried to make the iPhone do everything the RIM does, they'd miss defining the future.
edit: That's not to say they won't add other functions. Just that the iPhone/iTouch designers are creating an amazing unique device... without being held back by other ideas. It's almost like many other RIM-competitive functions are an after thought that is not allowed to define the core device in any way, but can be added if it fits within the model.
iirc, Qualcomm created a chip with 3G UMTS (like the rumoured 3G iPhone) as well as CDMA (like Verizon's network, instead of GSM) - but I'm not sure it's so easy to create a new iPhone with different chips just like that. I also don't think they'll want the extra size of supporting several different networks - it'd have to be a different iPhone.
Besides, Apple may be more focussed on where it wants to be in 2 years time than on building multiple models for multiple networks today.
I don't see it happening either. First of all, I don't see the AT&T deal allowing this even if I thought Apple wanted to. Secondly, While adding a CDMA version would sell enough units to justify the R&D, I don't think it's big enough [for Apple] to justify having a CDMA version. The average person couldn't tell you what CDMA or GSM is and Apple run by Jobs will hold true to his desire give his designers, salespeople, and the public an absolute focus.
Is it targeting RIM? Or Nokia? The iPhone seems to be uniquely trying to create a new device... it is targeting an idea that Apple (or steve) has envisaged (a target which happens to take market share from Nokia, RIM, & Apple's own iPods).
Or in other words - the iPod has incredible market & mindshare, and Apple is planning on evolving that concept, morphing it into a 'Mainstream Wi-Fi Mobile Platform' (as they called it). If they tried to make the iPhone do everything the RIM does, they'd miss defining the future.
edit: That's not to say they won't add other functions. Just that the iPhone/iTouch designers are creating an amazing unique device... without being held back by other ideas. It's almost like many other RIM-competitive functions are an after thought that is not allowed to define the core device in any way, but can be added if it fits within the model.
I don't see Apple as targeting one single company. Many iPhone users are coming to the smartphone market from cheap non-smartphones, too. Apple will be pulling customers from all manufactures and all types of phones.
Thanks.
You're very welcome.
I suffered with a Verizon RAZR for two years, and let me tell you, I never wanted to punch a phone in the face as much and as often as I did that one. It was a trainwreck.
Secondly, While adding a CDMA version would sell enough units to justify the R&D, I don't think it's big enough to justify having a CDMA version.
Um, really?
CDMA is over 50 percent of the market in Apple's home country, the US of A. It's big in Korea as well. Worldwide, there's over 430 million CDMA users.
Sure, GSM is more popular worldwide, and by quite a wide margin. But given the benefit-to-cost ratio of putting it out, an eventual CDMA version seems like a no-brainer for Apple.
IF they can come to terms with the big CDMA carriers.
.
Um, really?
Yeah. If I'm right Apple won't release a CDMA version, if I'm wrong they will. If it were me I'd release a CDMA version, but I'm not the focused, tyrannical, grudge holding CEO of Apple.
Yeah. If I'm right Apple won't release a CDMA version, if I'm wrong they will. If it were me I'd release a CDMA version, but I'm not the focused, tyrannical, grudge holding CEO of Apple.
LOL. Well said.
.
Because it doesn't cost a tremendous amount of money to engineer a CDMA version, and CDMA will be Verizon's mainstay for another couple of years, at least.
Why miss out on all that revenue?
.
It's called a contract, and it's between Apple and ATT.
It's called a contract, and it's between Apple and ATT.
Yep, but contracts run out. And the Apple-ATT one increasingly looks like its not the five-year one originally reported, more like two years, with an option to go five. An option which Apple probably won't pick up. So we are perhaps only one year away from Apple going multicarrier in the US.
After all, why sell to only 25% of the US market, when you can sell to all of it?
.
After all, why sell to only 25% of the US market, when you can sell to all of it?
I was under the impression that AT&T/Cingular accounted for 35-40% of the total number US cell subscribers.
Yep, but contracts run out. And the Apple-ATT one increasingly looks like its not the five-year one originally reported, more like two years, with an option to go five. An option which Apple probably won't pick up. So we are perhaps only one year away from Apple going multicarrier in the US.
.
Increasingly? What evidence is there about the length of the contract since it was signed over a year ago?
I was under the impression that AT&T/Cingular accounted for 35-40% of the total number US cell subscribers.
Sigh. Make me do the math, huh?
According to CTIA.org, there's currently 258.1 million wireless subscribers in the US. Of those, 71.3 million are ATT.
Doing the figures... that's 27.6%. Happy now?
.
Sigh. Make me do the math, huh?
According to CTIA.org, there's currently 258.1 million wireless subscribers in the US. Of those, 71.3 million are ATT.
Doing the figures... that's 27.6%. Happy now?
Thanks.
In my defense, I do plenty of calculations and research on this forum.
Increasingly? What evidence is there about the length of the contract since it was signed over a year ago?
There's not direct evidence from the horse's mouth, since ATT and Apple did not choose to announce the details of their contract (and there are good reasons for this, if you think about them).
But, if you follow the reporting on the ATT-Apple relationship, it was often reported as a "five year deal" early on (though Apple and ATT themselves used the vague term "multi-year" deal a lot, IIRC).
Then later, it somehow transitioned to a "two year deal" in many stories. For example, this one from the Times Online:
Hotz’s intervention means the US phone can run without AT&T, with whom Apple has a two-year exclusive deal. AT&T has paid undisclosed millions for the deal.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle2326835.ece
Again, my feeling? Two year ironclad exclusive, with an option to go five (that Apple likely won't exercise). We'll know next year.
.
Thanks.
In my defense, I do plenty of calculations and research on this forum.
Fair enough.
And yeah, ATT is NOT the dominant monster megalith some people think. Verizon is very nearly as large, and Sprint's not too far behind. Between them, the Big Three US carriers have almost 75% of the US market. I would think Apple would eventually want to sell to all of the Big Three, plus perhaps T-Mobile as well.
No, I will not calculate their exact combined marketshare number for you.
.
Personally, being a US citizen I will continue to use AT&T
Is that really important? (serious question).
I mean I pick Vodafone as my mobile network because it is the cheapest and provides good service (and I like to support the underdog). Telstra is the only Australian owned network but they're a monopoly in fixed line services and they play nasty, and I don't want to support that.
Phone wise I pick whichever I like best (none are made in Australia)
I mean.. should the European users ignore Apple and stick with Nokia to support EU companies?
Phone wise I pick whichever I like best (none are made in Australia)
That was the point of my post. i prefer the iPhone and will prefer it more when it's 3G. If it's only GSM then I have only one choice for a carrier: AT&T. Verizon and Sprint are CDMA, and T-Mobiel uses different frequencies for 3G data that will not be compatible with a 3G iPhone.
So... I'd rather be under contract than pay more for a cellphone that is unlocked, because I won't be using it on other US carriers. For travel I have unlocked it and used it on foreign networks with other SIMs. I will continue to do that if possible and will keep my 2G iPhone as an unlocked backup for travel until the new one is unlockable.
I hope that clears it up.