Typical Verizon. More specifically, Verizon wants to control what features to charge their customers, like Bluetooth. Verizon would love to charge extra for all the standard iPhone features.
Not at all- don't be upset just because you're stuck with the crappiest carrier.
To say that is to suggest that Apple really would have went with it. Apple likely would not have. It was using Verizon to get a good deal from AT&T. Apple wanted to standardize on one type of hardware. That required Apple to go with T-Mobile or AT&T. Further, Steve Jobs already knew AT&T's CEO.
Besides being a horrible company in general, it's CEO didn't do anything to prevent it from getting the iPhone.
Right- that's why it (VERIZON) IS rated at the top of consumer reports and any other tech review - meanwhile AT&T is alway at the bottom or next to bottom.
Get over it- You are literally the only one who defends AT&T.
To say that is to suggest that Apple really would have went with it. Apple likely would not have. It was using Verizon to get a good deal from AT&T. Apple wanted to standardize on one type of hardware. That required Apple to go with T-Mobile or AT&T. Further, Steve Jobs already knew AT&T's CEO.
Besides being a horrible company in general, it's CEO didn't do anything to prevent it from getting the iPhone.
I don't think the hardware would be much different. The only things that would change are the signal reception/transmission chips, the actual iphone hardware would stay the same.
It should be relatively easy for Apple to produce both models of the same phone.
To say that is to suggest that Apple really would have went with it. Apple likely would not have. It was using Verizon to get a good deal from AT&T. Apple wanted to standardize on one type of hardware. That required Apple to go with T-Mobile or AT&T. Further, Steve Jobs already knew AT&T's CEO.
Besides being a horrible company in general, it's CEO didn't do anything to prevent it from getting the iPhone.
I have used Sprint/Nextel, Verizon, & then CellularOne which was bought by AT&T. I wouldn't call AT&T a "horrible" company. That is a completely subjective statement and could mean anything. Please, quantify what exactly you mean?
I'll give you an example, my experiences on the East Coast:
Nextel: High priced. Poor coverage, though sound was great when you did have coverage. Phones had awful battery life, and drained in 1/2 day, and faster when in poor coverage areas. Terrible customer service.
Verizon: High priced, though probably more plan varieties. Great coverage. Good sound quality. Terrible customer service.
Cellular One: Dirt Cheap plans (I had $45 unlimited anytime minutes). Great Coverage competitive with Verizon. Oversold bandwidth, so sound quality was at times wanting, as well as dropped calls..... but hey, Dirt Cheap, and great coverage made up for that. Customer service was excellent.
AT&T: When AT&T bought Cell One, we were able to keep our existing great plans with regular phones. I did notice, that over all, AT&T seemed to have greater variety and flexibility with plans, and especially liked the rollover minutes. Of course, that didn't matter, since I went for the Unlimited iPhone plan for business, and kept the existing cheap ones for the family. Once Cell One was fully assimilated as AT&T, I noticed that coverage got better, voice quality got way better, and customer service rocks. I've never waited long on hold, if at all, and always been treated like a king. At the stores, we've always been fortunate to have pro's that knew what they were doing and very helpful.
Of course, Apple wants their iPhone customers to have a premium experience, and I'm sure they do what they can to push the carrier to better customer treatment.
To end- PLEASE, don't just say a certain carrier is crap or great, tell us what is liked & what is not, and where you live, so we can put it all into context. Further, was your experience recent, or was it like 10 years ago, and you just hold a grudge? Get my drift children?
Right- that's why it (VERIZON) IS rated at the top of consumer reports and any other tech review - meanwhile AT&T is alway at the bottom or next to bottom.
Get over it- You are literally the only one who defends AT&T.
It really does irritate me that you guys don't add context to your statements.
Verizon's call quality was excellent for me. But you know what? Customer service? You had to wait on hold forever. Further, they treated me (a long time loyal customer) like dirt, as if like they were the only player in town and had me over a barrel.
Though I would indeed say that Verizon's call quality is excellent (and probably the best), I can't really complain about AT&T's. Their coverage is on par, and their customer service has been top notch. Bottom line: At&T has our business because it has the iPhone. Everything else being relatively even, that really makes it the best, IMO.
Verizon has been snobbish, thinking they are the be all to cellular service.... AT&T comes along, partners with Apple, and is putting it's money where it's mouth is. We call this good competition!
I think it will be a long wait for LTE. Not only do people have to roll out a decent network, LTE chip implementations have to be small and efficient enough to fit into an increasingly small package.
I was at CTIA two weeks ago. LTE is here in a big way, and all the major silicon groups were advertising the hell out of it. The chipsets are here, even though almost everyone in the industry calls it 3.9G, and they have already been put in some pretty compact handsets.
AT&T exclusivity is definitely starting to hurt the iPhone, and I don't see a compelling reason to continue it. I would imagine seeing millions more sales if they introduced it onto Verizon and/or Sprint, not to mention all of the here-to-fore-left-out cellphone operators around the world.
1) It doesn't make sense to NOT create a CDMA model of the iPhone 3G, and to not otherwise open the iPhone to all American (and international) carriers.
Based on the 3GPP2/CDMA development trade group (http://www.cdg.org/worldwide/cdma_world_subscriber.asp), there are over 450 MILLION CDMA (CDMA2000 1xRTT/EV-DO) customers worldwide in over 50 countries, and over 112 MILLION customers using EV-DO 3G. Why in hell wouldn't Apple spend the relatively small resources required to create a CDMA compatible iPhone.
Even just considering the USA, Verizon's LTE network is going to take years to reach the coverage area of their existing CDMA network, and Sprint is going in another direction. Combined, you are talking about nearly 100 MILLION CDMA subscribers and there are obviously millions of customers on these two networks just chomping at the bit for an iPhone 3G and who will NOT switch to AT&T for a variety of reasons.
2) If for whatever reason Apple didn't want to spend the resources developing two distinct models of iPhone (even if it makes sense economically), there is a relatively simple solution. [U]There are dual-mode baseband chips that can work with both GSM/EDGE/UMTS *AND* CDMA/1xRTT/EV-DO networks already in use by other manufactures.. including certain Blackberry models [\\U]There is no reason why Apple couldn't make the next generation iPhone use one of these universal chips.
The problem for Verizon is that even when they move to LTE, they will still need to maintain their CDMA network as fallback.
How long has it taken for the US carriers to switch off their analogue networks? 15 years after GSM was introduced? Verizon's LTE coverage isn't going to be perfect for a very long time and any LTE phone released on Verizon will need to include a CDMA-compatible modem, just like how current UMTS/HSDPA phones still support GSM.
Apple will need to develop an iPhone model specifically for Verizon even when they do move to LTE.
Right- that's why it (VERIZON) IS rated at the top of consumer reports and any other tech review - meanwhile AT&T is alway at the bottom or next to bottom.
Get over it- You are literally the only one who defends AT&T.
Ok, I'll bite. Lets see some of this evidence you're slinging around?
I was a nearly 10 year customer of Verizon before switching to ATT, along with my mom, my dad, and my brother.
Customer service from Verizon was horrid, I mean literally some of the worst customer experiences I have ever seen by any company. Not just 1 incident, multiple from multiple members of my family. Bad in store, bad on the phone, bad experiences with managers.
My mom normally does not have trouble dealing with people, she's lobbied in both Sacramento the state capitol and in US congress for educational issues, dealt with thousands of people, and she was steaming mad after one of these incidents and there's no way she'd go back with Verizon.
So from our personal (anecdotal) experiences, Verizon was bad. Really, offensively bad.
What about ATT? Fantastic. Want examples? They had the store open during the iPhone launch day 2 years back, they handled people that weren't there for the iPhone separately, took them in the store took care of them and sent them on their way, no problem.
Prior to the iPhone coming out we switched and they gave us free phones that we didn't even have to pay extra for that we were only going to use for a few months.
In the 2+ years since we've been customers, we've had numerous examples of good in-store and phone service from ATT, not one example of bad service, rudeness or difficulty. Examples include traveling with roaming charges, and having the issues cleared up efficiently and courteously, and in our favor. In our numerous examples of service from both companies there was a huge gap.
So I'd have an extremely difficult time believing Verizon has better customer service scores than ATT.
So network? That's regional but ATT works good where we are, no worse than Verizon. You get dropped calls from any carrier depending on where you go, that's an unfortunate issue with cell phones in general. Perhaps that's what you are claiming Verizon has over ATT, but that's a marginal argument, and very situational.
Lastly, technology, Verizon really stunk. I mean they had bad phones, that were way behind what I could get from other carriers, and what they did have they crippled by turning off standard Bluetooth so you could *only* use the Bluetooth adapters from Verizon, and on and on. Making you pay *per picture* to send pictures off your phones camera and not having any way to get them directly off with a cable. And forget about any Mac support for anything they sold.
So technology, Verizon is very easily the worst carrier in the nation by far.
Score:
Service: Verizon bad, ATT good.
Network: Mixed bag, about an even tie, depends where you live.
Technology: Verizon awful, ATT ok.
Unless you have other criteria you'd like to discuss, this is pretty much a slam dunk for ATT over Verizon. This of course assuming ATT has good coverage where you live. If not, well then that pretty much ends the discussion, but the same would be true in reverse.
3G isn't working anywhere close to it's full potential. I'd rather be using a phone on a mature 3G network rather than an over-saturated, capped 4G network, which is exactly what will happen.
The problem for Verizon is that even when they move to LTE, they will still need to maintain their CDMA network as fallback.
How long has it taken for the US carriers to switch off their analogue networks? 15 years after GSM was introduced? Verizon's LTE coverage isn't going to be perfect for a very long time and any LTE phone released on Verizon will need to include a CDMA-compatible modem, just like how current UMTS/HSDPA phones still support GSM.
Apple will need to develop an iPhone model specifically for Verizon even when they do move to LTE.
You said it perfectly. The broadcast tech needs to be established which takes time. Doesn't make sense to not use the well-established, perfectly fine network. Sure there'll be issues. People will deal with it to have the iPhone.
If Verizon's talking about waiting for 4G then someone in charge isn't flexible enough to work with Apple to get the iPhone. Very disappointing. When my family switched we'd have gone with Verizon if they had the iPhone, now we're with AT&T and it's acceptable. The iPhone makes up for shortcomings and the network here in LA is better than Tmobile.
AT&T exclusivity is definitely starting to hurt the iPhone, and I don't see a compelling reason to continue it. I would imagine seeing millions more sales if they introduced it onto Verizon and/or Sprint, not to mention all of the here-to-fore-left-out cellphone operators around the world.
1) It doesn't make sense to NOT create a CDMA model of the iPhone 3G, and to not otherwise open the iPhone to all American (and international) carriers.
Based on the 3GPP2/CDMA development trade group (http://www.cdg.org/worldwide/cdma_world_subscriber.asp), there are over 450 MILLION CDMA (CDMA2000 1xRTT/EV-DO) customers worldwide in over 50 countries, and over 112 MILLION customers using EV-DO 3G. Why in hell wouldn't Apple spend the relatively small resources required to create a CDMA compatible iPhone.
Even just considering the USA, Verizon's LTE network is going to take years to reach the coverage area of their existing CDMA network, and Sprint is going in another direction. Combined, you are talking about nearly 100 MILLION CDMA subscribers and there are obviously millions of customers on these two networks just chomping at the bit for an iPhone 3G and who will NOT switch to AT&T for a variety of reasons.
2) If for whatever reason Apple didn't want to spend the resources developing two distinct models of iPhone (even if it makes sense economically), there is a relatively simple solution. [U]There are dual-mode baseband chips that can work with both GSM/EDGE/UMTS *AND* CDMA/1xRTT/EV-DO networks already in use by other manufactures.. including certain Blackberry models [\\U]There is no reason why Apple couldn't make the next generation iPhone use one of these universal chips.
CDMA iphone means a more complicated inventory system, another assembly line to assemble them, and lower margins because of the extra costs. Apple doesn't work this way. They have 3 models of laptops, 2 PC and 1 workstation. in all cases you can only configure minor things like RAM.
they will take a simpler manufacturing system and higher margins over incurring the extra costs and risks of more models
Mr. Seidenberg also addressed the notion of Apple Inc.'s iPhone ever coming to the Verizon Wireless network, saying it is more likely that Apple would be willing to work with the carrier under the fourth-generation, or 4G, network, which follows the same technology standard as AT&T Inc.'s 4G plans. He said Apple never seriously considered making a CDMA version of the iPhone because it didn't have as wide a distribution opportunity.
I took this quote from the same article over at Mac Rumors, as I find it very interesting. I'm confused on the actual facts of what went down 2 years ago, though. Did Apple seriously approach Verizon Wireless about a CDMA iPhone? I repeated hear in the mac community that they did, but Seidenberg is apparently stating otherwise here. This begs the queston then, if Apple was interesting in Verizon Wireless, why? Especially given that the iPhone had yet to be released, had no market share, thus GSM networks would have been the better alternative for Apple to enter the market with their nascent product (which it was), also as Seidenberg suggests. The alignment of statements and posturing by the two companies just don't add up to me. I find Seidenberg's mentioning of "Apple would be more willing to work with us" (paraphrasing) also intruiging, as this suggests that Apple did not really approach Verizon Wireless at all, and that it was Verizon Wireless who was interesting in carrying the iPhone. Verizon Wireless then became miffed by Apple's lack of interest, then the snubbing insued. Hmmm. Of course, it could be the reverse as commonly believed. Weird.
I agree with this sentament. I know Verizon Wireless and they seem to continue to feel that they can play their own game. They need to wake up and realize that it would benefit them and their customers to team with Apple to provide the iPhone....as quickly as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44
The Verizon CEO is just trying to save face. I bet there are several investors pissed by them missing the iPhone boat, and that fury will surface soon, when in the next few quarters Verizon will miss earnings due to the poor economy.
He is trying to lay down the story that the refusal wasn't his fault (and hence that shouldn't be used against him in considering firing decisions).
So from our personal (anecdotal) experiences, Verizon was bad. Really, offensively bad.
Lastly, technology, Verizon really stunk. I mean they had bad phones, that were way behind what I could get from other carriers, and what they did have they crippled by turning off standard Bluetooth so you could *only* use the Bluetooth adapters from Verizon, and on and on. Making you pay *per picture* to send pictures off your phones camera and not having any way to get them directly off with a cable. And forget about any Mac support for anything they sold.
So technology, Verizon is very easily the worst carrier in the nation by far.
Score:
Service: Verizon bad, ATT good.
Network: Mixed bag, about an even tie, depends where you live.
Technology: Verizon awful, ATT ok.
Unless you have other criteria you'd like to discuss, this is pretty much a slam dunk for ATT over Verizon. This of course assuming ATT has good coverage where you live. If not, well then that pretty much ends the discussion, but the same would be true in reverse.
So pompous of you to think you end the discussion.
That's you own personal opinion and can't negate the fact of what's been documented over and over. And the networks are not even- Verizon wins hands down. It doesn't depend upon where you live- it's fully covered. AT&T in NYC sucks - and if it sucks here than - well you fill in the dots.
I agree with this sentament. I know Verizon Wireless and they seem to continue to feel that they can play their own game. They need to wake up and realize that it would benefit them and their customers to team with Apple to provide the iPhone....as quickly as possible.
Apple needs to wake up and get its own lawyers to break this choke holding exclusive conrtrract with AT&T - coming up to over 2 years already. iPhone should be available not only with Verizon but the other carriers as well- just like any Blackbery etc.
It behooves Apple to act promptly to break the AT&T chains. AT&T keeps promoting and offering all kinds of 3g phones constantly thus clogging all the iPhone customers Apple has provided to them.
Comments
Can't wait and now I will wait.
Typical Verizon. More specifically, Verizon wants to control what features to charge their customers, like Bluetooth. Verizon would love to charge extra for all the standard iPhone features.
Not at all- don't be upset just because you're stuck with the crappiest carrier.
I think this is just posturing in response to AT&T's recent hints that they want to extend their exclusive service with Apple.
AT&T =the PATCH NETWORK?!?
To say that is to suggest that Apple really would have went with it. Apple likely would not have. It was using Verizon to get a good deal from AT&T. Apple wanted to standardize on one type of hardware. That required Apple to go with T-Mobile or AT&T. Further, Steve Jobs already knew AT&T's CEO.
Besides being a horrible company in general, it's CEO didn't do anything to prevent it from getting the iPhone.
Right- that's why it (VERIZON) IS rated at the top of consumer reports and any other tech review - meanwhile AT&T is alway at the bottom or next to bottom.
Get over it- You are literally the only one who defends AT&T.
To say that is to suggest that Apple really would have went with it. Apple likely would not have. It was using Verizon to get a good deal from AT&T. Apple wanted to standardize on one type of hardware. That required Apple to go with T-Mobile or AT&T. Further, Steve Jobs already knew AT&T's CEO.
Besides being a horrible company in general, it's CEO didn't do anything to prevent it from getting the iPhone.
I don't think the hardware would be much different. The only things that would change are the signal reception/transmission chips, the actual iphone hardware would stay the same.
It should be relatively easy for Apple to produce both models of the same phone.
To say that is to suggest that Apple really would have went with it. Apple likely would not have. It was using Verizon to get a good deal from AT&T. Apple wanted to standardize on one type of hardware. That required Apple to go with T-Mobile or AT&T. Further, Steve Jobs already knew AT&T's CEO.
Besides being a horrible company in general, it's CEO didn't do anything to prevent it from getting the iPhone.
I have used Sprint/Nextel, Verizon, & then CellularOne which was bought by AT&T. I wouldn't call AT&T a "horrible" company. That is a completely subjective statement and could mean anything. Please, quantify what exactly you mean?
I'll give you an example, my experiences on the East Coast:
Nextel: High priced. Poor coverage, though sound was great when you did have coverage. Phones had awful battery life, and drained in 1/2 day, and faster when in poor coverage areas. Terrible customer service.
Verizon: High priced, though probably more plan varieties. Great coverage. Good sound quality. Terrible customer service.
Cellular One: Dirt Cheap plans (I had $45 unlimited anytime minutes). Great Coverage competitive with Verizon. Oversold bandwidth, so sound quality was at times wanting, as well as dropped calls..... but hey, Dirt Cheap, and great coverage made up for that. Customer service was excellent.
AT&T: When AT&T bought Cell One, we were able to keep our existing great plans with regular phones. I did notice, that over all, AT&T seemed to have greater variety and flexibility with plans, and especially liked the rollover minutes. Of course, that didn't matter, since I went for the Unlimited iPhone plan for business, and kept the existing cheap ones for the family. Once Cell One was fully assimilated as AT&T, I noticed that coverage got better, voice quality got way better, and customer service rocks. I've never waited long on hold, if at all, and always been treated like a king. At the stores, we've always been fortunate to have pro's that knew what they were doing and very helpful.
Of course, Apple wants their iPhone customers to have a premium experience, and I'm sure they do what they can to push the carrier to better customer treatment.
To end- PLEASE, don't just say a certain carrier is crap or great, tell us what is liked & what is not, and where you live, so we can put it all into context. Further, was your experience recent, or was it like 10 years ago, and you just hold a grudge? Get my drift children?
I wonder if it would work with 4G! Same Q applies to 1st 2 iPhones!
no. .
Right- that's why it (VERIZON) IS rated at the top of consumer reports and any other tech review - meanwhile AT&T is alway at the bottom or next to bottom.
Get over it- You are literally the only one who defends AT&T.
It really does irritate me that you guys don't add context to your statements.
Verizon's call quality was excellent for me. But you know what? Customer service? You had to wait on hold forever. Further, they treated me (a long time loyal customer) like dirt, as if like they were the only player in town and had me over a barrel.
Though I would indeed say that Verizon's call quality is excellent (and probably the best), I can't really complain about AT&T's. Their coverage is on par, and their customer service has been top notch. Bottom line: At&T has our business because it has the iPhone. Everything else being relatively even, that really makes it the best, IMO.
Verizon has been snobbish, thinking they are the be all to cellular service.... AT&T comes along, partners with Apple, and is putting it's money where it's mouth is. We call this good competition!
... CellularOne which was bought by AT&T. ...
Read and be wise.
I think it will be a long wait for LTE. Not only do people have to roll out a decent network, LTE chip implementations have to be small and efficient enough to fit into an increasingly small package.
I was at CTIA two weeks ago. LTE is here in a big way, and all the major silicon groups were advertising the hell out of it. The chipsets are here, even though almost everyone in the industry calls it 3.9G, and they have already been put in some pretty compact handsets.
1) It doesn't make sense to NOT create a CDMA model of the iPhone 3G, and to not otherwise open the iPhone to all American (and international) carriers.
Based on the 3GPP2/CDMA development trade group (http://www.cdg.org/worldwide/cdma_world_subscriber.asp), there are over 450 MILLION CDMA (CDMA2000 1xRTT/EV-DO) customers worldwide in over 50 countries, and over 112 MILLION customers using EV-DO 3G. Why in hell wouldn't Apple spend the relatively small resources required to create a CDMA compatible iPhone.
Even just considering the USA, Verizon's LTE network is going to take years to reach the coverage area of their existing CDMA network, and Sprint is going in another direction. Combined, you are talking about nearly 100 MILLION CDMA subscribers and there are obviously millions of customers on these two networks just chomping at the bit for an iPhone 3G and who will NOT switch to AT&T for a variety of reasons.
2) If for whatever reason Apple didn't want to spend the resources developing two distinct models of iPhone (even if it makes sense economically), there is a relatively simple solution. [U]There are dual-mode baseband chips that can work with both GSM/EDGE/UMTS *AND* CDMA/1xRTT/EV-DO networks already in use by other manufactures.. including certain Blackberry models [\\U]There is no reason why Apple couldn't make the next generation iPhone use one of these universal chips.
How long has it taken for the US carriers to switch off their analogue networks? 15 years after GSM was introduced? Verizon's LTE coverage isn't going to be perfect for a very long time and any LTE phone released on Verizon will need to include a CDMA-compatible modem, just like how current UMTS/HSDPA phones still support GSM.
Apple will need to develop an iPhone model specifically for Verizon even when they do move to LTE.
Right- that's why it (VERIZON) IS rated at the top of consumer reports and any other tech review - meanwhile AT&T is alway at the bottom or next to bottom.
Get over it- You are literally the only one who defends AT&T.
Ok, I'll bite. Lets see some of this evidence you're slinging around?
I was a nearly 10 year customer of Verizon before switching to ATT, along with my mom, my dad, and my brother.
Customer service from Verizon was horrid, I mean literally some of the worst customer experiences I have ever seen by any company. Not just 1 incident, multiple from multiple members of my family. Bad in store, bad on the phone, bad experiences with managers.
My mom normally does not have trouble dealing with people, she's lobbied in both Sacramento the state capitol and in US congress for educational issues, dealt with thousands of people, and she was steaming mad after one of these incidents and there's no way she'd go back with Verizon.
So from our personal (anecdotal) experiences, Verizon was bad. Really, offensively bad.
What about ATT? Fantastic. Want examples? They had the store open during the iPhone launch day 2 years back, they handled people that weren't there for the iPhone separately, took them in the store took care of them and sent them on their way, no problem.
Prior to the iPhone coming out we switched and they gave us free phones that we didn't even have to pay extra for that we were only going to use for a few months.
In the 2+ years since we've been customers, we've had numerous examples of good in-store and phone service from ATT, not one example of bad service, rudeness or difficulty. Examples include traveling with roaming charges, and having the issues cleared up efficiently and courteously, and in our favor. In our numerous examples of service from both companies there was a huge gap.
So I'd have an extremely difficult time believing Verizon has better customer service scores than ATT.
So network? That's regional but ATT works good where we are, no worse than Verizon. You get dropped calls from any carrier depending on where you go, that's an unfortunate issue with cell phones in general. Perhaps that's what you are claiming Verizon has over ATT, but that's a marginal argument, and very situational.
Lastly, technology, Verizon really stunk. I mean they had bad phones, that were way behind what I could get from other carriers, and what they did have they crippled by turning off standard Bluetooth so you could *only* use the Bluetooth adapters from Verizon, and on and on. Making you pay *per picture* to send pictures off your phones camera and not having any way to get them directly off with a cable. And forget about any Mac support for anything they sold.
So technology, Verizon is very easily the worst carrier in the nation by far.
Score:
Service: Verizon bad, ATT good.
Network: Mixed bag, about an even tie, depends where you live.
Technology: Verizon awful, ATT ok.
Unless you have other criteria you'd like to discuss, this is pretty much a slam dunk for ATT over Verizon. This of course assuming ATT has good coverage where you live. If not, well then that pretty much ends the discussion, but the same would be true in reverse.
The problem for Verizon is that even when they move to LTE, they will still need to maintain their CDMA network as fallback.
How long has it taken for the US carriers to switch off their analogue networks? 15 years after GSM was introduced? Verizon's LTE coverage isn't going to be perfect for a very long time and any LTE phone released on Verizon will need to include a CDMA-compatible modem, just like how current UMTS/HSDPA phones still support GSM.
Apple will need to develop an iPhone model specifically for Verizon even when they do move to LTE.
You said it perfectly. The broadcast tech needs to be established which takes time. Doesn't make sense to not use the well-established, perfectly fine network. Sure there'll be issues. People will deal with it to have the iPhone.
If Verizon's talking about waiting for 4G then someone in charge isn't flexible enough to work with Apple to get the iPhone. Very disappointing. When my family switched we'd have gone with Verizon if they had the iPhone, now we're with AT&T and it's acceptable. The iPhone makes up for shortcomings and the network here in LA is better than Tmobile.
AT&T exclusivity is definitely starting to hurt the iPhone, and I don't see a compelling reason to continue it. I would imagine seeing millions more sales if they introduced it onto Verizon and/or Sprint, not to mention all of the here-to-fore-left-out cellphone operators around the world.
1) It doesn't make sense to NOT create a CDMA model of the iPhone 3G, and to not otherwise open the iPhone to all American (and international) carriers.
Based on the 3GPP2/CDMA development trade group (http://www.cdg.org/worldwide/cdma_world_subscriber.asp), there are over 450 MILLION CDMA (CDMA2000 1xRTT/EV-DO) customers worldwide in over 50 countries, and over 112 MILLION customers using EV-DO 3G. Why in hell wouldn't Apple spend the relatively small resources required to create a CDMA compatible iPhone.
Even just considering the USA, Verizon's LTE network is going to take years to reach the coverage area of their existing CDMA network, and Sprint is going in another direction. Combined, you are talking about nearly 100 MILLION CDMA subscribers and there are obviously millions of customers on these two networks just chomping at the bit for an iPhone 3G and who will NOT switch to AT&T for a variety of reasons.
2) If for whatever reason Apple didn't want to spend the resources developing two distinct models of iPhone (even if it makes sense economically), there is a relatively simple solution. [U]There are dual-mode baseband chips that can work with both GSM/EDGE/UMTS *AND* CDMA/1xRTT/EV-DO networks already in use by other manufactures.. including certain Blackberry models [\\U]There is no reason why Apple couldn't make the next generation iPhone use one of these universal chips.
CDMA iphone means a more complicated inventory system, another assembly line to assemble them, and lower margins because of the extra costs. Apple doesn't work this way. They have 3 models of laptops, 2 PC and 1 workstation. in all cases you can only configure minor things like RAM.
they will take a simpler manufacturing system and higher margins over incurring the extra costs and risks of more models
Mr. Seidenberg also addressed the notion of Apple Inc.'s iPhone ever coming to the Verizon Wireless network, saying it is more likely that Apple would be willing to work with the carrier under the fourth-generation, or 4G, network, which follows the same technology standard as AT&T Inc.'s 4G plans. He said Apple never seriously considered making a CDMA version of the iPhone because it didn't have as wide a distribution opportunity.
I took this quote from the same article over at Mac Rumors, as I find it very interesting. I'm confused on the actual facts of what went down 2 years ago, though. Did Apple seriously approach Verizon Wireless about a CDMA iPhone? I repeated hear in the mac community that they did, but Seidenberg is apparently stating otherwise here. This begs the queston then, if Apple was interesting in Verizon Wireless, why? Especially given that the iPhone had yet to be released, had no market share, thus GSM networks would have been the better alternative for Apple to enter the market with their nascent product (which it was), also as Seidenberg suggests. The alignment of statements and posturing by the two companies just don't add up to me. I find Seidenberg's mentioning of "Apple would be more willing to work with us" (paraphrasing) also intruiging, as this suggests that Apple did not really approach Verizon Wireless at all, and that it was Verizon Wireless who was interesting in carrying the iPhone. Verizon Wireless then became miffed by Apple's lack of interest, then the snubbing insued. Hmmm. Of course, it could be the reverse as commonly believed. Weird.
The Verizon CEO is just trying to save face. I bet there are several investors pissed by them missing the iPhone boat, and that fury will surface soon, when in the next few quarters Verizon will miss earnings due to the poor economy.
He is trying to lay down the story that the refusal wasn't his fault (and hence that shouldn't be used against him in considering firing decisions).
So from our personal (anecdotal) experiences, Verizon was bad. Really, offensively bad.
Lastly, technology, Verizon really stunk. I mean they had bad phones, that were way behind what I could get from other carriers, and what they did have they crippled by turning off standard Bluetooth so you could *only* use the Bluetooth adapters from Verizon, and on and on. Making you pay *per picture* to send pictures off your phones camera and not having any way to get them directly off with a cable. And forget about any Mac support for anything they sold.
So technology, Verizon is very easily the worst carrier in the nation by far.
Score:
Service: Verizon bad, ATT good.
Network: Mixed bag, about an even tie, depends where you live.
Technology: Verizon awful, ATT ok.
Unless you have other criteria you'd like to discuss, this is pretty much a slam dunk for ATT over Verizon. This of course assuming ATT has good coverage where you live. If not, well then that pretty much ends the discussion, but the same would be true in reverse.
So pompous of you to think you end the discussion.
That's you own personal opinion and can't negate the fact of what's been documented over and over. And the networks are not even- Verizon wins hands down. It doesn't depend upon where you live- it's fully covered. AT&T in NYC sucks - and if it sucks here than - well you fill in the dots.
I agree with this sentament. I know Verizon Wireless and they seem to continue to feel that they can play their own game. They need to wake up and realize that it would benefit them and their customers to team with Apple to provide the iPhone....as quickly as possible.
Apple needs to wake up and get its own lawyers to break this choke holding exclusive conrtrract with AT&T - coming up to over 2 years already. iPhone should be available not only with Verizon but the other carriers as well- just like any Blackbery etc.
It behooves Apple to act promptly to break the AT&T chains. AT&T keeps promoting and offering all kinds of 3g phones constantly thus clogging all the iPhone customers Apple has provided to them.