Only familiar with game theory in name, not so much the nuts and bolts. Personally, I think ever since Jobs and Gates started dusting up, it seems Jobs and Apple has learned to enter negotiations in ball-breaker mode. They do seem to pump and dump suppliers, and punish "bad" partners. While I don't condone unethical behavior (not saying either way, here), Apple seems to find and create strong opportunities for itself. Adept and shrewd.
Yeah, Apple dumps supplier who do not have technologies that do not bring value. Too many times companies stick with suppliers because that is who they did business with last and have some sort of relationship with them. They forgot to look up and around to see what is new and got caught using what they are familiar with. Apple is smart enough to understand the term sunk cost and you can never recover those costs and they should never be the reason why not to change.
Also, they do punish supplier who are bad or do things they should not be doing like Toshiba did when they announce 6 months ahead of a new ipod it was going to be using their new 60GB 1.8" HDD, needless to say they paid big time for the mistake and it also put the death nail in the 1.8" HDDs and Apple going to Samsung and struck a really good deal in Flash for the iPod with a company who was struggling to get a major foot hold in the flash business. So apple doing these deal is good for all of us however bad for the supplier since the do not make as much.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edwin2213
So because ATT sucks in NYC it sucks all over? Here is the coverage map from ATT and Verizon at my house. Now why on earth would I choose Verizon. Now, just like you think ATT sucks in NYC, I have proof that Verizon sucks in parts of San Diego. Contrary to your previous statement, it does depend on where you live. Saying that ATT sucks everywhere is just a lie.
ATT
Verizon
I'm curious to know where you got your coverage map?
Before huffing and puffing you know cell phone providers ALL provide them
Generally speaking GSM does not do well in building especially one constructed of steel thus the reason people said AT&T does not work well in NYC, CDMA however seems to penetrate building better. I see this all the time, outside my GSM cells work great with 5 bars walking in a building it drops to 1 or 2 bars. My company had to install repeaters inside the building so our cells work, they are all GSM.
Hugely interesting, you happen to have any handy links where I can read up more on this that puts it in simple to understand non-technical terms?
This certainly would explain why people in NYC with all the giant buildings think that ATT coverage is ass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
And really not surprising, in that in his public utterances Ivan the CEO appears to be an enormous asshole, with a kind of "we're the best, you can suck it" mentality that seems to extend to his user base.
You get the feeling that if Ivan was a customer service rep at a Verizon store, and you came in with a complaint, he'd just start screaming at you to get the fuck out, if you didn't like it.
He is a huge ass, but having a jerk as a CEO does not always mean that the customer service at the company has to follow suit. Sadly in the case of Verizon wireless it does. However it's been that way for a long time, so I doubt he's the root cause of it.
Interestingly Verizon has great customer service with their business class DSL tech support, at least when I've called up they've been very helpful and courteous. Tho I do think I should mention that when I had a billing problem related to an upgrade of my service it took over 6 months to sort out. They wanted to refund the extra charge that they should never have charged me to the closed account, and wouldn't apply it to the new one. It took over 6 months to get them to just send out a check.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theobold
Say you had a etch a sketch (no disrespect but this is what the mac is based on) and hey look at that the room is turning inside out oh no my UNDERWEAR IS ON FIRE!! AAHHHHHhhhhhhh!!!!
Fixed.
---
I want to add to this discussion a point no one seems to realize. Without ATT backing up Apple, the iPhone never would have happened. If Verizon was the only carrier, there simply would be no iPhone. A crippled, technologically hamstrung and dumbed down version of the iPhone with most of the best features turned off or tied to costly Verizon services is not an iPhone.
This point has to be fully realized and understood before any discussion of whether Apple should allow Verizon to carry the iPhone in the future.
Verizon may have regionally better service than ATT in certain areas, but that doesn't mean they deserve to carry the iPhone.
Fair enough, but he didn't specify what his criteria was for saying ATT was bad.
In every major market? This I find hard to believe, I would love to see those reports. I do know that Consumer Reports has had some shady practices in the past with some of their "objective" surveys, so I'd prefer more than just them for evidence. I don't consider them an unbiassed source.
There's also a tendency in the main stream media to have "NYCitis" since a lot of the MSM is headquartered in NYC, they think that NYC = the rest of the country. This is not the case. The fact that Verizon happens to have a better network in NYC means that people that live there think this means that Verizon has a better nationwide network.
I will say this. I hope that the nation can move away from proprietary networks altogether and have a national standard that everyone uses, so we don't have to have this discussion at all. If you're in range of any cell tower anywhere in the country it should not matter which network you are on.
The conclusions from Consumer Reports are free but the breakdown of the data is for paid subscribers. It does not suffer from NYC-itis. It covers plenty of cities and breaks down the data by each area. It covers places like San Antonio and Tampa as examples.
Verizon placed first in all cities except for three where they were beat by Alltel who they just purchased.
AT&T was a mix of thirds with some second place finishes. It finished last in San Francisco. Even when they placed decent they had a lot of bad marks for no service and static on calls
As for the last part, I agree. I'm hoping LTE will make everything a lot easier for all of us over time.
I want to add to this discussion a point no one seems to realize. Without ATT backing up Apple, the iPhone never would have happened. If Verizon was the only carrier, there simply would be no iPhone. A crippled, technologically hamstrung and dumbed down version of the iPhone with most of the best features turned off or tied to costly Verizon services is not an iPhone.
This point has to be fully realized and understood before any discussion of whether Apple should allow Verizon to carry the iPhone in the future.
Verizon may have regionally better service than ATT in certain areas, but that doesn't mean they deserve to carry the iPhone.
That is an excellent point that some don't seem to consider. Whether or not you like Apple or AT&T the whole market is better because of the AT&T/Apple risk. Smartphones, especially in the US, have become much better in a short time, and carriers have lowered their data fees considerably, at least in the US. I don't think either of those things would have happened in that time frame if Apple was not able to release a phone the way they wanted to.
So that leaves PC cards as the only option for use, which makes sense to start the service since the radios will be larger and more power hungry than any phone can reasonably handle. I think that for cellular calls that CDMA2000 will be in place for use with LTE, at the minimum, which makes Apple having one model device for the US impossible if it wishes to support other carriers. However, but the time LTE is worthy of being added to a phone GSM/CDMA and CDMA2000/UTMS combo radios will probably be small enough to warrant Apple using them, which may include a compatible frequency for T-Mobile's 3G.
I'm curious to know where you got your coverage map?
Before huffing and puffing you know cell phone providers ALL provide them
No doubt. I just checked my address and it described the coverage as good. My friend who bought and returned the iPhone due to the coverage from his living room sounding like he was driving in his car with the window down... his was described by the site as......best.
I will say this. I hope that the nation can move away from proprietary networks altogether and have a national standard that everyone uses, so we don't have to have this discussion at all. If you're in range of any cell tower anywhere in the country it should not matter which network you are on.
from you mouth to God's Ears! And, as to VZ vs. AT&T -- such silly fighting here.... OY!
As to AT&T being bad in NYC, someone please provide the specifics!
Also, sometimes I wonder if some of the posts on this or any Forum are made by the PAID Employees of the Carriers, to sway Public Opinion?! Yes, I know that it sounds like one of those Conspiracy Theories?! Also, even they are not PAID, but are Employed by a Carrier, the Posts could be biased...
Anyway, I got my Answer earlier - OLD iPhones, and the one that's everyone is expecting this Summer -- NONE of them will work with LTE.... Thus paper weights they'll become, or spare units..., right?
Anyway, I got my Answer earlier - OLD iPhones, and the one that's everyone is expecting this Summer -- NONE of them will work with LTE.... Thus paper weights they'll become, or spare units..., right?
Eventually, yes, but such a transition doesn't happen overnight. We have rampant 3G now and yet 2G is not only active but dominates. When LTE begins among carriers it will be years before it covers as much as the current 3G and I still wouldn't expect 2G to go away as most people will be still be using basic phones.
That is all with the carriers, but we have to consider the consumer device, too. First we'll get a 4G USB and/or EC/34 card with LTE that is backwards compatible with 3G and 2G radios. This LTE tech will be too large and too power hungry to work in phones. Then we'll see it integrated in notebooks and handheld computing devices, and finally into phones. The first part of this isn't even viable to the unless the country or at least the city that the consumer resides in has LTE established in some way that makes it worthwhile to have.
All in all, you have a long time to use the original iPhone, even after LTE becomes the de facto high-speed connection on smartphones.
LOL! A Verizon iPhone! I can see it now, crippled beyond anything, Get It Now ads in every app, and more crut. Please, keep the CDMA networks as far away from the iPhone as possible.
You may have been misled into how to interpret actual real-world wireless coverage based on what the maps indicate. In no way would I use those coverage maps as anything but rough guide for indoor coverage. There are simply way too many variables involved to equate the map legends with what you get sitting on the couch. Construction materials can play a big role. My cousins who live nearby but have a much more solidly built brick home (think, old school building quality) really have issues although we both live in close proximity to a cell site. Needless to say they had to dump their iPhones and went back to their old Nokia & SE handsets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
No doubt. I just checked my address and it described the coverage as good. My friend who bought and returned the iPhone due to the coverage from his living room sounding like he was driving in his car with the window down... his was described by the site as......best.
Needless to say they had to dump their iPhones and went back to their old Nokia & SE handsets.
Why is that needless to say it's not an obvious conclusion from the paragraph. Are you saying that it's a problem with the iPhone handset since there is no mention of switching cellular carriers?
It is interesting people will post stories such as: "I used to use a Palm Centro, then switched to Android, then tried the iPhone but AT&T sucks in my area, so now I use Verizon Storm and it's the best of them all."
These people seem to figure that no one would point out the fact that you claim to have broken multiple contracts and bought multiple phones in a short amount of time just so you feel you have the validity to say Verizon Storm is the best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Why is that needless to say it's not an obvious conclusion from the paragraph. Are you saying that it's a problem with the iPhone handset since there is no mention of switching cellular carriers?
It is interesting people will post stories such as: "I used to use a Palm Centro, then switched to Android, then tried the iPhone but AT&T sucks in my area, so now I use Verizon Storm and it's the best of them all."
These people seem to figure that no one would point out the fact that you claim to have broken multiple contracts and bought multiple phones in a short amount of time just so you feel you have the validity to say Verizon Storm is the best.
I do take all them with a grain of slat, to use the cliché, but it is possible to do within the contractual agreement as I think they all have a 30 day policy for canceling a contract with no penalty. However, I would guess that very few people would go to that trouble to try out different phones and carriers.
I do take all them with a grain of slat, to use the cliché, but it is possible to do within the contractual agreement as I think they all have a 30 day policy for canceling a contract with no penalty. However, I would guess that very few people would go to that trouble to try out different phones and carriers.
I think the cliché you're looking for is "a garin of salt."
Oh no, sites are reporting that Verizon is in high-level talks with Apple about getting an iPhone in 2010 when the AT&T exclusivity is supposedly up. Some are also claiming that it would be an LTE phone not needing the CDMA chips, which is just ludicrous on many levels.
If someone with this type of story explained the circumstances of why and how they switched so many phones, that would go a long way to credibility. But as it is I don't believe any of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I do take all them with a grain of slat, to use the cliché, but it is possible to do within the contractual agreement as I think they all have a 30 day policy for canceling a contract with no penalty. However, I would guess that very few people would go to that trouble to try out different phones and carriers.
Comments
Only familiar with game theory in name, not so much the nuts and bolts. Personally, I think ever since Jobs and Gates started dusting up, it seems Jobs and Apple has learned to enter negotiations in ball-breaker mode. They do seem to pump and dump suppliers, and punish "bad" partners. While I don't condone unethical behavior (not saying either way, here), Apple seems to find and create strong opportunities for itself. Adept and shrewd.
Yeah, Apple dumps supplier who do not have technologies that do not bring value. Too many times companies stick with suppliers because that is who they did business with last and have some sort of relationship with them. They forgot to look up and around to see what is new and got caught using what they are familiar with. Apple is smart enough to understand the term sunk cost and you can never recover those costs and they should never be the reason why not to change.
Also, they do punish supplier who are bad or do things they should not be doing like Toshiba did when they announce 6 months ahead of a new ipod it was going to be using their new 60GB 1.8" HDD, needless to say they paid big time for the mistake and it also put the death nail in the 1.8" HDDs and Apple going to Samsung and struck a really good deal in Flash for the iPod with a company who was struggling to get a major foot hold in the flash business. So apple doing these deal is good for all of us however bad for the supplier since the do not make as much.
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.
So because ATT sucks in NYC it sucks all over? Here is the coverage map from ATT and Verizon at my house. Now why on earth would I choose Verizon. Now, just like you think ATT sucks in NYC, I have proof that Verizon sucks in parts of San Diego. Contrary to your previous statement, it does depend on where you live. Saying that ATT sucks everywhere is just a lie.
ATT
Verizon
I'm curious to know where you got your coverage map?
Before huffing and puffing you know cell phone providers ALL provide them
Generally speaking GSM does not do well in building especially one constructed of steel thus the reason people said AT&T does not work well in NYC, CDMA however seems to penetrate building better. I see this all the time, outside my GSM cells work great with 5 bars walking in a building it drops to 1 or 2 bars. My company had to install repeaters inside the building so our cells work, they are all GSM.
Hugely interesting, you happen to have any handy links where I can read up more on this that puts it in simple to understand non-technical terms?
This certainly would explain why people in NYC with all the giant buildings think that ATT coverage is ass.
And really not surprising, in that in his public utterances Ivan the CEO appears to be an enormous asshole, with a kind of "we're the best, you can suck it" mentality that seems to extend to his user base.
You get the feeling that if Ivan was a customer service rep at a Verizon store, and you came in with a complaint, he'd just start screaming at you to get the fuck out, if you didn't like it.
He is a huge ass, but having a jerk as a CEO does not always mean that the customer service at the company has to follow suit. Sadly in the case of Verizon wireless it does. However it's been that way for a long time, so I doubt he's the root cause of it.
Interestingly Verizon has great customer service with their business class DSL tech support, at least when I've called up they've been very helpful and courteous. Tho I do think I should mention that when I had a billing problem related to an upgrade of my service it took over 6 months to sort out. They wanted to refund the extra charge that they should never have charged me to the closed account, and wouldn't apply it to the new one. It took over 6 months to get them to just send out a check.
Say you had a etch a sketch (no disrespect but this is what the mac is based on) and hey look at that the room is turning inside out oh no my UNDERWEAR IS ON FIRE!! AAHHHHHhhhhhhh!!!!
Fixed.
---
I want to add to this discussion a point no one seems to realize. Without ATT backing up Apple, the iPhone never would have happened. If Verizon was the only carrier, there simply would be no iPhone. A crippled, technologically hamstrung and dumbed down version of the iPhone with most of the best features turned off or tied to costly Verizon services is not an iPhone.
This point has to be fully realized and understood before any discussion of whether Apple should allow Verizon to carry the iPhone in the future.
Verizon may have regionally better service than ATT in certain areas, but that doesn't mean they deserve to carry the iPhone.
Fair enough, but he didn't specify what his criteria was for saying ATT was bad.
In every major market? This I find hard to believe, I would love to see those reports. I do know that Consumer Reports has had some shady practices in the past with some of their "objective" surveys, so I'd prefer more than just them for evidence. I don't consider them an unbiassed source.
There's also a tendency in the main stream media to have "NYCitis" since a lot of the MSM is headquartered in NYC, they think that NYC = the rest of the country. This is not the case. The fact that Verizon happens to have a better network in NYC means that people that live there think this means that Verizon has a better nationwide network.
I will say this. I hope that the nation can move away from proprietary networks altogether and have a national standard that everyone uses, so we don't have to have this discussion at all. If you're in range of any cell tower anywhere in the country it should not matter which network you are on.
The conclusions from Consumer Reports are free but the breakdown of the data is for paid subscribers. It does not suffer from NYC-itis. It covers plenty of cities and breaks down the data by each area. It covers places like San Antonio and Tampa as examples.
Verizon placed first in all cities except for three where they were beat by Alltel who they just purchased.
AT&T was a mix of thirds with some second place finishes. It finished last in San Francisco. Even when they placed decent they had a lot of bad marks for no service and static on calls
As for the last part, I agree. I'm hoping LTE will make everything a lot easier for all of us over time.
I want to add to this discussion a point no one seems to realize. Without ATT backing up Apple, the iPhone never would have happened. If Verizon was the only carrier, there simply would be no iPhone. A crippled, technologically hamstrung and dumbed down version of the iPhone with most of the best features turned off or tied to costly Verizon services is not an iPhone.
This point has to be fully realized and understood before any discussion of whether Apple should allow Verizon to carry the iPhone in the future.
Verizon may have regionally better service than ATT in certain areas, but that doesn't mean they deserve to carry the iPhone.
That is an excellent point that some don't seem to consider. Whether or not you like Apple or AT&T the whole market is better because of the AT&T/Apple risk. Smartphones, especially in the US, have become much better in a short time, and carriers have lowered their data fees considerably, at least in the US. I don't think either of those things would have happened in that time frame if Apple was not able to release a phone the way they wanted to.
Verizon releases early data-focused LTE specs, CDMA nowhere in sight, the LTE network will start out as a data-only service, and right now devices aren't required to support CDMA at all, which is a pretty bold move.
Looks as if Verizon will not require LTE phones to support CDMA.
Verizon releases early data-focused LTE specs, CDMA nowhere in sight, the LTE network will start out as a data-only service, and right now devices aren't required to support CDMA at all, which is a pretty bold move.
So that leaves PC cards as the only option for use, which makes sense to start the service since the radios will be larger and more power hungry than any phone can reasonably handle. I think that for cellular calls that CDMA2000 will be in place for use with LTE, at the minimum, which makes Apple having one model device for the US impossible if it wishes to support other carriers. However, but the time LTE is worthy of being added to a phone GSM/CDMA and CDMA2000/UTMS combo radios will probably be small enough to warrant Apple using them, which may include a compatible frequency for T-Mobile's 3G.
I'm curious to know where you got your coverage map?
Before huffing and puffing you know cell phone providers ALL provide them
No doubt. I just checked my address and it described the coverage as good. My friend who bought and returned the iPhone due to the coverage from his living room sounding like he was driving in his car with the window down... his was described by the site as......best.
That is pretty friggin' scary.
Steven R Wilson:
I will say this. I hope that the nation can move away from proprietary networks altogether and have a national standard that everyone uses, so we don't have to have this discussion at all. If you're in range of any cell tower anywhere in the country it should not matter which network you are on.
from you mouth to God's Ears
As to AT&T being bad in NYC, someone please provide the specifics!
Also, sometimes I wonder if some of the posts on this or any Forum are made by the PAID Employees of the Carriers, to sway Public Opinion?! Yes, I know that it sounds like one of those Conspiracy Theories?! Also, even they are not PAID, but are Employed by a Carrier, the Posts could be biased...
Anyway, I got my Answer earlier - OLD iPhones, and the one that's everyone is expecting this Summer -- NONE of them will work with LTE.... Thus paper weights they'll become, or spare units..., right?
Thanks everyone for your posts - a nice thread!
Anyway, I got my Answer earlier - OLD iPhones, and the one that's everyone is expecting this Summer -- NONE of them will work with LTE.... Thus paper weights they'll become, or spare units..., right?
Eventually, yes, but such a transition doesn't happen overnight. We have rampant 3G now and yet 2G is not only active but dominates. When LTE begins among carriers it will be years before it covers as much as the current 3G and I still wouldn't expect 2G to go away as most people will be still be using basic phones.
That is all with the carriers, but we have to consider the consumer device, too. First we'll get a 4G USB and/or EC/34 card with LTE that is backwards compatible with 3G and 2G radios. This LTE tech will be too large and too power hungry to work in phones. Then we'll see it integrated in notebooks and handheld computing devices, and finally into phones. The first part of this isn't even viable to the unless the country or at least the city that the consumer resides in has LTE established in some way that makes it worthwhile to have.
All in all, you have a long time to use the original iPhone, even after LTE becomes the de facto high-speed connection on smartphones.
No doubt. I just checked my address and it described the coverage as good. My friend who bought and returned the iPhone due to the coverage from his living room sounding like he was driving in his car with the window down... his was described by the site as......best.
That is pretty friggin' scary.
Needless to say they had to dump their iPhones and went back to their old Nokia & SE handsets.
Why is that needless to say it's not an obvious conclusion from the paragraph. Are you saying that it's a problem with the iPhone handset since there is no mention of switching cellular carriers?
These people seem to figure that no one would point out the fact that you claim to have broken multiple contracts and bought multiple phones in a short amount of time just so you feel you have the validity to say Verizon Storm is the best.
Why is that needless to say it's not an obvious conclusion from the paragraph. Are you saying that it's a problem with the iPhone handset since there is no mention of switching cellular carriers?
It is interesting people will post stories such as: "I used to use a Palm Centro, then switched to Android, then tried the iPhone but AT&T sucks in my area, so now I use Verizon Storm and it's the best of them all."
These people seem to figure that no one would point out the fact that you claim to have broken multiple contracts and bought multiple phones in a short amount of time just so you feel you have the validity to say Verizon Storm is the best.
I do take all them with a grain of slat, to use the cliché, but it is possible to do within the contractual agreement as I think they all have a 30 day policy for canceling a contract with no penalty. However, I would guess that very few people would go to that trouble to try out different phones and carriers.
I do take all them with a grain of slat, to use the cliché, but it is possible to do within the contractual agreement as I think they all have a 30 day policy for canceling a contract with no penalty. However, I would guess that very few people would go to that trouble to try out different phones and carriers.
I think the cliché you're looking for is "a garin of salt."
I do take all them with a grain of slat, to use the cliché, but it is possible to do within the contractual agreement as I think they all have a 30 day policy for canceling a contract with no penalty. However, I would guess that very few people would go to that trouble to try out different phones and carriers.