The Razor didn't DO anything. The only claim to fame was its thinness.
In fact, people who bought it didn't even think it was good. The reviews weren't good. They bought it because it was thin. I know several people who bought it for that reason back then. They also thought the phone wasn't great, but that wasn't why they bought it.
It's very likely that Jobs likes to make thin products because people like to buy thin products.
You can't equate the Razor with a real feature phone much less a smartphone.
I thought it was the "RAZR"... anyway, a friend of mine had it and it truly was junk. I liked it for it's thinness, but that's as far as it got.
I thought it was the "RAZR"... anyway, a friend of mine had it and it truly was junk. I liked it for it's thinness, but that's as far as it got.
Yeah, you're "RAZR" is right, I wasn't really thinking about that.
I think the reason why motorola had no viable follow-up to the RAZR was because there was nothing to follow up. It's hard to come out with a great successor to a phone whose only virtue was its thinness, but with nothing else that worked well.
I see comparisons between the iPhone and the RAZR here and there, and it's a false comparison.
And as for the "no one thought it would work on Verizon." bit. well, no one ever thought that. It was about as basic a phone as was ever made.
We don't even have 3G coverage where I live. If they were a decent company, they would still put people on the original Iphone plan that do not have 3G available where they live. And to add to it, we had an ice storm a few months ago that knocked all of AT&T out. However, Verizon was up and running the whole time. Heard thru an AT&T tech, Verizon was riding AT&T fiber while AT&T was on KDL, a different fiber company. Just more of the insane mismanagement by Ma Bell. Apple needs to start sending a jar of vaseline with every iphone.
I agree with you except for China. With its size, and because Apple already has to have WiFi (and maybe Bluetooth) disabled in the device and because of the number of potential current and future customers creating a CDMA iPhone for the Chinese market may be the best move.
However, China Unicom the 2nd largest carrier, has GSM. And it might be better for Apple as it's done plenty of times already with the iPhone to go with the 2nd largest instead of the largest so a GSM iPhone may still happen. China is that wild card where anything can happen.
Regarding a CDMA iPhone in the US, I still haven't gotten any answers to my questions on page 1. I expect these ill-considered replies from Teckstud, but not from Winterspan who has provided many useful posts.
Maybe it's because you write such vague, ambiguous posts that warrant those types of answers. Your interpretation usually relflects some warped version of what you write. Learn to write more clearly and direct and then you maybe won't get "ill-considered" answers. Don't blame us- you're the one posting such gibberish.
We don't even have 3G coverage where I live. If they were a decent company, they would still put people on the original Iphone plan that do not have 3G available where they live. And to add to it, we had an ice storm a few months ago that knocked all of AT&T out. However, Verizon was up and running the whole time. Heard thru an AT&T tech, Verizon was riding AT&T fiber while AT&T was on KDL, a different fiber company. Just more of the insane mismanagement by Ma Bell. Apple needs to start sending a jar of vaseline with every iphone.
Tell it to solipsism- he still doesn't believe that AT&T sucks.
It would appear that Verizon is already adding support for 4G in their networks. With that in mind 2010 is certainly a likely date for 4G support in the largest cities.
Yeah, you're "RAZR" is right, I wasn't really thinking about that.
I think the reason why motorola had no viable follow-up to the RAZR was because there was nothing to follow up. It's hard to come out with a great successor to a phone whose only virtue was its thinness, but with nothing else that worked well.
I see comparisons between the iPhone and the RAZR here and there, and it's a false comparison.
And as for the "no one thought it would work on Verizon." bit. well, no one ever thought that. It was about as basic a phone as was ever made.
Not true- it was a GSm phone and then came the CDMA Verizon version which lacked certain features.
And a comparison is valid if you consider that both companies only offer one phone regardless of the kind. Remember at on point in time the RAZR was considered genius too.
GSM has been known to have poorer voice quality from way back. It's very noticeable. GSM has a much more artificial quality to it, and is harder to understand, esp. under poor conditions.
And that why myself and many others would accept a somewhat crippled iPhone with Verizon because of that very quality we demand in a phone. It sounds like you're talking on a land line. NOTHING BEATS IT
And that why myself and many others would accept a somewhat crippled iPhone with Verizon because of that very quality we demand in a phone. It sounds like you're talking on a land line. NOTHING BEATS IT
Remember that GSM 3G supports CDMA signal encoding (not the same thing as the CDMA protocol), in addition to TDMA. This means the quality of audio will depend on where you are - this is dependant on service provider. Check up on WCDMA: http://gsmworld.com/technology/3gsm/index.htm#nav-6
A few things worth mentioning is that when you look at the GSM coverage maps (2007):
- Asia is the largest market as a percentage of the globe
- GSM covers most of the USA
- 3G GSM only covers the places of highest density
World coverage of GSM (2008) shows a slight increase in 3G GSM in 2008, but it show that GSM has 81% of the market. At the same time the map shows how small, as a percentage USA/Canada is in the global market.
Not true- it was a GSm phone and then came the CDMA Verizon version which lacked certain features.
And a comparison is valid if you consider that both companies only offer one phone regardless of the kind. Remember at on point in time the RAZR was considered genius too.
I remember the RAZR very well. Several of my friends had them. One guy even bought four for his family, and that was when they were selling for $500 apiece!
He didn't like it from the beginning, and was really ticked when the price kept dropping so rapidly. It had almost no features to speak of. He didn't like the "buttons" which were hard to press, but were done that way so when it was closed, they would allow the phone to remain thin.
These seems to have been the universal thoughts about the phone.
Later versions, and there have been a lot of them, added more features, as expected. But the first ones which started the initial craze very fairly simple, and were sold on looks (shock!).
I recall that roughly speaking, the US makes up about half of all iPhone sales. So sales are 50% ATT and 50% the rest of the world.
Another way to look at the math is that 100% of current iPhone sales are GSM. If, and only if, Verizon could sell as many iPhones as are in ATT's base its first year (not going to happen), then the distribution would be 75% GSM 25% CDMA. But that doesn't take into account future sales in China, or a greater adoption rate in existing non-US markets.
Add to that Verizon's stated intent to abandon CDMA, in favor of GSM, in the next few years, and the argument for a CDMA version of the iPhone gets weaker.
I think it more likely that Verizon acquire T-Mobile for its GSM network and present that to Apple. Still that would take a couple of years to accomplish and we're back to 2012 again.
Another way to look at the math is that 100% of current iPhone sales are GSM. If, and only if, Verizon could sell as many iPhones as are in ATT's base its first year (not going to happen), then the distribution would be 75% GSM 25% CDMA. But that doesn't take into account future sales in China, or a greater adoption rate in existing non-US markets.
Add to that Verizon's stated intent to abandon CDMA, in favor of GSM, in the next few years, and the argument for a CDMA version of the iPhone gets weaker.
I think it more likely that Verizon acquire T-Mobile for its GSM network and present that to Apple. Still that would take a couple of years to accomplish and we're back to 2012 again.
I doubt if Verizon would be allowed to buy T-Mobile.
update: Verizon expects their first LTE phones in the second half of 2011, and even then they will have to support CDMA as a fallback. So Apple will be working with CDMA anyways, and it makes one more reason they should have produced a CDMA iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
So, and this is kind of my standard rejoinder to this kind of post, why do you think Apple hasn't made a CDMA phone? By your lights it's obvious, necessary and nothing but upside, yet, here we are.
So do you figure Apple is stupid, incompetent, corrupt, or all three?
I would say stubborn and arrogant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I just don't think that selling as many units as possible right out of the gate without getting control over the ecosystem is the best tactic for long term growth.
I agree; however, they've had 2 years of successful market penetration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I
1) They are under contract so it's a no go until that is over. Sure, we don't know the exact details, but I think we can assume at least 2 years and probably the 1 year add on for going hte subsidization route on Apple's request.
2) How small and power efficient are these dual network standards chips? Remember, Apple has one of the smallest smartphones by volume.
3) Why do all other handset makers do exclusive deals with carriers if it limits their unit sales?
1) My point was about not renewing the contract..
2) The blackberry worldphone is competitive with standard models in power efficiency.. Not sure about size
3) Well it obviously depends on what their financial incentive is and their expected sales volume.
With the iPhone we are talking about 10+ million new sales, and there is no way AT&T is paying anywhere near enough to rival that potential revenue!
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Winterspan needs to ask himself, if almost all the countries that they do service are GSM-based why did they go with exclusive contracts in every country they could and make the legally required unlocked iPhones price prohibitive?..
Well, I think we all can agree that *initially* it may be smart for Apple to forge exclusivity parternships with local carriers for the benefits it carries like testing the iPhone, joint marketing efforts, etc.
However, its a different story 2 years later when the iPhone has widespread popularity and can easily "sell itself" in the marketplace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL
The US is the largest market for the iPhone at present but it's certainly not the largest potential market. India and China are both far, far bigger cell phone markets even if Apple doesn't currently enjoy the same rock star status in Asia as it does in the English-speaking world.
As i mentioned, countries like China and India certainly have more total subscribers, but how many will desire the iPhone and can afford it?
Read the surveys.. A lot of Americans on other carriers want an iPhone, and we are talking a potential market of 135+ million.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL
Judging by the number of people willing to swap networks to AT&T, there's very minimal benefits in dropping the exclusivity.
And what number would that be? It's only been around 40% of new iPhone subscribers, and based on their unit sales it is quite low in comparison to the other 170 million cellphone users in the USA.
For some real evidence and not this anecdotal "I think this", look at the survey data (ill try to find it) of cellphone users on other carriers who said they are interested in an iPhone if it came to their carrier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL
Add this to the "bag of hurt" CDMA licensing and it all becomes a very expensive venture to capture a relatively small*, dying market.
(* i.e. those customers who would want an iPhone but won't switch to AT&T)
Relatively small? LOOK AT THE DATA and stop throwing numbers our your ass. Beyond those that expressed interest already, you are talking about 2/3 of American cellphone subscribers not having access to the iPhone (135+ million on just Sprint and Verizon) --- the country where more than half of all unit sales have occured.
Also, it is "dying" a long death. As i mention below, Verizon will not have a nationwide LTE network fully operational until late 2010/early 2011 at the earliest, and production ready cellphone (not modem) chipsets will not be available until sometime in 2011. And even then it will take months to integrate it into a production smartphone and finish device and network testing, debugging, etc.
I don't understand why you and others continue to defend the indefensible. There is no real legitimate business argument for continuing the exclusivity.
Could you imagine another business whose strategy involved alienating 2/3 of their potential customer base??? They'd be the laughing stock of Forbes!
Quote:
Originally Posted by retroneo
Dudes, an LTE version of the iPhone won't happen until 2011.
Following Infineon's roadmap if Apple adopts it aggressively. There will be an HSPA (7.2Mbit Downlink /5.8Mbit Uplink) version this year and an HSPA+ (21Mbit) version in 2010.
Infineon's LTE (150Mbit downlink / 50Mbit uplink) baseband will be ready for devices shipping in 2011. ...
Exactly, you have this echo chamber shouting about LTE as if it will take < 12 months for not only Verizon to buildout a complete nation-wide LTE network that rivals their existing CDMA network, but for the LTE chipsets makers to have production-ready chips rolling off the lines and already integrated into production-ready cellphones.
Even In 12-14+ months when Verizon barely has 10% of the USA covered, LTE chipsets will be found solely in 3G data cards. Eventually, when the first LTE phones come out (H2 2011), the first gen chips will be power hungry. It will take a longtime to see a small, power efficient LTE iPhone.
I doubt if Verizon would be allowed to buy T-Mobile.
Sure they will. Sprint is headed to bankruptcy, and its CDMA network is losing value (the rest of the world is GSM). Who wants to buy #4 when its bleeding money and customers?
It doesn't make sense for T-Mobile to acquire Sprint, they have their own problems, and are a weakening #3. Both are going to be acquired, and if they are split up between the #1 and #2 carriers then competition is maintained. The regulators will allow it because they can't stop it.
Sure they will. Sprint is headed to bankruptcy, and its CDMA network is losing value (the rest of the world is GSM). Who wants to buy #4 when its bleeding money and customers?
It doesn't make sense for T-Mobile to acquire Sprint, they have their own problems, and are a weakening #3. Both are going to be acquired, and if they are split up between the #1 and #2 carriers then competition is maintained. The regulators will allow it because they can't stop it.
You say that way too easily, but I doubt it.
T-Mobile isn't a separate company anyway. If they were bought by Verizon, then the total would be just too big. No matter what Sprint's problems are, they have nothing to with this. If anything, it would make a purchase even less likely.
I don't understand why you and others continue to defend the indefensible. There is no real legitimate business argument for continuing the exclusivity.
If you assume Verizon agrees to all the conditions to which AT&T has agreed, then you are
probably correct. However, many people have pointed out how Verizon likes to cripple or
charge extra for features on their phones. It could be that Verizon was the stubborn party
in insisting on more nickel and dime charges for iPhone features. They also may have
insisted on having Verizon branding on the iPhone and in having their fingers on the
App Store. I think these would be legitimate stumbling blocks for an Apple/Verizon deal.
Of course, neither you nor I were at the discussions, right?
If you assume Verizon agrees to all the conditions to which AT&T has agreed, then you are
probably correct. However, many people have pointed out how Verizon likes to cripple or
charge extra for features on their phones. It could be that Verizon was the stubborn party
in insisting on more nickel and dime charges for iPhone features. They also may have
insisted on having Verizon branding on the iPhone and in having their fingers on the
App Store. I think these would be legitimate stumbling blocks for an Apple/Verizon deal.
Of course, neither you nor I were at the discussions, right?
These are some of the problems Apple is having with Chinese carriers as well.
I don't offhand remember whether it was China Mobile (though I think it was), Or China Unicom, which Apple is supposedly in final talks with now, but one of them, or both for all I know, demanded that they, and not Apple, run the App Store in China. They wanted to decide which apps made it in, take command of what happened with updates, what to do with an app later if they wanted to remove it (perhaps the government wanting to remove it?), and supposedly wanted the 30% cut as well.
The Razor didn't DO anything. The only claim to fame was its thinness.
In fact, people who bought it didn't even think it was good. The reviews weren't good. They bought it because it was thin. I know several people who bought it for that reason back then. They also thought the phone wasn't great, but that wasn't why they bought it.
It's very likely that Jobs likes to make thin products because people like to buy thin products.
You can't equate the Razor with a real feature phone much less a smartphone.
Thank you, sir.
Count me among those that bought it because it was thin.
And, among those who also thought the phone was really poorly designed (and that Verizon's service was no better or worse than that of ATT). \
Well, I think we all can agree that *initially* it may be smart for Apple to forge exclusivity parternships with local carriers for the benefits it carries like testing the iPhone, joint marketing efforts, etc.
However, its a different story 2 years later when the iPhone has widespread popularity and can easily "sell itself" in the marketplace.
The problem is that Apple didn't just do it in the US or in the first four EU countries months later while still selling the original iPhone. They did it in every country that legally allowed them to do carrier exclusivity and SIM locking. This is after the 3G version arrived and well after the iPhone proved itself to be a market driver. On top of that, they are still doing it with their talks to Chinese carriers. Instead of just going full throttle into the China's fast growing and vast cellular community they are trying to now get China Unicom, their 2nd largest carrier, to agree to exclusivity for certain demands.
I think that is enough proof that Apple has plans well beyond a few hot seasons of increased unit sales, otherwise why continue doing it in over again... country after country... model after model... year after year? One potential reason, if they aren't paired with a carrier they will lose control of things that the carriers they've partnered with have agreed to in legally binding contracts. They've already done plenty of things already that have never been done before with a carrier/vendor collaboration. Things that we probably never considered and things that other carrier and cellphone vendors thought we not possible. To drop it would affect how those services would continue and potentially destroy parts of the ecosystem they are trying to create and control.
Comments
The Razor didn't DO anything. The only claim to fame was its thinness.
In fact, people who bought it didn't even think it was good. The reviews weren't good. They bought it because it was thin. I know several people who bought it for that reason back then. They also thought the phone wasn't great, but that wasn't why they bought it.
It's very likely that Jobs likes to make thin products because people like to buy thin products.
You can't equate the Razor with a real feature phone much less a smartphone.
I thought it was the "RAZR"... anyway, a friend of mine had it and it truly was junk. I liked it for it's thinness, but that's as far as it got.
I thought it was the "RAZR"... anyway, a friend of mine had it and it truly was junk. I liked it for it's thinness, but that's as far as it got.
Yeah, you're "RAZR" is right, I wasn't really thinking about that.
I think the reason why motorola had no viable follow-up to the RAZR was because there was nothing to follow up. It's hard to come out with a great successor to a phone whose only virtue was its thinness, but with nothing else that worked well.
I see comparisons between the iPhone and the RAZR here and there, and it's a false comparison.
And as for the "no one thought it would work on Verizon." bit. well, no one ever thought that. It was about as basic a phone as was ever made.
I agree with you except for China. With its size, and because Apple already has to have WiFi (and maybe Bluetooth) disabled in the device and because of the number of potential current and future customers creating a CDMA iPhone for the Chinese market may be the best move.
However, China Unicom the 2nd largest carrier, has GSM. And it might be better for Apple as it's done plenty of times already with the iPhone to go with the 2nd largest instead of the largest so a GSM iPhone may still happen. China is that wild card where anything can happen.
Regarding a CDMA iPhone in the US, I still haven't gotten any answers to my questions on page 1. I expect these ill-considered replies from Teckstud, but not from Winterspan who has provided many useful posts.
Maybe it's because you write such vague, ambiguous posts that warrant those types of answers. Your interpretation usually relflects some warped version of what you write. Learn to write more clearly and direct and then you maybe won't get "ill-considered" answers. Don't blame us- you're the one posting such gibberish.
We don't even have 3G coverage where I live. If they were a decent company, they would still put people on the original Iphone plan that do not have 3G available where they live. And to add to it, we had an ice storm a few months ago that knocked all of AT&T out. However, Verizon was up and running the whole time. Heard thru an AT&T tech, Verizon was riding AT&T fiber while AT&T was on KDL, a different fiber company. Just more of the insane mismanagement by Ma Bell. Apple needs to start sending a jar of vaseline with every iphone.
Tell it to solipsism- he still doesn't believe that AT&T sucks.
http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20...means-for-you/
It would appear that Verizon is already adding support for 4G in their networks. With that in mind 2010 is certainly a likely date for 4G support in the largest cities.
Yeah, you're "RAZR" is right, I wasn't really thinking about that.
I think the reason why motorola had no viable follow-up to the RAZR was because there was nothing to follow up. It's hard to come out with a great successor to a phone whose only virtue was its thinness, but with nothing else that worked well.
I see comparisons between the iPhone and the RAZR here and there, and it's a false comparison.
And as for the "no one thought it would work on Verizon." bit. well, no one ever thought that. It was about as basic a phone as was ever made.
Not true- it was a GSm phone and then came the CDMA Verizon version which lacked certain features.
And a comparison is valid if you consider that both companies only offer one phone regardless of the kind. Remember at on point in time the RAZR was considered genius too.
GSM has been known to have poorer voice quality from way back. It's very noticeable. GSM has a much more artificial quality to it, and is harder to understand, esp. under poor conditions.
And that why myself and many others would accept a somewhat crippled iPhone with Verizon because of that very quality we demand in a phone. It sounds like you're talking on a land line. NOTHING BEATS IT
And that why myself and many others would accept a somewhat crippled iPhone with Verizon because of that very quality we demand in a phone. It sounds like you're talking on a land line. NOTHING BEATS IT
Remember that GSM 3G supports CDMA signal encoding (not the same thing as the CDMA protocol), in addition to TDMA. This means the quality of audio will depend on where you are - this is dependant on service provider. Check up on WCDMA: http://gsmworld.com/technology/3gsm/index.htm#nav-6
A few things worth mentioning is that when you look at the GSM coverage maps (2007):
- Asia is the largest market as a percentage of the globe
- GSM covers most of the USA
- 3G GSM only covers the places of highest density
World coverage of GSM (2008) shows a slight increase in 3G GSM in 2008, but it show that GSM has 81% of the market. At the same time the map shows how small, as a percentage USA/Canada is in the global market.
Not true- it was a GSm phone and then came the CDMA Verizon version which lacked certain features.
And a comparison is valid if you consider that both companies only offer one phone regardless of the kind. Remember at on point in time the RAZR was considered genius too.
I remember the RAZR very well. Several of my friends had them. One guy even bought four for his family, and that was when they were selling for $500 apiece!
He didn't like it from the beginning, and was really ticked when the price kept dropping so rapidly. It had almost no features to speak of. He didn't like the "buttons" which were hard to press, but were done that way so when it was closed, they would allow the phone to remain thin.
These seems to have been the universal thoughts about the phone.
Later versions, and there have been a lot of them, added more features, as expected. But the first ones which started the initial craze very fairly simple, and were sold on looks (shock!).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razr
I recall that roughly speaking, the US makes up about half of all iPhone sales. So sales are 50% ATT and 50% the rest of the world.
Another way to look at the math is that 100% of current iPhone sales are GSM. If, and only if, Verizon could sell as many iPhones as are in ATT's base its first year (not going to happen), then the distribution would be 75% GSM 25% CDMA. But that doesn't take into account future sales in China, or a greater adoption rate in existing non-US markets.
Add to that Verizon's stated intent to abandon CDMA, in favor of GSM, in the next few years, and the argument for a CDMA version of the iPhone gets weaker.
I think it more likely that Verizon acquire T-Mobile for its GSM network and present that to Apple. Still that would take a couple of years to accomplish and we're back to 2012 again.
Another way to look at the math is that 100% of current iPhone sales are GSM. If, and only if, Verizon could sell as many iPhones as are in ATT's base its first year (not going to happen), then the distribution would be 75% GSM 25% CDMA. But that doesn't take into account future sales in China, or a greater adoption rate in existing non-US markets.
Add to that Verizon's stated intent to abandon CDMA, in favor of GSM, in the next few years, and the argument for a CDMA version of the iPhone gets weaker.
I think it more likely that Verizon acquire T-Mobile for its GSM network and present that to Apple. Still that would take a couple of years to accomplish and we're back to 2012 again.
I doubt if Verizon would be allowed to buy T-Mobile.
So, and this is kind of my standard rejoinder to this kind of post, why do you think Apple hasn't made a CDMA phone? By your lights it's obvious, necessary and nothing but upside, yet, here we are.
So do you figure Apple is stupid, incompetent, corrupt, or all three?
I would say stubborn and arrogant.
I just don't think that selling as many units as possible right out of the gate without getting control over the ecosystem is the best tactic for long term growth.
I agree; however, they've had 2 years of successful market penetration.
I
1) They are under contract so it's a no go until that is over. Sure, we don't know the exact details, but I think we can assume at least 2 years and probably the 1 year add on for going hte subsidization route on Apple's request.
2) How small and power efficient are these dual network standards chips? Remember, Apple has one of the smallest smartphones by volume.
3) Why do all other handset makers do exclusive deals with carriers if it limits their unit sales?
1) My point was about not renewing the contract..
2) The blackberry worldphone is competitive with standard models in power efficiency.. Not sure about size
3) Well it obviously depends on what their financial incentive is and their expected sales volume.
With the iPhone we are talking about 10+ million new sales, and there is no way AT&T is paying anywhere near enough to rival that potential revenue!
Winterspan needs to ask himself, if almost all the countries that they do service are GSM-based why did they go with exclusive contracts in every country they could and make the legally required unlocked iPhones price prohibitive?..
Well, I think we all can agree that *initially* it may be smart for Apple to forge exclusivity parternships with local carriers for the benefits it carries like testing the iPhone, joint marketing efforts, etc.
However, its a different story 2 years later when the iPhone has widespread popularity and can easily "sell itself" in the marketplace.
The US is the largest market for the iPhone at present but it's certainly not the largest potential market. India and China are both far, far bigger cell phone markets even if Apple doesn't currently enjoy the same rock star status in Asia as it does in the English-speaking world.
As i mentioned, countries like China and India certainly have more total subscribers, but how many will desire the iPhone and can afford it?
Read the surveys.. A lot of Americans on other carriers want an iPhone, and we are talking a potential market of 135+ million.
Judging by the number of people willing to swap networks to AT&T, there's very minimal benefits in dropping the exclusivity.
And what number would that be? It's only been around 40% of new iPhone subscribers, and based on their unit sales it is quite low in comparison to the other 170 million cellphone users in the USA.
For some real evidence and not this anecdotal "I think this", look at the survey data (ill try to find it) of cellphone users on other carriers who said they are interested in an iPhone if it came to their carrier.
Add this to the "bag of hurt" CDMA licensing and it all becomes a very expensive venture to capture a relatively small*, dying market.
(* i.e. those customers who would want an iPhone but won't switch to AT&T)
Relatively small? LOOK AT THE DATA and stop throwing numbers our your ass. Beyond those that expressed interest already, you are talking about 2/3 of American cellphone subscribers not having access to the iPhone (135+ million on just Sprint and Verizon) --- the country where more than half of all unit sales have occured.
Also, it is "dying" a long death. As i mention below, Verizon will not have a nationwide LTE network fully operational until late 2010/early 2011 at the earliest, and production ready cellphone (not modem) chipsets will not be available until sometime in 2011. And even then it will take months to integrate it into a production smartphone and finish device and network testing, debugging, etc.
I don't understand why you and others continue to defend the indefensible. There is no real legitimate business argument for continuing the exclusivity.
Could you imagine another business whose strategy involved alienating 2/3 of their potential customer base??? They'd be the laughing stock of Forbes!
Dudes, an LTE version of the iPhone won't happen until 2011.
Following Infineon's roadmap if Apple adopts it aggressively. There will be an HSPA (7.2Mbit Downlink /5.8Mbit Uplink) version this year and an HSPA+ (21Mbit) version in 2010.
Infineon's LTE (150Mbit downlink / 50Mbit uplink) baseband will be ready for devices shipping in 2011. ...
Exactly, you have this echo chamber shouting about LTE as if it will take < 12 months for not only Verizon to buildout a complete nation-wide LTE network that rivals their existing CDMA network, but for the LTE chipsets makers to have production-ready chips rolling off the lines and already integrated into production-ready cellphones.
Even In 12-14+ months when Verizon barely has 10% of the USA covered, LTE chipsets will be found solely in 3G data cards. Eventually, when the first LTE phones come out (H2 2011), the first gen chips will be power hungry. It will take a longtime to see a small, power efficient LTE iPhone.
I doubt if Verizon would be allowed to buy T-Mobile.
Sure they will. Sprint is headed to bankruptcy, and its CDMA network is losing value (the rest of the world is GSM). Who wants to buy #4 when its bleeding money and customers?
It doesn't make sense for T-Mobile to acquire Sprint, they have their own problems, and are a weakening #3. Both are going to be acquired, and if they are split up between the #1 and #2 carriers then competition is maintained. The regulators will allow it because they can't stop it.
Sure they will. Sprint is headed to bankruptcy, and its CDMA network is losing value (the rest of the world is GSM). Who wants to buy #4 when its bleeding money and customers?
It doesn't make sense for T-Mobile to acquire Sprint, they have their own problems, and are a weakening #3. Both are going to be acquired, and if they are split up between the #1 and #2 carriers then competition is maintained. The regulators will allow it because they can't stop it.
You say that way too easily, but I doubt it.
T-Mobile isn't a separate company anyway. If they were bought by Verizon, then the total would be just too big. No matter what Sprint's problems are, they have nothing to with this. If anything, it would make a purchase even less likely.
I don't understand why you and others continue to defend the indefensible. There is no real legitimate business argument for continuing the exclusivity.
If you assume Verizon agrees to all the conditions to which AT&T has agreed, then you are
probably correct. However, many people have pointed out how Verizon likes to cripple or
charge extra for features on their phones. It could be that Verizon was the stubborn party
in insisting on more nickel and dime charges for iPhone features. They also may have
insisted on having Verizon branding on the iPhone and in having their fingers on the
App Store. I think these would be legitimate stumbling blocks for an Apple/Verizon deal.
Of course, neither you nor I were at the discussions, right?
If you assume Verizon agrees to all the conditions to which AT&T has agreed, then you are
probably correct. However, many people have pointed out how Verizon likes to cripple or
charge extra for features on their phones. It could be that Verizon was the stubborn party
in insisting on more nickel and dime charges for iPhone features. They also may have
insisted on having Verizon branding on the iPhone and in having their fingers on the
App Store. I think these would be legitimate stumbling blocks for an Apple/Verizon deal.
Of course, neither you nor I were at the discussions, right?
These are some of the problems Apple is having with Chinese carriers as well.
I don't offhand remember whether it was China Mobile (though I think it was), Or China Unicom, which Apple is supposedly in final talks with now, but one of them, or both for all I know, demanded that they, and not Apple, run the App Store in China. They wanted to decide which apps made it in, take command of what happened with updates, what to do with an app later if they wanted to remove it (perhaps the government wanting to remove it?), and supposedly wanted the 30% cut as well.
I can only imagine Apple's reaction to that!
The Razor didn't DO anything. The only claim to fame was its thinness.
In fact, people who bought it didn't even think it was good. The reviews weren't good. They bought it because it was thin. I know several people who bought it for that reason back then. They also thought the phone wasn't great, but that wasn't why they bought it.
It's very likely that Jobs likes to make thin products because people like to buy thin products.
You can't equate the Razor with a real feature phone much less a smartphone.
Thank you, sir.
Count me among those that bought it because it was thin.
And, among those who also thought the phone was really poorly designed (and that Verizon's service was no better or worse than that of ATT).
Well, I think we all can agree that *initially* it may be smart for Apple to forge exclusivity parternships with local carriers for the benefits it carries like testing the iPhone, joint marketing efforts, etc.
However, its a different story 2 years later when the iPhone has widespread popularity and can easily "sell itself" in the marketplace.
The problem is that Apple didn't just do it in the US or in the first four EU countries months later while still selling the original iPhone. They did it in every country that legally allowed them to do carrier exclusivity and SIM locking. This is after the 3G version arrived and well after the iPhone proved itself to be a market driver. On top of that, they are still doing it with their talks to Chinese carriers. Instead of just going full throttle into the China's fast growing and vast cellular community they are trying to now get China Unicom, their 2nd largest carrier, to agree to exclusivity for certain demands.
I think that is enough proof that Apple has plans well beyond a few hot seasons of increased unit sales, otherwise why continue doing it in over again... country after country... model after model... year after year? One potential reason, if they aren't paired with a carrier they will lose control of things that the carriers they've partnered with have agreed to in legally binding contracts. They've already done plenty of things already that have never been done before with a carrier/vendor collaboration. Things that we probably never considered and things that other carrier and cellphone vendors thought we not possible. To drop it would affect how those services would continue and potentially destroy parts of the ecosystem they are trying to create and control.