The fact that they don't have it up and running tells us that they had issues.
I am running v3.1 Beta. MMS will be available on AT&T when it hits the update servers. I have deduced this because the option to add and send MMS is not locked out with the new profiles. However, in testing this the MMS fails server-side. I've been trying every day or two to an AT&T phone that can recieve MMS, it times out.
Craig Moffett needs to better understand what he's talking about.
The issue that he surfaces is nothing more than a reflection of the mess in the US cellular industry. The rest of the world operates on one national or multi-national standard (typically GSM) and people purchase whatever phone they want.
The cellphone manufacturers sell phones through dealers or direct and the cellular operators provide service. Although you can purchase a cell phone outside a contract in the US, the rates you pay still contain a surcharge to recoup the discount the cellular operators incur on their phones. The result is higher than necessary rates, typically crap phones and limited competition.
This entire issue is nothing more than another mess created by the lack of standardization and the lack of competition within the industry. If Mr. Moffett would care to find something worthy to write about, perhaps he should read some of the comments on this site.
Has there ever been a situation where the product you purchased was absolutely stuck to one service provider? I can't think of one.
Phones are exclusive to carriers all the time. The most recent is the Pre with Sprint, but it's certainly not a new practice.
Quote:
On top of it, ATT's service is average at best. Dropped calls, high rates.
I don't get dropped calls, and I'm actually paying less with AT&T then I did with a Treo on Sprint. The real kicker? I use my iPhone ALLOT more then I used my Treo on Sprint - because it's actually useful!
Quote:
It's ridiculous.
Yes, there are pleanty of things in this thread that are ridiculous...
Quote:
They have iPhone lovers trapped and stuck with them, while there are other networks out there that are not as saturated.
What's to say that if other carriers got the iPhone they wouldn't have the exact same issues? Or have even worse issues? Data usage on the iPhone is unprecedented...
Quote:
Apple should just sell their iPhone and let customers use it on whatever network they want.
If they unlocked it and sold it open tomorrow, your choice would be TMobile. Sprint and Verizon are incompatible with the iPhone - the radios and cellular protocols are totally different.
Quote:
I feel like I am imprisoned by Apple and ATT. It's the best phone, but if I don't want to use ATT''s service, then I'm stuck. I have no options. That's anti-competitive.
Yup, if you want an iPhone in the US you are pretty much stuck with AT&T (or you can get a 1st generation iPhone and go with TMobile). But it's certainly not anti-competitive. There are plenty of other companies that are free to compete with the iPhone and invent something better. Just because you don't get exactly what you want, doesn't make the existing situation anti-competitive
Quote:
Sure, other service providers have lower prices, but I want the best handset...which I am willing to pay a premium for, and I want the lowest price, which is a choice I am not given.
Must suck to be you.
Egad, are people really this entitlement based these days? Do you routinely throw temper tantrums when you don't get exactly what you want?
Quote:
Antitrust, anticompetitive, and I see a class action in the future.
In your dreams, maybe. Will never happen because it doesn't exist.
Quote:
Shoot...I pay a crazy rate per month for my service, but I don't get any credits for dropped calls and spotty service.
If the dropped calls bother you that much, call customer service and get a service credit.
Quote:
It still amazes me how we made such an easy transition from land lines with virtually perfect service, to mobile lines with terrible service at a price waaaayyyyyyy higher.
This right here shows your total unrealistic expectations. Land lines didn't always have perfect service - Ma Bell started over 100 years ago, yet it wasn't the 1950's that they started becoming prevalent in rural areas - heck, even into the 70's party lines were common.
In the US, the wireless industry is in it's infancy comparatively. Primarily because we had an extensive land-line infrastructure. Look at countries like India that didn't have an extensive terrestrial infrastructure - wireless is much more prevalent.
It's market forces, not some grand conspiracy Look at how AT&T is upgrading their infrastructure post-iPhone. They are scrambling to keep up with demand, and doing better at it in some areas then others...
Quote:
It's jut not right.
What's not right are your over-inflated expectations and misguided sense of entitlement.
Unfortunately you aren't alone in your misgivings...
The truth is that US carriers like AT&T, Verizon and Sprint are very backward in technology compared to foreign companies. If it wasn't for Apple, we will still be dealing with Asian technology from 2-3years back. For years, the US government in other to protect STUPID Motorola, will not allow current phone offerings from Japan and Korea into the US. Since iPhone came, that barrier has been broken.
Americans should be grateful for Apple. If AT&T severs its relationship with Apple, their business will decrease up to 50% within 2 years. AT&T needs Apple more than Apple needs AT&T. And the same goes for any carrier out there. Right now, Apple is in the control seat and will dictate how this game will be played for a long time to come.
Japanese would never work in the US as they reverse the frequency as well as NTT Docomo's phones are all WCDMA 2100, which no carrier in the US uses. I lived in Sasebo for a few years and can tell you that the phones aren't cheap at all. Korean phones only work on Verizon's network or should I say did till Verizon stopped accepting Korean ESN's. The reason Verizon could use them is that they run on 1800 and I can tell you that a Korean handset will set you back more then any Japanese cellphone ever would. The US government is not protecting Motorola as they are a major player in the overseas markets and it is the carriers not moving those phones over as they would not be able to sell them. The carriers would have to subsidies the phones so bad they would not be making money back even with you locked in a contract. I will add a few pics of two of the phones I had when living in Japan.
1st Apple will never make a CDMA phone. Most of the world is on GSM so if Sprint and Verizon is wanting the iPhone the onus is on them to change their back end structure to GSM. It's simple as that.
Also AT&T definitely is the bad guy here. I live in New Zealand and I did nothing once the iPhone 3.0 software came to get tethering and MMS (which I never cared about anyway) bar reboot my phone. If an entire country with a population of just over half of the population of Los Angeles can have all of this then why can't a network with 15 times more customers than the entire country's population not provide the same service?
The only thing AT&T has that I want is Visual Voicemail.
CDMA carriers in the US as well as parts of Asia will get the iPhone once LTE is fully launched
Being a ?standard? and being implemented are two very different things. First of all, Verizon can?t just flip a switch. Secondly, this needs to be tested and planned so it?s not going to magically be in place in under a year for the entire country. Then you have to consider that when LTE is well saturated there will still Verizon?s CDMA and CDMA2000 networks, which the iPhone doesn?t support. Let?s assume that the next iPhone supports GSM, CDMA, WCDMA, CDMA2000 and LTE all on the same chip. Who makes this chip? When will Apple get this chip to test? How much will it be? How large will it be? How power hungry will it be?
Even more pressing is the fact the normal radio development has not yet occurred for LTE. There are no LTE USB or EC/34 cards for notebooks that I?ve read about. These are products that are not constrained in the same way by size and power usage like thin mobile phones. Where is are the other mobile vendors using or announcing their future use of these products? If you?ve read something please post a link.
Finally, LTE is not the next step, faster WCDMA is. We now only have 7.2Mbps downlink and 384Kbps uplink on the iPhone. We still don?t have HSUPA in the iPhone despite my notebook USB card having a 14.4Mbps and 2Mbps HSUPA for about 2 years now. Then there is even faster HSUPA and then Evolved HSPA which no carrier can yet support. Verizon?s bolstering of supporting LTE and the mention of the iPhone was just a clever vapornet ruse to stop potential deserters from jumping to AT&T for the iPhone.
You will only find LTE network hardware right now and not handsets or network cards. Qualcomm Gobi uses CDMA/WCDMA right now and Im sure they could make a chip that would work with LTE as well.
You people are hilarious. Bitching about being "gouged" by AT&T while also complaining that their network performance sucks because of too many people on it. Price is the only way that these services can be effectively rationed, and yet you want plans to be cheaper, when the networks can't even handle the customers it currently has.
Stop trying to inject objectivity into an emotional argument!
i wouldn't be so quick to say that. it is possible that the next iphone will be one that has the tech to open up to more networks, and LTE might be the new standard at that point. who knows.
we've all heard that ATT loses their exclusive contract in 2010 and nothing yet about getting an extension. so it is possible that Apple turned down that request and is planning to go open market. no more SIM locks, if the carrier can and wants to service the iphone, have at all. if they want to subsidize, great. but complain to them if you don't like their rules. you wanna buy it at the apple store, no activation, full price. no other game from Apple. thank you come again.
We've all heard a lot of things, and we have no reason to think that anything we've heard is accurate.
While I understand that you are referring to the quote you cited above, I would have to say that you are quite delusional to think that there isn't an "Apple Tax" on the iPhone.
Apple continues to make money on you, per the monthly contract that it gets a piece of, for at least 2 years. Maybe longer and we have no idea exactly how much. I would imagine they make more off the lifetime of the contract than they do off the $199/$299 for the device at the store.
AT&T has the best phone service in my area, its actually the only carrier that gets full reception at my house. Bare in mind I'm in a densely populated borough of NYC. Sprint and Verizon are both awful here (T-mobile is not bad).
Still I cant see what Apple has done as wrecking the cell industry.
That amazes me because I'm in a borough of NYC and the AT&T service sucks. I get a very high percentage of dropped calls and in my apartment, which worked great with Verizon, I have to stand near the window for AT&T to work.
Having said that, if Apple were to switch to Verizon in the U.S., I have a feeling that especially in heavily populated cities, Verizon would have the same problems AT&T has had-- the network would be overwhelmed and web access would be very slow. And if it added enough subscribers, Verizon might start dropping calls as well.
By land mass Austrailia is smaller than the US. Other than that there are many differences that you don't consider.
AT&T's and Verizon's subscriber base is eight times Austrailia's entire population. The US is divided between GSM and CDMA. US carriers have many more people to serve and US infrastructure is divided between two different network technologies.
All Austrailian carriers use GSM. From what I understand the Austrailian government invests money into the wireless infrastructure. The US government does not directly invest money into wireless infrastructure.
The point is that these differences between Austrailia and the US make it much easier and cheaper to build an advanced network in Austrialia.
Not in a way that helps your New Zealand comment stand up. Also we were running dual networks, GSM and CDMA up until a year ago.
Also IF AT&T's user base is 8x that of the whole population of Australia THEN your claim becomes even weaker. With 8 times the revenue they can't manage to upgrade a network.
At times the government here tips some money in but usually it operates in reverse as such where the government forces the main Telco to provide service to small communities.
The ACTUAL problem TenBell is that Australia's first 3G class network starting rolling out in 2002 NOT 2007, now we have no less than 4 GSM-3G networks as opposed to between half and ONE.
It's got nothing to do with the size of the country
It's got nothing to do with servicing more or less customers
It's got to do with being 5-6 years behind the rest of the world, well India and third world nations are about on par with the USA cellular network so not quite the whole world.
5-6 years ain't bad, the USA stayed about 30-40 years behind in TV format and what is it now 60-100 years behind in measuring format.
That amazes me because I'm in a borough of NYC and the AT&T service sucks. I get a very high percentage of dropped calls and in my apartment, which worked great with Verizon, I have to stand near the window for AT&T to work.
Having said that, if Apple were to switch to Verizon in the U.S., I have a feeling that especially in heavily populated cities, Verizon would have the same problems AT&T has had-- the network would be overwhelmed and web access would be very slow. And if it added enough subscribers, Verizon might start dropping calls as well.
Actually Verizon has one of the best networks out there and probably wouldn't have that issue. Verizon spent close to 6 billion a fear years ago in a complete upgrade and spends millions more a year in maintenance. I could careless which network is better I will follow the iPhone.
Another year and I'll be with the iPhone pack. When Steve introduces the next generation iPhone (iPhone 4GL?) at next year's WWDC to work on Verizon's LTE network coming in the second half of 2010, I'm in. I actually hate both Verizon and AT&T, but Verizon is definitely the lesser of two evils.
AT&T is extorting people, but not like Verizon does
Not in a way that helps your New Zealand comment stand up. Also we were running dual networks, GSM and CDMA up until a year ago.
Also IF AT&T's user base is 8x that of the whole population of Australia THEN your claim becomes even weaker. With 8 times the revenue they can't manage to upgrade a network.
At times the government here tips some money in but usually it operates in reverse as such where the government forces the main Telco to provide service to small communities.
The ACTUAL problem TenBell is that Australia's first 3G class network starting rolling out in 2002 NOT 2007, now we have no less than 4 GSM-3G networks as opposed to between half and ONE.
It's got nothing to do with the size of the country
It's got nothing to do with servicing more or less customers
It's got to do with being 5-6 years behind the rest of the world, well India and third world nations are about on par with the USA cellular network so not quite the whole world.
5-6 years ain't bad, the USA stayed about 30-40 years behind in TV format and what is it now 60-100 years behind in measuring format.
They don't have an eye roll, so
OMG such a bash! I cant believe we only have one and a half 3G GSM network. Im sorry that CDMA is more popular here then anywhere besides SK. 5-6 years behind? Where do you get these numbers? AT&T is already moving towards HSPA+ and is looking at having LTE out in a year or two. Sprint Nextel already has one of the worlds first 4G networks and Verizon is looking to start deploying LTE in the next year. What are you talking about with the TV format? The US has always used NTSC(now ATSC) and so does all of North and most of South America.
Just because you type the word doesn't make it so.
Apple is making more than the $199/$299 on the upfront iPhone sales.
How it gets the rest and how much seems to be between AT&T and Apple. Unless you care to share some inside information you have.
Everyone knows that Apple makes the $99-299 + the AT&T subsidy ($300-400) based on the PAYG prices. No-one calling BS on your comments has suggested otherwise.
It is your implication that Apple is making $$s off the contract revenue that is being called False. If you are remembering anything, it was that Apple got a share of the contract revenue on the 2G iPhones when they were sold unsubsidized. That was officially ended when the 3G came out at a subsidized price.
Apple still accounts for iPhones over 24 months for its own purposes to supposedly "to enable free updates to iPhone users" but that is another thread.
Not in a way that helps your New Zealand comment stand up. Also we were running dual networks, GSM and CDMA up until a year ago.
Also IF AT&T's user base is 8x that of the whole population of Australia THEN your claim becomes even weaker. With 8 times the revenue they can't manage to upgrade a network.
At times the government here tips some money in but usually it operates in reverse as such where the government forces the main Telco to provide service to small communities.
The ACTUAL problem TenBell is that Australia's first 3G class network starting rolling out in 2002 NOT 2007, now we have no less than 4 GSM-3G networks as opposed to between half and ONE.
It's got nothing to do with the size of the country
It's got nothing to do with servicing more or less customers
It's got to do with being 5-6 years behind the rest of the world, well India and third world nations are about on par with the USA cellular network so not quite the whole world.
5-6 years ain't bad, the USA stayed about 30-40 years behind in TV format and what is it now 60-100 years behind in measuring format.
They don't have an eye roll, so
Really? If you and your brother had to start from scratch to install cell towers until you finished the job, and would only be paid once completed, would you rather spend years covering South Korea or many lifetimes attempting to cover the U.S.?
Regardless of what you?ve told yourself your whole life - size matters.
You also need to look at a topography map. Fewer cell signal obstacles in Australia VS. the U.S.
You might find it staggering that every nook and cranny of the U.S. has a population of cell phone users, from our rich populations to our poor populations. Top to bottom, side to side. China, like Australia, only has a coastal cell phone population, so their billion+ head count (most of whom are too poor to own a cell phone) doesn?t make up the difference.
Covering the entire U.S. is a near impossible job. There is no other country in the world that compares for Land Area to Cell Phone Use Per Square Mile/Kilometer to the U.S.
Everyone knows that Apple makes the $99-299 + the AT&T subsidy ($300-400) based on the PAYG prices. No-one calling BS on your comments has suggested otherwise.
It is your implication that Apple is making $$s off the contract revenue that is being called False. If you are remembering anything, it was that Apple got a share of the contract revenue on the 2G iPhones when they were sold unsubsidized. That was officially ended when the 3G came out at a subsidized price.
Apple still accounts for iPhones over 24 months for its own purposes to supposedly "to enable free updates to iPhone users" but that is another thread.
Actually my original post on this sub-topic was replying to somebody who said iPhone buyers were not paying an Apple tax for the phone. And I called BS on that. And said something to the effect of "I imagine" Apple is making money on the contract. I am happy to be wrong on the details as I do not follow these things that closely. But the original item being replied to was in reference to the denied Apple tax. So in that regard I I think "False (all of it)." does not quite hit the nail on the head. Apparently I didn't either, but a person can't deny we pay more because of the little apple on the back of these things.
Another year and I'll be with the iPhone pack. When Steve introduces the next generation iPhone (iPhone 4GL?) at next year's WWDC to work on Verizon's LTE network coming in the second half of 2010, I'm in. I actually hate both Verizon and AT&T, but Verizon is definitely the lesser of two evils.
With the news coming out today that Verizon is going to build their own app store and that app store is going to be the only app store allowed to be installed on Verizon devices the Iphone will never go to verizon, there is no way Apple is going to bring a phone to Verizon that cannot have their own app store on it. If verizon sticks to this then there will never be an Iphone for Verizon, maybe T-mobile in 2010?
Comments
They could have easily had MMS and tethering up and running without an issue.
Really? And you know this because???
Really? And you know this because???
The fact that they don't have it up and running tells us that they had issues.
I am running v3.1 Beta. MMS will be available on AT&T when it hits the update servers. I have deduced this because the option to add and send MMS is not locked out with the new profiles. However, in testing this the MMS fails server-side. I've been trying every day or two to an AT&T phone that can recieve MMS, it times out.
The issue that he surfaces is nothing more than a reflection of the mess in the US cellular industry. The rest of the world operates on one national or multi-national standard (typically GSM) and people purchase whatever phone they want.
The cellphone manufacturers sell phones through dealers or direct and the cellular operators provide service. Although you can purchase a cell phone outside a contract in the US, the rates you pay still contain a surcharge to recoup the discount the cellular operators incur on their phones. The result is higher than necessary rates, typically crap phones and limited competition.
This entire issue is nothing more than another mess created by the lack of standardization and the lack of competition within the industry. If Mr. Moffett would care to find something worthy to write about, perhaps he should read some of the comments on this site.
Has there ever been a situation where the product you purchased was absolutely stuck to one service provider? I can't think of one.
Phones are exclusive to carriers all the time. The most recent is the Pre with Sprint, but it's certainly not a new practice.
On top of it, ATT's service is average at best. Dropped calls, high rates.
I don't get dropped calls, and I'm actually paying less with AT&T then I did with a Treo on Sprint. The real kicker? I use my iPhone ALLOT more then I used my Treo on Sprint - because it's actually useful!
It's ridiculous.
Yes, there are pleanty of things in this thread that are ridiculous...
They have iPhone lovers trapped and stuck with them, while there are other networks out there that are not as saturated.
What's to say that if other carriers got the iPhone they wouldn't have the exact same issues? Or have even worse issues? Data usage on the iPhone is unprecedented...
Apple should just sell their iPhone and let customers use it on whatever network they want.
If they unlocked it and sold it open tomorrow, your choice would be TMobile. Sprint and Verizon are incompatible with the iPhone - the radios and cellular protocols are totally different.
I feel like I am imprisoned by Apple and ATT. It's the best phone, but if I don't want to use ATT''s service, then I'm stuck. I have no options. That's anti-competitive.
Yup, if you want an iPhone in the US you are pretty much stuck with AT&T (or you can get a 1st generation iPhone and go with TMobile). But it's certainly not anti-competitive. There are plenty of other companies that are free to compete with the iPhone and invent something better. Just because you don't get exactly what you want, doesn't make the existing situation anti-competitive
Sure, other service providers have lower prices, but I want the best handset...which I am willing to pay a premium for, and I want the lowest price, which is a choice I am not given.
Must suck to be you.
Egad, are people really this entitlement based these days? Do you routinely throw temper tantrums when you don't get exactly what you want?
Antitrust, anticompetitive, and I see a class action in the future.
In your dreams, maybe. Will never happen because it doesn't exist.
Shoot...I pay a crazy rate per month for my service, but I don't get any credits for dropped calls and spotty service.
If the dropped calls bother you that much, call customer service and get a service credit.
It still amazes me how we made such an easy transition from land lines with virtually perfect service, to mobile lines with terrible service at a price waaaayyyyyyy higher.
This right here shows your total unrealistic expectations. Land lines didn't always have perfect service - Ma Bell started over 100 years ago, yet it wasn't the 1950's that they started becoming prevalent in rural areas - heck, even into the 70's party lines were common.
In the US, the wireless industry is in it's infancy comparatively. Primarily because we had an extensive land-line infrastructure. Look at countries like India that didn't have an extensive terrestrial infrastructure - wireless is much more prevalent.
It's market forces, not some grand conspiracy
It's jut not right.
What's not right are your over-inflated expectations and misguided sense of entitlement.
Unfortunately you aren't alone in your misgivings...
The truth is that US carriers like AT&T, Verizon and Sprint are very backward in technology compared to foreign companies. If it wasn't for Apple, we will still be dealing with Asian technology from 2-3years back. For years, the US government in other to protect STUPID Motorola, will not allow current phone offerings from Japan and Korea into the US. Since iPhone came, that barrier has been broken.
Americans should be grateful for Apple. If AT&T severs its relationship with Apple, their business will decrease up to 50% within 2 years. AT&T needs Apple more than Apple needs AT&T. And the same goes for any carrier out there. Right now, Apple is in the control seat and will dictate how this game will be played for a long time to come.
Japanese would never work in the US as they reverse the frequency as well as NTT Docomo's phones are all WCDMA 2100, which no carrier in the US uses. I lived in Sasebo for a few years and can tell you that the phones aren't cheap at all. Korean phones only work on Verizon's network or should I say did till Verizon stopped accepting Korean ESN's. The reason Verizon could use them is that they run on 1800 and I can tell you that a Korean handset will set you back more then any Japanese cellphone ever would. The US government is not protecting Motorola as they are a major player in the overseas markets and it is the carriers not moving those phones over as they would not be able to sell them. The carriers would have to subsidies the phones so bad they would not be making money back even with you locked in a contract. I will add a few pics of two of the phones I had when living in Japan.
/[img=http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/7470/photodld.jpg][/IMG]
1st Apple will never make a CDMA phone. Most of the world is on GSM so if Sprint and Verizon is wanting the iPhone the onus is on them to change their back end structure to GSM. It's simple as that.
Also AT&T definitely is the bad guy here. I live in New Zealand and I did nothing once the iPhone 3.0 software came to get tethering and MMS (which I never cared about anyway) bar reboot my phone. If an entire country with a population of just over half of the population of Los Angeles can have all of this then why can't a network with 15 times more customers than the entire country's population not provide the same service?
The only thing AT&T has that I want is Visual Voicemail.
CDMA carriers in the US as well as parts of Asia will get the iPhone once LTE is fully launched
Being a ?standard? and being implemented are two very different things. First of all, Verizon can?t just flip a switch. Secondly, this needs to be tested and planned so it?s not going to magically be in place in under a year for the entire country. Then you have to consider that when LTE is well saturated there will still Verizon?s CDMA and CDMA2000 networks, which the iPhone doesn?t support. Let?s assume that the next iPhone supports GSM, CDMA, WCDMA, CDMA2000 and LTE all on the same chip. Who makes this chip? When will Apple get this chip to test? How much will it be? How large will it be? How power hungry will it be?
Even more pressing is the fact the normal radio development has not yet occurred for LTE. There are no LTE USB or EC/34 cards for notebooks that I?ve read about. These are products that are not constrained in the same way by size and power usage like thin mobile phones. Where is are the other mobile vendors using or announcing their future use of these products? If you?ve read something please post a link.
Finally, LTE is not the next step, faster WCDMA is. We now only have 7.2Mbps downlink and 384Kbps uplink on the iPhone. We still don?t have HSUPA in the iPhone despite my notebook USB card having a 14.4Mbps and 2Mbps HSUPA for about 2 years now. Then there is even faster HSUPA and then Evolved HSPA which no carrier can yet support. Verizon?s bolstering of supporting LTE and the mention of the iPhone was just a clever vapornet ruse to stop potential deserters from jumping to AT&T for the iPhone.
You will only find LTE network hardware right now and not handsets or network cards. Qualcomm Gobi uses CDMA/WCDMA right now and Im sure they could make a chip that would work with LTE as well.
You people are hilarious. Bitching about being "gouged" by AT&T while also complaining that their network performance sucks because of too many people on it. Price is the only way that these services can be effectively rationed, and yet you want plans to be cheaper, when the networks can't even handle the customers it currently has.
Stop trying to inject objectivity into an emotional argument!
i wouldn't be so quick to say that. it is possible that the next iphone will be one that has the tech to open up to more networks, and LTE might be the new standard at that point. who knows.
we've all heard that ATT loses their exclusive contract in 2010 and nothing yet about getting an extension. so it is possible that Apple turned down that request and is planning to go open market. no more SIM locks, if the carrier can and wants to service the iphone, have at all. if they want to subsidize, great. but complain to them if you don't like their rules. you wanna buy it at the apple store, no activation, full price. no other game from Apple. thank you come again.
We've all heard a lot of things, and we have no reason to think that anything we've heard is accurate.
While I understand that you are referring to the quote you cited above, I would have to say that you are quite delusional to think that there isn't an "Apple Tax" on the iPhone.
Apple continues to make money on you, per the monthly contract that it gets a piece of, for at least 2 years. Maybe longer and we have no idea exactly how much. I would imagine they make more off the lifetime of the contract than they do off the $199/$299 for the device at the store.
False (all of it).
AT&T has the best phone service in my area, its actually the only carrier that gets full reception at my house. Bare in mind I'm in a densely populated borough of NYC. Sprint and Verizon are both awful here (T-mobile is not bad).
Still I cant see what Apple has done as wrecking the cell industry.
That amazes me because I'm in a borough of NYC and the AT&T service sucks. I get a very high percentage of dropped calls and in my apartment, which worked great with Verizon, I have to stand near the window for AT&T to work.
Having said that, if Apple were to switch to Verizon in the U.S., I have a feeling that especially in heavily populated cities, Verizon would have the same problems AT&T has had-- the network would be overwhelmed and web access would be very slow. And if it added enough subscribers, Verizon might start dropping calls as well.
By land mass Austrailia is smaller than the US. Other than that there are many differences that you don't consider.
AT&T's and Verizon's subscriber base is eight times Austrailia's entire population. The US is divided between GSM and CDMA. US carriers have many more people to serve and US infrastructure is divided between two different network technologies.
All Austrailian carriers use GSM. From what I understand the Austrailian government invests money into the wireless infrastructure. The US government does not directly invest money into wireless infrastructure.
The point is that these differences between Austrailia and the US make it much easier and cheaper to build an advanced network in Austrialia.
Not in a way that helps your New Zealand comment stand up. Also we were running dual networks, GSM and CDMA up until a year ago.
Also IF AT&T's user base is 8x that of the whole population of Australia THEN your claim becomes even weaker. With 8 times the revenue they can't manage to upgrade a network.
At times the government here tips some money in but usually it operates in reverse as such where the government forces the main Telco to provide service to small communities.
The ACTUAL problem TenBell is that Australia's first 3G class network starting rolling out in 2002 NOT 2007, now we have no less than 4 GSM-3G networks as opposed to between half and ONE.
It's got nothing to do with the size of the country
It's got nothing to do with servicing more or less customers
It's got to do with being 5-6 years behind the rest of the world, well India and third world nations are about on par with the USA cellular network so not quite the whole world.
5-6 years ain't bad, the USA stayed about 30-40 years behind in TV format and what is it now 60-100 years behind in measuring format.
They don't have an eye roll, so
False (all of it).
Just because you type the word doesn't make it so.
Apple is making more than the $199/$299 on the upfront iPhone sales.
How it gets the rest and how much seems to be between AT&T and Apple. Unless you care to share some inside information you have.
That amazes me because I'm in a borough of NYC and the AT&T service sucks. I get a very high percentage of dropped calls and in my apartment, which worked great with Verizon, I have to stand near the window for AT&T to work.
Having said that, if Apple were to switch to Verizon in the U.S., I have a feeling that especially in heavily populated cities, Verizon would have the same problems AT&T has had-- the network would be overwhelmed and web access would be very slow. And if it added enough subscribers, Verizon might start dropping calls as well.
Actually Verizon has one of the best networks out there and probably wouldn't have that issue. Verizon spent close to 6 billion a fear years ago in a complete upgrade and spends millions more a year in maintenance. I could careless which network is better I will follow the iPhone.
Another year and I'll be with the iPhone pack. When Steve introduces the next generation iPhone (iPhone 4GL?) at next year's WWDC to work on Verizon's LTE network coming in the second half of 2010, I'm in. I actually hate both Verizon and AT&T, but Verizon is definitely the lesser of two evils.
AT&T is extorting people, but not like Verizon does
Not in a way that helps your New Zealand comment stand up. Also we were running dual networks, GSM and CDMA up until a year ago.
Also IF AT&T's user base is 8x that of the whole population of Australia THEN your claim becomes even weaker. With 8 times the revenue they can't manage to upgrade a network.
At times the government here tips some money in but usually it operates in reverse as such where the government forces the main Telco to provide service to small communities.
The ACTUAL problem TenBell is that Australia's first 3G class network starting rolling out in 2002 NOT 2007, now we have no less than 4 GSM-3G networks as opposed to between half and ONE.
It's got nothing to do with the size of the country
It's got nothing to do with servicing more or less customers
It's got to do with being 5-6 years behind the rest of the world, well India and third world nations are about on par with the USA cellular network so not quite the whole world.
5-6 years ain't bad, the USA stayed about 30-40 years behind in TV format and what is it now 60-100 years behind in measuring format.
They don't have an eye roll, so
OMG such a bash! I cant believe we only have one and a half 3G GSM network. Im sorry that CDMA is more popular here then anywhere besides SK. 5-6 years behind? Where do you get these numbers? AT&T is already moving towards HSPA+ and is looking at having LTE out in a year or two. Sprint Nextel already has one of the worlds first 4G networks and Verizon is looking to start deploying LTE in the next year. What are you talking about with the TV format? The US has always used NTSC(now ATSC) and so does all of North and most of South America.
Just because you type the word doesn't make it so.
Apple is making more than the $199/$299 on the upfront iPhone sales.
How it gets the rest and how much seems to be between AT&T and Apple. Unless you care to share some inside information you have.
Everyone knows that Apple makes the $99-299 + the AT&T subsidy ($300-400) based on the PAYG prices. No-one calling BS on your comments has suggested otherwise.
It is your implication that Apple is making $$s off the contract revenue that is being called False. If you are remembering anything, it was that Apple got a share of the contract revenue on the 2G iPhones when they were sold unsubsidized. That was officially ended when the 3G came out at a subsidized price.
Apple still accounts for iPhones over 24 months for its own purposes to supposedly "to enable free updates to iPhone users" but that is another thread.
Not in a way that helps your New Zealand comment stand up. Also we were running dual networks, GSM and CDMA up until a year ago.
Also IF AT&T's user base is 8x that of the whole population of Australia THEN your claim becomes even weaker. With 8 times the revenue they can't manage to upgrade a network.
At times the government here tips some money in but usually it operates in reverse as such where the government forces the main Telco to provide service to small communities.
The ACTUAL problem TenBell is that Australia's first 3G class network starting rolling out in 2002 NOT 2007, now we have no less than 4 GSM-3G networks as opposed to between half and ONE.
It's got nothing to do with the size of the country
It's got nothing to do with servicing more or less customers
It's got to do with being 5-6 years behind the rest of the world, well India and third world nations are about on par with the USA cellular network so not quite the whole world.
5-6 years ain't bad, the USA stayed about 30-40 years behind in TV format and what is it now 60-100 years behind in measuring format.
They don't have an eye roll, so
Really? If you and your brother had to start from scratch to install cell towers until you finished the job, and would only be paid once completed, would you rather spend years covering South Korea or many lifetimes attempting to cover the U.S.?
Regardless of what you?ve told yourself your whole life - size matters.
You also need to look at a topography map. Fewer cell signal obstacles in Australia VS. the U.S.
You might find it staggering that every nook and cranny of the U.S. has a population of cell phone users, from our rich populations to our poor populations. Top to bottom, side to side. China, like Australia, only has a coastal cell phone population, so their billion+ head count (most of whom are too poor to own a cell phone) doesn?t make up the difference.
Covering the entire U.S. is a near impossible job. There is no other country in the world that compares for Land Area to Cell Phone Use Per Square Mile/Kilometer to the U.S.
Not even close.
Everyone knows that Apple makes the $99-299 + the AT&T subsidy ($300-400) based on the PAYG prices. No-one calling BS on your comments has suggested otherwise.
It is your implication that Apple is making $$s off the contract revenue that is being called False. If you are remembering anything, it was that Apple got a share of the contract revenue on the 2G iPhones when they were sold unsubsidized. That was officially ended when the 3G came out at a subsidized price.
Apple still accounts for iPhones over 24 months for its own purposes to supposedly "to enable free updates to iPhone users" but that is another thread.
Actually my original post on this sub-topic was replying to somebody who said iPhone buyers were not paying an Apple tax for the phone. And I called BS on that. And said something to the effect of "I imagine" Apple is making money on the contract. I am happy to be wrong on the details as I do not follow these things that closely. But the original item being replied to was in reference to the denied Apple tax. So in that regard I I think "False (all of it)." does not quite hit the nail on the head. Apparently I didn't either, but a person can't deny we pay more because of the little apple on the back of these things.
Another year and I'll be with the iPhone pack. When Steve introduces the next generation iPhone (iPhone 4GL?) at next year's WWDC to work on Verizon's LTE network coming in the second half of 2010, I'm in. I actually hate both Verizon and AT&T, but Verizon is definitely the lesser of two evils.
With the news coming out today that Verizon is going to build their own app store and that app store is going to be the only app store allowed to be installed on Verizon devices the Iphone will never go to verizon, there is no way Apple is going to bring a phone to Verizon that cannot have their own app store on it. If verizon sticks to this then there will never be an Iphone for Verizon, maybe T-mobile in 2010?