Of course, they could release it on Tmobile's network, but I'm not sure their market reach is sufficient to make up for lost revenue sharing from ATT with an exclusive contract.
Releasing it on T-Mobile would get the FCC off their back until Verizon got there act together....
Don't know much about this stuff, but isn't 1080i really just a slightly fancied-up version of an underlying 720p broadcast? And, at this point - and perhaps into the foreseeable future - aren't almost all cable broadcasts 720p?
Munster believes that Apple will eventually offer a monthly subscription offer for TV shows on iTunes. At a cost of $30 to $40 a month, he said the company could offer unlimited access to content from network and cable providers. If the Cupertino, Calif., company were to offer a subscription model, he believes it would replace a consumer's cable bill.
So I wouldn't need to pay my cable company in order to subscribe to Apple tv to view tv shows and movies on the tv in my living room?
Will shows come through broadband (the cable internet I have) but via through iTunes to AppleTV to my boobtube? Is that how it would work?
"...could offer unlimited access to content from network and cable providers" I wonder if this is why Apple is building that NC facility of "cloud" data to store the digitized cable shows???
If it does, that would be great. I have longed for the day where I could pick and choose the shows and movies I wish to see. My local Cable and Verizon each one-up each other with amount of channels, etc... I could have 140 channels and still flip through them all and say there is nothing on. Or pass by channels like the HSN or Mtv type channels etc I'm paying for but not interested in or be interested in a station that is provided only because it aires one or two shows I am interested in watching.
All the shows I enjoy viewing can probably fit on 3-5 channels if they were placed on those five channels in the various time slots.
This subscription approach by Apple, if one can choose to create their own tv line-up for the night is something I've been griping about for years. I hope this comes to fruition. Then it will be tv worth watching.
Do people really think that Verizon's data network isn't going to crumble just like AT&Ts did? They dramatically oversold their capacity, just like ATT, based on usage patterns for crap phones.
The earliest adopters are going to proclaim VZW the greatest thing since sliced bread.
But give it a few months of selling like gangbusters and service is going to crap in the major markets.
You're exactly right. Verizon will be hoisted on its own petard if/when the iPhone gets on its system. The company will be scrambling.
ATT is truly an awful corporation. It is the vestigial service of MA Bell, one of the oldest and most powerful of all monopolies. ATT took that reputation and joined the ranks of Evil Empires Inc. They overcharge for everything, and while the service is widespread, it is as unreliable as the first generation of companies ever were. The iphone hurt itself out of the gate by going with a company that many prospective customers despise and would never do business with again. Now they have gone to one of the toxic offspring of the bell system in California. Verizon is worse than Att. Customer service is a joke and a labyrinth where the answer is always NO. What about taking a company with wonderful service and a non-MEGA Attitude? T-Mobile is my favorite. Up here in Oregon, a local company, US Cellular is young but steady as a rock and very affordable. The giants are all here and they all have fancy stores, but they know US is the best. Come on Apple. Share the wealth. You were small, and believers made a giant out of you. Don't forget where you came from. And stop strangling the music business with iTunes. Monopolies never endure and your greed is apparent and repugnant. You are rapidly becoming the IBM of your time.
Don't know much about this stuff, but isn't 1080i really just a slightly fancied-up version of an underlying 720p broadcast? And, at this point - and perhaps into the foreseeable future - aren't almost all cable broadcasts 720p?
Basically yes. Same for HD broacasts over air.
The jump from 480 to 720 is much more significant- simlar to the jump from VHS to DVD. For 720 to 1080 not so much. Less significant than DVD to Blu-ray.
ATT is truly an awful corporation. It is the vestigial service of MA Bell, one of the oldest and most powerful of all monopolies. ATT took that reputation and joined the ranks of Evil Empires Inc. They overcharge for everything, and while the service is widespread, it is as unreliable as the first generation of companies ever were. The iphone hurt itself out of the gate by going with a company that many prospective customers despise and would never do business with again. Now they have gone to one of the toxic offspring of the bell system in California. Verizon is worse than Att. Customer service is a joke and a labyrinth where the answer is always NO. What about taking a company with wonderful service and a non-MEGA Attitude? T-Mobile is my favorite. Up here in Oregon, a local company, US Cellular is young but steady as a rock and very affordable. The giants are all here and they all have fancy stores, but they know US is the best. Come on Apple. Share the wealth. You were small, and believers made a giant out of you. Don't forget where you came from. And stop strangling the music business with iTunes. Monopolies never endure and your greed is apparent and repugnant. You are rapidly becoming the IBM of your time.
t-mobile is a joke. if i ever talk to someone who has t-mo it's almost always a dropped call. doesn't matter if i use one of my cell phones or my landline. and they don't have a 3G network. RIM is sending them new release blackberries this year that are only 2G. i'll give my money to one of the baby bells before i give it to Deutch Telecom anyday
Don't know much about this stuff, but isn't 1080i really just a slightly fancied-up version of an underlying 720p broadcast? And, at this point - and perhaps into the foreseeable future - aren't almost all cable broadcasts 720p?
It's a pixel/refresh issue. 720p refreshes the entire screen (1280x720) every 1/60th of a second (60Hz) (generally speaking, they can use any Hz they want but the generally accepted standard is 60Hz) whereas 1080i refreshes every other pixel (1920 x 1080) at 60Hz so the net effect is an entire screen refresh every 1/30th of a second. The data requirements for both are (assuming 60Hz) 720p: 55.296 Mpx/sec and 1080i 62.208 Mpx/sec.
In general 720p is desireable for sports and action shots whereas 1080i provides a clearer picture for static shots. Hence why ABC, Fox and ESPN broadcast in 720p whereas NBC, CBS, HBO, and Showtime broadcast in 1080i (yeah, I know, the NFL is on CBS but it would seem CBS cares more about 60 mins than they do the viewing quality of the NFL games).
EDIT: Those Hz #'s are for the US - the EU, for whatever reason, decided to go w/ the 50 Hz standard resulting in a lower quality picture, most noticeably when watching sports.
It's a pixel/refresh issue. 720p refreshes the entire screen (1280x720) every 1/60th of a second (60Hz) (generally speaking, they can use any Hz they want but the generally accepted standard is 60Hz) whereas 1080i refreshes every other pixel (1920 x 1080) at 60Hz so the net effect is an entire screen refresh every 1/30th of a second. The data requirements for both are (assuming 60Hz) 720p: 55.296 Mpx/sec and 1080i 62.208 Mpx/sec.
In general 720p is desireable for sports and action shots whereas 1080i provides a clearer picture for static shots. Hence why ABC, Fox and ESPN broadcast in 720p whereas NBC, CBS, HBO, and Showtime broadcast in 1080i (yeah, I know, the NFL is on CBS but it would seem CBS cares more about 60 mins than they do the viewing quality of the NFL games).
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Basically yes. Same for HD broacasts over air.
The jump from 480 to 720 is much more significant- simlar to the jump from VHS to DVD. For 720 to 1080 not so much. Less significant than DVD to Blu-ray.
If Apple wants to sell the iPhone in the VZN network, it will have to implement the CDMA/EDVO tech... even if LTE in included. Verizon will need time to implement the LTE network... it is quite complicated as they will need to upgrade their fiberoptic network, routers, switches to handle the data flow. The tower spacing may or may not be adequate. It is what is called, truck load upgrades. LTE will take time to be ubiquitous.
The big question will be the level of carrier subsidy by ATT if the contract is not exclusive. The key for the shareholders in maximizing sustained margins, profits... not market share like Nokia, etc with $50 phones (or less).
RIM already does this. they have CDMA phones that will work around the world and support every frequency and standard
I haven't read all the replies here so someone probably posted something like this already but...
If Verizon gets iPhone and all of a sudden has 6 million (or more) new data hogs, do you really think they can just absorb all that without issue? I doubt it.
AND-Verizon's customer service is at least as bad as AT&T's.
I DESPISE AT&T, don't get me wrong. But I seriously doubt Verizon would be much better.
Apple should stay the hell away from India. Those people are struggling to survive and they sure as hell don't need iPhones nor even be tempted by them. The people that can afford iPhones in India should just buy them on the black market and save Apple the trouble of making deals with any carriers. Those people in India were griping that the iPhone was too expensive. Why the heck were they even considering buying them if they don't have the money? Let Nokia, Samsung, LG or whoever the heck makes those really cheap phones and just turn them loose on that place. India should be the domain of Tracfone and Net10.
Apple should just target the richest countries in the world with the iPhone and provide the best quality and service they can possibly offer. If Apple could just capture just 20% of the world smartphone market and grab 40% to 50% of profits, they'd be sitting pretty.
If Apple and Verizon sign a deal can we guess at what the plan will looking like to consumer....
- Must buy music, apps, ring tone's and other things through a VZ version of itunes at a increased mark up. i.e revenue sharing with VZ
- Bluetooth data transfer disabled
- Wifi disable, enable for a monthly fee for VZ approved application
- GPS disable, enable for a monthly fee for VZ approved application
- Software update only after VZ blesses them
- VZ name all over the product and start up screen
I can not see it being any other way since this is exactly what VZ does with all their other phones form other manufactures, either they force Apple to do the above or all the other suppliers and end users will demand to have what the iphones has for the same costs.
Apple should stay the hell away from India. Those people are struggling to survive and they sure as hell don't need iPhones nor even be tempted by them. The people that can afford iPhones in India should just buy them on the black market and save Apple the trouble of making deals with any carriers. Those people in India were griping that the iPhone was too expensive. Why the heck were they even considering buying them if they don't have the money? Let Nokia, Samsung, LG or whoever the heck makes those really cheap phones and just turn them loose on that place. India should be the domain of Tracfone and Net10.
Apple should just target the richest countries in the world with the iPhone and provide the best quality and service they can possibly offer. If Apple could just capture just 20% of the world smartphone market and grab 40% to 50% of profits, they'd be sitting pretty.
Lots of people in India have iphones, and that is exactly what they do, but a unlocked one from other places in the world.
In order for Apple to build the phone they REALLY wanted to build required (some) changes to the way providers ran their networks... Lets face it, going back to the year BEFORE the iPhone was introduced the concept of Apple dictating network changes to the carrier was all a preposterous notion at the very least.
So Apple did the next best thing and made a deal with a carrier 'product virtually unseen'. Now that I think about it I'm sure I read (somewhere) that a comment similar to that being said by the AT&T CEO.
I'm sure the contract was something to the effect that Apple would build a smartphone like no other and in return AT&T would make the necessary changes to its network to enable some of the phones unique features. In addition Apple would make AT&T its exclusive for X number of years. AT&T also must have had some kind of escape clause if the phone didn't deliver what Steve was promising.
So Apple gave into an exclusive agreement so it could have some say as to how the providers cell network operates. An alien concept to say the least. Previous to this it was the providers who told the cell phone makers what to include and what not to include.
So fast forward to today...
Apple is truly in the cat bird seat...
It's contract with AT&T is winding down and the rest of the US market is Apples to take if they so choose.
Imagine if tomorrow Apple went to Verizon and Sprint and offered them a non-exclusive deal on the iPhone what do you think will happen?
1 - They'd all but jump at it making whatever network changes they need to so the iPhone works as advertised.
2 - The drop most/all of the 'other' smartphone TV ads and flood primetime with ads boasting they too have the hottest phone the world has ever seen.
I mean really, do you think Verizon or Sprint would be featuring an Andriod phone as its #1 smartphone if they had the ability to offer its customers the iPhone instead?
Yea... Steve hit this one clear outta the park.
And despite how I feel about their tyrannical control over what Apps I can run on my iPhone and iPod touch I gotta give the man credit when credit is due.
Comments
anonymouse: examples of phones marketed with multiple radio chip choices?
me: does imminent verizon technology mean a verizon iPhone would have the same international usefulness the ATT phone has?
Of course, they could release it on Tmobile's network, but I'm not sure their market reach is sufficient to make up for lost revenue sharing from ATT with an exclusive contract.
Releasing it on T-Mobile would get the FCC off their back until Verizon got there act together....
anonymouse: examples of phones marketed with multiple radio chip choices?
I think your question is mistaken in being directed to me. But, a quick search turns up this, so, it would seem not an entirely outlandish idea.
Yes they broadast in 1080i not 1080p.
Don't know much about this stuff, but isn't 1080i really just a slightly fancied-up version of an underlying 720p broadcast? And, at this point - and perhaps into the foreseeable future - aren't almost all cable broadcasts 720p?
Munster believes that Apple will eventually offer a monthly subscription offer for TV shows on iTunes. At a cost of $30 to $40 a month, he said the company could offer unlimited access to content from network and cable providers. If the Cupertino, Calif., company were to offer a subscription model, he believes it would replace a consumer's cable bill.
So I wouldn't need to pay my cable company in order to subscribe to Apple tv to view tv shows and movies on the tv in my living room?
Will shows come through broadband (the cable internet I have) but via through iTunes to AppleTV to my boobtube? Is that how it would work?
"...could offer unlimited access to content from network and cable providers" I wonder if this is why Apple is building that NC facility of "cloud" data to store the digitized cable shows???
If it does, that would be great. I have longed for the day where I could pick and choose the shows and movies I wish to see. My local Cable and Verizon each one-up each other with amount of channels, etc... I could have 140 channels and still flip through them all and say there is nothing on. Or pass by channels like the HSN or Mtv type channels etc I'm paying for but not interested in or be interested in a station that is provided only because it aires one or two shows I am interested in watching.
All the shows I enjoy viewing can probably fit on 3-5 channels if they were placed on those five channels in the various time slots.
This subscription approach by Apple, if one can choose to create their own tv line-up for the night is something I've been griping about for years. I hope this comes to fruition. Then it will be tv worth watching.
Do people really think that Verizon's data network isn't going to crumble just like AT&Ts did? They dramatically oversold their capacity, just like ATT, based on usage patterns for crap phones.
The earliest adopters are going to proclaim VZW the greatest thing since sliced bread.
But give it a few months of selling like gangbusters and service is going to crap in the major markets.
You're exactly right. Verizon will be hoisted on its own petard if/when the iPhone gets on its system. The company will be scrambling.
Telia, Telenor, Tre and Halebop.
Don't know much about this stuff, but isn't 1080i really just a slightly fancied-up version of an underlying 720p broadcast? And, at this point - and perhaps into the foreseeable future - aren't almost all cable broadcasts 720p?
Basically yes. Same for HD broacasts over air.
The jump from 480 to 720 is much more significant- simlar to the jump from VHS to DVD. For 720 to 1080 not so much. Less significant than DVD to Blu-ray.
ATT is truly an awful corporation. It is the vestigial service of MA Bell, one of the oldest and most powerful of all monopolies. ATT took that reputation and joined the ranks of Evil Empires Inc. They overcharge for everything, and while the service is widespread, it is as unreliable as the first generation of companies ever were. The iphone hurt itself out of the gate by going with a company that many prospective customers despise and would never do business with again. Now they have gone to one of the toxic offspring of the bell system in California. Verizon is worse than Att. Customer service is a joke and a labyrinth where the answer is always NO. What about taking a company with wonderful service and a non-MEGA Attitude? T-Mobile is my favorite. Up here in Oregon, a local company, US Cellular is young but steady as a rock and very affordable. The giants are all here and they all have fancy stores, but they know US is the best. Come on Apple. Share the wealth. You were small, and believers made a giant out of you. Don't forget where you came from. And stop strangling the music business with iTunes. Monopolies never endure and your greed is apparent and repugnant. You are rapidly becoming the IBM of your time.
t-mobile is a joke. if i ever talk to someone who has t-mo it's almost always a dropped call. doesn't matter if i use one of my cell phones or my landline. and they don't have a 3G network. RIM is sending them new release blackberries this year that are only 2G. i'll give my money to one of the baby bells before i give it to Deutch Telecom anyday
Don't know much about this stuff, but isn't 1080i really just a slightly fancied-up version of an underlying 720p broadcast? And, at this point - and perhaps into the foreseeable future - aren't almost all cable broadcasts 720p?
It's a pixel/refresh issue. 720p refreshes the entire screen (1280x720) every 1/60th of a second (60Hz) (generally speaking, they can use any Hz they want but the generally accepted standard is 60Hz) whereas 1080i refreshes every other pixel (1920 x 1080) at 60Hz so the net effect is an entire screen refresh every 1/30th of a second. The data requirements for both are (assuming 60Hz) 720p: 55.296 Mpx/sec and 1080i 62.208 Mpx/sec.
In general 720p is desireable for sports and action shots whereas 1080i provides a clearer picture for static shots. Hence why ABC, Fox and ESPN broadcast in 720p whereas NBC, CBS, HBO, and Showtime broadcast in 1080i (yeah, I know, the NFL is on CBS but it would seem CBS cares more about 60 mins than they do the viewing quality of the NFL games).
EDIT: Those Hz #'s are for the US - the EU, for whatever reason, decided to go w/ the 50 Hz standard resulting in a lower quality picture, most noticeably when watching sports.
It's a pixel/refresh issue. 720p refreshes the entire screen (1280x720) every 1/60th of a second (60Hz) (generally speaking, they can use any Hz they want but the generally accepted standard is 60Hz) whereas 1080i refreshes every other pixel (1920 x 1080) at 60Hz so the net effect is an entire screen refresh every 1/30th of a second. The data requirements for both are (assuming 60Hz) 720p: 55.296 Mpx/sec and 1080i 62.208 Mpx/sec.
In general 720p is desireable for sports and action shots whereas 1080i provides a clearer picture for static shots. Hence why ABC, Fox and ESPN broadcast in 720p whereas NBC, CBS, HBO, and Showtime broadcast in 1080i (yeah, I know, the NFL is on CBS but it would seem CBS cares more about 60 mins than they do the viewing quality of the NFL games).
Basically yes. Same for HD broacasts over air.
The jump from 480 to 720 is much more significant- simlar to the jump from VHS to DVD. For 720 to 1080 not so much. Less significant than DVD to Blu-ray.
Very useful. Thanks.
If Apple wants to sell the iPhone in the VZN network, it will have to implement the CDMA/EDVO tech... even if LTE in included. Verizon will need time to implement the LTE network... it is quite complicated as they will need to upgrade their fiberoptic network, routers, switches to handle the data flow. The tower spacing may or may not be adequate. It is what is called, truck load upgrades. LTE will take time to be ubiquitous.
The big question will be the level of carrier subsidy by ATT if the contract is not exclusive. The key for the shareholders in maximizing sustained margins, profits... not market share like Nokia, etc with $50 phones (or less).
RIM already does this. they have CDMA phones that will work around the world and support every frequency and standard
If Verizon gets iPhone and all of a sudden has 6 million (or more) new data hogs, do you really think they can just absorb all that without issue? I doubt it.
AND-Verizon's customer service is at least as bad as AT&T's.
I DESPISE AT&T, don't get me wrong. But I seriously doubt Verizon would be much better.
My life philosophy: Careful what you ask for.
Apple should just target the richest countries in the world with the iPhone and provide the best quality and service they can possibly offer. If Apple could just capture just 20% of the world smartphone market and grab 40% to 50% of profits, they'd be sitting pretty.
- Must buy music, apps, ring tone's and other things through a VZ version of itunes at a increased mark up. i.e revenue sharing with VZ
- Bluetooth data transfer disabled
- Wifi disable, enable for a monthly fee for VZ approved application
- GPS disable, enable for a monthly fee for VZ approved application
- Software update only after VZ blesses them
- VZ name all over the product and start up screen
I can not see it being any other way since this is exactly what VZ does with all their other phones form other manufactures, either they force Apple to do the above or all the other suppliers and end users will demand to have what the iphones has for the same costs.
In Sweden there are four carriers!
Telia, Telenor, Tre and Halebop.
Didn't they have some big hits in the 70s? Oh, I guess that was ABBA. Never mind.
Apple should stay the hell away from India. Those people are struggling to survive and they sure as hell don't need iPhones nor even be tempted by them. The people that can afford iPhones in India should just buy them on the black market and save Apple the trouble of making deals with any carriers. Those people in India were griping that the iPhone was too expensive. Why the heck were they even considering buying them if they don't have the money? Let Nokia, Samsung, LG or whoever the heck makes those really cheap phones and just turn them loose on that place. India should be the domain of Tracfone and Net10.
Apple should just target the richest countries in the world with the iPhone and provide the best quality and service they can possibly offer. If Apple could just capture just 20% of the world smartphone market and grab 40% to 50% of profits, they'd be sitting pretty.
Lots of people in India have iphones, and that is exactly what they do, but a unlocked one from other places in the world.
In order for Apple to build the phone they REALLY wanted to build required (some) changes to the way providers ran their networks... Lets face it, going back to the year BEFORE the iPhone was introduced the concept of Apple dictating network changes to the carrier was all a preposterous notion at the very least.
So Apple did the next best thing and made a deal with a carrier 'product virtually unseen'. Now that I think about it I'm sure I read (somewhere) that a comment similar to that being said by the AT&T CEO.
I'm sure the contract was something to the effect that Apple would build a smartphone like no other and in return AT&T would make the necessary changes to its network to enable some of the phones unique features. In addition Apple would make AT&T its exclusive for X number of years. AT&T also must have had some kind of escape clause if the phone didn't deliver what Steve was promising.
So Apple gave into an exclusive agreement so it could have some say as to how the providers cell network operates. An alien concept to say the least. Previous to this it was the providers who told the cell phone makers what to include and what not to include.
So fast forward to today...
Apple is truly in the cat bird seat...
It's contract with AT&T is winding down and the rest of the US market is Apples to take if they so choose.
Imagine if tomorrow Apple went to Verizon and Sprint and offered them a non-exclusive deal on the iPhone what do you think will happen?
1 - They'd all but jump at it making whatever network changes they need to so the iPhone works as advertised.
2 - The drop most/all of the 'other' smartphone TV ads and flood primetime with ads boasting they too have the hottest phone the world has ever seen.
I mean really, do you think Verizon or Sprint would be featuring an Andriod phone as its #1 smartphone if they had the ability to offer its customers the iPhone instead?
Yea... Steve hit this one clear outta the park.
And despite how I feel about their tyrannical control over what Apps I can run on my iPhone and iPod touch I gotta give the man credit when credit is due.
Dave