so, it would seem not an entirely outlandish idea.
Yes, Verizon has had Blackberry phones for some time now that had a 2nd GSM radio, in addition to the CDMA, for international travel. However, I don't think the phones would switch to GSM if you were in the US in an area with no Verizon CDMA signal as that would require a roaming agreement with US GSM carriers.
So if you are talking about a 4th generation, LTE-capable phone, you are probably going to need to support 3 standards, vs the 2 the referenced Blackberry supports: LTE, CDMA (for use in the US in areas where LTE isn't yet available), and GSM (for roaming outside of the US until other country's LTE networks are built out). The space and power requirements to support all three may be prohibitive.
The only other option for a LTE phone would be for Verizon to sign a roaming agreement with a US GSM carrier and have a phone with only LTE and GSM, but I wouldn't see them doing that until their LTE network is substantially built out because too much of their customer's calls and data would then be traveling over another carrier's network.
Of course they could just go with a CDMA/GSM phone like the Blackberry, but then why would Verizon rush to deploy their LTE network?
If the only iPhone I could have was pink, with orange glitter and neon green tassels, and a permanent screen picture of Perez Hilton French kissing a poodle in order to be with a carrier other than AT&T, I'd stand in line to do it.
You have to take crap customer service or poor product functionallity with a grain of salt these days. Especially with any tech. based company. There's no way to make everyone happy all the time, and all of us will have a pissed off moment at some point with one of them.
But I have never experienced a company like AT&T that has absolutely nothing good about them. Not their customer service, their product, not their internet user interface. To call them pathetic would be an insult to pathetic people.
I have had my cell phone account with AT&T for over 15 years, and internet service for over ten, and have come to the point, that as soon as I am able, I will switch to other carriers for both. By the time my wireless account agreement, (the two years I had to get despite being a 25 year customer,) is up Android should be up to speed.
I dig my iPhone, would hate to get rid of it, have had Apple computers since the IIGS, and will continue to have their products. But if it means switching to something else to get away from AT&T I'll do it in less than a heartbeat.
I hope that revolutionary gorilla freedom fighters tear down their cell towers. Gandalf The Good turns their data lines into over-cooked spaghetti. Has Neo infiltrate their infustructure from within and turn it into a smoldering carbon slag-heap of William Gibson after-thought.
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.
Most of the people I know with iPhones aren't techno-nerds like those of us on these forums. And the complains those folks have with their iPhones are problems with the voice, not with data: dropped calls, bad connections, calls going straight to voice mail, etc. I'm sure they suffer the occassional issues with the data network, but that's not what the compain about.
Since Verizon's voice vs data networks operate differently, as long as they can maintain the quality of the voice connections, any data network issues may not be as big a deal for customers.
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
the fanboys already have their iphones. there are a lot of good phones shipping or will come out soon that the carriers don't have to give in to apple. they will just grab the customers like myself who don't worship any product and switch to whatever is the good one at the time.
If the only iPhone I could have was pink, with orange glitter and neon green tassels, and a permanent screen picture of Perez Hilton French kissing a poodle in order to be with a carrier other than AT&T, I'd stand in line to do it.
Hmmm, in that case, I think I might stick with AT&T.
This is where hostility and misunderstanding come from. People from the world, where iPhone is still the luxury, can't understand those from countries, where iPhone is just ordinary phone.
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.
What is your point? People who can afford one, or choose to buy one, can get one. People who cannot afford to get one or choose to save their money will not. It is, well, a little sick for you to think they shouldn't have that choice out of... what... pity?
Do any networks/stations "broadcast" in 1080? (I don't think so.) So what would be the point in Apple going 1080 in Apple TV? (Well, maybe I'm wrong and there is a point, in which case I am eager to be enlightened.)
Stations around here broadcast in uncompressed 1080i over the air, and many cable stations have compressed 1080i. I don't believe anyone does 1080p. FWIW, over the air HD is better than cable/sattelite HD because it's uncompressed.
the fanboys already have their iphones. there are a lot of good phones shipping or will come out soon that the carriers don't have to give in to apple. they will just grab the customers like myself who don't worship any product and switch to whatever is the good one at the time.
I disagree...
There are quite a number of people who very much want to own an iPhone but realize that AT&T is not a strong carrier in their area and in the end if you can't even get a reasonable signal then having the iPhone is of little consolation.
Do you actually think the other carriers would turn down a non-exclusive contract that would allow them to offer a iPhone to its customers??? Really??
This is where hostility and misunderstanding come from. People from the world, where iPhone is still the luxury, can't understand those from countries, where iPhone is just ordinary phone.
Not sure what you're trying to say or to who, but I like your comment that the iPhone is just ordinary phone...
If this was true then why would such an ordinary phone have 40% of the French smartphone market? Doesn't sound so ordinary to me.
If the only iPhone I could have was pink, with orange glitter and neon green tassels, and a permanent screen picture of Perez Hilton French kissing a poodle in order to be with a carrier other than AT&T, I'd stand in line to do it.
So you registered with this forum for the express purpose of posting this rant. Well played.
I still can't see Apple coming out with a CDMA version of the iPhone. When have they ever invested money in technology that has already plateaued and will clearly be in decline over the next 5-10 years? That, and I can't see VZW giving in to Apple and not pushing VCast down potential iPhone customers' throats.
T-Mobile would be a logical second choice in the US since they also use GSM, but they utilize different frequencies than ATT, so Apple would still have to come up with a different chipset that handles both sets of GSM frequencies.
Our best hope for better network coverage is AT&T's rollout of GSM over the 850MHz frequency, which is ongoing. The higher frequencies currently being used just don't travel very far, nor do they penetrate into buildings very well.
Someone may have stated this before...but just because Apple gave iPhone exclusively to ATT does not mean they will now give it exclusively to Verizon by taking it away from ATT. I think Verizon would like to have the iPhone even if it meant that ATT was still offering it.
This arrangement would be best for Apple and for us consumers...Apple's reach/profits would go up with the iPhone available on both carriers and their would be price competition that would reduces costs for us consumers, eg., data plans!
Better future iPhones and better future feature/plan pricing!
There are quite a number of people who very much want to own an iPhone but realize that AT&T is not a strong carrier in their area and in the end if you can't even get a reasonable signal then having the iPhone is of little consolation.
Do you actually think the other carriers would turn down a non-exclusive contract that would allow them to offer a iPhone to its customers??? Really??
Dave
people want the iphone because it's still the best phone and offers features in one package others don't but it's also missing features that other phones have. Nokia N900 and the Pre are looking good. Android depends on the phone manufacturer.
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.
Sprint sucks. Verizon does not exist to me as a brand (they are the worst company I have ever come across in my entire existence on this planet). AT&T has been awesome. I have not had a single dropped call on my 3GS.
When Apple opens it up to other carriers AT&T will have to drop extra services fees (ie texting) so consumers will win and I bet a lot of folks will not end up leaving after all.
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
I agree with this, but with one revision. Every place you mention ATTs network changes, substitute "change the relationship between the carrier and the handset manufacturer." Apple's great achievement with the iPhone was not it getting ATT to support visual voice mail. It was getting them to keep their hands off the design of the phone itself. The whims of the carriers have done more to restrict innovation of cell phones than any lack of talent on the part of the manufacturers.
The new phones we are starting to see are the result of the carriers allowing the manufacturers a little more freedom to innovate. What will be interesting is that Apple has now shown the willingness to compromise the iPhone and remove wi-fi from the Chinese version. Will that be used against them if/when they try to negotiate with Verizon or other carriers who may see that as a sign that Apple is willing to give up some control to gain marketshare?
Stations around here broadcast in uncompressed 1080i over the air, and many cable stations have compressed 1080i. I don't believe anyone does 1080p. FWIW, over the air HD is better than cable/sattelite HD because it's uncompressed.
Actually, even broadcast HD is compressed about 50 to 1. It's just that each broadcast channel is allocated a specific chunk of the spectrum, and typically compresses their signal just enough to fit. Cable companies have a specific amount of bandwidth available for *all* of their channels, and typically will re-compress the signal further, to make room for more channels.
So, over-the-air HD will often be better quality than cable or sattelite, but not because it's uncompressed, but just compressed less.
And 1080p can't be broadcast over the air, it's not part of the ATSC spec, and the FCC would not appreciate it if anyone tried to broadcast it. Cable and satellite providers can ignore the spec as long as all the settop boxes can work with the signal, so they can do 1080p if they want.
I just think it is funny how these "reports" come out every other month yet nothing has changed and probably will not change. These reports have been comming out since day 1 of the iPhone yet the iPhone is still on ATT.
Someone needs to refrain from making up such absurd exaggerations. It doesn't do your image any good.
And to as a question I know you can't possibly answer, what reports from 'day 1'?!?! When the iPhone was introduced it was made very clear, crystal clear in fact that AT&T had the exclusive US contract for a specific number of years... nobody attempted to state otherwise. Nobody in their right mind anyway. I mean the CEOs of both companies were on the stage both saying they had an exclusive contract for x number of years.
Why are we seeing the reports this year? Well it's quite simple we are nearing the end of the contract that AT&T has with Apple so its quite natural to see these types of stories now.
Comments
Munster said. "In France, the company now enjoys dramatically higher market share (in the 40 percent range
That's remarkable. The iPhone has above 40% of the smartphone market in France?!?
paxman: I agree the iTunes content is woeful.
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?
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, Verizon has had Blackberry phones for some time now that had a 2nd GSM radio, in addition to the CDMA, for international travel. However, I don't think the phones would switch to GSM if you were in the US in an area with no Verizon CDMA signal as that would require a roaming agreement with US GSM carriers.
So if you are talking about a 4th generation, LTE-capable phone, you are probably going to need to support 3 standards, vs the 2 the referenced Blackberry supports: LTE, CDMA (for use in the US in areas where LTE isn't yet available), and GSM (for roaming outside of the US until other country's LTE networks are built out). The space and power requirements to support all three may be prohibitive.
The only other option for a LTE phone would be for Verizon to sign a roaming agreement with a US GSM carrier and have a phone with only LTE and GSM, but I wouldn't see them doing that until their LTE network is substantially built out because too much of their customer's calls and data would then be traveling over another carrier's network.
Of course they could just go with a CDMA/GSM phone like the Blackberry, but then why would Verizon rush to deploy their LTE network?
You have to take crap customer service or poor product functionallity with a grain of salt these days. Especially with any tech. based company. There's no way to make everyone happy all the time, and all of us will have a pissed off moment at some point with one of them.
But I have never experienced a company like AT&T that has absolutely nothing good about them. Not their customer service, their product, not their internet user interface. To call them pathetic would be an insult to pathetic people.
I have had my cell phone account with AT&T for over 15 years, and internet service for over ten, and have come to the point, that as soon as I am able, I will switch to other carriers for both. By the time my wireless account agreement, (the two years I had to get despite being a 25 year customer,) is up Android should be up to speed.
I dig my iPhone, would hate to get rid of it, have had Apple computers since the IIGS, and will continue to have their products. But if it means switching to something else to get away from AT&T I'll do it in less than a heartbeat.
I hope that revolutionary gorilla freedom fighters tear down their cell towers. Gandalf The Good turns their data lines into over-cooked spaghetti. Has Neo infiltrate their infustructure from within and turn it into a smoldering carbon slag-heap of William Gibson after-thought.
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.
Most of the people I know with iPhones aren't techno-nerds like those of us on these forums.
Since Verizon's voice vs data networks operate differently, as long as they can maintain the quality of the voice connections, any data network issues may not be as big a deal for customers.
Steve played this one very very well...
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
the fanboys already have their iphones. there are a lot of good phones shipping or will come out soon that the carriers don't have to give in to apple. they will just grab the customers like myself who don't worship any product and switch to whatever is the good one at the time.
If the only iPhone I could have was pink, with orange glitter and neon green tassels, and a permanent screen picture of Perez Hilton French kissing a poodle in order to be with a carrier other than AT&T, I'd stand in line to do it.
Hmmm, in that case, I think I might stick with AT&T.
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.
What is your point? People who can afford one, or choose to buy one, can get one. People who cannot afford to get one or choose to save their money will not. It is, well, a little sick for you to think they shouldn't have that choice out of... what... pity?
Do any networks/stations "broadcast" in 1080? (I don't think so.) So what would be the point in Apple going 1080 in Apple TV? (Well, maybe I'm wrong and there is a point, in which case I am eager to be enlightened.)
Stations around here broadcast in uncompressed 1080i over the air, and many cable stations have compressed 1080i. I don't believe anyone does 1080p. FWIW, over the air HD is better than cable/sattelite HD because it's uncompressed.
the fanboys already have their iphones. there are a lot of good phones shipping or will come out soon that the carriers don't have to give in to apple. they will just grab the customers like myself who don't worship any product and switch to whatever is the good one at the time.
I disagree...
There are quite a number of people who very much want to own an iPhone but realize that AT&T is not a strong carrier in their area and in the end if you can't even get a reasonable signal then having the iPhone is of little consolation.
Do you actually think the other carriers would turn down a non-exclusive contract that would allow them to offer a iPhone to its customers??? Really??
Dave
This is where hostility and misunderstanding come from. People from the world, where iPhone is still the luxury, can't understand those from countries, where iPhone is just ordinary phone.
Not sure what you're trying to say or to who, but I like your comment that the iPhone is just ordinary phone...
If this was true then why would such an ordinary phone have 40% of the French smartphone market? Doesn't sound so ordinary to me.
Dave
These reports have been comming out since day 1 of the iPhone yet the iPhone is still on ATT.
If the only iPhone I could have was pink, with orange glitter and neon green tassels, and a permanent screen picture of Perez Hilton French kissing a poodle in order to be with a carrier other than AT&T, I'd stand in line to do it.
So you registered with this forum for the express purpose of posting this rant. Well played.
I still can't see Apple coming out with a CDMA version of the iPhone. When have they ever invested money in technology that has already plateaued and will clearly be in decline over the next 5-10 years? That, and I can't see VZW giving in to Apple and not pushing VCast down potential iPhone customers' throats.
T-Mobile would be a logical second choice in the US since they also use GSM, but they utilize different frequencies than ATT, so Apple would still have to come up with a different chipset that handles both sets of GSM frequencies.
Our best hope for better network coverage is AT&T's rollout of GSM over the 850MHz frequency, which is ongoing. The higher frequencies currently being used just don't travel very far, nor do they penetrate into buildings very well.
This arrangement would be best for Apple and for us consumers...Apple's reach/profits would go up with the iPhone available on both carriers and their would be price competition that would reduces costs for us consumers, eg., data plans!
Better future iPhones and better future feature/plan pricing!
I disagree...
There are quite a number of people who very much want to own an iPhone but realize that AT&T is not a strong carrier in their area and in the end if you can't even get a reasonable signal then having the iPhone is of little consolation.
Do you actually think the other carriers would turn down a non-exclusive contract that would allow them to offer a iPhone to its customers??? Really??
Dave
people want the iphone because it's still the best phone and offers features in one package others don't but it's also missing features that other phones have. Nokia N900 and the Pre are looking good. Android depends on the phone manufacturer.
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.
Sprint sucks. Verizon does not exist to me as a brand (they are the worst company I have ever come across in my entire existence on this planet). AT&T has been awesome. I have not had a single dropped call on my 3GS.
When Apple opens it up to other carriers AT&T will have to drop extra services fees (ie texting) so consumers will win and I bet a lot of folks will not end up leaving after all.
Steve played this one very very well...
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
I agree with this, but with one revision. Every place you mention ATTs network changes, substitute "change the relationship between the carrier and the handset manufacturer." Apple's great achievement with the iPhone was not it getting ATT to support visual voice mail. It was getting them to keep their hands off the design of the phone itself. The whims of the carriers have done more to restrict innovation of cell phones than any lack of talent on the part of the manufacturers.
The new phones we are starting to see are the result of the carriers allowing the manufacturers a little more freedom to innovate. What will be interesting is that Apple has now shown the willingness to compromise the iPhone and remove wi-fi from the Chinese version. Will that be used against them if/when they try to negotiate with Verizon or other carriers who may see that as a sign that Apple is willing to give up some control to gain marketshare?
Stations around here broadcast in uncompressed 1080i over the air, and many cable stations have compressed 1080i. I don't believe anyone does 1080p. FWIW, over the air HD is better than cable/sattelite HD because it's uncompressed.
Actually, even broadcast HD is compressed about 50 to 1. It's just that each broadcast channel is allocated a specific chunk of the spectrum, and typically compresses their signal just enough to fit. Cable companies have a specific amount of bandwidth available for *all* of their channels, and typically will re-compress the signal further, to make room for more channels.
So, over-the-air HD will often be better quality than cable or sattelite, but not because it's uncompressed, but just compressed less.
And 1080p can't be broadcast over the air, it's not part of the ATSC spec, and the FCC would not appreciate it if anyone tried to broadcast it. Cable and satellite providers can ignore the spec as long as all the settop boxes can work with the signal, so they can do 1080p if they want.
I just think it is funny how these "reports" come out every other month yet nothing has changed and probably will not change. These reports have been comming out since day 1 of the iPhone yet the iPhone is still on ATT.
Someone needs to refrain from making up such absurd exaggerations. It doesn't do your image any good.
And to as a question I know you can't possibly answer, what reports from 'day 1'?!?! When the iPhone was introduced it was made very clear, crystal clear in fact that AT&T had the exclusive US contract for a specific number of years... nobody attempted to state otherwise. Nobody in their right mind anyway. I mean the CEOs of both companies were on the stage both saying they had an exclusive contract for x number of years.
Why are we seeing the reports this year? Well it's quite simple we are nearing the end of the contract that AT&T has with Apple so its quite natural to see these types of stories now.
Dave
Hmmm, in that case, I think I might stick with AT&T.