Sonera Finland did not initiate the caps (which are not enforced) on data, but they came from Telia Sonera Sweden. These figures are for show. I have friends that do not even have hardlines in their house and use exclusively mobile data and constantly succeed the "data" caps on a monthly basis. If they enforce the caps in your location. Oh well....
Any way you look at it tAT&T has committed fraud. They advertised that several additional functions would be available when the 3G & 3GS came out but here we sit paying for these extras but getting nothing. This is just another example of a multi-Billion dollar company getting away with things that many of us would be sued over & maybe jailed. If I as a small business owner advertised & secured customers by promising things that i can't deliver I'd be out of business in no time at all.
So unless the millions of AT&T customers get off their collective asses & demand compensation through the legal system you'll continue to be taken advantage of. I've been amazed from day one that a class action case hasn't been brought against AT&T. I'm even more amazed that millions of customers have continued to pay At&T's Absorbent rates without any compensation for extra's they've not had for months.
Sonera Finland did not initiate the caps (which are not enforced) on data, but they came from Telia Sonera Sweden. These figures are for show. I have friends that do not even have hardlines in their house and use exclusively mobile data and constantly succeed the "data" caps on a monthly basis. If they enforce the caps in your location. Oh well....
Normal people don't go out of their way to test the willingness of their carrier to enforce the rules. So the average Fins will use a lot less data per month on their iphone than the average American.
And I think Sonera has officially limit the 3G iphone speed to 512 kbps. Numerous survey has put the 3G speed of Finland vastly slower than the US --- US being twice as fast as Finland.
So now you are going to tell me how American carriers are crap --- but instead the Fins got a 100 MB data allowance with their 3G speed artificially crippled.
I don't agree with the notion that the other networks such as Verizon or Sprint would have had the same issues as ATT. Verizon, for example, has also seen a massive smartphone boom on their network, and they have upgraded their technology to cope with the increased workflow.
I don't think you get just how much data the iPhone generates. The iPhone accounts for more web browsing then desktop Linux - all other smartphones combined don't even come close.
Mainly because the iPhone has the first practical web browser - people actually use it! Nevermind the applications and other stuff the iPhone also excels at.
Quote:
That's why they are deploying LTE so quickly
Uh, no - Verizon is deploying LTE so they have a world compatible cellular standard and can get handsets like the iPhone.
Quote:
The point I'm trying to make is that the iPhone isn't the root of the problem with ATT right now. They simply aren't putting enough resources into building and maintaining their network to support the entire wireless ATT population.
Citation please. Your premise is weak and shows your fundamental ignorance...
why is AT&T investing this much in 3G? By this time next year, Verizon is planning LTE (4G)
1) They could start tomorrow and 4G will be in very few places. 4G rollout is going to take years - it's not as simple as flipping a switch. It will also be interesting to see how Verizon handles the increased tower requirements of 4G vs. CDMA 3G - that's not going to be quickly resolved either.
2) Since Verizon is switching fundamental technology, they will have to have phones that can span 4G and CDMA 3G. It's doubtful Apple would make such a phone - if they were going to make a CDMA phone in any market, why wouldn't they have one now?
3) Higher end 3G is just as fast as lower end 4G . AT&T won't be hurting for some time. 4G is critical for Verizon as it gets them on a world standard. AT&T doesn't have that issue, so 4G is less of an issue for them.
There is also no evidence that Verizon won't have these problems either.
AT&T completely dominates the west coast and their service is great when I travel To CA far better than Verizon. On the east coast though AT&T has had a harder time competing with Verizon who owns most of the towers in the area. NYC straight through most of the Hudson Valley corridor is dominated by Verizon towers.
my Iphone works just fine and even better when I travel. AT&T isn't great and Verizon is no better. Stop "gilding the lilly" and acting like you know what you are talking about and focus on the issue at hand, which is not "Steve the Blogger". They are both large corporations that want to maximize profits at the users expense and neither cares about your user experience. I doubt that Apple will be for long either. especially once Steve is gone.
I am focusing on the issue. I've personally had Verizon...have you? Verizon's service is far better. Period. Many fewer dropped calls. Better coverage. The list goes on. I can't speak for the West Coast. Maybe it's different out there...I don't know. It does me no good as someone from PA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
I agree that Verizon's network would also be overloaded, no doubt about that.
You have no idea if that's true much less "having do doubt." Please.
Quote:
Verizon's rejection of the iphone has nothing to do with visual voicemail, they rejected the iphone deal because Apple demanded revenue sharing and choice of distribution partners. The interview was given a few days after the Jobs keynote speech, but 5 months before the actual iphone launch --- so Verizon wasn't monday morning quarterbacking.
2 years after the iphone has been launched, independent AT&T agents still can't sell the iphone --- makes those agents mad as hell.
I've heard it was both the visual voicemail thing and the revenue sharing. They also wanted control of the apps. Verizon has its own effort going on there.
I've heard it was both the visual voicemail thing and the revenue sharing. They also wanted control of the apps. Verizon has its own effort going on there.
Considering that AT&T didn't even get to see much of the iphone prototype tells you that it's highly unlikely for Verizon to reject the iphobe because on technical stuff.
And considering that apps didn't even come into the iphone until 1 year after the iphone was launch tells you that this theory is even further off.
Really. If Verizon or Sprint took on the iPhone, their infrastructure would have imploded.
Agreed. I don't think anybody could have anticipated such a successful take off. Unfortunately everyone has to point fingers at AT&T when it would have happened to any one of the carriers. Yes, if it were released on several carriers at once then it might not have been a problem.
The fact is that AT&T has the iPhone, for the time being, and whats done is done. They've exceeded their network, didn't see it coming! So, now they're trying to fix it. According to the article they spent $38 billion in the past 2 years upgrading their network and people are bitching about them just now starting to fix the network? .....please..... read the article again.
MMS is something that should have been ready for 3GS launch and I think they've dropped the ball there, but supposedly it takes quite a bit of time to calibrate the network
I don't think there is going to be that large of an increase in MMS because many people like myself see it just as easy to send a picture or video thru email.\
Considering that AT&T didn't even get to see much of the iphone prototype tells you that it's highly unlikely for Verizon to reject the iphobe because on technical stuff.
And considering that apps didn't even come into the iphone until 1 year after the iphone was launch tells you that this theory is even further off.
Everything SDW2001 stated sounds reasonable to me. Apple could easily have drawn up contracts that allow them to control this or that aspect without having a physical device to show Verizon. As for apps, the iPhone came with apps like Google Maps, YouTube and QuickTime streaming via Safari, etc. that Verizon, of all carriers, would likely have not wanted to be included for free without Verizon’s oversight. His statement didn’t state 3rd-party apps, but it seems silly to think that iPhone SDK announced only a few months after the iPhone’s release was not something well planned in advance. I think it’s likely that any contract that Apple would have drawn up would have included control of future offerings, like an app store, where previously such things were controlled by the carrier. I also recall reading that Verizon didn’t like the idea of Apple controlling the call center and repairs of the iPhone.
I also recall reading that Verizon didn’t like the idea of Apple controlling the call center and repairs of the iPhone.
Yes, those reasons were also given in January 2007 interview that I cited earlier.
The only concrete evidence that you can rely on is that Verizon interview in Jan 2007 --- it was given a week after the keynote speech and 5 months before the actual iphone launch. There was no monday morning quarterbacking.
All the other stuff that SDW2001 mentioned are just speculations and rumors --- without a single evidence to back them up. Remember that Apple approached Verizon in 2005 --- many many years before the app store, before Google even announced Google Maps, hell before youtube was even founded. That is some revisionist retelling of Apple's intention to put in a bunch of these partner apps onto the iphone.
That Verizon Jan 2007 interview provided no non-sense, no revisionist evidence.
Yes, those reasons were also given in January 2007 interview that I cited earlier.
The only concrete evidence that you can rely on is that Verizon interview in Jan 2007 --- it was given a week after the keynote speech and 5 months before the actual iphone launch. There was no monday morning quarterbacking.
All the other stuff that SDW2001 mentioned are just speculations and rumors --- without a single evidence to back them up. Remember that Apple approached Verizon in 2005 --- many many years before the app store, before Google even announced Google Maps, hell before youtube was even founded. That is some revisionist retelling of Apple's intention to put in a bunch of these partner apps onto the iphone.
That Verizon Jan 2007 interview provided no non-sense, no revisionist evidence.
In his defense, he did qualify it with ?I?ve heard? and it doesn?t sound like he was stating it as fact. Even the Verizon statement should be taken with a grain of salt as any decent company would spin any such thing to favour themselves.
As for Google Maps and YouTube, you have a point about specifics, but this is Apple butting heads with Verizon. I?d imagine Apple had a pretty vague contract that was all inclusive of such things, sans things that didn?t affect voice revenue directly like VoIP. Something that I?d imagine Verizon would laugh at Apple?s hubris right off the bat. I?d love to have seen these negotiations in play with both companies arrogantly scoffing at the other.
In his defense, he did qualify it with “I’ve heard” and it doesn’t sound like he was stating it as fact. Even the Verizon statement should be taken with a grain of salt as any decent company would spin any such thing to favour themselves.
As for Google Maps and YouTube, you have a point about specifics, but this is Apple butting heads with Verizon. I’d imagine Apple had a pretty vague contract that was all inclusive of such things, sans things that didn’t affect voice revenue directly like VoIP. Something that I’d imagine Verizon would laugh at Apple’s hubris right off the bat. I’d love to have seen these negotiations in play with both companies arrogantly scoffing at the other.
Of course, Verizon senior vp is going to spin it in favor for themselves as much as possible. But it doesn't mean that there is no concrete points in them --- especially when Verizon's statements were confirmed to be correct later on.
Revenue sharing was confirmed, AT&T corp store and Apple selling iphone only (i.e. shafting carrier distribution partners) was confirmed, Apple handling warranty and support was confirmed.
Tell me a single thing in the Verizon interview that was confirmed to be false later on.
Tell me a single thing in the Verizon interview that was not confirmed to be false later on.
I don?t recall Apple confirming or denying anything Verizon stated about their negotiations. My comment was to say that everything SDW2001 speculated didn?t sound far fetched
I?ll even speculate that any good negotiation will involve tactics of courting competitors even when you have no interest in them. Apple has had plenty of opportunities to offer an iPhone in countries that are CDMA-based and will be using CDMA for a long time to come and yet they seem to want to stick with GSM-based networks. Is this just a coincidence or could the courting of Verizon, AT&T?s biggest rival, have been done to gain a more favorable from AT&T? (This is just speculation, not a statement of fact, and so it shouldn?t be read that way)
I don’t recall Apple confirming or denying anything Verizon stated about their negotiations. My comment was to say that everything SDW2001 speculated didn’t sound far fetched
I’ll even speculate that any good negotiation will involve tactics of courting competitors even when you have no interest in them. Apple has had plenty of opportunities to offer an iPhone in countries that are CDMA-based and will be using CDMA for a long time to come and yet they seem to want to stick with GSM-based networks. Is this just a coincidence or could the courting of Verizon, AT&T’s biggest rival, have been done to gain a more favorable from AT&T? (This is just speculation, not a statement of fact, and so it shouldn’t be read that way)
Don't need Apple to confirm or deny anything by interviews. They were confirmed by SEC filings (revenue sharing) and actual events (3rd party AT&T agents still can't sell the iphone 2 years later and Apple handling warranty/support).
Apple not signing with Verizon was the biggest mistake by Steve Jobs.
Palm went through several restructuring and selling source code to a Japanese firm in 2005-6. There were constant rumors that they were going to go under. In June 2007 (the same month that the original iphone was launched by AT&T), some private equity firm rescued Palm by buying 25% of Palm shares.
If Apple signed Verizon, Palm wouldn't have been rescued and we would have never seen the Palm Pre. As those credit card commercials said it best --- wiping out a competitor is priceless.
Apple not signing with Verizon was the biggest mistake by Steve Jobs.
I don?t know about that. If that means having Verizon control the repairs, replacements, the call center, the apps, and even aspects of the OS and HW that is accessible on the device then I don?t think the iPhone would have made the impact that it did or change the way cellphone vendors look at phone HW, the OS and SW, and the way the carriers look at services and pricing structures. Nothing would have changed if Verizon would have gotten the iPhone the way they wanted to get it. They weren?t on the ropes and nothing to lose. Look at the carriers that Apple has mostly teamed with around the world. It?s the one that is struggling more and more likely to play ball with Apple to get an edge.
Quote:
If Apple signed Verizon, Palm wouldn't have been rescued and we would have never seen the Palm Pre. As those credit card commercials said it best --- wiping out a competitor is priceless.
Wiping out healthy competition is not good for the consumer. WebOS has taken the influence of the iPhone OS X and have improved on it in a few areas. I?m hoping that Apple takes some cues from Palm and include some aspects of WebOS.
I don?t know about that. If that means having Verizon control the repairs, replacements, the call center, the apps, and even aspects of the OS and HW that is accessible on the device then I don?t think the iPhone would have made the impact that it did or change the way cellphone vendors look at phone HW, the OS and SW, and the way the carriers look at services and pricing structures. Nothing would have changed if Verizon would have gotten the iPhone the way they wanted to get it. They weren?t on the ropes and nothing to lose. Look at the carriers that Apple has mostly teamed with around the world. It?s the one that is struggling more and more likely to play ball with Apple to get an edge.
Wiping out healthy competition is not good for the consumer. WebOS has taken the influence of the iPhone OS X and have improved on it in a few areas. I?m hoping that Apple takes some cues from Palm and include some aspects of WebOS.
It means what --- you might actually had turn-by-turn nav apps like VZ Navigator on the original iphone in June 2007. That's a plus for consumer instead of waiting until July 2009 for AT&T to release AT&T Navigator for the iphone. You still didn't get full bluetooth use until June 2009, so Verizon couldn't have done worse.
I never said that wiping out healthy competition is good for the consumer, I said that it was good for Apple.
Comments
But the Finns also have to deal with iphone data plans with 100 MB, 250 MB and 1000 MB per month allowance.
http://www.sonera.fi/Puhelin+ja+liit...plen+iPhone+3G
http://www.sonera.fi/Puhelin%20ja%20.../iPhone+hinnat
Sonera Finland did not initiate the caps (which are not enforced) on data, but they came from Telia Sonera Sweden. These figures are for show. I have friends that do not even have hardlines in their house and use exclusively mobile data and constantly succeed the "data" caps on a monthly basis. If they enforce the caps in your location. Oh well....
So unless the millions of AT&T customers get off their collective asses & demand compensation through the legal system you'll continue to be taken advantage of. I've been amazed from day one that a class action case hasn't been brought against AT&T. I'm even more amazed that millions of customers have continued to pay At&T's Absorbent rates without any compensation for extra's they've not had for months.
So what do you want AT&T to do?
(1) charge you $60 a month for a datacard plan because all the iphone users in the US used about as much data as a datacard subscriber.
(2) charge you $30 a month for a 1 GB data allowance per month.
I am just going to throw this out there. I know it will sound radical and may upset some. You may even call me crazy for suggesting such a concept.
They should sell only what they are capable of providing. If they don't have it, then they shouldn't be selling it.
Outlandish and unexpected, I know.
Sonera Finland did not initiate the caps (which are not enforced) on data, but they came from Telia Sonera Sweden. These figures are for show. I have friends that do not even have hardlines in their house and use exclusively mobile data and constantly succeed the "data" caps on a monthly basis. If they enforce the caps in your location. Oh well....
Normal people don't go out of their way to test the willingness of their carrier to enforce the rules. So the average Fins will use a lot less data per month on their iphone than the average American.
And I think Sonera has officially limit the 3G iphone speed to 512 kbps. Numerous survey has put the 3G speed of Finland vastly slower than the US --- US being twice as fast as Finland.
http://testmyiphone.com/country/FI
http://testmyiphone.com/country/US
So now you are going to tell me how American carriers are crap --- but instead the Fins got a 100 MB data allowance with their 3G speed artificially crippled.
I don't agree with the notion that the other networks such as Verizon or Sprint would have had the same issues as ATT. Verizon, for example, has also seen a massive smartphone boom on their network, and they have upgraded their technology to cope with the increased workflow.
I don't think you get just how much data the iPhone generates. The iPhone accounts for more web browsing then desktop Linux - all other smartphones combined don't even come close.
Mainly because the iPhone has the first practical web browser - people actually use it! Nevermind the applications and other stuff the iPhone also excels at.
That's why they are deploying LTE so quickly
Uh, no - Verizon is deploying LTE so they have a world compatible cellular standard and can get handsets like the iPhone.
The point I'm trying to make is that the iPhone isn't the root of the problem with ATT right now. They simply aren't putting enough resources into building and maintaining their network to support the entire wireless ATT population.
Citation please. Your premise is weak and shows your fundamental ignorance...
why is AT&T investing this much in 3G? By this time next year, Verizon is planning LTE (4G)
1) They could start tomorrow and 4G will be in very few places. 4G rollout is going to take years - it's not as simple as flipping a switch. It will also be interesting to see how Verizon handles the increased tower requirements of 4G vs. CDMA 3G - that's not going to be quickly resolved either.
2) Since Verizon is switching fundamental technology, they will have to have phones that can span 4G and CDMA 3G. It's doubtful Apple would make such a phone - if they were going to make a CDMA phone in any market, why wouldn't they have one now?
3) Higher end 3G is just as fast as lower end 4G . AT&T won't be hurting for some time. 4G is critical for Verizon as it gets them on a world standard. AT&T doesn't have that issue, so 4G is less of an issue for them.
Much like how Apple was kicking and screaming with bluetooth.
Kicking and screaming or maturing their stack?
Verizon has a history of being overly restrictive ("future blackberries will have wifi - we promise!")
Apple, OTOH, set the industry on it's ear.
Yup, I know which one is acting more in my interests
There is also no evidence that Verizon won't have these problems either.
AT&T completely dominates the west coast and their service is great when I travel To CA far better than Verizon. On the east coast though AT&T has had a harder time competing with Verizon who owns most of the towers in the area. NYC straight through most of the Hudson Valley corridor is dominated by Verizon towers.
my Iphone works just fine and even better when I travel. AT&T isn't great and Verizon is no better. Stop "gilding the lilly" and acting like you know what you are talking about and focus on the issue at hand, which is not "Steve the Blogger". They are both large corporations that want to maximize profits at the users expense and neither cares about your user experience. I doubt that Apple will be for long either. especially once Steve is gone.
I am focusing on the issue. I've personally had Verizon...have you? Verizon's service is far better. Period. Many fewer dropped calls. Better coverage. The list goes on. I can't speak for the West Coast. Maybe it's different out there...I don't know. It does me no good as someone from PA.
I agree that Verizon's network would also be overloaded, no doubt about that.
You have no idea if that's true much less "having do doubt." Please.
Verizon's rejection of the iphone has nothing to do with visual voicemail, they rejected the iphone deal because Apple demanded revenue sharing and choice of distribution partners. The interview was given a few days after the Jobs keynote speech, but 5 months before the actual iphone launch --- so Verizon wasn't monday morning quarterbacking.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
2 years after the iphone has been launched, independent AT&T agents still can't sell the iphone --- makes those agents mad as hell.
I've heard it was both the visual voicemail thing and the revenue sharing. They also wanted control of the apps. Verizon has its own effort going on there.
Kicking and screaming or maturing their stack?
Verizon has a history of being overly restrictive ("future blackberries will have wifi - we promise!")
Apple, OTOH, set the industry on it's ear.
Yup, I know which one is acting more in my interests
Apple makes a lot of money on licensing fees for third party ipod and iphone docks --- that's why it took forever to get the bluetooth working.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...y/4229530.html
I've heard it was both the visual voicemail thing and the revenue sharing. They also wanted control of the apps. Verizon has its own effort going on there.
Considering that AT&T didn't even get to see much of the iphone prototype tells you that it's highly unlikely for Verizon to reject the iphobe because on technical stuff.
And considering that apps didn't even come into the iphone until 1 year after the iphone was launch tells you that this theory is even further off.
Really. If Verizon or Sprint took on the iPhone, their infrastructure would have imploded.
Agreed. I don't think anybody could have anticipated such a successful take off. Unfortunately everyone has to point fingers at AT&T when it would have happened to any one of the carriers. Yes, if it were released on several carriers at once then it might not have been a problem.
The fact is that AT&T has the iPhone, for the time being, and whats done is done. They've exceeded their network, didn't see it coming! So, now they're trying to fix it. According to the article they spent $38 billion in the past 2 years upgrading their network and people are bitching about them just now starting to fix the network? .....please..... read the article again.
MMS is something that should have been ready for 3GS launch and I think they've dropped the ball there, but supposedly it takes quite a bit of time to calibrate the network
I don't think there is going to be that large of an increase in MMS because many people like myself see it just as easy to send a picture or video thru email.
Considering that AT&T didn't even get to see much of the iphone prototype tells you that it's highly unlikely for Verizon to reject the iphobe because on technical stuff.
And considering that apps didn't even come into the iphone until 1 year after the iphone was launch tells you that this theory is even further off.
Everything SDW2001 stated sounds reasonable to me. Apple could easily have drawn up contracts that allow them to control this or that aspect without having a physical device to show Verizon. As for apps, the iPhone came with apps like Google Maps, YouTube and QuickTime streaming via Safari, etc. that Verizon, of all carriers, would likely have not wanted to be included for free without Verizon’s oversight. His statement didn’t state 3rd-party apps, but it seems silly to think that iPhone SDK announced only a few months after the iPhone’s release was not something well planned in advance. I think it’s likely that any contract that Apple would have drawn up would have included control of future offerings, like an app store, where previously such things were controlled by the carrier. I also recall reading that Verizon didn’t like the idea of Apple controlling the call center and repairs of the iPhone.
I also recall reading that Verizon didn’t like the idea of Apple controlling the call center and repairs of the iPhone.
Yes, those reasons were also given in January 2007 interview that I cited earlier.
The only concrete evidence that you can rely on is that Verizon interview in Jan 2007 --- it was given a week after the keynote speech and 5 months before the actual iphone launch. There was no monday morning quarterbacking.
All the other stuff that SDW2001 mentioned are just speculations and rumors --- without a single evidence to back them up. Remember that Apple approached Verizon in 2005 --- many many years before the app store, before Google even announced Google Maps, hell before youtube was even founded. That is some revisionist retelling of Apple's intention to put in a bunch of these partner apps onto the iphone.
That Verizon Jan 2007 interview provided no non-sense, no revisionist evidence.
Yes, those reasons were also given in January 2007 interview that I cited earlier.
The only concrete evidence that you can rely on is that Verizon interview in Jan 2007 --- it was given a week after the keynote speech and 5 months before the actual iphone launch. There was no monday morning quarterbacking.
All the other stuff that SDW2001 mentioned are just speculations and rumors --- without a single evidence to back them up. Remember that Apple approached Verizon in 2005 --- many many years before the app store, before Google even announced Google Maps, hell before youtube was even founded. That is some revisionist retelling of Apple's intention to put in a bunch of these partner apps onto the iphone.
That Verizon Jan 2007 interview provided no non-sense, no revisionist evidence.
In his defense, he did qualify it with ?I?ve heard? and it doesn?t sound like he was stating it as fact. Even the Verizon statement should be taken with a grain of salt as any decent company would spin any such thing to favour themselves.
As for Google Maps and YouTube, you have a point about specifics, but this is Apple butting heads with Verizon. I?d imagine Apple had a pretty vague contract that was all inclusive of such things, sans things that didn?t affect voice revenue directly like VoIP. Something that I?d imagine Verizon would laugh at Apple?s hubris right off the bat. I?d love to have seen these negotiations in play with both companies arrogantly scoffing at the other.
In his defense, he did qualify it with “I’ve heard” and it doesn’t sound like he was stating it as fact. Even the Verizon statement should be taken with a grain of salt as any decent company would spin any such thing to favour themselves.
As for Google Maps and YouTube, you have a point about specifics, but this is Apple butting heads with Verizon. I’d imagine Apple had a pretty vague contract that was all inclusive of such things, sans things that didn’t affect voice revenue directly like VoIP. Something that I’d imagine Verizon would laugh at Apple’s hubris right off the bat. I’d love to have seen these negotiations in play with both companies arrogantly scoffing at the other.
Of course, Verizon senior vp is going to spin it in favor for themselves as much as possible. But it doesn't mean that there is no concrete points in them --- especially when Verizon's statements were confirmed to be correct later on.
Revenue sharing was confirmed, AT&T corp store and Apple selling iphone only (i.e. shafting carrier distribution partners) was confirmed, Apple handling warranty and support was confirmed.
Tell me a single thing in the Verizon interview that was confirmed to be false later on.
Tell me a single thing in the Verizon interview that was not confirmed to be false later on.
I don?t recall Apple confirming or denying anything Verizon stated about their negotiations. My comment was to say that everything SDW2001 speculated didn?t sound far fetched
I?ll even speculate that any good negotiation will involve tactics of courting competitors even when you have no interest in them. Apple has had plenty of opportunities to offer an iPhone in countries that are CDMA-based and will be using CDMA for a long time to come and yet they seem to want to stick with GSM-based networks. Is this just a coincidence or could the courting of Verizon, AT&T?s biggest rival, have been done to gain a more favorable from AT&T? (This is just speculation, not a statement of fact, and so it shouldn?t be read that way)
I don’t recall Apple confirming or denying anything Verizon stated about their negotiations. My comment was to say that everything SDW2001 speculated didn’t sound far fetched
I’ll even speculate that any good negotiation will involve tactics of courting competitors even when you have no interest in them. Apple has had plenty of opportunities to offer an iPhone in countries that are CDMA-based and will be using CDMA for a long time to come and yet they seem to want to stick with GSM-based networks. Is this just a coincidence or could the courting of Verizon, AT&T’s biggest rival, have been done to gain a more favorable from AT&T? (This is just speculation, not a statement of fact, and so it shouldn’t be read that way)
Don't need Apple to confirm or deny anything by interviews. They were confirmed by SEC filings (revenue sharing) and actual events (3rd party AT&T agents still can't sell the iphone 2 years later and Apple handling warranty/support).
Apple not signing with Verizon was the biggest mistake by Steve Jobs.
Palm went through several restructuring and selling source code to a Japanese firm in 2005-6. There were constant rumors that they were going to go under. In June 2007 (the same month that the original iphone was launched by AT&T), some private equity firm rescued Palm by buying 25% of Palm shares.
If Apple signed Verizon, Palm wouldn't have been rescued and we would have never seen the Palm Pre. As those credit card commercials said it best --- wiping out a competitor is priceless.
Apple not signing with Verizon was the biggest mistake by Steve Jobs.
I don?t know about that. If that means having Verizon control the repairs, replacements, the call center, the apps, and even aspects of the OS and HW that is accessible on the device then I don?t think the iPhone would have made the impact that it did or change the way cellphone vendors look at phone HW, the OS and SW, and the way the carriers look at services and pricing structures. Nothing would have changed if Verizon would have gotten the iPhone the way they wanted to get it. They weren?t on the ropes and nothing to lose. Look at the carriers that Apple has mostly teamed with around the world. It?s the one that is struggling more and more likely to play ball with Apple to get an edge.
If Apple signed Verizon, Palm wouldn't have been rescued and we would have never seen the Palm Pre. As those credit card commercials said it best --- wiping out a competitor is priceless.
Wiping out healthy competition is not good for the consumer. WebOS has taken the influence of the iPhone OS X and have improved on it in a few areas. I?m hoping that Apple takes some cues from Palm and include some aspects of WebOS.
I don?t know about that. If that means having Verizon control the repairs, replacements, the call center, the apps, and even aspects of the OS and HW that is accessible on the device then I don?t think the iPhone would have made the impact that it did or change the way cellphone vendors look at phone HW, the OS and SW, and the way the carriers look at services and pricing structures. Nothing would have changed if Verizon would have gotten the iPhone the way they wanted to get it. They weren?t on the ropes and nothing to lose. Look at the carriers that Apple has mostly teamed with around the world. It?s the one that is struggling more and more likely to play ball with Apple to get an edge.
Wiping out healthy competition is not good for the consumer. WebOS has taken the influence of the iPhone OS X and have improved on it in a few areas. I?m hoping that Apple takes some cues from Palm and include some aspects of WebOS.
It means what --- you might actually had turn-by-turn nav apps like VZ Navigator on the original iphone in June 2007. That's a plus for consumer instead of waiting until July 2009 for AT&T to release AT&T Navigator for the iphone. You still didn't get full bluetooth use until June 2009, so Verizon couldn't have done worse.
I never said that wiping out healthy competition is good for the consumer, I said that it was good for Apple.