AT&T defends its iPhone network via YouTube outreach

1567810

Comments

  • Reply 181 of 210
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pmz View Post


    Oh really? How about this for long term gain?



    But that's just a conspiracy theory right? Multi-billion dollar organizations that plan out their success is just crackpot theory right?



    Take your freshman marketing analysis elsewhere.



    Palm went through several major restructuring in 2005-2007 --- at the same time as Verizon-Apple negotiation in 2005, AT&T-Apple negotiation later on, and the development of the iphone in 2006-2007.



    Palm sold their PalmOS source code to a Japanese firm in 2005.



    Palm was rescued in June 2007 when a private equity firm invested $325 million for 25% of Palm shares.



    Do you think that if Steve Jobs announced the iphone keynote with Verizon as its partner in Jan 2007 --- that Palm might not have gotten rescued 5 months later.
  • Reply 182 of 210
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,015member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    You don't want to keep your competitors around --- they might bite you in the ass later on. It's like how Microsoft invested in Apple in 1997 to help them survive --- biting them in the ass now. Who knows whether Palm is going to do 10 years down the road, may bite Apple in the ass.



    "Strigl noted, citing Apple's steep and one-sided terms including a cut of monthly subscription fees and total control over distribution and customer relations".



    My interpretation comes from reading the whole interview. Revenue sharing is revenue sharing (we both agree on that). Total control over distribution means that third party Verizon independent agents can't sell the iphone. Total control over customer relations means Apple get to do warranty and technical support.



    As I stated repeatedly, everything else is just conspiracy theories. The Jan 2007 interview was 1 week after the keynote, 5 months before the actual iphone launch --- and it wasn't tainted by any rumors spreaded out by bloggers. From the time of the Verizon-Apple negotiation to the actual launch of the iphone app store --- that's 3 years. That's an eternity in silicon valley.



    I don't understand why you insist on deriding anything other than the VP's one statement as a "conspiracy theory." A conspiracy theory would be, for example, that Apple deliberately tanked the deal with Verizon in order to hurt them and help AT&T. Now THAT'S a conspiracy theory.



    And what is "everything else?" The only thing I've really put out there is that Verizon was likely not happy about Apple potentially competing with their apps/GIN store. Now, while that, I think, is a logical assumption on my part--it IS just an assumption. It certainly stands to reason that Verizon--since they charge for "everything"--would foresee Apple and other third party developers as a potential threat to their proprietary model. Again, I'm just stating an opinion here, one that I believe to be reasonable. I'm sure that this wasn't the primary reason for rejection.
  • Reply 183 of 210
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,015member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    Palm went through several major restructuring in 2005-2007 --- at the same time as Verizon-Apple negotiation in 2005, AT&T-Apple negotiation later on, and the development of the iphone in 2006-2007.



    Palm sold their PalmOS source code to a Japanese firm in 2005.



    Palm was rescued in June 2007 when a private equity firm invested $325 million for 25% of Palm shares.



    Do you think that if Steve Jobs announced the iphone keynote with Verizon as its partner in Jan 2007 --- that Palm might not have gotten rescued 5 months later.



    This is where I think you're really off. They have nothing at all to do with each other. Nothing. If you think otherwise, post some supporting documentation--or even supporting qualified opinion.
  • Reply 184 of 210
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    I don't understand why you insist on deriding anything other than the VP's one statement as a "conspiracy theory." A conspiracy theory would be, for example, that Apple deliberately tanked the deal with Verizon in order to hurt them and help AT&T. Now THAT'S a conspiracy theory.



    And what is "everything else?" The only thing I've really put out there is that Verizon was likely not happy about Apple potentially competing with their apps/GIN store. Now, while that, I think, is a logical assumption on my part--it IS just an assumption. It certainly stands to reason that Verizon--since they charge for "everything"--would foresee Apple and other third party developers as a potential threat to their proprietary model. Again, I'm just stating an opinion here, one that I believe to be reasonable. I'm sure that this wasn't the primary reason for rejection.



    Because everything else were tainted by later events. It's like saying that Bill Gates had a plan to rule the world when he was negotiating to license DOS to IBM. He didn't have a plan. Neither was Apple with the iphone, they were kicking around with business models left and right.



    Verizon Wireless did and do sell Microsoft Windows Mobile smartphones which their subscribers don't have to buy apps from the GIN store, so why would Verizon suddenly becomes afraid of Apple.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    This is where I think you're really off. They have nothing at all to do with each other. Nothing. If you think otherwise, post some supporting documentation--or even supporting qualified opinion.



    The two events don't have to directly related to each other. Coming back to the Bill Gates example --- while Bill Gates didn't have a plan to rule the world, it was IBM's biggest mistake to not get exclusive license to DOS, locking out other PC clone makers.
  • Reply 185 of 210
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    I totally disagree with this line of thinking, in what business does one company have to fail for another company to thrive?



    MS current problems have nothing directly do with Apple. Whether Windows is a great OS or not has nothing to do with Apple. Whether the iPhone continues to grow has nothing directly to do with Palm.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    You don't want to keep your competitors around --- they might bite you in the ass later on. It's like how Microsoft invested in Apple in 1997 to help them survive --- biting them in the ass now. Who knows whether Palm is going to do 10 years down the road, may bite Apple in the ass.



  • Reply 186 of 210
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    I totally disagree with this line of thinking, in what business does one company have to fail for another company to thrive?



    MS current problems have nothing directly do with Apple. Whether Windows is a great OS or not has nothing to do with Apple. Whether the iPhone continues to grow has nothing directly to do with Palm.



    It's not about "have to" --- getting rid of a competitor is always better financially for the surviving company.
  • Reply 187 of 210
    ATT's network is never going to quite match up with Verizon's, at least when you compare their respective strategies. AT&T invests heavily not just in subsidizing the iPhone, but in multitudes of specialty devices. AT&T has the best device catalog of any US carrier, and its not just because of it being a native GSM network (look at T-Mobile's paltry offerings). That money going to Apple, RIM, etc. up front lets them book future revenues with contracts, but leaves the cupboard dry from a liquidity perspective. Its one of the reasons why LTE is coming to Big Red before AT&T...all the dollars going to Apple are instead going on towers in Verizon's case.



    Also, Verizon runs CDMA. While that in and of itself isn't a huge advantage, CDMA is not TDMA, which is the duplexing technique for the entire GSM standard bar 3G spectrum (which ironically, is actually CDMA's twisted twin sister). TDMA being a time-division scheme means you can step only so far from a tower (I want to say 30km) before you're done. Ouch. Lose one time-stamp in the BER stream, and you drop a call. In an urban-core environment like the Bay Area or New York City, all those twenty story-plus steel faraday cages called skyscrapers drive up the BER stream no matter what you're doing. GSM sucks for that and that's the way it is.



    Also, in the future, Verizon's FIOS build-out will matter for their wireless network. Femtostations and all that fiber pipe ($20 billion plus last year alone worth of residential fiber vs. $0 in fiber for AT&T) are going to build an incredibly robust wireless infrastructure EVERYWHERE over the coming years, with unbelievable capacity for growth in that fiber.



    The guy who runs Verizon, a guy named Feinburg (I think) got his start not out of MBA school but as a line tech at a Baby Bell. He knows the phone biz and his FiOS build-out scheme is going to keep paying big dividends long after the iPhone has lost its cache. Its just the way it is...
  • Reply 188 of 210
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Speak for yourself, despite owning two stereo bluetooth headsets I would much rather use my wired headset (VSONIC R02-PRO 2) for the simple reason that the quality is far higher.



    btw as a bit of a sidetrack do you think whining on the Internet is a valid hobby to put on a resumé?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    So what's with all the fuss by apple fanbois complaining for 2 years that the iphone can't stream music via bluetooth.



    Since getting an iPhone I have found it influences my purchasing decisions, if it doesn't have a dock I don't look twice, no doubt there are many more people just like me judging by the sheer amount of things from alarm clocks to hifi systems to cars that have docks built in.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    No, JBL is going to make more money on stereos with bluetooth streaming because bluetooth licensing fee is much lower than apple licensing fee..



    Conversely Verizon's network will not match AT&T's network as it is part of a WORLDWIDE GSM network which can be used almost any country.



    50% of iPhone sales are outside the US, if the iPhone went with Verizon those sales wouldn't exist, period.



    If I travel to the US from Australia I will roam onto AT&T or I can use an AT&T SIM in my unlocked iPhone, Verizon won't exist for me and other travellers.



    T-Mobile uses a 3G band (1700) that is used by no-one else so it would be almost as useless as Verizon.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iPOD-9000 View Post


    ATT's network is never going to quite match up with Verizon's,..



  • Reply 189 of 210
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    Speak for yourself, despite owning two stereo bluetooth headsets I would much rather use my wired headset (VSONIC R02-PRO 2) for the simple reason that the quality is far higher.



    Since getting an iPhone I have found it influences my purchasing decisions, if it doesn't have a dock I don't look twice, no doubt there are many more people just like me judging by the sheer amount of things from alarm clocks to hifi systems to cars that have docks built in.



    Conversely Verizon's network will not match AT&T's network as it is part of a WORLDWIDE GSM network which can be used almost any country.



    50% of iPhone sales are outside the US, if the iPhone went with Verizon those sales wouldn't exist, period.



    If I travel to the US from Australia I will roam onto AT&T or I can use an AT&T SIM in my unlocked iPhone, Verizon won't exist for me and other travellers.



    T-Mobile uses a 3G band (1700) that is used by no-one else so it would be almost as useless as Verizon.



    If you care about sound quality, you should be getting the dock with digital out which cost a lot of money. Wait, if you care about sound quality, you shouldn't even care about mp3's.



    AT&T doesn't unlock the iphone so it doesn't matter to the Americans travelling overseas.



    The cost of designing a GSM version cost about $5 million, it's not a lot of money.
  • Reply 190 of 210
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Why is that?



    IMHO the sound quality difference between 320kps MP3 and a lossless format like FLAC is nowhere near the sound quality difference between bluetooth and wired headsets.



    If people cared the iPod wouldn't be the dominant World's number one portable music player.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    Wait, if you care about sound quality, you shouldn't even care about mp3's.



  • Reply 191 of 210
    Quote:

    Conversely Verizon's network will not match AT&T's network as it is part of a WORLDWIDE GSM network which can be used almost any country.



    50% of iPhone sales are outside the US, if the iPhone went with Verizon those sales wouldn't exist, period.



    If I travel to the US from Australia I will roam onto AT&T or I can use an AT&T SIM in my unlocked iPhone, Verizon won't exist for me and other travellers.



    T-Mobile uses a 3G band (1700) that is used by no-one else so it would be almost as useless as Verizon.



    Here is the long-term problem for AT&T...they are "safe" with GSM from Verizon for now. But in 24 months LTE is going to be hot, and Verizon is going to have a LTE network rollout at least a calendar year ahead of AT&T. LTE is the future, GSM included. Sprint's stuck in WiMax death-land for 4G...ugh.



    Like I said in my original post, Verizon's edge with the FIOS build-out and the oncoming revolution in femtostations is going to let Verizon have a LTE network incorporating your standard big-tower tech plus a billion mini-towers all plugged into a laser land-pipe. That's going to blow AT&T away.



    Something to remember about GSM, it isn't a technology per se, its just a specification...like IEEE 802.11 or some kind of ISO book.
  • Reply 192 of 210
    Advertising, advertising, advertising.... fix network
  • Reply 193 of 210
    I don't agree. The success and popularity of the iPhone has helped fuel demand for the smartphone, the mobile web, and the mobile app. Everyone in these emerging markets are benefiting from the iPhone's success.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    It's not about "have to" --- getting rid of a competitor is always better financially for the surviving company.



  • Reply 194 of 210
    In 24 months LTE will only be available in a small number of markets it will take some time for Verizon to get it all over the country, it will take some time before phones will have LTE.



    AT&T will be upgrading its HDSPA network and will be making the transition to LTE at the same time.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iPOD-9000 View Post


    Here is the long-term problem for AT&T...they are "safe" with GSM from Verizon for now. But in 24 months LTE is going to be hot, and Verizon is going to have a LTE network rollout at least a calendar year ahead of AT&T. LTE is the future, GSM included. Sprint's stuck in WiMax death-land for 4G...ugh.

    .



  • Reply 195 of 210
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    I don't agree. The success and popularity of the iPhone has helped fuel demand for the smartphone, the mobile web, and the mobile app. Everyone in these emerging markets are benefiting from the iPhone's success.



    But that's not what I was saying.



    For example, you see a penny on the sidewalk --- you don't "have to" pick it up. You are not going to starve if you don't pick up the penny. But if you pick the penny up, you are a penny richer --- financially speaking.



    Getting rid of a competitor is always better --- financially speaking.
  • Reply 196 of 210
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    In 24 months LTE will only be available in a small number of markets it will take some time for Verizon to get it all over the country, it will take some time before phones will have LTE.



    AT&T will be upgrading its HDSPA network and will be making the transition to LTE at the same time.





    Ironically, this article was posted yesterday and confirms everything I said in my first two posts on this thread:



    http://blog.telephonyonline.com/unfi...orward-slowly/



    Note how the HSDPA rollout for AT&T isn't just about software upgrades on its switches, but also involves changing a lot of copper into fiber (something Verizon is WAY ahead of on AT&T as a side-effect of FIOS rollouts). Also, the HSDPA+ upgrade schedule for AT&T will at the end of 2011 be in as many markets as Verizon's LTE rollout (~30).



    I would surmise that Verizon's 30 markets selected for rollout of LTE will closely mirror where they've been most aggressively building out FIOS. With FIOS you can get a 150Mb/s internet connection to the home along with HDTV, and with fiber that barely touches the capacity in the lines. Throw in femtostations which are coming on strong (at least as the trade shows) as the "next big thing" and this suggests a wireless LTE network plugged into a fiber grid. AT&T has no answer for this.



    Apple being who they are, are going to have an LTE iPhone and its connectivity is going to be a hot commodity, and that widget's going to be on both AT&T and Verizon, but its only going to be worth having on Verizon. AT&T's in trouble long term with their network.
  • Reply 197 of 210
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    In 24 months LTE will only be available in a small number of markets it will take some time for Verizon to get it all over the country, it will take some time before phones will have LTE.



    AT&T will be upgrading its HDSPA network and will be making the transition to LTE at the same time.



    To add to that? While LTE?s bandwidth roadmap far exceeds the potential that Evolved HSPA can do there is no reason to expect that early LTE and early Evolved HSPA to have about the same bandwidth potential for several years as the HW for these technologies has not yet even been created to take advantage of their potential.
  • Reply 198 of 210
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post


    To add to that? While LTE?s bandwidth roadmap far exceeds the potential that Evolved HSPA can do there is no reason to expect that early LTE and early Evolved HSPA to have about the same bandwidth potential for several years as the HW for these technologies has not yet even been created to take advantage of their potential.



    Verizon is testing LTE speeds in excess of 100 Mb/s OTA in urban test environments like Minneapolis today. Another thing about LTE, it can duplex - MIMO-style - up to four antennas, for up to 350 Mb/s OTA...wow.



    The other killer Verizon has over AT&T is fiber. All your cell stations ultimately have to throw data around over trunk lines on the ground. Both AT&T and Verizon have big tracts of fiber trunk running all over the place. But only Verizon, via their FiOS rollouts in big markets, actually have fiber (and the optical switches to run it) running out to places where your towers are...which mostly are away from the trunks. That's a killer advantage, even all other things being equal (which they aren't to begin with).



    From an operations perspective, Verizon's already running FiOS, so they are learning how to run it and working out the bugs now, today. Plugging base stations whether they be LTE, WiMAX, HSDPA, whatever, is going to be easy for them going forward because they will have the critical practical experience and know-how already institutionally built-in to their organization.



    Apple makes cutting edge widgets. And the people who buy them want the cutting edge widgets...mostest, fastest, etc. I have no doubt Apple will have a LTE-running iPhone in eighteen months. It will be the killer app for the killer network (something WiMAX deployments today distinctly lack). And the killer network will be Verizon. HSDPA+ is a stop-gap and AT&T's stuck with it because like I said, all their capital is tied up in paying off widget-makers instead of plowed into their network.
  • Reply 199 of 210
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iPOD-9000 View Post


    Verizon is testing LTE speeds in excess of 100 Mb/s OTA in urban test environments like Minneapolis today. Another thing about LTE, it can duplex - MIMO-style - up to four antennas, for up to 350 Mb/s OTA?wow.



    What speeds they are getting from the towers has absolutely no barring on what they can put into the phones themselves. There are still technical limitations. Take CDMA v. CDMA2000 or EDGE v. HSDPA, the older tech has smaller, power efficient chips, which is one reason why even in idle mode if you have 3G turned on your device will not last as long. This is the same for these faster technologies of LTE and Evolved HSDA. It?s not magic, it?s science.



    Quote:

    Apple makes cutting edge widgets. And the people who buy them want the cutting edge widgets...mostest, fastest, etc. I have no doubt Apple will have a LTE-running iPhone in eighteen months. It will be the killer app for the killer network (something WiMAX deployments today distinctly lack). And the killer network will be Verizon. HSDPA+ is a stop-gap and AT&T's stuck with it because like I said, all their capital is tied up in paying off widget-makers instead of plowed into their network.



    LTE will be on the iPhone, eventually, but with the iPhone?s release schedule of one a year you are suggesting that next Summer?s iPhone will have LTE on it. That makes no sense. If you think that LTE will be wide spread that makes the expense, large and power hungry chips feasible in exactly 18 months I?d have to suggest you are wrong. Do you recall that Apple first released an EDGE-only phone because AT&T didn?t have an excessive HSDPA network and that 3G was too power hungry for the device? Do you think these will change in 18 months? I?m sure AT&T?s 3G network was more built up in 2007 than Verizon?s LTE will be built up in 2010.



    LTE is what Verizon has to go to next. Sprint took a gamble on WiMAX and they made the wrong decision. Both are carriers are running into a brick wall with their CDMA-based networks. GSM-based networks will go to LTE, but the rush to push it isn?t required as GSM-based carriers are barely pushing into the 3G technology that they are using.



    Let?s break this down. AT&T is now creating ?real? 7.2Mbps from the towers to match the radios that now handle 7.2Mbps HSDPA. I have a Sierra Wireless 3G card that has 14.4Mbps HSUPA. The next step for AT&T and other carriers using W-CDMA is up up the HSDPA to HSUPA, which has the same maximum downlink as HSDPA but with a larger maximum uplink of 11Mbps. Then, still within 3G, Evolved HSPA will provide 42 Mbps down and 11Mbps up. That can all be down much quicker, cheaper and presumably with a lot less issues than having to completely revamp a network while the end user is still only getting those actual throughput speeds with LTE. In the last year Evolved HSPA has been rolling out in certain countries but that is on the towers, not in the handsets of phones. While I?m sure they exist, I have yet to see a commercial USB card for a laptop that can pick up Evolved HSPA at anything that resembles 42Mbps.



    Baby steps, not some excessive change to a network because you are in a technological black hole. AT&T will push to Evolved HSPA and then use that as a bridge to LTE. LTE is an enhancement to UMTS so the transition will be more more natural, but if we talking about AT&T that may not be the case.
  • Reply 200 of 210
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post


    What speeds they are getting from the towers has absolutely no barring on what they can put into the phones themselves. There are still technical limitations. Take CDMA v. CDMA2000 or EDGE v. HSDPA, the older tech has smaller, power efficient chips, which is one reason why even in idle mode if you have 3G turned on your device will not last as long. This is the same for these faster technologies of LTE and Evolved HSDA. It’s not magic, it’s science.







    LTE will be on the iPhone, eventually, but with the iPhone’s release schedule of one a year you are suggesting that next Summer’s iPhone will have LTE on it. That makes no sense. If you think that LTE will be wide spread that makes the expense, large and power hungry chips feasible in exactly 18 months I’d have to suggest you are wrong. Do you recall that Apple first released an EDGE-only phone because AT&T didn’t have an excessive HSDPA network and that 3G was too power hungry for the device? Do you think these will change in 18 months? I’m sure AT&T’s 3G network was more built up in 2007 than Verizon’s LTE will be built up in 2010.



    Apple built the iPhone with EDGE because that's what AT&T had. Apple was talking to Verizon, but Verizon balked. Had they signed up for it, we would've had a CDMA iPhone and presumably, a GSM iPhone for the international market...so Apple is willing to build to the network, given the right circumstances.



    Verizon obviously anticipates LTE will be in devices in the next eighteen months, and well implemented to boot. Complete roll-out is alleged for early 2013...less than four years away. It's a giant gamble on their part, or they would be deploying some other bridged technology (like evolved HSDPA+) in the interim. Given the only real growth in the tech sector these days is in mobile widgets and their networks, I anticipate this tech will move faster than we currently realize.



    Apple's timing on their product launches is currently one a year for the iPhone. However I imagine a considerable modification of that schedule in their internal road map based on a variable no one outside of the company knows for sure: when the contract with AT&T is up. I hear its 2011 or 2012. If its 2011, I would anticipate a LTE iPhone ithen, if it's 2012, then in 2012. Either way, there will be a considerable LTE infrastructure in Verizon-land in either timeframe. With the fiber to carry the traffic around, HSDPA will be a faster experience than AT&T's version, much less LTE. That's why I say eighteen months, minimum, to an LTE iPhone...because that takes us to 2011.



    The other factor affecting their roadmap that we don't know about is when Freescale actually has silicon to start dropping in Apple widgets. Given chipset makers now are bundling every standard possible in their chipsets (Qualcomm Gobi is good example) I wouldn't be surprised if Freescale is working on a uni-chip like that, which lets Apple make a single iPhone that basically can talk to everything by then. Freescale has another input here...if the AT&T contract is up in 2010 (not likely from what I understand, but possible) than Freescale could very well be working on a chipset that lets Apple keep the widget locked down, but talks to every current 3G/3.5G standard). This way they can continue making a single platform for every market, which is something I bet Apple (read Steve) is somewhat manic about maintaining at this point, given his known dispositions.



    But those unknown factors are driving that iPhone roadmap. And Verizon is going to have the better network in that long-term. AT&T's strategy is like a road-maker trying to attract drivers by subsidizing cars instead of investing in the road. People will put up with potholes in the road if they get a Mercedes-Benz to do it in. Verizon's the opposite...drive your Honda down a very smooth road. But when they can get the Benzes to sell their drivers, the smooth road will be there and AT&T will still be desperately trying to fill in potholes (like they're trying to do now).
Sign In or Register to comment.