If I worked for AT&T, there would be a 30 sec ad running daily that had no sound or animation, just this phrase, in still frame, for the length of it. This is really all that matters or is relevant going into 2010.
This is truth right here. While Verizon may have arguably better coverage, they are know for having bad phones that are very locked down. They may have better 3G coverage, yet AT&T's 3G is actually faster at the moment in there areas where they have it. And even where they don't have 3G service, it's not like there's no phone service at all, the data is just slower. One other thing about Verizon is that right now they aren't based on the GMS standard and you don't get a SIM card which you can change between phones, which is unfortunate.
This isn't to say that AT&T is amazing, because they have their own host of issues, some of which ARE coverage, and they DO limit some programs on the iPhone from running over their network. BOTH have horrible prices for their services.
All I'm saying is that I think in the big picture the negatives to Verizon leave AT&T as the better choice.
Seems like your info is outdated. I have an HTC Ozone through Verizon (which was free) that has Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Tether, a SIM card, and a reasonable data plan. Windows Mobile is admittedly blah, but it syncs perfectly with my Exchange e-mail and the newer Internet Explorer (or Opera mobile which I use) isn't bad.
Every company is going to have disgruntled customers - Apple has their fair share - so biased customer testimonials are not very convincing.
I think Android is going to end up being a better platform in the end because of its openness; I just wish Verizon decided to come out with an Android phone before I got the Ozone. The iPhone is nice for all its gadgety features, but honestly, my phone is for talking and my interest in gadgets wears away after about two-weeks of use.
An interesting aside - Orange UK have just started selling the iPhone and their marketing campaign centres around their superior 3G coverage.
I was in the UK last week and reading about this in the Times. The interesting thing is that the two iPhone carriers are engaged in a pissing match over who can claim the better 3G coverage because depending on how you measure, it's either 99% or 97%. We should only be that lucky here!
Yes, the UK is much more densely populated than the USA, making it less costly to build out the network, but there are still large rural areas. My experience traveling around in France and the UK with my iPhone 3G is that there's very good 3G data coverage almost everywhere.
Or better yet start upgrading and expanding its network from edge so Verizon doesn't have a leg to stand on. The benefits of HSPA over EVDO don't matter if EVDO's the only one with a signal.
Exactly! Verizon has been focusing on damage control due to the impact the iPhone has had on both their sales growth and the boost it has given to their biggest rival.
Verizon should be focused on its network - the reason they do not have the iPhone.
Verizon's big mistake was putting off the switch to the faster global network platform used by its' rival AT&T and over a billion mobile phones around the world. Verizon's EV-DO & EV-DO Rev perform closer to AT&T's EDGE 2G network than too AT&T's 3G network in terms of speed. AT&T has a much larger bandwidth pipe and will be four times faster next year with the rollout of it's 7.2 Mbit/s 3G service. Currently AT&T averages around 800 kbit/s on its faster EV-DO Rev platform while AT&T averages 1.4 Mbit/s. What is more - when you actually include AT&Ts 20,000 wifi hotspots in the U.S. (Starbucks, Barnes & Noble, etc) and 80,000 global hotspots - where most iPhone users prefer to use their internet connection because even AT&T's 3G network is too slow - well, imagine trying to use Verizon's 3G network at 1/2 to 1/4 the speed?
I was in the UK last week and reading about this in the Times. The interesting thing is that the two iPhone carriers are engaged in a pissing match over who can claim the better 3G coverage because depending on how you measure, it's either 99% or 97%. We should only be that lucky here!
Yes, the UK is much more densely populated than the USA, making it less costly to build out the network, but there are still large rural areas. My experience traveling around in France and the UK with my iPhone 3G is that there's very good 3G data coverage almost everywhere.
Neil
I believe Verizon is attempting to strike early as it network is not going to have any increase in speed while AT&T has the iPhone profits and right technology platform to go four times faster than Verizon and expanding their network. Even AT&T's 2x faster 3G network is a last resort for iPhone users who are just waiting to arrive to a wifi hotspot. However, for the next two years AT&T will be rolling out a 4x faster network and expanding their coverage while Verizon waits for its transition to the next generation of AT&T's platform at some point in 2012.
I don't think this is the case. AT&T won't have iPhone exclusivity forever and they know it. In the long run they will have to provide competitive service. AT&T is trying to improve its network, its just that the iPhone gobbles up as much bandwidth as AT&T can deploy.
These improvements are things AT&T should have done before it received the iPhone and now they are paying for their lack of foresight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
I think its something more like do as little as possible to maximize profits. This is the dark side of the iPhone and why we need a little competition. No matter how bad the network is, people are still going to buy the iPhone. As such, they have no incentive to make more than the minimum amount of upgrades.
It is obvious that Verizon's commercials are not misleading. They do compare the products apples to apples (or Apples to Droids networks that is).
Still there must have been a reason for apple to go with ATT in the first place. How were the two networks comparing on the eve of iPhone launch? Did ATT always have a crappier network, and if not how long ago did Verison outdo ATT in 3G? Maybe the tables will turn again when iPhone 4G comes out.
The rumor is that Apple wanted to play with Verizon, but Verizon didn't want to agree to Apple's terms. And remember... Apple never did a deal with AT&T, they did a deal with Cingular. AT&T got Apple as a free bonus with the merger. In the end I think it worked out for the best.
I don't think there will be any more exclusivity for iPhone in the future.... my guess is that Apple will indeed create a universal phone and market them to everyone.
Then the only way the phone companies will be able to compete is to offer lower priced plans or higher subsidies on the iPhone. Win for the consumer, win for Apple.
Exactly! Verizon has been focusing on damage control due to the impact the iPhone has had on both their sales growth and the boost it has given to their biggest rival.
Verizon should be focused on its network - the reason they do not have the iPhone.
Verizon's big mistake was putting off the switch to the faster global network platform used by its' rival AT&T and over a billion mobile phones around the world. Verizon's EV-DO & EV-DO Rev perform closer to AT&T's EDGE 2G network than too AT&T's 3G network in terms of speed. AT&T has a much larger bandwidth pipe and will be four times faster next year with the rollout of it's 7.2 Mbit/s 3G service. Currently AT&T averages around 800 kbit/s on its faster EV-DO Rev platform while AT&T averages 1.4 Mbit/s. What is more - when you actually include AT&Ts 20,000 wifi hotspots in the U.S. (Starbucks, Barnes & Noble, etc) and 80,000 global hotspots - where most iPhone users prefer to use their internet connection because even AT&T's 3G network is too slow - well, imagine trying to use Verizon's 3G network at 1/2 to 1/4 the speed?
Seriously, every person who thinks EDGE performs anywhere remotely close to Verizons 3G should be taken outside and shot mercilessly in the fucking face to send a message. EDGE is slow as balls, you might average 80-100k on a REALLY GOOD DAY the latency is what kills EDGE, in real world performance, EDGE is not cutting the cake (this is coming from a Former Blackberry Storm owner on Verizon and a Current Bold owner on AT&T)
AT&T's rollout of 7.2 is nice, but VZW will have LTE starting next year (about a 30 city roll out) and LTE > HSPA+ by a fucking mile and VZW will have completed its full rollout by 2013, leaving AT&T in the dust.
Whats the point of paying for a data package when you still have to be hunkered under the wifi umbrella to get...data?
Also lets be real here, you can do voice/data at the same time on 3G but that is nil for iphone users seeing as how you cant multitask (see what i did there?) and when you drop down to EDGE you cant do both either so this is a moot point
If VZW didnt have such shit phones id already be back on Big Red (waiting for the new Tour to come out next year with wifi and trackpad). Any Apple fan is delusional if they will sit here and defend AT&Ts atrocious and lackluster service.
PS, VZW doesnt gimp phones anymore for the stupid or uninformed, so your 2007 insults no longer have merit now.
I don't think there will be any more exclusivity for iPhone in the future.... my guess is that Apple will indeed create a universal phone and market them to everyone.
Its impossible for Apple to make one universal phone for all US carriers. Their networks are all too different.
Quote:
Then the only way the phone companies will be able to compete is to offer lower priced plans or higher subsidies on the iPhone. Win for the consumer, win for Apple.
The carriers really want to get out of subsidizing phones. Its not really a good business model for them. That is why Apple and AT&T experimented with revenue sharing.
on Verizon's part, unless they have no intention of carrying the iPhone. Upset "The Steve" and they could find that Steve signs the 4G agreement with Sprint, leaving them sucking wind.
I'd been hearing so much buzz about a Verizon iPhone... guess it won't be happening if this keeps up. Slagging off AT&T is fine, particularly when it happens to be the painful truth. But don't slam the door on your fingers Verizon, that's just plain stupid
Its impossible for Apple to make one universal phone for all US carriers. Their networks are all too different.
The carriers really want to get out of subsidizing phones. Its not really a good business model for them. That is why Apple and AT&T experimented with revenue sharing.
Its not that impossible to be honest, it just might not be cost efficient for them (still, if they had a phone such as that but it was unlocked and could either be used with a SIM or flashed to even a cheapo carrier like Metro it would be a hot item, even if it cost MSRP of 600+). Blackberry World Phones (Storm, Storm 2, Tour) will work just fine in the US on edge, but they purposely neglect the bands for them to work on 3G for say T-Mo or AT&T in the US, but they will overseas.
Right now i think T-Mo has the right thing going by financing phones (kinda, its still subsidization but every month your bill is 20 bucks higher to pay of the phone) i think this distinguishing trait people can clearly see, "My bill is cheaper now because i paid my phone off" and i think its how it should be, but carriers are willing to eat the subsidization charges to keep bringing in new potentially longterm customers
AT&T could just counter those ads with a chart comparing iPhone coverage between the two... "Here's our iPhone coverage: map with lots of red, Here's Verizon's iPhone coverage: white map."
Comments
It's funny, then, that your signature touts Linux by pointing out your perceived shortcomings of Apple. Can Linux not stand on its own merits?
Oops! You caught today's hypocrite. Thanks for pointing that out, I guess I should change it.
At any rate, even Linux ads bash both Apple and M$... and that makes me sad too.
(PS: I am not a marketing person, never have, never will be, never can be even if I wanted to.)
The truth: Verizon has been hurt by AT&T and the iPhone. The Druid and an aggressive marketing campaign aren't going to change that.
I can't imagine how marketing a group of forest dwelling, nature worshiping mystics would help them either.
If I worked for AT&T, there would be a 30 sec ad running daily that had no sound or animation, just this phrase, in still frame, for the length of it. This is really all that matters or is relevant going into 2010.
This is truth right here. While Verizon may have arguably better coverage, they are know for having bad phones that are very locked down. They may have better 3G coverage, yet AT&T's 3G is actually faster at the moment in there areas where they have it. And even where they don't have 3G service, it's not like there's no phone service at all, the data is just slower. One other thing about Verizon is that right now they aren't based on the GMS standard and you don't get a SIM card which you can change between phones, which is unfortunate.
This isn't to say that AT&T is amazing, because they have their own host of issues, some of which ARE coverage, and they DO limit some programs on the iPhone from running over their network. BOTH have horrible prices for their services.
All I'm saying is that I think in the big picture the negatives to Verizon leave AT&T as the better choice.
Seems like your info is outdated. I have an HTC Ozone through Verizon (which was free) that has Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Tether, a SIM card, and a reasonable data plan. Windows Mobile is admittedly blah, but it syncs perfectly with my Exchange e-mail and the newer Internet Explorer (or Opera mobile which I use) isn't bad.
Every company is going to have disgruntled customers - Apple has their fair share - so biased customer testimonials are not very convincing.
I think Android is going to end up being a better platform in the end because of its openness; I just wish Verizon decided to come out with an Android phone before I got the Ozone. The iPhone is nice for all its gadgety features, but honestly, my phone is for talking and my interest in gadgets wears away after about two-weeks of use.
Does the iPhone's phone app run in the background (if you choose), so you can use the data features still? I believe it does.
If so, that's real world useful multitasking for you!
An interesting aside - Orange UK have just started selling the iPhone and their marketing campaign centres around their superior 3G coverage.
I was in the UK last week and reading about this in the Times. The interesting thing is that the two iPhone carriers are engaged in a pissing match over who can claim the better 3G coverage because depending on how you measure, it's either 99% or 97%. We should only be that lucky here!
Yes, the UK is much more densely populated than the USA, making it less costly to build out the network, but there are still large rural areas. My experience traveling around in France and the UK with my iPhone 3G is that there's very good 3G data coverage almost everywhere.
Neil
Or better yet start upgrading and expanding its network from edge so Verizon doesn't have a leg to stand on. The benefits of HSPA over EVDO don't matter if EVDO's the only one with a signal.
AMEN TO THAT!!!
Poor Them. Get over it.
Exactly! Verizon has been focusing on damage control due to the impact the iPhone has had on both their sales growth and the boost it has given to their biggest rival.
Verizon should be focused on its network - the reason they do not have the iPhone.
Verizon's big mistake was putting off the switch to the faster global network platform used by its' rival AT&T and over a billion mobile phones around the world. Verizon's EV-DO & EV-DO Rev perform closer to AT&T's EDGE 2G network than too AT&T's 3G network in terms of speed. AT&T has a much larger bandwidth pipe and will be four times faster next year with the rollout of it's 7.2 Mbit/s 3G service. Currently AT&T averages around 800 kbit/s on its faster EV-DO Rev platform while AT&T averages 1.4 Mbit/s. What is more - when you actually include AT&Ts 20,000 wifi hotspots in the U.S. (Starbucks, Barnes & Noble, etc) and 80,000 global hotspots - where most iPhone users prefer to use their internet connection because even AT&T's 3G network is too slow - well, imagine trying to use Verizon's 3G network at 1/2 to 1/4 the speed?
I was in the UK last week and reading about this in the Times. The interesting thing is that the two iPhone carriers are engaged in a pissing match over who can claim the better 3G coverage because depending on how you measure, it's either 99% or 97%. We should only be that lucky here!
Yes, the UK is much more densely populated than the USA, making it less costly to build out the network, but there are still large rural areas. My experience traveling around in France and the UK with my iPhone 3G is that there's very good 3G data coverage almost everywhere.
Neil
I believe Verizon is attempting to strike early as it network is not going to have any increase in speed while AT&T has the iPhone profits and right technology platform to go four times faster than Verizon and expanding their network. Even AT&T's 2x faster 3G network is a last resort for iPhone users who are just waiting to arrive to a wifi hotspot. However, for the next two years AT&T will be rolling out a 4x faster network and expanding their coverage while Verizon waits for its transition to the next generation of AT&T's platform at some point in 2012.
Thanks Brian Garner for writing this article like a journalist. I don't think I could stand another AT&T ad from Prince McLean on the topic.
Agreed!
These improvements are things AT&T should have done before it received the iPhone and now they are paying for their lack of foresight.
I think its something more like do as little as possible to maximize profits. This is the dark side of the iPhone and why we need a little competition. No matter how bad the network is, people are still going to buy the iPhone. As such, they have no incentive to make more than the minimum amount of upgrades.
It is obvious that Verizon's commercials are not misleading. They do compare the products apples to apples (or Apples to Droids networks that is).
Still there must have been a reason for apple to go with ATT in the first place. How were the two networks comparing on the eve of iPhone launch? Did ATT always have a crappier network, and if not how long ago did Verison outdo ATT in 3G? Maybe the tables will turn again when iPhone 4G comes out.
The rumor is that Apple wanted to play with Verizon, but Verizon didn't want to agree to Apple's terms. And remember... Apple never did a deal with AT&T, they did a deal with Cingular. AT&T got Apple as a free bonus with the merger. In the end I think it worked out for the best.
I don't think there will be any more exclusivity for iPhone in the future.... my guess is that Apple will indeed create a universal phone and market them to everyone.
Then the only way the phone companies will be able to compete is to offer lower priced plans or higher subsidies on the iPhone. Win for the consumer, win for Apple.
Exactly! Verizon has been focusing on damage control due to the impact the iPhone has had on both their sales growth and the boost it has given to their biggest rival.
Verizon should be focused on its network - the reason they do not have the iPhone.
Verizon's big mistake was putting off the switch to the faster global network platform used by its' rival AT&T and over a billion mobile phones around the world. Verizon's EV-DO & EV-DO Rev perform closer to AT&T's EDGE 2G network than too AT&T's 3G network in terms of speed. AT&T has a much larger bandwidth pipe and will be four times faster next year with the rollout of it's 7.2 Mbit/s 3G service. Currently AT&T averages around 800 kbit/s on its faster EV-DO Rev platform while AT&T averages 1.4 Mbit/s. What is more - when you actually include AT&Ts 20,000 wifi hotspots in the U.S. (Starbucks, Barnes & Noble, etc) and 80,000 global hotspots - where most iPhone users prefer to use their internet connection because even AT&T's 3G network is too slow - well, imagine trying to use Verizon's 3G network at 1/2 to 1/4 the speed?
Seriously, every person who thinks EDGE performs anywhere remotely close to Verizons 3G should be taken outside and shot mercilessly in the fucking face to send a message. EDGE is slow as balls, you might average 80-100k on a REALLY GOOD DAY the latency is what kills EDGE, in real world performance, EDGE is not cutting the cake (this is coming from a Former Blackberry Storm owner on Verizon and a Current Bold owner on AT&T)
AT&T's rollout of 7.2 is nice, but VZW will have LTE starting next year (about a 30 city roll out) and LTE > HSPA+ by a fucking mile and VZW will have completed its full rollout by 2013, leaving AT&T in the dust.
Whats the point of paying for a data package when you still have to be hunkered under the wifi umbrella to get...data?
Also lets be real here, you can do voice/data at the same time on 3G but that is nil for iphone users seeing as how you cant multitask (see what i did there?) and when you drop down to EDGE you cant do both either so this is a moot point
If VZW didnt have such shit phones id already be back on Big Red (waiting for the new Tour to come out next year with wifi and trackpad). Any Apple fan is delusional if they will sit here and defend AT&Ts atrocious and lackluster service.
PS, VZW doesnt gimp phones anymore for the stupid or uninformed, so your 2007 insults no longer have merit now.
I don't think there will be any more exclusivity for iPhone in the future.... my guess is that Apple will indeed create a universal phone and market them to everyone.
Its impossible for Apple to make one universal phone for all US carriers. Their networks are all too different.
Then the only way the phone companies will be able to compete is to offer lower priced plans or higher subsidies on the iPhone. Win for the consumer, win for Apple.
The carriers really want to get out of subsidizing phones. Its not really a good business model for them. That is why Apple and AT&T experimented with revenue sharing.
I'd been hearing so much buzz about a Verizon iPhone... guess it won't be happening if this keeps up. Slagging off AT&T is fine, particularly when it happens to be the painful truth. But don't slam the door on your fingers Verizon, that's just plain stupid
Its impossible for Apple to make one universal phone for all US carriers. Their networks are all too different.
The carriers really want to get out of subsidizing phones. Its not really a good business model for them. That is why Apple and AT&T experimented with revenue sharing.
Its not that impossible to be honest, it just might not be cost efficient for them (still, if they had a phone such as that but it was unlocked and could either be used with a SIM or flashed to even a cheapo carrier like Metro it would be a hot item, even if it cost MSRP of 600+). Blackberry World Phones (Storm, Storm 2, Tour) will work just fine in the US on edge, but they purposely neglect the bands for them to work on 3G for say T-Mo or AT&T in the US, but they will overseas.
Right now i think T-Mo has the right thing going by financing phones (kinda, its still subsidization but every month your bill is 20 bucks higher to pay of the phone) i think this distinguishing trait people can clearly see, "My bill is cheaper now because i paid my phone off" and i think its how it should be, but carriers are willing to eat the subsidization charges to keep bringing in new potentially longterm customers
Cell phone carriers are the antichr**t and must be stopped. I hope they sue each other out of existance.
Agreed! Like large US banks $24 Billion in income in 2007 just from overdraft charges. Up 38% from 4 years ago!
It's a bad business, long term.