if t-mobile or sprint got the iphone it would absolutely crush not only Verizon (which ive had for years before switching to AT&T) but AT&T as well. Cheaper prices with very good coverage you cant beat, but T-Mo is lacking in its 3G areas thus far, although something like this would really help expand their user base.
I don?t see it crushing AT&T or Verizon. Most people are happy with their AT&T iPhone in their area and T-Mo has it?s fair share of network coverage issues and is still GSM-based, which is part of the reason for many of the complaints over Verizon. Id est, the voice quality and soft v. hard handoffs. These issues jut carry over to T-Mo.
Still, having two carriers will help many that simply won?t or can?t move to AT&T from Verizon, but I think that Sprint will be the most hurt by the iPhone moving to T-Mo. The only caveat is that T-Mo may not offer the same rates for the iPhone as they do their other plans.
That would be the rub. The iPhone would be far more expensive for Sprint/T-Mo than their other phones. Neither carrier would be able to afford selling the iPhone service as low as it can with its other phones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifail
if t-mobile or sprint got the iphone it would absolutely crush not only Verizon (which ive had for years before switching to AT&T) but AT&T as well. Cheaper prices with very good coverage you cant beat, but T-Mo is lacking in its 3G areas thus far, although something like this would really help expand their user base. I do fear though that if it does rollout to T-Mo without a robust 3G network like the others it will bring T-Mo's reputation down like it has done to AT&T.
Another point you can add to your list of what T-Mo offers... I see you were passionate enough regarding T-Mobile, that you registered in order to make your first post here on AI, as opposed to being a casual guest. I hope to read more.
Same here. T-mo could really use the boost from iPhone.
I love my iPhone on T-Mobile. Others have addressed the reasons why T-Mobile is a good fit, but here's another point analysts seem to keep missing.
T-Mobile has, kind of suddenly, gotten REALLY aggressive about ramping up their 3G coverage and speeds. All of a sudden, a few months back, they began upgrading 3G where it exists to leapfrog past everyone else's speeds, up to 21 Mbps, and rolling 3G out in more areas where it didn't have it before. The switch on the 21 hasn't been turned on yet, but they're aggressively rolling out the infrastructure now.
The question is . . . why? Who could possibly have the kind of weight and influence to make them suddenly start doing this, let alone leapfrogging past everyone else's 3G speeds? Who would give them an incentive to take upon such an expensive initiative?
Hmmm. Here's my wild guess: An incredibly annoyed Apple, sick and tired of AT&T's lame-ass 3G network making them look bad. And Apple's got the influence and weight to tell somebody like a T-Mobile that if they want the iPhone, given that they're the fourth-place carrier in the nation, they'll have to make some big moves to show they want it, and to make them feel safe that it won't be a repeat of the AT&T 3G fiasco.
Though Apple and Verizon may both focus on "customer control", their execution couldn't be further apart. Verizon's "control" ignores the customer for it's own gain, while Apple's makes the customer experience tantamount.
Example - Verizon's version of the Motorola RAZR. Verizon insisted on shoehorning their interface into the phone, removing or crippling existing features because they might reduce demand for Verizon-controlled services that they could bill extra for.
Standardized UI has its advantages --- especially for a multicultural population with a lot of people not really proficient in English.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roos24
I still find it hard to believe that Apple would go with Verizon with their current anti-global technology. I really would be surprised if they did, because it would mean that Apple has become a different company in my eyes.
This is Apple we are talking about --- for 20 years they used a CPU that nobody used when everyone else used the Intel CPU. This is a company that said think different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Apple has no interest in expanding it's costs to satisfy the CMDA market--a legacy market.
It's not a lot of money, Apple already enjoys 50% profit margin on the iphone. Creating a different iphone would drop that to what --- 45% profit margin (which is 4x as much as Nokia has).
Quote:
Originally Posted by burlesona
3. International service
Because T-Mobile is a branch of Germany's Deutsche Telekom, T-Mobile exists all over Europe. I lived in Italy for a while several years ago, and this connection was very helpful for me. If you travel to Europe a lot it's nice to be able to find your cell phone provider overseas.
In promoting iPhone as something for saavy execs I could see T-Mobile doing even more to unify their coverage so that there was no longer a distinction between calls on T-Mobiles various national networks. I don't know about technical limitations to this, but T-Mobile already carries the iPhone around Europe, so it can't be that big of an obstacle.
They are going to sell you a simlocked iphone and when you go to Germany, they are going to charge you thousands of dollars in roaming charges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommonSense
T-Mobile has, kind of suddenly, gotten REALLY aggressive about ramping up their 3G coverage and speeds. All of a sudden, a few months back, they began upgrading 3G where it exists to leapfrog past everyone else's speeds, up to 21 Mbps, and rolling 3G out in more areas where it didn't have it before. The switch on the 21 hasn't been turned on yet, but they're aggressively rolling out the infrastructure now.
The question is . . . why? Who could possibly have the kind of weight and influence to make them suddenly start doing this, let alone leapfrogging past everyone else's 3G speeds? Who would give them an incentive to take upon such an expensive initiative?
Don't get fooled by these theoretical max download speed claims. It's not an expensive initiative at all --- T-Mobile was late in their 3G deployment that everyone else. Which means that they bought cell gears that have HSPA+ already built-in --- that only requires a firmware upgrade to their software.
As long as the German parent is not allowing T-Mobile USA to spend the requisite money to have a real national network --- T-Mobile USA will remain to be a poor network coverage wise. And the German parent is trying to find American partners to help to pay the cost of the build-out.
Until they can find a partner in the US, or the German parent changes their mind to pay for the network build-out themselves --- T-Mobile will remain to be a poor network coverage wise.
This is Apple we are talking about --- for 20 years they used a CPU that nobody used when everyone else used the Intel CPU. This is a company that said think different.
That's not quite true, at the start of the AIM alliance, one could easily get workstations from any one of half a dozen CPU architectures, now it's a lot harder and relatively a lot more expensive than it used to be. There were other companies that used PPC, BeOS for one, heck, Microsoft is using a PPC chip right now.
Analyst seems to have several poor ideas and misconceptions.
There's no way that Apple would create a CDMA version of the phone for Sprint. So that part of the article doesn't make sense. Sprint stinks as a carrier, is losing share and is the most expensive because they try to tie the latest smart phones to their most expensive everything plans to raise their ARPU. Company going down the tubes unless T-Mobile buys them out.
Saying that Verizon and Apple don't agree because Verizon wants control also doesn't match recent events. The Google market is available on android phones on Verizon. Verizon hasn't neutered the phones to their VCast either. So that rational doesn't make sense either.
Apple may have a tough time competing against Android phones unless they get on Verizon. And even then Android is quickly catching up to the iPhone and passing in some ways. Next years iPhone better have lots of software improvements.
apple has gotten a lot of flack over ATT's service and customer service. why would they submit to that with another company
those qualcomm rumors could be true, but talking about the wrong device. what if those dual chips are for something not an iphone that might be running the same OS
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147
Exactly. Apple will have no choice but to make a CDMA compatible phone for Verizon since their LTE rollout isn't going to be 100% complete until 2013.
Apple is under no legal obligation to make a phone that works on Verizon's network. so they can always make that choice and never touch CDMA in the iphone. when and if Verizon can support whatever Apple does put in the phones, bully for them. until then, too bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexpectations
Yes...but for any carrier that supports the iPhone, I would guess that customer satisfaction would go down. Too much data....too little bandwidth.
bandwidth is one of the key reasons why official unlocking is a good thing for the iphone. some areas have crap ATT coverage but fairly decent T-Mobile or even some of the 'no name' carriers. so why not let the phone go to who can cover it. spreading out the service could also help with bottlenecks
Apple isn't going to be on Verizon. Get used to it. They will more rapidly be on T-Mobile US than Verizon.
As LTE rollout commences, AT&T will see it's growth continue while Verizon will continue to see a net loss in subscribers.
If you believe that Verizon won't get the iPhone you fooling your self. In addition Verizon is ahead of AT&T when it comes to LTE deployment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alandail
Verizon doesn't run the app store for Droid, why would this issue be a problem for carrying the iPhone.
Right on plus Verizon has no problem with Google Voice which I use for text messaging so I don't pay a cent for texting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adisor19
Keep dreaming. A CDMA iPhone will never come. T-Mo could potentially get it next year or the year after as the 1700Mhz addition is a piece of cake.
Adi
You can keep dreaming but you'll wake up once you see Verizon with the iPhone. WIth the Qualcomm chip that does all phone protocols including CDMA and LTE Apple can make one phone that covers all phone companies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Agreed. Verizon Customer Service is POS 101.
Everyone has their opinion about their carrier. I've never has a problem with Verizon Customer Service in the last 16 years that was not taken care of quite quickly.
I believe Verizon would be kind of pointless in a way.
It has it's own VCast, Apple has iTunes.
Verizon is using their "AT&T lacks 3G" ads while using an iPhone like phone.(and some with real iPhones in it.)
And It will make the competition go baisically slow and no more fun?..
I would probably see Apple with Sprint or T-Mobile.
Sprint is already on 4G network. So there goes an equal shot if Apple wants to move in with 4G quickly. and T-mobile, is just.. idk? plain old T-mobile
AT&T- Has poor 3G coverage and expensive iPhone plan.
Verizon- Hating AT&T and the fact that they have the iPhone.
Sprint- On 4G and and not hating as much as Verizon.
T-Mobile- t-mobile is just out in it's own little world out there somewhere.
Apple is just better off making their own cellular carrier.
Apple has no interest in expanding it's costs to satisfy the CMDA market--a legacy market.
It does mean costs but it also means a lot of upside.
1) Apple expands it's addressable market in the US from 29% to potentially 100%
2) It's a lot of revenue currently on the table. If Apples sells to just 1% of the 89M Verizon customers that is 890,000 units. Say Apple makes $400 per unit. That's $356M in rev, just for 1%. You think it costs more than $10M to take the current iPhone and roll a CDMA version? I don't. That is quite an upside.
3) Right now not being on other carriers sends PR, marketing and development dollars to the competition. There is no reason for that.
4) What does legacy mean anyway? At the end of the day ALL technologies are legacy - at least they are someday. USB 2.0, legacy. Firewire, legacy. Ethernet, legacy. It's all going to be legacy at some point.
When Apple shipped the original iPhone, EDGE was legacy and everyone knew it. A year later it was replaced. Was it better to ship a legacy protocol but enter the market? I would say yes. Same situation here.
Anyway, so what, that a CDMA phone would only be a hot item for a few years? What cell phone is interesting for more than that? They sell the CDMA for 2-3 years, then sell LTE. That is normal business.
Would a CDMA phone for Verizon and Sprint be a world beating phone? No.
Would it be the next gen solution for iPhone? No.
Would it be super innovative? No.
It would however meet a market need and demand that is real. That should be enough for any rational company. Will Apple do this? Probably not but that does not mean that Apple is acting in its own best interest in this case.
Just cutting off some of the oxygen to Android and BB would make the development cost worth it...
Why would I leave Sprint? What's wrong with Sprint? NOTHING. That's what.
my first cell phone was a sprint cell phone, and it was the crappiest phone for service in NYC and the customer service was the WORST!!! not to mention that they would over bill every time and you couldn't get a credit even if u KILLED someone (well, that is if/when your were ever able to get someone that spoke english on the phone) and that was in the late 90's so then i switched to NEXTEL because of the push to talk feature and my friends who had NEXTel's but then , SPRINT swallowed up NEXTEL and I was back to where i hated being with SPRINT again with the billing/lousy customer service and such...
then I switched to ATT and got the first iPhone like 2 years ago-- and i would never give up my iphone- and SPRINT would drop you as a customer if you called and complained to them about your service or phone (lQQK it up on google, its there) those DUMBASSes would actually cancel your service or drop you because you called them to complain !!???? WTF is that??? I hope that APPLE NEVER GOES to SPRINT and I HOPE SPRINT JUST DIES AND GOES UNDER AND BANKRUPT they deserve everything they get ... those fools... anyway i just had to tell u that since u asked....
It does mean costs but it also means a lot of upside.
1) Apple expands it's addressable market in the US from 29% to potentially 100%
2) It's a lot of revenue currently on the table. If Apples sells to just 1% of the 89M Verizon customers that is 890,000 units. Say Apple makes $400 per unit. That's $356M in rev, just for 1%. You think it costs more than $10M to take the current iPhone and roll a CDMA version? I don't. That is quite an upside.
There is no doubt that it would be profitable for Apple, but so would a lot of things Apple could do, consumers want them to do, but they simply won?t do.
There are some logistical issues with going with a CDMA phone. Besides needing to stock a separate device for Sprint, Verizon, and AT&T/T-Mobile in their stores for each capacity, they also would likely have to have some sort of rep from those companies to help activate the phones. On top of that, we have customer confusion to deal with when it comes different iPhones having different capabilities despite being mostly the same. Does Apple make them look different to make it obvious there are differences or go with the same case design. If you go with a different case design you have an issue with 3rd-party cases.
Again, it would be profitable but that doesn?t seem like something Apple would do. If it?s not a simple streamlined process then it?s not something Apple seems to want to do. So the other option is the hybrid world-mode chip from Qualcomm, but even if Apple gets the excessive 5.7% per-unit of all revenue dropped from Qualcomm we have to consider the chip size and power consumption.
The upside is that Apple can then sell the iPhone to the rest of the world that is on CDMA/CDMA2000 network. The downside is that most of them are pretty poor and have a low population. Still, they?d surely make money, but they?d make money from the mythical xMac or a netbook, too, but I don?t expect either of those.
Perhaps most importantly and oft overlooked is that the iPhone is growing at a phenomenal rate already. Supply has been constrained leaving some countries hurting well after the launch. The only problem at this time is that the iPhone on AT&T is so successful and so useful for data that it?s taxing their network excessively. Adding the 1700MHz Band and going with their Deutsche Telekom partner?s US company, T-Mobile, would help with that saturation issue while also avoiding all the logistical issues previous mentioned. It?s the only move that makes sense to me.
There is no doubt that it would be profitable for Apple, but so would a lot of things Apple could do, consumers want them to do, but they simply won?t do.
There are some logistical issues with going with a CDMA phone. Besides needing to stock a separate device for Sprint, Verizon, and AT&T/T-Mobile in their stores for each capacity, they also would likely have to have some sort of rep from those companies to help activate the phones. On top of that, we have customer confusion to deal with when it comes different iPhones having different capabilities despite being mostly the same. Does Apple make them look different to make it obvious there are differences or go with the same case design. If you go with a different case design you have an issue with 3rd-party cases.
Again, it would be profitable but that doesn?t seem like something Apple would do. If it?s not a simple streamlined process then it?s not something Apple seems to want to do. So the other option is the hybrid world-mode chip from Qualcomm, but even if Apple gets the excessive 5.7% per-unit of all revenue dropped from Qualcomm we have to consider the chip size and power consumption.
The upside is that Apple can then sell the iPhone to the rest of the world that is on CDMA/CDMA2000 network. The downside is that most of them are pretty poor and have a low population. Still, they?d surely make money, but they?d make money from the mythical xMac or a netbook, too, but I don?t expect either of those.
Perhaps most importantly and oft overlooked is that the iPhone is growing at a phenomenal rate already. Supply has been constrained leaving some countries hurting well after the launch. The only problem at this time is that the iPhone on AT&T is so successful and so useful for data that it?s taxing their network excessively. Adding the 1700MHz Band and going with their Deutsche Telekom partner?s US company, T-Mobile, would help with that saturation issue while also avoiding all the logistical issues previous mentioned. It?s the only move that makes sense to me.
This is the same company that sells rainbow color ipods. Having a bunch of color ipods, all with a different SKU and inventory --- ain't going to be much of a problem.
The vast majority of the apps are games --- yet the biggest difference between the current 2 models (3G and 3GS) is the hardware accel 3D graphics. That is a lot of consumer confusion already as well.
The biggest CDMA carriers are still in US, Canada, Japan and S Korea --- and these are not poor countries.
The past phenomenal growth rate creates expectations that the growth will continue --- and that creates pressures on the Apple stock price. Just rumors about t-mobile USA getting the next iphone instead of Verizon --- caused a $5 drop in Apple share price.
Comments
if t-mobile or sprint got the iphone it would absolutely crush not only Verizon (which ive had for years before switching to AT&T) but AT&T as well. Cheaper prices with very good coverage you cant beat, but T-Mo is lacking in its 3G areas thus far, although something like this would really help expand their user base.
I don?t see it crushing AT&T or Verizon. Most people are happy with their AT&T iPhone in their area and T-Mo has it?s fair share of network coverage issues and is still GSM-based, which is part of the reason for many of the complaints over Verizon. Id est, the voice quality and soft v. hard handoffs. These issues jut carry over to T-Mo.
Still, having two carriers will help many that simply won?t or can?t move to AT&T from Verizon, but I think that Sprint will be the most hurt by the iPhone moving to T-Mo. The only caveat is that T-Mo may not offer the same rates for the iPhone as they do their other plans.
if t-mobile or sprint got the iphone it would absolutely crush not only Verizon (which ive had for years before switching to AT&T) but AT&T as well. Cheaper prices with very good coverage you cant beat, but T-Mo is lacking in its 3G areas thus far, although something like this would really help expand their user base. I do fear though that if it does rollout to T-Mo without a robust 3G network like the others it will bring T-Mo's reputation down like it has done to AT&T.
Me too. Being a T-Mo user for six years.
Another point you can add to your list of what T-Mo offers... I see you were passionate enough regarding T-Mobile, that you registered in order to make your first post here on AI, as opposed to being a casual guest. I hope to read more.
Same here. T-mo could really use the boost from iPhone.
T-Mobile has, kind of suddenly, gotten REALLY aggressive about ramping up their 3G coverage and speeds. All of a sudden, a few months back, they began upgrading 3G where it exists to leapfrog past everyone else's speeds, up to 21 Mbps, and rolling 3G out in more areas where it didn't have it before. The switch on the 21 hasn't been turned on yet, but they're aggressively rolling out the infrastructure now.
The question is . . . why? Who could possibly have the kind of weight and influence to make them suddenly start doing this, let alone leapfrogging past everyone else's 3G speeds? Who would give them an incentive to take upon such an expensive initiative?
Hmmm. Here's my wild guess: An incredibly annoyed Apple, sick and tired of AT&T's lame-ass 3G network making them look bad. And Apple's got the influence and weight to tell somebody like a T-Mobile that if they want the iPhone, given that they're the fourth-place carrier in the nation, they'll have to make some big moves to show they want it, and to make them feel safe that it won't be a repeat of the AT&T 3G fiasco.
Seems plain as day to me, frankly.
Though Apple and Verizon may both focus on "customer control", their execution couldn't be further apart. Verizon's "control" ignores the customer for it's own gain, while Apple's makes the customer experience tantamount.
Example - Verizon's version of the Motorola RAZR. Verizon insisted on shoehorning their interface into the phone, removing or crippling existing features because they might reduce demand for Verizon-controlled services that they could bill extra for.
Standardized UI has its advantages --- especially for a multicultural population with a lot of people not really proficient in English.
I still find it hard to believe that Apple would go with Verizon with their current anti-global technology. I really would be surprised if they did, because it would mean that Apple has become a different company in my eyes.
This is Apple we are talking about --- for 20 years they used a CPU that nobody used when everyone else used the Intel CPU. This is a company that said think different.
Apple has no interest in expanding it's costs to satisfy the CMDA market--a legacy market.
It's not a lot of money, Apple already enjoys 50% profit margin on the iphone. Creating a different iphone would drop that to what --- 45% profit margin (which is 4x as much as Nokia has).
3. International service
Because T-Mobile is a branch of Germany's Deutsche Telekom, T-Mobile exists all over Europe. I lived in Italy for a while several years ago, and this connection was very helpful for me. If you travel to Europe a lot it's nice to be able to find your cell phone provider overseas.
In promoting iPhone as something for saavy execs I could see T-Mobile doing even more to unify their coverage so that there was no longer a distinction between calls on T-Mobiles various national networks. I don't know about technical limitations to this, but T-Mobile already carries the iPhone around Europe, so it can't be that big of an obstacle.
They are going to sell you a simlocked iphone and when you go to Germany, they are going to charge you thousands of dollars in roaming charges.
T-Mobile has, kind of suddenly, gotten REALLY aggressive about ramping up their 3G coverage and speeds. All of a sudden, a few months back, they began upgrading 3G where it exists to leapfrog past everyone else's speeds, up to 21 Mbps, and rolling 3G out in more areas where it didn't have it before. The switch on the 21 hasn't been turned on yet, but they're aggressively rolling out the infrastructure now.
The question is . . . why? Who could possibly have the kind of weight and influence to make them suddenly start doing this, let alone leapfrogging past everyone else's 3G speeds? Who would give them an incentive to take upon such an expensive initiative?
Don't get fooled by these theoretical max download speed claims. It's not an expensive initiative at all --- T-Mobile was late in their 3G deployment that everyone else. Which means that they bought cell gears that have HSPA+ already built-in --- that only requires a firmware upgrade to their software.
As long as the German parent is not allowing T-Mobile USA to spend the requisite money to have a real national network --- T-Mobile USA will remain to be a poor network coverage wise. And the German parent is trying to find American partners to help to pay the cost of the build-out.
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thre...seek_us_p.html
Until they can find a partner in the US, or the German parent changes their mind to pay for the network build-out themselves --- T-Mobile will remain to be a poor network coverage wise.
I was gonna say don?t make direct personal attacks, but it?s too late.
Yeah, like wow.
This is Apple we are talking about --- for 20 years they used a CPU that nobody used when everyone else used the Intel CPU. This is a company that said think different.
That's not quite true, at the start of the AIM alliance, one could easily get workstations from any one of half a dozen CPU architectures, now it's a lot harder and relatively a lot more expensive than it used to be. There were other companies that used PPC, BeOS for one, heck, Microsoft is using a PPC chip right now.
Microsoft is using a PPC chip right now.
I believe it?s 3 PPC per Xbox 360.
There's no way that Apple would create a CDMA version of the phone for Sprint. So that part of the article doesn't make sense. Sprint stinks as a carrier, is losing share and is the most expensive because they try to tie the latest smart phones to their most expensive everything plans to raise their ARPU. Company going down the tubes unless T-Mobile buys them out.
Saying that Verizon and Apple don't agree because Verizon wants control also doesn't match recent events. The Google market is available on android phones on Verizon. Verizon hasn't neutered the phones to their VCast either. So that rational doesn't make sense either.
Apple may have a tough time competing against Android phones unless they get on Verizon. And even then Android is quickly catching up to the iPhone and passing in some ways. Next years iPhone better have lots of software improvements.
Someone asked this exec if the iPhone was coming, and he said it was and that everyone should just be patient.
Can you link to any video, transcripts or articles stating this? I'd think this kind of news would get some major play in the media if it were true.
Do you link to any video, transcripts or articles stating this? I'd think this kind of news would get some major play in the media.
Exactly. Spill it or else is never happened.
those qualcomm rumors could be true, but talking about the wrong device. what if those dual chips are for something not an iphone that might be running the same OS
Exactly. Apple will have no choice but to make a CDMA compatible phone for Verizon since their LTE rollout isn't going to be 100% complete until 2013.
Apple is under no legal obligation to make a phone that works on Verizon's network. so they can always make that choice and never touch CDMA in the iphone. when and if Verizon can support whatever Apple does put in the phones, bully for them. until then, too bad.
Yes...but for any carrier that supports the iPhone, I would guess that customer satisfaction would go down. Too much data....too little bandwidth.
bandwidth is one of the key reasons why official unlocking is a good thing for the iphone. some areas have crap ATT coverage but fairly decent T-Mobile or even some of the 'no name' carriers. so why not let the phone go to who can cover it. spreading out the service could also help with bottlenecks
Apple isn't going to be on Verizon. Get used to it. They will more rapidly be on T-Mobile US than Verizon.
As LTE rollout commences, AT&T will see it's growth continue while Verizon will continue to see a net loss in subscribers.
If you believe that Verizon won't get the iPhone you fooling your self. In addition Verizon is ahead of AT&T when it comes to LTE deployment.
Verizon doesn't run the app store for Droid, why would this issue be a problem for carrying the iPhone.
Right on plus Verizon has no problem with Google Voice which I use for text messaging so I don't pay a cent for texting.
Keep dreaming. A CDMA iPhone will never come. T-Mo could potentially get it next year or the year after as the 1700Mhz addition is a piece of cake.
Adi
You can keep dreaming but you'll wake up once you see Verizon with the iPhone. WIth the Qualcomm chip that does all phone protocols including CDMA and LTE Apple can make one phone that covers all phone companies.
Agreed. Verizon Customer Service is POS 101.
Everyone has their opinion about their carrier. I've never has a problem with Verizon Customer Service in the last 16 years that was not taken care of quite quickly.
It has it's own VCast, Apple has iTunes.
Verizon is using their "AT&T lacks 3G" ads while using an iPhone like phone.(and some with real iPhones in it.)
And It will make the competition go baisically slow and no more fun?..
I would probably see Apple with Sprint or T-Mobile.
Sprint is already on 4G network. So there goes an equal shot if Apple wants to move in with 4G quickly. and T-mobile, is just.. idk? plain old T-mobile
AT&T- Has poor 3G coverage and expensive iPhone plan.
Verizon- Hating AT&T and the fact that they have the iPhone.
Sprint- On 4G and and not hating as much as Verizon.
T-Mobile- t-mobile is just out in it's own little world out there somewhere.
Apple is just better off making their own cellular carrier.
Apple has no interest in expanding it's costs to satisfy the CMDA market--a legacy market.
It does mean costs but it also means a lot of upside.
1) Apple expands it's addressable market in the US from 29% to potentially 100%
2) It's a lot of revenue currently on the table. If Apples sells to just 1% of the 89M Verizon customers that is 890,000 units. Say Apple makes $400 per unit. That's $356M in rev, just for 1%. You think it costs more than $10M to take the current iPhone and roll a CDMA version? I don't. That is quite an upside.
3) Right now not being on other carriers sends PR, marketing and development dollars to the competition. There is no reason for that.
4) What does legacy mean anyway? At the end of the day ALL technologies are legacy - at least they are someday. USB 2.0, legacy. Firewire, legacy. Ethernet, legacy. It's all going to be legacy at some point.
When Apple shipped the original iPhone, EDGE was legacy and everyone knew it. A year later it was replaced. Was it better to ship a legacy protocol but enter the market? I would say yes. Same situation here.
Anyway, so what, that a CDMA phone would only be a hot item for a few years? What cell phone is interesting for more than that? They sell the CDMA for 2-3 years, then sell LTE. That is normal business.
Would a CDMA phone for Verizon and Sprint be a world beating phone? No.
Would it be the next gen solution for iPhone? No.
Would it be super innovative? No.
It would however meet a market need and demand that is real. That should be enough for any rational company. Will Apple do this? Probably not but that does not mean that Apple is acting in its own best interest in this case.
Just cutting off some of the oxygen to Android and BB would make the development cost worth it...
Why would I leave Sprint? What's wrong with Sprint? NOTHING. That's what.
my first cell phone was a sprint cell phone, and it was the crappiest phone for service in NYC and the customer service was the WORST!!! not to mention that they would over bill every time and you couldn't get a credit even if u KILLED someone (well, that is if/when your were ever able to get someone that spoke english on the phone) and that was in the late 90's so then i switched to NEXTEL because of the push to talk feature and my friends who had NEXTel's but then , SPRINT swallowed up NEXTEL and I was back to where i hated being with SPRINT again with the billing/lousy customer service and such...
then I switched to ATT and got the first iPhone like 2 years ago-- and i would never give up my iphone- and SPRINT would drop you as a customer if you called and complained to them about your service or phone (lQQK it up on google, its there) those DUMBASSes would actually cancel your service or drop you because you called them to complain !!???? WTF is that??? I hope that APPLE NEVER GOES to SPRINT and I HOPE SPRINT JUST DIES AND GOES UNDER AND BANKRUPT they deserve everything they get ... those fools... anyway i just had to tell u that since u asked....
It does mean costs but it also means a lot of upside.
1) Apple expands it's addressable market in the US from 29% to potentially 100%
2) It's a lot of revenue currently on the table. If Apples sells to just 1% of the 89M Verizon customers that is 890,000 units. Say Apple makes $400 per unit. That's $356M in rev, just for 1%. You think it costs more than $10M to take the current iPhone and roll a CDMA version? I don't. That is quite an upside.
There is no doubt that it would be profitable for Apple, but so would a lot of things Apple could do, consumers want them to do, but they simply won?t do.
There are some logistical issues with going with a CDMA phone. Besides needing to stock a separate device for Sprint, Verizon, and AT&T/T-Mobile in their stores for each capacity, they also would likely have to have some sort of rep from those companies to help activate the phones. On top of that, we have customer confusion to deal with when it comes different iPhones having different capabilities despite being mostly the same. Does Apple make them look different to make it obvious there are differences or go with the same case design. If you go with a different case design you have an issue with 3rd-party cases.
Again, it would be profitable but that doesn?t seem like something Apple would do. If it?s not a simple streamlined process then it?s not something Apple seems to want to do. So the other option is the hybrid world-mode chip from Qualcomm, but even if Apple gets the excessive 5.7% per-unit of all revenue dropped from Qualcomm we have to consider the chip size and power consumption.
The upside is that Apple can then sell the iPhone to the rest of the world that is on CDMA/CDMA2000 network. The downside is that most of them are pretty poor and have a low population. Still, they?d surely make money, but they?d make money from the mythical xMac or a netbook, too, but I don?t expect either of those.
Perhaps most importantly and oft overlooked is that the iPhone is growing at a phenomenal rate already. Supply has been constrained leaving some countries hurting well after the launch. The only problem at this time is that the iPhone on AT&T is so successful and so useful for data that it?s taxing their network excessively. Adding the 1700MHz Band and going with their Deutsche Telekom partner?s US company, T-Mobile, would help with that saturation issue while also avoiding all the logistical issues previous mentioned. It?s the only move that makes sense to me.
There is no doubt that it would be profitable for Apple, but so would a lot of things Apple could do, consumers want them to do, but they simply won?t do.
There are some logistical issues with going with a CDMA phone. Besides needing to stock a separate device for Sprint, Verizon, and AT&T/T-Mobile in their stores for each capacity, they also would likely have to have some sort of rep from those companies to help activate the phones. On top of that, we have customer confusion to deal with when it comes different iPhones having different capabilities despite being mostly the same. Does Apple make them look different to make it obvious there are differences or go with the same case design. If you go with a different case design you have an issue with 3rd-party cases.
Again, it would be profitable but that doesn?t seem like something Apple would do. If it?s not a simple streamlined process then it?s not something Apple seems to want to do. So the other option is the hybrid world-mode chip from Qualcomm, but even if Apple gets the excessive 5.7% per-unit of all revenue dropped from Qualcomm we have to consider the chip size and power consumption.
The upside is that Apple can then sell the iPhone to the rest of the world that is on CDMA/CDMA2000 network. The downside is that most of them are pretty poor and have a low population. Still, they?d surely make money, but they?d make money from the mythical xMac or a netbook, too, but I don?t expect either of those.
Perhaps most importantly and oft overlooked is that the iPhone is growing at a phenomenal rate already. Supply has been constrained leaving some countries hurting well after the launch. The only problem at this time is that the iPhone on AT&T is so successful and so useful for data that it?s taxing their network excessively. Adding the 1700MHz Band and going with their Deutsche Telekom partner?s US company, T-Mobile, would help with that saturation issue while also avoiding all the logistical issues previous mentioned. It?s the only move that makes sense to me.
This is the same company that sells rainbow color ipods. Having a bunch of color ipods, all with a different SKU and inventory --- ain't going to be much of a problem.
The vast majority of the apps are games --- yet the biggest difference between the current 2 models (3G and 3GS) is the hardware accel 3D graphics. That is a lot of consumer confusion already as well.
The biggest CDMA carriers are still in US, Canada, Japan and S Korea --- and these are not poor countries.
The past phenomenal growth rate creates expectations that the growth will continue --- and that creates pressures on the Apple stock price. Just rumors about t-mobile USA getting the next iphone instead of Verizon --- caused a $5 drop in Apple share price.