I'm suprised that most people are starting to gang up on Verizon. Little by little,..
Only because Verizon is seen as fighting against Apple. It's the same way people on this forum have started attacking Google now that they've started to compete with Apple. Heaven forbid someone not bow to Apple's will.
Perhaps, but it seems no more likely to me than Verizon investing in expanded network capacity on the speculation that Apple might allow them to sell the iPhone some day. If this is what Verizon is saying publicly, then I don't believe the story, and I'm looking for another reason. The only alternative explanation I can think of is the tablet.
I don?t buy this reasoning from Verizon and I really don?t think there is a strong possibility of them getting any Apple device, yet if there is one your idea seems best. This seems like just a simple yet effective strategic maneuver.
Do we really know if they are investing any extra in their network or if any upgrades are merely from a standpoint of increased browser-and-app-heavy smartphone growth they expect for 2010?
I think it?s a smart marketing move to suggest that they?re beefing up their network just in case Apple lets them sell the iPhone. It makes Verizon look proactive while making AT&T look even worse while having a secondary effect of keeping potential jumpers from going to AT&T for the iPhone despite not actually stating they?re getting the iPhone. Sun Tzu and P.T. Barnum would be proud.
No way and no how. The rumors have been going on for over two years now and they have been idiotic from the start. Not going to happen. Unless I am the Captain of the Titanic - No WAY this is going to happen.
1. Verizon does not have a GSM network. I just do not see Apple sacrificing their margin to produce two different phones in the US market. Apple plays in the 34% margin business - and is not interested in shilling commodities. Verizon makes huge margins on other peoples mobile phones - Apple simply would never play that game and give up their product to help Verizon make billions.
2. New dual chip technology costs too much at a time when the iPhone. Apple needs to continue to reduce product costs not increase them. Higher chip costs plus a huge licensing fee to QualComm?
Not sure but if Apple took the iPhone to Verizon, it would also solve two problems.
1) Allow Verizon customers to get the iPhone.
2) AT&T bandwidth issues would improve since many people would switch to Verizon.
WIN-WIN
Well, thats assuming AT&T cares more about delivering a quality service than about making as much money as possible. As a former employee, its not the case. AT&T would rather make the extra money, even if it means their customers get a worse service.
Of course you could add a third WIN in if all the AT&T customers switched to Verizon. Then they win too.
Disclaimer - Not that verizon if that much (if at all) better than AT&T, they all suck, but AT&T has been incredibly scumming in the last couple years... and they need to drop a few pegs.
How can Verizon's network be 'ready' when they could only max out at 1.4Mb? At least AT&T has 3.2Mb and are going to 7.2Mb. AT&T can also offload some of their traffic to free wireless hot spots.
This comment was carefully crafted and timed to prevent some it's core users from defecting.
Your comments are so carefully crafted that it missed the whole point.
Verizon's network is 3.1 mbps max and 600-1400 kbps average.
AT&T's network is 3.6 mbps max and 700-1700 kbps average.
Verizon's network can be offloaded by adding tiny 1.5 mhz channels when there is a lot of data traffic.
Verizon's network is yet to be tested. I believe that Verizon already knows that it will be years before they get the iPhone.....so this promise of being ready now is simply a smoke screen. What they promise today will never be proven to be true...it's a marketing response.
Bingo. Easy to promise the world when you know you won't have to deliver.
So what if the iPhone is the real problem and not AT&T's network, as a recent article was speculating? And what if the next iPhone plugs that gap? Then what is the big V going to have to hang their hat on?
That is why I wish their was no network exclusivity for cells phones at all. Hopefully Congress will get involved in this argument and help consumers for once.
Yup, remove all incentive for developing anything truly innovative by legislating a level playing field.
All reports seem to suggest that the iPhone is selling very well and Apple is just keeping up with demand. Based on that, I think it is highly unlikely that Apple would try and split production between different models of iPhones that work on different networks. Especially considering that CDMA is a US only, one carrier deal.
So that leaves the option of making one iPhone that would work on both networks. This is a possibility but I don't think Apple will do it. Apple is extremely cost conscious these days and a dual mode iPhone would be more expensive to produce. Even if some new chip is developed that can handle both networks, that chip will still be more expensive than a chip that just handles one. Not only to produce, but more expensive to engineer and support. Apple would incur that cost on every phone it makes not just the ones sold on Verizon's network. If they wait for LTE, such a phone would work on both AT&T and Verizon, plus others, once those networks are more deployed in 2011 or 2012.
But OK, lets say Apple is willing to make a dual mode phone to get iPhone on Verizon. Then we are back to the production issue. In all these rumors one thing I have not heard is one about Apple significantly increasing its iPhone production capability. If they do open up to Verizon, they will need to produce A LOT more phones. I am not convinced they can do this at this time.
The one wild card would be AT&T demand. If Apple thinks demand from AT&T is falling off or would fall off if the iPhone were available on Verizon. That might free up some production to handle the extra demand.
Finally, there is AT&T. If the iPhone is as important to AT&T as everyone thinks it is, they may be willing to cut Apple a very lucrative deal to keep the iPhone exclusive for another year.
Oh yeah, lets not forget about Steve Jobs hissy fits. The new Verizon ads not only attack AT&T but also the iPhone directly. I can't imagine that sits well with him and there have been several well documented cases (remember the ATI leak/Macworld debacle) where a vendor pissed off Steve and he took his anger out on them. As far as any cooling relations between AT&T and Apple go, don't believe it. That is careful PR on Apple's part because it directs customer frustration away from Apple and towards AT&T. This keeps the tribe happy with Apple which is very important to them.
I am guessing AT&T will keep their iPhone exclusivity until 2011. Possibly, 2012.
-kpluck
For starters CDMA is not a one carrier thing. Sprint uses it and so does Metro PCS and there are many countries other than the US with CDMA networks. One of them being China. Phones with dual CDMA and GSM radios already exist. VZW has 6 "world phones" that can really be used worldwide. That CDMA/GSM chipset can be easily modified to fit within the iPhone at either a nominal cost increase if any.
Yup, remove all incentive for developing anything truly innovative by legislating a level playing field.
Brilliant
Actually innovation would probably go thru the roof. Exclusivity benefits the carrier most. Look at how many customers ATT has gotten because of the iPhone. If the iPhone were available on all the networks it would force the other makers to up their game in turn making Apple up theirs. Phones here in the states are still yrs behind in what they can do overseas. We would be at their level if the playing field were even.
. Past and current Verizon has performed relatively well with little to no major user or network complaints and has a reasonably good reputation.
...that it got by restricting the hell out of their phones. And even though the droid is open (esp. by Verizon standards) it's selling at a fraction of the volume of the iPhone.
Yup, that's conclusive proof
Quote:
ATT based on their past and current has not performed very well and has a semi-bad reputation.
And one that I find is often completely overblown. I can understand San Francisco and New York users (although on some recent tech podcasts some of the participants (seemingly grudgingly) admitted AT&T was improved and pretty much normal.
There is no perfect cellular company, but there is perfect advertising and perverse brand loyalty to a company that, if you want to talk real past performance, has historically abused it's customers far more then any other.
You would have NEVER gotten a phone like the droid on V with out the iPhone. Just think about that for a moment.
Quote:
With those two beliefs
Aha...
Quote:
and facts
What facts?
Quote:
one could guess and assume Verizon is best prepared to handle iPhone traffic better than ATT.
No you can't because it's still a supposition. You can assume all you wan't, but until V has a phone as successful as the iPhone that has network usage comparable to the iPhone, it's so much marketing BS (which Verizon and their sycophants excel at)
Quote:
Is that fair enough for you to agree or do we need to call in Kreskin?
Kreskin would probably be more accurate then any speculation in this thread.
Personally? I don't think Verizon is getting the iPhone any time soon. AT&T has a significant amount of upgrades in the pipeline and I think V has probably pissed Steve off pretty thoroughly at this point. AT&T is gaining on V solely because of the iPhone, and I imagine even with the "curse" of the iPhone they are fighting mightily to keep it as an exclusive. If AT&T can roll out their 800 MHz upgrades and Apple can deliver a significant refresh in June, all the whining about Verizion will begin to fade.
Some If's but I think they are less far fetched then hoping for a 2010 iPhone on Verizon.
I don’t buy this reasoning from Verizon and I really don’t think there is a strong possibility of them getting any Apple device, yet if there is one your idea seems best. This seems like just a simple yet effective strategic maneuver.
Do we really know if they are investing any extra in their network or if any upgrades are merely from a standpoint of increased browser-and-app-heavy smartphone growth they expect for 2010?
I think it’s a smart marketing move to suggest that they’re beefing up their network just in case Apple lets them sell the iPhone. It makes Verizon look proactive while making AT&T look even worse while having a secondary effect of keeping potential jumpers from going to AT&T for the iPhone despite not actually stating they’re getting the iPhone. Sun Tzu and P.T. Barnum would be proud.
That seems like plausible reasoning too, but even within this context, the Verizon guy saying, "We will handle it if we ever get it," seems a bit strange.
Actually the iPhone has helped break carrier control over the phone manufacturers. Before the iPhone the carriers had the ability to dictate everything about the phones and their functionality. The iPhone is the first phone to break that trend. If the iPhone had been sold to all carriers it would have just been another phone that carriers controlled.
Seeing as four of the largest phone manufacturers in the world reside in North America, what exactly can phones do overseas that phones in the US cannot do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Actually innovation would probably go thru the roof. Exclusivity benefits the carrier most. Look at how many customers ATT has gotten because of the iPhone. If the iPhone were available on all the networks it would force the other makers to up their game in turn making Apple up theirs. Phones here in the states are still yrs behind in what they can do overseas. We would be at their level if the playing field were even.
I understand perfectly well the differences between the networks. But those technical differences would be TRIVIAL for Apple to deal with (every other phone maker somehow manages to accomplish this), and therefore that is not a barrier. Apple makes enough iPhones that using part of their capacity to make a CDMA phone would in no way affect their economy of scale. Note that Apple makes a special version of the iPhone for China, and look how small that market is turning out to be. Apple is also maintaining the previous 3G production lines in order to continue making the 8 GB version of the iPhone after the 3GS came out. With the next update to the iPhone, simply switch those lines over to making CDMA phones. That would be no more difficult than updating that line to make the next gen ATT iPhone.
As for maintaining stock...how would that be any different if Apple started offering the iPhone on another GSM carrier in the US (ie, Tmobile)? You'd still be maintaining separate stock, some with ATT SIM cards and some with Tmobile SIM cards.
The ONLY barrier is Apple and Verizon deciding to do it. If/when they made that decision, everything else would be relatively easy in the grand scheme of things.
IMO all the above in wrong.
First - Completely wrong on the analysis in China. the issue in China is the government not allowing mobile phones with WiFi plus 2 million gray market iPhones with WiFi. In addition the government owned network has set the price of the phone far too high for the market that continues to import gray market iPhones for less with more features users want.
Second - Completely wrong about Apple's strategy with the iPhone. Apple does not want the iPhone to become a commodity like the Droid - where the network provider makes the majority of the margin and the manufacturer just pumps out millions of devices with razor thin margins. It does impact economy of scale in addition to paying additional licensing fees to QualCom.
The one thing above that is half right is that the barrier is Apple.
It is not about Verizon - it is about Apple. Apple does not need to help Verizon make billions off the iPhone. Apple needs to protect its own margins and remain a premium player and not let the iPhone become the PC of the mobile phone market.
You know im kind of getting annoyed seeing people on here say Verizon is bashing the iphone. VZW has NOT based the iphone..the "iphone bashing" commercials are for the Droid and PAID by Motorola. VZW's logo appears because guess what? the PHONE is ONLY on VZW. The only way VZW has mentioned the iphone is with the "map for that" and "island of misfit toys" to which they are showing Apple they need to come to VZW.
Why is it you guys are so anti VZW? Because it cant make "Data and voice" simultaneously? VZW cant "talk and browse" at the same time,but you can sure as hell talk AND text at the same time. so what more do you need? you guys act like EVERYONE is watching a youtube video and talking to their friend at the same time. It's a luxury NOT a necessity. Talk and text is 100% fine with me until LTE is up and running, be it Q4 2010 or 2011. Apple will have made a phone for LTE by then anyway,so why cant they cash in for 1-2 years on a CDMA phone? and why does Apple have to only go to VZW? why cant they join multiple networks? As has been said before CDMA or GSM whichever they choose with the right amount given to them they will make.
I for one hope they DO go to VZW AND/OR T-Mobile. That will benefit ALL. VZW will NOT incur an "overload" as you all hope they do. People will stay with ATT,some may go, who knows, but what happened to ATT's network wont happen to VZW because its not like all the iphone subscribers will be running to them. As some of you have pointed out you are satisfied with it. So be it.
Bring on the iphone in 2010, I'm hopeful that it finds MULTIPLE new homes with NO Exclusivity agreement.
You know im kind of getting annoyed seeing people on here say Verizon is bashing the iphone. VZW has NOT based the iphone..the "iphone bashing" commercials are for the Droid and PAID by Motorola. VZW's logo appears because guess what? the PHONE is ONLY on VZW. The only way VZW has mentioned the iphone is with the "map for that" and "island of misfit toys" to which they are showing Apple they need to come to VZW.
Why is it you guys are so anti VZW? Because it cant make "Data and voice" simultaneously? VZW cant "talk and browse" at the same time,but you can sure as hell talk AND text at the same time. so what more do you need? you guys act like EVERYONE is watching a youtube video and talking to their friend at the same time. It's a luxury NOT a necessity. Talk and text is 100% fine with me until LTE is up and running, be it Q4 2010 or 2011. Apple will have made a phone for LTE by then anyway,so why cant they cash in for 1-2 years on a CDMA phone? and why does Apple have to only go to VZW? why cant they join multiple networks? As has been said before CDMA or GSM whichever they choose with the right amount given to them they will make.
I for one hope they DO go to VZW AND/OR T-Mobile. That will benefit ALL. VZW will NOT incur an "overload" as you all hope they do. People will stay with ATT,some may go, who knows, but what happened to ATT's network wont happen to VZW because its not like all the iphone subscribers will be running to them. As some of you have pointed out you are satisfied with it. So be it.
Bring on the iphone in 2010, I'm hopeful that it finds MULTIPLE new homes with NO Exclusivity agreement.
The adds are actually Verizon ads. Verizon spent hundreds of millions building up to the launch of Droid. Verizon is the one making the money on Droid sales - much more than Motorola. Verizon has been stung by defection of premium purchases to the iPhone. Verizon is an extremely well run company and very well positioned to continue to dominate the mobile market in the US. They are responding to competition in the premium segment. They do not have the product yet to match the iPhone but they can sure package it nice and turn around their image as carrier with innovative devices of its' own.
Only because Verizon is seen as fighting against Apple.
How about because Verizon historically has been the most abusive and restrictive of all carriers and only now is feigning any kind of customer choice because they have to? I mean their blackberry models didn't start sporting WiFi until a year or so ago!
How quickly people develop selective memory.
The entire tech punditry has ganged up on the iPhone - mostly because most of them are either in the Bay Area or NYC where there concentration of users caused abnormal network loading issues not seen in the rest of the country. But the "digerati" were quick to pile on AT&T as you put it. If AT&T were truly as bad as is fussed about, it wouldn't matter how good the iPhone was, it wouldn't have blockbuster sales three years in a row with industry topping customer satisfaction.
I've been in... 7 states now with my iPhone, and other then a few more dropped calls then I got on sprint (less then a handful) I have had just as good as coverage as sprint. And Verizon would be a step back for me as they don't even work at my house (changed my Verizon BB to AT&T to get coverage). It all depends on where you are. My friends parent's house none of the big three work - you have to go one town over near a state park where the only cell phone tower is.
Just like Verizon's current focus on "3G" - it's a marketing term. It has no relation to actual performance. Color that map to show the Verizon "3G" that is faster then AT&T's edge network and it would be quite different - and not nearly as exciting ad copy.
LIke megapixels in a digital camera where the raw number of pixels on it's own has little to do with the quality of the picture recorded by the camera the whole "3G" thing is blown way out of proportion. I don't blame Verizon for doing it, after all "the network" is the only compelling differentiator they have. They better enjoy it while it lasts - AT&T is building out, and if they can even the field then it's all over. Seems like they are making progress in the Bay Area
Comments
I'm suprised that most people are starting to gang up on Verizon. Little by little,..
Only because Verizon is seen as fighting against Apple. It's the same way people on this forum have started attacking Google now that they've started to compete with Apple. Heaven forbid someone not bow to Apple's will.
they been saying this for 2 years. what's so different about this articale?
spellticale
spellticale
Perhaps, but it seems no more likely to me than Verizon investing in expanded network capacity on the speculation that Apple might allow them to sell the iPhone some day. If this is what Verizon is saying publicly, then I don't believe the story, and I'm looking for another reason. The only alternative explanation I can think of is the tablet.
I don?t buy this reasoning from Verizon and I really don?t think there is a strong possibility of them getting any Apple device, yet if there is one your idea seems best. This seems like just a simple yet effective strategic maneuver.
Do we really know if they are investing any extra in their network or if any upgrades are merely from a standpoint of increased browser-and-app-heavy smartphone growth they expect for 2010?
I think it?s a smart marketing move to suggest that they?re beefing up their network just in case Apple lets them sell the iPhone. It makes Verizon look proactive while making AT&T look even worse while having a secondary effect of keeping potential jumpers from going to AT&T for the iPhone despite not actually stating they?re getting the iPhone. Sun Tzu and P.T. Barnum would be proud.
1. Verizon does not have a GSM network. I just do not see Apple sacrificing their margin to produce two different phones in the US market. Apple plays in the 34% margin business - and is not interested in shilling commodities. Verizon makes huge margins on other peoples mobile phones - Apple simply would never play that game and give up their product to help Verizon make billions.
2. New dual chip technology costs too much at a time when the iPhone. Apple needs to continue to reduce product costs not increase them. Higher chip costs plus a huge licensing fee to QualComm?
3. T Mobile.
Lets just not Google Google on our iPhones
Not sure but if Apple took the iPhone to Verizon, it would also solve two problems.
1) Allow Verizon customers to get the iPhone.
2) AT&T bandwidth issues would improve since many people would switch to Verizon.
WIN-WIN
Well, thats assuming AT&T cares more about delivering a quality service than about making as much money as possible. As a former employee, its not the case. AT&T would rather make the extra money, even if it means their customers get a worse service.
Of course you could add a third WIN in if all the AT&T customers switched to Verizon. Then they win too.
Disclaimer - Not that verizon if that much (if at all) better than AT&T, they all suck, but AT&T has been incredibly scumming in the last couple years... and they need to drop a few pegs.
How can Verizon's network be 'ready' when they could only max out at 1.4Mb? At least AT&T has 3.2Mb and are going to 7.2Mb. AT&T can also offload some of their traffic to free wireless hot spots.
This comment was carefully crafted and timed to prevent some it's core users from defecting.
Your comments are so carefully crafted that it missed the whole point.
Verizon's network is 3.1 mbps max and 600-1400 kbps average.
AT&T's network is 3.6 mbps max and 700-1700 kbps average.
Verizon's network can be offloaded by adding tiny 1.5 mhz channels when there is a lot of data traffic.
Verizon's network is yet to be tested. I believe that Verizon already knows that it will be years before they get the iPhone.....so this promise of being ready now is simply a smoke screen. What they promise today will never be proven to be true...it's a marketing response.
Bingo. Easy to promise the world when you know you won't have to deliver.
So what if the iPhone is the real problem and not AT&T's network, as a recent article was speculating? And what if the next iPhone plugs that gap? Then what is the big V going to have to hang their hat on?
That is why I wish their was no network exclusivity for cells phones at all. Hopefully Congress will get involved in this argument and help consumers for once.
Yup, remove all incentive for developing anything truly innovative by legislating a level playing field.
Brilliant
Maybe, maybe not.
All reports seem to suggest that the iPhone is selling very well and Apple is just keeping up with demand. Based on that, I think it is highly unlikely that Apple would try and split production between different models of iPhones that work on different networks. Especially considering that CDMA is a US only, one carrier deal.
So that leaves the option of making one iPhone that would work on both networks. This is a possibility but I don't think Apple will do it. Apple is extremely cost conscious these days and a dual mode iPhone would be more expensive to produce. Even if some new chip is developed that can handle both networks, that chip will still be more expensive than a chip that just handles one. Not only to produce, but more expensive to engineer and support. Apple would incur that cost on every phone it makes not just the ones sold on Verizon's network. If they wait for LTE, such a phone would work on both AT&T and Verizon, plus others, once those networks are more deployed in 2011 or 2012.
But OK, lets say Apple is willing to make a dual mode phone to get iPhone on Verizon. Then we are back to the production issue. In all these rumors one thing I have not heard is one about Apple significantly increasing its iPhone production capability. If they do open up to Verizon, they will need to produce A LOT more phones. I am not convinced they can do this at this time.
The one wild card would be AT&T demand. If Apple thinks demand from AT&T is falling off or would fall off if the iPhone were available on Verizon. That might free up some production to handle the extra demand.
Finally, there is AT&T. If the iPhone is as important to AT&T as everyone thinks it is, they may be willing to cut Apple a very lucrative deal to keep the iPhone exclusive for another year.
Oh yeah, lets not forget about Steve Jobs hissy fits. The new Verizon ads not only attack AT&T but also the iPhone directly. I can't imagine that sits well with him and there have been several well documented cases (remember the ATI leak/Macworld debacle) where a vendor pissed off Steve and he took his anger out on them. As far as any cooling relations between AT&T and Apple go, don't believe it. That is careful PR on Apple's part because it directs customer frustration away from Apple and towards AT&T. This keeps the tribe happy with Apple which is very important to them.
I am guessing AT&T will keep their iPhone exclusivity until 2011. Possibly, 2012.
-kpluck
For starters CDMA is not a one carrier thing. Sprint uses it and so does Metro PCS and there are many countries other than the US with CDMA networks. One of them being China. Phones with dual CDMA and GSM radios already exist. VZW has 6 "world phones" that can really be used worldwide. That CDMA/GSM chipset can be easily modified to fit within the iPhone at either a nominal cost increase if any.
Yup, remove all incentive for developing anything truly innovative by legislating a level playing field.
Brilliant
Actually innovation would probably go thru the roof. Exclusivity benefits the carrier most. Look at how many customers ATT has gotten because of the iPhone. If the iPhone were available on all the networks it would force the other makers to up their game in turn making Apple up theirs. Phones here in the states are still yrs behind in what they can do overseas. We would be at their level if the playing field were even.
. Past and current Verizon has performed relatively well with little to no major user or network complaints and has a reasonably good reputation.
...that it got by restricting the hell out of their phones. And even though the droid is open (esp. by Verizon standards) it's selling at a fraction of the volume of the iPhone.
Yup, that's conclusive proof
ATT based on their past and current has not performed very well and has a semi-bad reputation.
And one that I find is often completely overblown. I can understand San Francisco and New York users (although on some recent tech podcasts some of the participants (seemingly grudgingly) admitted AT&T was improved and pretty much normal.
There is no perfect cellular company, but there is perfect advertising and perverse brand loyalty to a company that, if you want to talk real past performance, has historically abused it's customers far more then any other.
You would have NEVER gotten a phone like the droid on V with out the iPhone. Just think about that for a moment.
With those two beliefs
Aha...
and facts
What facts?
one could guess and assume Verizon is best prepared to handle iPhone traffic better than ATT.
No you can't because it's still a supposition. You can assume all you wan't, but until V has a phone as successful as the iPhone that has network usage comparable to the iPhone, it's so much marketing BS (which Verizon and their sycophants excel at)
Is that fair enough for you to agree or do we need to call in Kreskin?
Kreskin would probably be more accurate then any speculation in this thread.
Personally? I don't think Verizon is getting the iPhone any time soon. AT&T has a significant amount of upgrades in the pipeline and I think V has probably pissed Steve off pretty thoroughly at this point. AT&T is gaining on V solely because of the iPhone, and I imagine even with the "curse" of the iPhone they are fighting mightily to keep it as an exclusive. If AT&T can roll out their 800 MHz upgrades and Apple can deliver a significant refresh in June, all the whining about Verizion will begin to fade.
Some If's but I think they are less far fetched then hoping for a 2010 iPhone on Verizon.
I don’t buy this reasoning from Verizon and I really don’t think there is a strong possibility of them getting any Apple device, yet if there is one your idea seems best. This seems like just a simple yet effective strategic maneuver.
Do we really know if they are investing any extra in their network or if any upgrades are merely from a standpoint of increased browser-and-app-heavy smartphone growth they expect for 2010?
I think it’s a smart marketing move to suggest that they’re beefing up their network just in case Apple lets them sell the iPhone. It makes Verizon look proactive while making AT&T look even worse while having a secondary effect of keeping potential jumpers from going to AT&T for the iPhone despite not actually stating they’re getting the iPhone. Sun Tzu and P.T. Barnum would be proud.
That seems like plausible reasoning too, but even within this context, the Verizon guy saying, "We will handle it if we ever get it," seems a bit strange.
Seeing as four of the largest phone manufacturers in the world reside in North America, what exactly can phones do overseas that phones in the US cannot do?
Actually innovation would probably go thru the roof. Exclusivity benefits the carrier most. Look at how many customers ATT has gotten because of the iPhone. If the iPhone were available on all the networks it would force the other makers to up their game in turn making Apple up theirs. Phones here in the states are still yrs behind in what they can do overseas. We would be at their level if the playing field were even.
I understand perfectly well the differences between the networks. But those technical differences would be TRIVIAL for Apple to deal with (every other phone maker somehow manages to accomplish this), and therefore that is not a barrier. Apple makes enough iPhones that using part of their capacity to make a CDMA phone would in no way affect their economy of scale. Note that Apple makes a special version of the iPhone for China, and look how small that market is turning out to be. Apple is also maintaining the previous 3G production lines in order to continue making the 8 GB version of the iPhone after the 3GS came out. With the next update to the iPhone, simply switch those lines over to making CDMA phones. That would be no more difficult than updating that line to make the next gen ATT iPhone.
As for maintaining stock...how would that be any different if Apple started offering the iPhone on another GSM carrier in the US (ie, Tmobile)? You'd still be maintaining separate stock, some with ATT SIM cards and some with Tmobile SIM cards.
The ONLY barrier is Apple and Verizon deciding to do it. If/when they made that decision, everything else would be relatively easy in the grand scheme of things.
IMO all the above in wrong.
First - Completely wrong on the analysis in China. the issue in China is the government not allowing mobile phones with WiFi plus 2 million gray market iPhones with WiFi. In addition the government owned network has set the price of the phone far too high for the market that continues to import gray market iPhones for less with more features users want.
Second - Completely wrong about Apple's strategy with the iPhone. Apple does not want the iPhone to become a commodity like the Droid - where the network provider makes the majority of the margin and the manufacturer just pumps out millions of devices with razor thin margins. It does impact economy of scale in addition to paying additional licensing fees to QualCom.
The one thing above that is half right is that the barrier is Apple.
It is not about Verizon - it is about Apple. Apple does not need to help Verizon make billions off the iPhone. Apple needs to protect its own margins and remain a premium player and not let the iPhone become the PC of the mobile phone market.
Your comments are so carefully crafted that it missed the whole point.
Verizon's network is 3.1 mbps max and 600-1400 kbps average.
AT&T's network is 3.6 mbps max and 700-1700 kbps average.
Verizon's network can be offloaded by adding tiny 1.5 mhz channels when there is a lot of data traffic.
Verizon does not get above 1 mbps average.
AT&T gets 2.5 mbps average.
Verizon is stuck at less than 1 mbps average for at least two years.
AT&T is moving to over 7 mbps in 2010 - it is already there in 30 cities.
Why is it you guys are so anti VZW? Because it cant make "Data and voice" simultaneously? VZW cant "talk and browse" at the same time,but you can sure as hell talk AND text at the same time. so what more do you need? you guys act like EVERYONE is watching a youtube video and talking to their friend at the same time. It's a luxury NOT a necessity. Talk and text is 100% fine with me until LTE is up and running, be it Q4 2010 or 2011. Apple will have made a phone for LTE by then anyway,so why cant they cash in for 1-2 years on a CDMA phone? and why does Apple have to only go to VZW? why cant they join multiple networks? As has been said before CDMA or GSM whichever they choose with the right amount given to them they will make.
I for one hope they DO go to VZW AND/OR T-Mobile. That will benefit ALL. VZW will NOT incur an "overload" as you all hope they do. People will stay with ATT,some may go, who knows, but what happened to ATT's network wont happen to VZW because its not like all the iphone subscribers will be running to them. As some of you have pointed out you are satisfied with it. So be it.
Bring on the iphone in 2010, I'm hopeful that it finds MULTIPLE new homes with NO Exclusivity agreement.
You know im kind of getting annoyed seeing people on here say Verizon is bashing the iphone. VZW has NOT based the iphone..the "iphone bashing" commercials are for the Droid and PAID by Motorola. VZW's logo appears because guess what? the PHONE is ONLY on VZW. The only way VZW has mentioned the iphone is with the "map for that" and "island of misfit toys" to which they are showing Apple they need to come to VZW.
Why is it you guys are so anti VZW? Because it cant make "Data and voice" simultaneously? VZW cant "talk and browse" at the same time,but you can sure as hell talk AND text at the same time. so what more do you need? you guys act like EVERYONE is watching a youtube video and talking to their friend at the same time. It's a luxury NOT a necessity. Talk and text is 100% fine with me until LTE is up and running, be it Q4 2010 or 2011. Apple will have made a phone for LTE by then anyway,so why cant they cash in for 1-2 years on a CDMA phone? and why does Apple have to only go to VZW? why cant they join multiple networks? As has been said before CDMA or GSM whichever they choose with the right amount given to them they will make.
I for one hope they DO go to VZW AND/OR T-Mobile. That will benefit ALL. VZW will NOT incur an "overload" as you all hope they do. People will stay with ATT,some may go, who knows, but what happened to ATT's network wont happen to VZW because its not like all the iphone subscribers will be running to them. As some of you have pointed out you are satisfied with it. So be it.
Bring on the iphone in 2010, I'm hopeful that it finds MULTIPLE new homes with NO Exclusivity agreement.
The adds are actually Verizon ads. Verizon spent hundreds of millions building up to the launch of Droid. Verizon is the one making the money on Droid sales - much more than Motorola. Verizon has been stung by defection of premium purchases to the iPhone. Verizon is an extremely well run company and very well positioned to continue to dominate the mobile market in the US. They are responding to competition in the premium segment. They do not have the product yet to match the iPhone but they can sure package it nice and turn around their image as carrier with innovative devices of its' own.
Only because Verizon is seen as fighting against Apple.
How about because Verizon historically has been the most abusive and restrictive of all carriers and only now is feigning any kind of customer choice because they have to? I mean their blackberry models didn't start sporting WiFi until a year or so ago!
How quickly people develop selective memory.
The entire tech punditry has ganged up on the iPhone - mostly because most of them are either in the Bay Area or NYC where there concentration of users caused abnormal network loading issues not seen in the rest of the country. But the "digerati" were quick to pile on AT&T as you put it. If AT&T were truly as bad as is fussed about, it wouldn't matter how good the iPhone was, it wouldn't have blockbuster sales three years in a row with industry topping customer satisfaction.
I've been in... 7 states now with my iPhone, and other then a few more dropped calls then I got on sprint (less then a handful) I have had just as good as coverage as sprint. And Verizon would be a step back for me as they don't even work at my house (changed my Verizon BB to AT&T to get coverage). It all depends on where you are. My friends parent's house none of the big three work - you have to go one town over near a state park where the only cell phone tower is.
Just like Verizon's current focus on "3G" - it's a marketing term. It has no relation to actual performance. Color that map to show the Verizon "3G" that is faster then AT&T's edge network and it would be quite different - and not nearly as exciting ad copy.
LIke megapixels in a digital camera where the raw number of pixels on it's own has little to do with the quality of the picture recorded by the camera the whole "3G" thing is blown way out of proportion. I don't blame Verizon for doing it, after all "the network" is the only compelling differentiator they have. They better enjoy it while it lasts - AT&T is building out, and if they can even the field then it's all over. Seems like they are making progress in the Bay Area