Analyst believes AT&T iPad data deal came with iPhone extension

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 27
    bageljoeybageljoey Posts: 2,007member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tazznb View Post


    Even the strongest swimmer will go down in time if they remain tethered to an anchor (which is all AT&T is) Apple is at 4 fingers. When the iphone's excitement wears off, and they come to realize the lousy service they'll drop them like my brother is going to, and he is an Apple support tech. AT&T is the ONLY REASON I refuse to buy an iPhone.



    BTW I know I can't be the only one out here with this opinion, Mr. AT&T employee.



    Well, obviously, service varries by region. However, outside of a dead zone near my in-law's house (which has was fixed several months ago) I find AT&T's coverage in NJ fine. I really have no complaints about coverage where I live, work or travel in the state... go figure!

    And in my place of work, I have significantly better reception than Verizon--I often get "You get service in here??!?" comments from coworkers...







    [full disclosure:] Oh, we had some trouble with data on LBI in the summer for a week too...
  • Reply 22 of 27
    meelashmeelash Posts: 1,045member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    "[It was] speculation only," Marshall said in an e-mail to AppleInsider. "I think [AT&T] had to get something in return (i.e., 6 month extension on iPhone exclusivity)."



    Marshall said he believes it's likely AT&T had to get something in return for offering "such attractive 3G data pricing." AT&T's $30-per-month unlimited data-only plan is half the price of its competitors.



    iPad exclusivity itself is not enough "in return"? This is bogus reasoning, hopefully it is also untrue.
  • Reply 23 of 27
    tazznbtazznb Posts: 54member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post


    Well, obviously, service varries by region. However, outside of a dead zone near my in-law's house (which has was fixed several months ago) I find AT&T's coverage in NJ fine. I really have no complaints about coverage where I live, work or travel in the state... go figure!

    And in my place of work, I have significantly better reception than Verizon--I often get "You get service in here??!?" comments from coworkers...







    [full disclosure:] Oh, we had some trouble with data on LBI in the summer for a week too...



    I drive from North Jersey to South Jersey daily for work, and I've randomly dropped calls EVERYWHERE!



    To make a ten minute call using AT&T takes 25 minutes on my blackberry.



    AT&T is the George W. Bush of the cell phone industry; they've failed at all things.
  • Reply 24 of 27
    crees!crees! Posts: 501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jerseymac View Post


    He's not the only one. I really wanted to get one, but after two years of AT&T service, I just can't. With great regret, I intend to abandon my iPhone as soon as my contract is up next month. My iPhone is a part of me and I don't know how I lived without it, but I can't function with AT&T's service. I just can't complete a phone call in my area.



    Having exclusivity in the phone space may be justifiable because of all this CMDA GSM business. As for the iPad, for Apple to make another product that forces customers to do business with this one telecom is just wrong IMHO. What's next? A new MacBook with a built in antenna that only works with AT&T?



    If this isn't what antitrust laws were created for, I don't know what is.



    Have you called AT&T and told them directly of where the dropped calls happen?
  • Reply 25 of 27
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheRobin View Post


    My wish was that Apple/AT&T would have a subsidized option for the 3G iPad. This would allow the price of the 3G hardware to be several hundred dollars less that it currently is (say $$399 for the 16GB version). Because I'm already an AT&T customer, I wouldn't really mind signing up for a 2 year contract.



    trouble is that so many folks have had a bad time with ATT that they would not want that 2 year contract.



    And since ATT really doesn't want folks using 3g unless they have to, the contract wouldn't make sense. you would be paying every month and using 3g willy nilly instead of what they want which is to sign up only when you really need it, and then dropping it when you don't and using wifi in between. thus sparing their network of more overload



    as for the pricing, it is likely that they had no choice as the ipad is an iphone OS device and not a computer. It is possible that Apple was smart enough to put in the contract that all iphone OS devices would be at that upper limit on price (or less).



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Oldandintheway View Post


    Imagine what sales would have looked like on a competent carrier



    People like to say that but in fact no one can say with any knowledge that had the iphone gone to Verizon instead of ATT (or Sprint or T-Mobile) the outcome wouldn't be the same.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jerseymac View Post


    If this isn't what antitrust laws were created for, I don't know what is.



    you don't understand antitrust if you think this is anything in that realm.



    perhaps it is time to follow the example of Europe and such and drop all carrier/device exclusives. Require devices to cover all the bands appropriate to the style (CDMA v GSM) they wish to use etc. But that is nothing to do with antitrust.



    Antitrust is about artificially impeding competition by abusing the strength of a naturally occurring monopoly to strength something totally unrelated.



    Example. In the 90s, Microsoft's Windows OS by virtue of being 'the best' and 'most available' captured around 90% of the personal computer market. They didn't do anything shady, they just used good business sense in offering OEM etc. Apple and the other boys didn't do this but that's not Microsoft's fault. Trouble was that they got too big for their britches. See they weren't grabbing the market in web software, particularly browsers which were the new hip thing. So they changed their OEM license making it a requirement that the companies instead their web browser and no others figuring if Internet Explorer was already there folks wouldn't bother getting something else. And then as salt to the wound they yanked all access to the appropriate APIs from Netscape and tried to sue them for reverse engineering Windows to get the details. Oops. The courts didn't buy their 'naturally related items' schtick and legally slapped them down.



    Apple went through a similar gig with Psystar who tried to argue that there is a Macintosh computer market and Apple had abusively monopolized it by denying OEM licenses. The courts said no, there's no such market, Hardware and OS software are actually related and thus not inherently abusive to tie and Apple does not have anything close to power in the appropriate market. so anti-trust is out the door.



    With Adobe's alleged lawsuit we might get a judgement on the whole App Store but I suspect that it will come out on Apple's side as a related item. Thus not an antitrust issue.



    and so on.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cxc273 View Post


    I think I'm going to write an update about this as a classic children's story and call it "The Boy Who Cried 'Verizon iPhone!'"



    Come on, Apple, how many first-born children, virgin sacrifices, rain dances, Hail Marys, Mayan calendars, and Nostradamus predictions is it going to take to put the iPhone on Verizon's network?



    One thing that most of these articles don't point out is that Verizon is totally different tech. this isn't like T-Mobile which is GSM but on a different frequency. It's a total flip. It would be like trying to play a laser disc in a blu-ray player.



    Forgetting the contract which supposedly is 5 years (so 2012) the only way Verizon can get the iphone is a total overhaul of their network to GSM, which is mega expensive and time consuming. Or the move to LTE hoping that the iphone goes the same way (which is logical to assume). But the iphone isn't likely to go Verizon LTE until the network is so saturated with coverage that there's no need to drop back to CDMA which will be the backup. Because it just doesn't make any business sense to make a GSM/LTE and a CDMA/LTE line up.



    Heck if you needed a sign that Apple is not going to go CDMA look at China. Probably the worlds biggest CDMA market and yet their iphone is GSM.
  • Reply 26 of 27
    avidfcpavidfcp Posts: 381member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Was there any news here, or was it so subtle (or perhaps I am so dense) that I missed it altogether!?



    Not sure but read an article not to long ago that stated text mash use packets that require nonpower snd here we are being charged twice. If I text my wife on AT&T from my AT&T ohine that's a double fee. Should be illigalls. Hope it's regulated one day. The data pack should be no mote then $10. Other countries get TV. At best. It should be optional. AT&T is working off if greed. Someday the karma will return to them.
  • Reply 27 of 27
    bushman4bushman4 Posts: 862member
    We'll never know AT&Ts deal with APPLE and whether its an extension or a GRACE PERIOD in prep for losingexclusivity.
Sign In or Register to comment.