I wonder if the Verizon iPhone would carry the Verizon logo on it or require a VCast app preinstalled.
What's in it for Verizon?
New subscribers that are data hungry are in it for Verzon.
I can't believe you actually asked if the VZW logo will be on it. Everyone said the Intel logo would be on Mac's, it wasn't, then the AT&T logo, it wasn't, I can guarantee you that Apple won't let any logo on their phone but theirs.
interesting ideas, but the flaw is that the CDMA iPhone is likely the only time when they have to make a second iPhone. By next year, LTE will be in the market and there would only be a case for making an LTE phone to service both Verizon and AT&T in the USA. The remaining market for the CDMA phone is all mostly third world.
They might come out with a single revision of it the CDMA phone at best, there might be two versions of the first round of LTE phones, but after that it's probably history.
That's not quite true.
LTE will take years to reach the number of customers that 3G has now. I believe Verizon set sometime in 2013 for that to happen. And fallback for LTE will be 3G. So an LTE phone will need 3G for years.
C'mon Soli, really? Do you think there's any way that Apple would agree to such restrictive terms?
Yes. There are a lot fo things to consider.
For instance, Apple may not have had any plans to make a CDMA iPhone for the first several years because they wanted to make their supply chain and inventory simpler, or knew they wouldn?t have the facilities to produce the numbers needed so they gave AT&T this even though they wouldn?t have done it anyway. Negotiations are give and take, because the other party does have something you want. Sometimes what isn?t important to you may be important to your competitor, but you want them to think it?s important to you. It?s all part of the game.
Note: We ARE in the 4th year of the iPhone and still only on AT&T in the US so something I stated above is likely in effect.
Also, It?s rumoured that Apple went to AT&T to rip up the contract and start anew without the profit-sharing. This was a huge benefit to AT&T as it meant they didn?t have to pay out for millions of iPhones per month for the full price, but only their cut from each month the iPhone was used for x-duration. It was stated that AT&T then got a little more power int eh negotiations because of this. Who?s to say what they were or weren?t able to squeak out of the deal. For all we know they were able to extend it for 5 years from the new contract date or at least get a several month lead time on new iPhones for an additional 5 years after the US exclusivity is over.
The point is we don?t know any details so we should be cautious about making statements of fact about complex negotiations of Fortune 500 companies.
I'm sure that part of the contract is for AT&T NOT to make the iPhone play second fiddle to Windows Phone 7 and Android. In recent weeks AT&T has been acting like a divorcee and is now trying to nail some W7 and Android chics.
iPhone to VZ has talked about for a long time but unlike before there has never been so much evidence pop out that the iPhone is definitely going to VZ until most recently.
We'll find out soon enough. If January comes and goes without a VZ iPhone then the 5 year deal is still in effect.
No. It could be announced during the first quarter, AFTER the holiday season's sales. Unless the phone is on sale the first of January, Apple would have little reason to announce it. Why? Because it would slow holiday phone sales down for them. Why would they want to do that? It could be more likely they would wait until after the holiday season is over, and then announce the phone, preferably not too long before it's available.
Apple could also have a deal with AT&T that they won't do that.
LTE will take years to reach the number of customers that 3G has now. I believe Verizon set sometime in 2013 for that to happen. And fallback for LTE will be 3G. So an LTE phone will need 3G for years.
As far as I can tell, Verizon and Sprint will still be using CDMA for voice after LTE is live. This makes sense. Even now the only battery test that can beat an iPhone is total voice call time on ?3G?, since they use the more efficient ?2G? for voice even though ?3G? for data is still technically on. And it?s good voice quality, so it would be foolish to jump to LTE for voice out of the gate even if they did a convert to VoIP for their networks.
PS: ITU deemed WiMAX and LTE are not ?4G?. I wonder if that will change the advertising in the US.
Well one things certain, Verizon losing momentum in sales puts Apple in a better position to get the deal aPPLE wants with Verizon if Verizon truly wants the IPHONE.
In any case, everything is pure rumor there is no substantiation. Howevr if they are going to offer the Iphone with another carrier most likely time would be Jan or feb as after that would be to close to the IPHONE5 release.
Well, here is one way to use up all that dry powder for "one or two" strategic acquisitions in the future: "Apple acquires Verizon Mobile in a deal valued at US $XX billion".
It would certainly be one of those great keynote slides with three arrows that the zen master likes to make a narrative out of, "Well, you see, first there was the iPhone and then there was the iPad and well..." the last arrow then points back Apple as having their own mobile phone industrial complex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Verizon is reportedly hiring hundreds of call center staff through third-party hiring companies, stoking speculation that the largest wireless carrier in the U.S. is preparing to launch the iPhone, a new report claims.
Apple can't do that, because they're not an independent company. I don't see it as being a good idea anyway.
As far as I can tell, Verizon and Sprint will still be using CDMA for voice after LTE is live. This makes sense. Even now the only battery test that can beat an iPhone is total voice call time on ‘3G’, since they use the more efficient ‘2G’ for voice even though ‘3G’ for data is still technically on. And it’s good voice quality, so it would be foolish to jump to LTE for voice out of the gate even if they did a convert to VoIP for their networks.
PS: ITU deemed WiMAX and LTE are not ‘4G’. I wonder if that will change the advertising in the US.
In addition, just like 3G when it first came out WiMax and LTE both use a lot more power than do earlier tech. We can see how bad the battery life is for the Sprint WiMax phone, I forget the name of it right now. But because of that poor battery life, it's actually recommended that people keep WiMax turned off. Of course, the phone has poor battery life otherwise as well, but WiMax is one of the biggest drains.
I'm in no rush to get LTE. Unlike 3G over 2 and 2.5G, it won't provide much of a performance boost at first.
Well, I don't care what they say about these services. I guess they'll just talk about LTE, most people have no idea of what any of this means anyway. People just want to know if it's faster, and most people won't even notice the difference.
And since they don't do things the Blackintosh Way, they are morons. and it's his duty to post that everything they do, or are rumored to be doing is total failure
I don't think you are morons. I think you are just confused. Thats why I try to help. What are friends for? As far as total failure, I never talk in extremes, you guys know that. I never use the AI forum favorite slogan "epic fail."
Look, lets cut the crap here. For the past three and a half years there has been feverous discussion of Verizon getting the iPhone. And most of the community here is exceedingly against it. I've always been mystified how people on a stock insider site could feel that way. And I think I've finally figured it out.
It's a fanboy thing. Because Verizon "dissed" Apple back in 07 now they are not worthy to have the iPhone. That's it, isn't it? Why else would normal rational stockholders be against something that should increase Apple's profits, oh say, just a little bit? ? Would that be a fair statement fans?
So now we have a Verizon vs AT&T thing going on here. Kinda like a Ford Chevy thing. Okay, I get it.
You know, there used to be a saying that what was good for General Motors was good for the country. I guess the 2010 version of that saying is "what's good for Apple is good for the country?"
Some of the numbers from last quarter and other insights:
-14.1 iPhones sold last quarter
-5.2 million new AT&T iPhone activations, implying 8.9 million international activations
-Apple claims they can sell all the iPhones they can build
Based on this, I would assume Apple will retain the terms they desire with Verizon or anyone else. I also believe it implies there is still a significant ramp up occurring in iPhone manufacturing to maintain existing channels and new country expansions while adding new channels in the USA.
I could care less how one company is doing vs another. The iPhone should be on all the carriers so it would sell better and make more money for the shareholders. I'm in this for the money.
Apple and Verizon and AT&T are corporations. They are not football teams or rock stars. I don't root for one over the other. I advocate partnering between these companies.
Put the pom poms away. And take off those hot-pants!!!
You see...you make it so difficult for me to like you. I was onboard with what you were saying until your last sentence. It's a shame you have such a problem with communicating well, otherwise people might listen to half of what you say because it can actually make good logical sense, but not when you spew your garbage hate mongering in the same sentence.
I don't think you are morons. I think you are just confused. Thats why I try to help. What are friends for? As far as total failure, I never talk in extremes, you guys know that. I never use the AI forum favorite slogan "epic fail."
Look, lets cut the crap here. For the past three and a half years there has been feverous discussion of Verizon getting the iPhone. And most of the community here is exceedingly against it. I've always been mystified how people on a stock insider site could feel that way. And I think I've finally figured it out.
It's a fanboy thing. Because Verizon "dissed" Apple back in 07 now they are not worthy to have the iPhone. That's it, isn't it? Why else would normal rational stockholders be against something that should increase Apple's profits, oh say, just a little bit? ? Would that be a fair statement fans?
So now we have a Verizon vs AT&T thing going on here. Kinda like a Ford Chevy thing. Okay, I get it.
You know, there used to be a saying that what was good for General Motors was good for the country. I guess the 2010 version of that saying is "what's good for Apple is good for the country?"
First of all, you often do talk in terms of extremes.
Second of all, most of the community here is NOT against Verizon getting the iPhone, though a small proportion are. What we do often see, is people happy that Verizon is getting its comeuppance, which it is. As analysts in the industry are pointing out, Verizon isn't getting a lift from the many Android phones it has, while AT&T is, from the iPhone.
Obviously, when Apple first went to Verizon, likely in early 2006, or late 2005, Apple had had no experience in building a phone, and so Verizon was skeptical. In addition, Verizon was always a high priced service, and was known as being customer unfriendly. When they spurned Apple, and Apple went to AT&T, it was thought of as a risky experiment for AT&T. But, they were willing to try it.
Now, as they say, the shoe is on the other foot. Apple has the upper hand, especially after this blowout 14.1 million iPhone quarter, in which Cook admitted during the call, that Apple could have sold more if they hadn't had been running at 100% manufacturing cap. It's being said that they could have sold at least 15 million, and as much as 16.
Verizon sees the numbers as well as anyone. The chart I linked to, which I hope you did look at, shows why they are having problems. less new customers than expected, vs more than expected for AT&T, all due to the iPhone. This has got to hurt, and investors are likely wondering why verizon isn't going to Apple and begging for the phone.
VZW will be able to sell iPhones to a group of customers, who want an iPhone, but AT&T has neglected to provide 3G coverage. To this day. And I'm one of them.
VZW will be able to sell iPhones to a group of customers, who want an iPhone, but AT&T has neglected to provide 3G coverage. To this day. And I'm one of them.
It isn't even so much the coverage issue, though that's part of it. It's also the company phone problem. Companies go with one phone company or another. For those on Verizon, an employee may be allowed to use their own phone, but only on that network. Both companies have millions of people on company plans.
Comments
I wonder if the Verizon iPhone would carry the Verizon logo on it or require a VCast app preinstalled.
What's in it for Verizon?
New subscribers that are data hungry are in it for Verzon.
I can't believe you actually asked if the VZW logo will be on it. Everyone said the Intel logo would be on Mac's, it wasn't, then the AT&T logo, it wasn't, I can guarantee you that Apple won't let any logo on their phone but theirs.
interesting ideas, but the flaw is that the CDMA iPhone is likely the only time when they have to make a second iPhone. By next year, LTE will be in the market and there would only be a case for making an LTE phone to service both Verizon and AT&T in the USA. The remaining market for the CDMA phone is all mostly third world.
They might come out with a single revision of it the CDMA phone at best, there might be two versions of the first round of LTE phones, but after that it's probably history.
That's not quite true.
LTE will take years to reach the number of customers that 3G has now. I believe Verizon set sometime in 2013 for that to happen. And fallback for LTE will be 3G. So an LTE phone will need 3G for years.
C'mon Soli, really? Do you think there's any way that Apple would agree to such restrictive terms?
Yes. There are a lot fo things to consider.
For instance, Apple may not have had any plans to make a CDMA iPhone for the first several years because they wanted to make their supply chain and inventory simpler, or knew they wouldn?t have the facilities to produce the numbers needed so they gave AT&T this even though they wouldn?t have done it anyway. Negotiations are give and take, because the other party does have something you want. Sometimes what isn?t important to you may be important to your competitor, but you want them to think it?s important to you. It?s all part of the game.
Note: We ARE in the 4th year of the iPhone and still only on AT&T in the US so something I stated above is likely in effect.
Also, It?s rumoured that Apple went to AT&T to rip up the contract and start anew without the profit-sharing. This was a huge benefit to AT&T as it meant they didn?t have to pay out for millions of iPhones per month for the full price, but only their cut from each month the iPhone was used for x-duration. It was stated that AT&T then got a little more power int eh negotiations because of this. Who?s to say what they were or weren?t able to squeak out of the deal. For all we know they were able to extend it for 5 years from the new contract date or at least get a several month lead time on new iPhones for an additional 5 years after the US exclusivity is over.
The point is we don?t know any details so we should be cautious about making statements of fact about complex negotiations of Fortune 500 companies.
I'm sure that part of the contract is for AT&T NOT to make the iPhone play second fiddle to Windows Phone 7 and Android. In recent weeks AT&T has been acting like a divorcee and is now trying to nail some W7 and Android chics.
iPhone to VZ has talked about for a long time but unlike before there has never been so much evidence pop out that the iPhone is definitely going to VZ until most recently.
We'll find out soon enough. If January comes and goes without a VZ iPhone then the 5 year deal is still in effect.
No. It could be announced during the first quarter, AFTER the holiday season's sales. Unless the phone is on sale the first of January, Apple would have little reason to announce it. Why? Because it would slow holiday phone sales down for them. Why would they want to do that? It could be more likely they would wait until after the holiday season is over, and then announce the phone, preferably not too long before it's available.
Apple could also have a deal with AT&T that they won't do that.
That's not quite true.
LTE will take years to reach the number of customers that 3G has now. I believe Verizon set sometime in 2013 for that to happen. And fallback for LTE will be 3G. So an LTE phone will need 3G for years.
As far as I can tell, Verizon and Sprint will still be using CDMA for voice after LTE is live. This makes sense. Even now the only battery test that can beat an iPhone is total voice call time on ?3G?, since they use the more efficient ?2G? for voice even though ?3G? for data is still technically on. And it?s good voice quality, so it would be foolish to jump to LTE for voice out of the gate even if they did a convert to VoIP for their networks.
PS: ITU deemed WiMAX and LTE are not ?4G?. I wonder if that will change the advertising in the US.
In any case, everything is pure rumor there is no substantiation. Howevr if they are going to offer the Iphone with another carrier most likely time would be Jan or feb as after that would be to close to the IPHONE5 release.
Well, here is one way to use up all that dry powder for "one or two" strategic acquisitions in the future: "Apple acquires Verizon Mobile in a deal valued at US $XX billion".
It would certainly be one of those great keynote slides with three arrows that the zen master likes to make a narrative out of, "Well, you see, first there was the iPhone and then there was the iPad and well..." the last arrow then points back Apple as having their own mobile phone industrial complex.
Verizon is reportedly hiring hundreds of call center staff through third-party hiring companies, stoking speculation that the largest wireless carrier in the U.S. is preparing to launch the iPhone, a new report claims.
Apple can't do that, because they're not an independent company. I don't see it as being a good idea anyway.
$1,500 or so per new-iPhone customer. The contract is where they make the money.
So 2M Verizon iPhone customers are worth 3B in sales to Verizon. Or about 1B+/- or so in revenue.
Sales and revenue are the same thing.
As far as I can tell, Verizon and Sprint will still be using CDMA for voice after LTE is live. This makes sense. Even now the only battery test that can beat an iPhone is total voice call time on ‘3G’, since they use the more efficient ‘2G’ for voice even though ‘3G’ for data is still technically on. And it’s good voice quality, so it would be foolish to jump to LTE for voice out of the gate even if they did a convert to VoIP for their networks.
PS: ITU deemed WiMAX and LTE are not ‘4G’. I wonder if that will change the advertising in the US.
In addition, just like 3G when it first came out WiMax and LTE both use a lot more power than do earlier tech. We can see how bad the battery life is for the Sprint WiMax phone, I forget the name of it right now. But because of that poor battery life, it's actually recommended that people keep WiMax turned off. Of course, the phone has poor battery life otherwise as well, but WiMax is one of the biggest drains.
I'm in no rush to get LTE. Unlike 3G over 2 and 2.5G, it won't provide much of a performance boost at first.
Well, I don't care what they say about these services. I guess they'll just talk about LTE, most people have no idea of what any of this means anyway. People just want to know if it's faster, and most people won't even notice the difference.
And since they don't do things the Blackintosh Way, they are morons. and it's his duty to post that everything they do, or are rumored to be doing is total failure
I don't think you are morons. I think you are just confused. Thats why I try to help. What are friends for? As far as total failure, I never talk in extremes, you guys know that. I never use the AI forum favorite slogan "epic fail."
Look, lets cut the crap here. For the past three and a half years there has been feverous discussion of Verizon getting the iPhone. And most of the community here is exceedingly against it. I've always been mystified how people on a stock insider site could feel that way. And I think I've finally figured it out.
It's a fanboy thing. Because Verizon "dissed" Apple back in 07 now they are not worthy to have the iPhone. That's it, isn't it? Why else would normal rational stockholders be against something that should increase Apple's profits, oh say, just a little bit? ? Would that be a fair statement fans?
So now we have a Verizon vs AT&T thing going on here. Kinda like a Ford Chevy thing. Okay, I get it.
You know, there used to be a saying that what was good for General Motors was good for the country. I guess the 2010 version of that saying is "what's good for Apple is good for the country?"
...I never talk in extremes...
You can?t get any more extreme than an absolute.
You can?t get any more extreme than an absolute.
Never Say Never Again. Great Bond movie. Think I'll rent it on Apple TV tonight. Kim Basinger.
-14.1 iPhones sold last quarter
-5.2 million new AT&T iPhone activations, implying 8.9 million international activations
-Apple claims they can sell all the iPhones they can build
Based on this, I would assume Apple will retain the terms they desire with Verizon or anyone else. I also believe it implies there is still a significant ramp up occurring in iPhone manufacturing to maintain existing channels and new country expansions while adding new channels in the USA.
I could care less how one company is doing vs another. The iPhone should be on all the carriers so it would sell better and make more money for the shareholders. I'm in this for the money.
Apple and Verizon and AT&T are corporations. They are not football teams or rock stars. I don't root for one over the other. I advocate partnering between these companies.
Put the pom poms away. And take off those hot-pants!!!
You see...you make it so difficult for me to like you. I was onboard with what you were saying until your last sentence. It's a shame you have such a problem with communicating well, otherwise people might listen to half of what you say because it can actually make good logical sense, but not when you spew your garbage hate mongering in the same sentence.
Anything ... As long as it isn't the "Can you hear me now?" ad
Ok, I don't know why, but I LOVE those Ads.
? Worst Job Ever ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvHFqhi3aoU
I don't think you are morons. I think you are just confused. Thats why I try to help. What are friends for? As far as total failure, I never talk in extremes, you guys know that. I never use the AI forum favorite slogan "epic fail."
Look, lets cut the crap here. For the past three and a half years there has been feverous discussion of Verizon getting the iPhone. And most of the community here is exceedingly against it. I've always been mystified how people on a stock insider site could feel that way. And I think I've finally figured it out.
It's a fanboy thing. Because Verizon "dissed" Apple back in 07 now they are not worthy to have the iPhone. That's it, isn't it? Why else would normal rational stockholders be against something that should increase Apple's profits, oh say, just a little bit? ? Would that be a fair statement fans?
So now we have a Verizon vs AT&T thing going on here. Kinda like a Ford Chevy thing. Okay, I get it.
You know, there used to be a saying that what was good for General Motors was good for the country. I guess the 2010 version of that saying is "what's good for Apple is good for the country?"
First of all, you often do talk in terms of extremes.
Second of all, most of the community here is NOT against Verizon getting the iPhone, though a small proportion are. What we do often see, is people happy that Verizon is getting its comeuppance, which it is. As analysts in the industry are pointing out, Verizon isn't getting a lift from the many Android phones it has, while AT&T is, from the iPhone.
Obviously, when Apple first went to Verizon, likely in early 2006, or late 2005, Apple had had no experience in building a phone, and so Verizon was skeptical. In addition, Verizon was always a high priced service, and was known as being customer unfriendly. When they spurned Apple, and Apple went to AT&T, it was thought of as a risky experiment for AT&T. But, they were willing to try it.
Now, as they say, the shoe is on the other foot. Apple has the upper hand, especially after this blowout 14.1 million iPhone quarter, in which Cook admitted during the call, that Apple could have sold more if they hadn't had been running at 100% manufacturing cap. It's being said that they could have sold at least 15 million, and as much as 16.
Verizon sees the numbers as well as anyone. The chart I linked to, which I hope you did look at, shows why they are having problems. less new customers than expected, vs more than expected for AT&T, all due to the iPhone. This has got to hurt, and investors are likely wondering why verizon isn't going to Apple and begging for the phone.
? Worst Job Ever ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvHFqhi3aoU
Very good. Unfortunately, there are people I can't send that to because of the language.
What's in it for Verizon?
VZW will be able to sell iPhones to a group of customers, who want an iPhone, but AT&T has neglected to provide 3G coverage. To this day. And I'm one of them.
Sales and revenue are the same thing.
Sorry, my mistake. I meant profit.
VZW will be able to sell iPhones to a group of customers, who want an iPhone, but AT&T has neglected to provide 3G coverage. To this day. And I'm one of them.
It isn't even so much the coverage issue, though that's part of it. It's also the company phone problem. Companies go with one phone company or another. For those on Verizon, an employee may be allowed to use their own phone, but only on that network. Both companies have millions of people on company plans.