The analyst also questioned why Apple and Verizon would finally make a deal now, if the rumors prove true. Numerous mainstream media outlets have independently reported that the iPhone will debut on Verizon in early 2011.
Reiner speculated that Apple has been motivated by a desire to slow Android, though he admitted Verizon's inspiration is "less clear." He said perhaps Apple offered an exclusive long-term evolution 4G phone to the carrier, or in an "unlikely" move, perhaps Apple "caved on price.
"Why make the deal now?"... Maybe, Apple's exclusivity agreement with AT&T is coming to a conclusion, allowing Apple to look for other carriers to broaden sales? Just a thought, but hey, who is the analyst here? Anyone know of this guys track record when it comes to being correct regarding his prognostications? Just say'n... why anyone would question the motives of a cellular phone carrier for wanting to carry a phone, especially the smart phone that started it all, seems pretty obvious or am I over simplifying the matter?
i want more info on vz "paying" not to have other carriers to have the iphone,
i guess its more than a "network" that they need. once people heard that iphone is coming, market for android drops, they see any carrier with the iphone a threat
where is the corroboration for payoffs, i guess vz is desperate for the real thing
How will you make a voice call? LTE is data only. CDMA mandatory for voice. This also applies to Sprint's 4G tech as well.
Also, Apple didn't have respect already? Guess not. Idiot wall street.
Not sure what you are referring to. Maybe at first geeky customers will carry two phones one CDMA as back up the other LTE. Verizon has begun advertising LTE, at least in my area, as of the last couple months.
Most of them unfortunately. They don't understand what is being said, therefore it must be wrong.
I think it is more to the point that anyone with 1/2 a brain can figure out that Apple is alreadly highly respected by Wallstreet ( or at least should be...)
Quoting a bunch of Wallstreet babble was simply not necessary in this case.
Not sure what you are referring to. Maybe at first geeky customers will carry two phones one CDMA as back up the other LTE. Verizon has begun advertising LTE, at least in my area, as of the last couple months.
No, LTE in its current iteration is still only for data. When a voice call comes in, it goes back to CDMA. There is no specification to carry voice traffic over LTE. It will be one phone, but with LTE and CDMA built in if they even release an LTE model this year.
You can't carry a backup LTE phone if it only does data.
How about Wall Street getting back the respect of PEOPLE first?
Apple "caved on price"? Analysts are so funny; not a single one knows anything. They exist for the purpose of satire, right? No other reason, right? Because I've not taken a single one seriously for three years.
Not sure what you are referring to. Maybe at first geeky customers will carry two phones one CDMA as back up the other LTE. Verizon has begun advertising LTE, at least in my area, as of the last couple months.
He's referring to the fact that, as clearly stated, LTE in its current form is incapable of handling voice calls. Therefore, if the iPhone were LTE-only, it would ONLY be able to do data, and ONLY in areas where LTE is live (next to nothing right now compared to CDMA or GSM). Hence the fact that an LTE-only device would be pointless.
I think it is more to the point that anyone with 1/2 a brain can figure out that Apple is alreadly highly respected by Wallstreet ( or at least should be...)
Quoting a bunch of Wallstreet babble was simply not necessary in this case.
Let's put it this way... Apple should be well respected on Wall Street but with an earnings multiple of 14 it says that WS doesn't respect Apple. To me that says one of two things... a) Apple actually doesn't deserve WS's respect or b) Wall Street is full of shit... I choose B...
I think it is more to the point that anyone with 1/2 a brain can figure out that Apple is alreadly highly respected by Wallstreet ( or at least should be...)
Quoting a bunch of Wallstreet babble was simply not necessary in this case.
No, it would be completely missing the point. Most of the posters in this thread don't understand what the analyst is saying, which is entirely right, and instead of trying to understand it, are obsessing over the one word.
Let's put it this way... Apple should be well respected on Wall Street but with an earnings multiple of 14 it says that WS doesn't respect Apple. To me that says one of two things... a) Apple actually doesn't deserve WS's respect or b) Wall Street is full of shit... I choose B...
Howling at the moon might be emotionally satisfying, but it has no effect on the moon.
Howling at the moon might be emotionally satisfying, but it has no effect on the moon.
Yeah... but you're full of shit too... you should have caught the low p/e ratio of 14... it's actually 21.5 which is on par with other growth companies.
[on edit - ...and I enjoy the money I make going counter to the "analysts"]
He's referring to the fact that, as clearly stated, LTE in its current form is incapable of handling voice calls. Therefore, if the iPhone were LTE-only, it would ONLY be able to do data, and ONLY in areas where LTE is live (next to nothing right now compared to CDMA or GSM). Hence the fact that an LTE-only device would be pointless.
Thanks. Spent some time reading up on it. My misunderstanding. VZ says by 2012 they will have voice over LTE, hence the name long term evolution I guess. So if a handset needs two protocols to be LTE compatible, even the GSM iPhone is going to need two to utilize LTE. Right? Or is AT&T going to have voice and data over LTE before VZ?
How about Wall Street getting back the respect of PEOPLE first?
Apple "caved on price"? Analysts are so funny; not a single one knows anything. They exist for the purpose of satire, right? No other reason, right? Because I've not taken a single one seriously for three years.
Analysts turned to sheep long time back and there no one to stop until they are made deprived of the the cash that comes as part of their bull-shitting!
Comments
The analyst also questioned why Apple and Verizon would finally make a deal now, if the rumors prove true. Numerous mainstream media outlets have independently reported that the iPhone will debut on Verizon in early 2011.
Reiner speculated that Apple has been motivated by a desire to slow Android, though he admitted Verizon's inspiration is "less clear." He said perhaps Apple offered an exclusive long-term evolution 4G phone to the carrier, or in an "unlikely" move, perhaps Apple "caved on price.
"Why make the deal now?"... Maybe, Apple's exclusivity agreement with AT&T is coming to a conclusion, allowing Apple to look for other carriers to broaden sales? Just a thought, but hey, who is the analyst here? Anyone know of this guys track record when it comes to being correct regarding his prognostications? Just say'n... why anyone would question the motives of a cellular phone carrier for wanting to carry a phone, especially the smart phone that started it all, seems pretty obvious or am I over simplifying the matter?
R-E-S-P-E-C-T! You go Aretha Franklin!
I hope it is LTE only. That would make it the must have geek device.
How will you make a voice call? LTE is data only. CDMA mandatory for voice. This also applies to Sprint's 4G tech as well.
Also, Apple didn't have respect already? Guess not. Idiot wall street.
i guess its more than a "network" that they need. once people heard that iphone is coming, market for android drops, they see any carrier with the iphone a threat
where is the corroboration for payoffs, i guess vz is desperate for the real thing
So I guess a stock climbing to over $300 per share in one of the worst economic times ever was not enough to earn their respect??????
And being vaulted to the second biggest company on Earth... Yeah, they really need to gain "respect" from a bunch of know-nothings...
thanks for an educated post. there are too many "that guy is stupid" posts from people who don't know what they're talking about.
Most of them unfortunately. They don't understand what is being said, therefore it must be wrong.
How will you make a voice call? LTE is data only. CDMA mandatory for voice. This also applies to Sprint's 4G tech as well.
Also, Apple didn't have respect already? Guess not. Idiot wall street.
Not sure what you are referring to. Maybe at first geeky customers will carry two phones one CDMA as back up the other LTE. Verizon has begun advertising LTE, at least in my area, as of the last couple months.
Most of them unfortunately. They don't understand what is being said, therefore it must be wrong.
I think it is more to the point that anyone with 1/2 a brain can figure out that Apple is alreadly highly respected by Wallstreet ( or at least should be...)
Quoting a bunch of Wallstreet babble was simply not necessary in this case.
Not sure what you are referring to. Maybe at first geeky customers will carry two phones one CDMA as back up the other LTE. Verizon has begun advertising LTE, at least in my area, as of the last couple months.
No, LTE in its current iteration is still only for data. When a voice call comes in, it goes back to CDMA. There is no specification to carry voice traffic over LTE. It will be one phone, but with LTE and CDMA built in if they even release an LTE model this year.
You can't carry a backup LTE phone if it only does data.
How about Wall Street getting back the respect of PEOPLE first?
Apple "caved on price"? Analysts are so funny; not a single one knows anything. They exist for the purpose of satire, right? No other reason, right? Because I've not taken a single one seriously for three years.
Not sure what you are referring to. Maybe at first geeky customers will carry two phones one CDMA as back up the other LTE. Verizon has begun advertising LTE, at least in my area, as of the last couple months.
He's referring to the fact that, as clearly stated, LTE in its current form is incapable of handling voice calls. Therefore, if the iPhone were LTE-only, it would ONLY be able to do data, and ONLY in areas where LTE is live (next to nothing right now compared to CDMA or GSM). Hence the fact that an LTE-only device would be pointless.
I think it is more to the point that anyone with 1/2 a brain can figure out that Apple is alreadly highly respected by Wallstreet ( or at least should be...)
Quoting a bunch of Wallstreet babble was simply not necessary in this case.
Let's put it this way... Apple should be well respected on Wall Street but with an earnings multiple of 14 it says that WS doesn't respect Apple. To me that says one of two things... a) Apple actually doesn't deserve WS's respect or b) Wall Street is full of shit... I choose B...
I think it is more to the point that anyone with 1/2 a brain can figure out that Apple is alreadly highly respected by Wallstreet ( or at least should be...)
Quoting a bunch of Wallstreet babble was simply not necessary in this case.
No, it would be completely missing the point. Most of the posters in this thread don't understand what the analyst is saying, which is entirely right, and instead of trying to understand it, are obsessing over the one word.
I hope it is LTE only. That would make it the must have geek device.
geeks wont make good numbers..
Let's put it this way... Apple should be well respected on Wall Street but with an earnings multiple of 14 it says that WS doesn't respect Apple. To me that says one of two things... a) Apple actually doesn't deserve WS's respect or b) Wall Street is full of shit... I choose B...
Howling at the moon might be emotionally satisfying, but it has no effect on the moon.
Howling at the moon might be emotionally satisfying, but it has no effect on the moon.
Yeah... but you're full of shit too... you should have caught the low p/e ratio of 14... it's actually 21.5 which is on par with other growth companies.
[on edit - ...and I enjoy the money I make going counter to the "analysts"]
He's referring to the fact that, as clearly stated, LTE in its current form is incapable of handling voice calls. Therefore, if the iPhone were LTE-only, it would ONLY be able to do data, and ONLY in areas where LTE is live (next to nothing right now compared to CDMA or GSM). Hence the fact that an LTE-only device would be pointless.
Thanks. Spent some time reading up on it. My misunderstanding. VZ says by 2012 they will have voice over LTE, hence the name long term evolution I guess. So if a handset needs two protocols to be LTE compatible, even the GSM iPhone is going to need two to utilize LTE. Right? Or is AT&T going to have voice and data over LTE before VZ?
"Respect" on Wall Street?!
How about Wall Street getting back the respect of PEOPLE first?
Apple "caved on price"? Analysts are so funny; not a single one knows anything. They exist for the purpose of satire, right? No other reason, right? Because I've not taken a single one seriously for three years.
Analysts turned to sheep long time back and there no one to stop until they are made deprived of the the cash that comes as part of their bull-shitting!