No one is saying Apple should only have built a CDMA version of the iPhone. Why don't you explain to us why you think Apple couldn't have built both, like they are going to now.
It was a new product in a new category, so Apple chose to build for the largest worldwide market, which wasn't CDMA then or now.
if Apple had built both versions to start with who knows how long the iPhone would have been constrained since both versions use many of the same parts and the GSM version is still in tight supply.
Business 101 It is better to attempt to sell to one market and try to do it well, than to attempt to address two markets and do poorly in both. Based on the supply constraint issues the iPhone (especially the iPhone 4) has suffered through, there is no way Apple could have supported both markets initially.
We get it. Apple is not perfect! My world just came crashing down on me. Damn you! Rot'nApple.
Apparently, you don't get it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin
But you forgot, the Apple III, OpenDoc and Copland! Also the Pippin' and eWorld!
And you forgot Gil Amelio. Sorry my selected few were so boring to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin
You seem to mention this in just about every one of your posts.
Really?! Now who is speaking out of blind ignorance! I dare you to find from my 1,125 posts just 1 percent where I 'seem to mention this in just about every one of my posts'. It's only 10 posts aside from this one. Prove it. Back up your point!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin
With a user name like "Rot'nApple" I can't imagine why anyone would ever take you seriously - you obvious have a biased opinion and because of that, have somehow let emotion get in the way of logic.
And you are biased in your opinion and are talking out of your ass for even presuming to know the meaning behind my username. Again, talk about your blind ignorance...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin
Sorry, but to be anti-something as you are takes as much blind-ignorance and energy as it does to be a zealot or raving fanboy. They are the same, just on opposite sides.
Apparently you have no idea what the hell you are talking about, but when you review my posts looking for at least those 10 where "I seem to mention this in just about every one of my posts", you might be singing a different tune. However, it seems that, you like to leap before you look.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin
"Vaporware" is a term applied to ANNOUNCED products that NEVER materialize in the time frame given. It does not apply to products that have never been announced or promised to customers. Until that time this is usually referred to as R&D (research and development). Your use of vaporware is just a negative connotation in an attempt to belittle Apple's development efforts.
Thanks for the definition... Here's one for you. "Conspiracy" - any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. Wow. Just... wow! You would actually read my stated "Conspiracy Theory" that is filled with wild, absurd assumptions and presumptions, that one with any intelligence or at least one who has any familiarity with my posting ways, again there is that 'blind ignorance' popping up its ugly head, would know the difference between a factual, debatable, argumentative post or a presumptive, assumptive, absurd or humorous post that I might make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin
It was an unseen device at the time because it was still under development. Steve Jobs himself said they started out designing an OS for a tablet and realized they could build a phone around it. I'm guessing they didn't start designing the hardware until after they had a carrier as a partner, which makes absolute sense. Why waste time and money on developing a prototype for product that requires a partnership with an outside company until you know who that partner is going to be and what tech is needed to build it? Simple really.
Isn't that what I said?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin
Here's my two cents.
Keep it. You need change!
If the position for Sherif in Pima County, Arizona, ever became available, you should go for it. You're overly qualified!
I haven't done this much explaining since, I don't know when, and I would explain my username and where I stand in the Apple troll versus fanboy status, but you can learn that from your research. Apparently something you did very little of in response to my post. If that Sherif deal doesn't work out, there is always Congress where you would do well. It's another position where you don't have to research and can speak from blind ignorance.
Sure did seem to be a lot of people over the years, authoritatively declaring on these boards that Apple went to Verizon first and got told to go take a hike. Crazy old control freak Jobs overstepped his bounds and had to go plead his case to AT&T after Verizon showed him the door, or so the story went.
No worries, though-- this bit of urban legend will still be dredged up whenever and wherever Apple haters have an axe to grind, till the end of time.
What part of the interview left you with the impression he said Apple didn't go to Verizon first? He doesn't say either way. What he does say is "And because Apple was more focused on a single technology—the GSM technology—they chose AT&T. We had good discussions with them, but it was clear to us that they weren't looking to make a device for both sets of technologies."
No implication whether those discussions were before or after discussions with AT&T started, but certainly the timeframe he is discussing is prior to the iPhone launch. This, together with the interview with Jim Gerace, a Verizon VP that was actually there at the time, unlike Rose, show it is pretty clear that Verizon was in discussion with Apple about the original iPhone before AT&T was finally selected. Maybe Apple was only toying with V to get AT&T to bite and make the necessary concessions. But, it is impossible to make the leap that Verizion was not approached first. All we can say is that the were approached before AT&T was announced as Apple's partner.
What part of the interview left you with the impression he said Apple didn't go to Verizon first? He doesn't say either way. What he does say is "And because Apple was more focused on a single technology—the GSM technology—they chose AT&T. We had good discussions with them, but it was clear to us that they weren't looking to make a device for both sets of technologies."
No implication whether those discussions were before or after discussions with AT&T started, but certainly the timeframe he is discussing is prior to the iPhone launch. This, together with the interview with Jim Gerace, a Verizon VP that was actually there at the time, unlike Rose, show it is pretty clear that Verizon was in discussion with Apple about the original iPhone before AT&T was finally selected. Maybe Apple was only toying with V to get AT&T to bite and make the necessary concessions. But, it is impossible to make the leap that Verizion was not approached first. All we can say is that the were approached before AT&T was announced as Apple's partner.
Well, let's see:
Quote:
And because Apple was more focused on a single technology—the GSM technology—they chose AT&T. We had good discussions with them, but it was clear to us that they weren't looking to make a device for both sets of technologies.
Quote:
Did you think they made unreasonable demands at the time?
No. That was all part of the sort of mating dance they were going through. But most of that [was] used not against us, but used against the carriers they ended up signing with, all right? So no, I didn't think the terms were all that serious because we were never in the running.
So according to the CEO of the company (who was certainly "there", not sure what you mean about Rose), Apple discussed the iPhone with them prior to launch but they were never really under consideration as a partner because Apple wanted one carrier per market, and they wanted that carrier to be GSM. That seems pretty clear to me.
And it the very least it doesn't square with the notion that Apple came to Verizon first and was spurned because of Apple's onerous terms.
So according to the CEO of the company (who was certainly "there", not sure what you mean about Rose), Apple discussed the iPhone with them prior to launch but they were never really under consideration as a partner because Apple wanted one carrier per market, and they wanted that carrier to be GSM. That seems pretty clear to me.
And it the very least it doesn't square with the notion that Apple came to Verizon first and was spurned because of Apple's onerous terms.
Well, it certainly does nothing to dispel the idea that Apple went to Verizon first. There is no way to take that from the snippets of the interview available. That they were never in the running doesn't mean they weren't approached first, second or third. It doesn't imply where they were in line, one way or another.
What we do have, is a CEO talking about their relationship with Apple, a brand new and very important partner for them. He isn't going to go stepping on any toes. We also have an interview with Gerace, done in the actual time period before the original iPhone launch. From that interview, we know Verizon's feelings at the time, when they would not have been as concerned with their relationship with Apple.
"We said no. We have nothing bad to say about the Apple iPhone. We just couldn't reach a deal that was mutually beneficial."
"They would have been stepping in between us and our customers to the point where we would have almost had to take a back seat … on hardware and service support"
I think Apple did make demands that Verizon wouldn't have accepted back then, even if they were willing to CDMA. Those demands were necessary for the plans Apple had and I think beneficial to the consumers. They were revolutionary at the time. AT&T made concessions, there really is no denying that. That doesn't mean Verizon dropped the negotiations because of Jobs or Apple being demanding control freaks. They likely said no simply because of the technology differences. But to claim this interview does anything to dispel the 'myth' of Apple/Jobs being control freaks just doesn't work. Jobs is a control freak. Always has been. That is a big, big part of what makes him great.
First, thanks a lot for you replies! I know it's time consuming...
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilM
You don't reveal where you're located, but I've never had any problem worth worrying about with AT&T coverage, either where I live or in the various places to which I've traveled, since switching to them from VZ over 2 years ago. And VZ is clearly the dominant carrier in my area.
This isn't to say that other people's coverage issues aren't real, only to point out that they aren't universal. Dare I add that people in NYC may be more vocal than average when they're not happy?
All that said, US cellular coverage overall is pathetic compared to that in western Europe.
I'm in NYC Area... My VZ, Treo 700p has good reception, but I do get drop calls even when talking to other VZ friends (not iPhone) when they are on Long Island... So VZ isn't perfect...
When I talk to ATT friends, who are on iPhone, drop calls are almost a norm...
Today I spoke to a non-iPhone friend in SF, zip 94122 http://bit.ly/gQuC9B, and I was near my home in NYC, where VZ is very reliable, we got disconnected 4-5 times... In their own SF house, their ATT signal is bad...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
Verizon's CDMA network may never have simultaneous voice and data. The original poster's statement that LTE will be data only until the end of 2012 means that at that point the LTE network will handle voice and data simultaneously.
The real question is whether Apple would ever make an iPhone that has both CDMA and LTE. That would then get you your simultaneous voice (via CDMA) and data (via LTE).
I think it's a toss-up if that will happen. It might be too early (technologically speaking) to expect at CDMA/LTE iPhone in 2011. They could do it in 2012, but would they do it for only one year if the expectation is that in 2013 Verizon's network will be ready for an LTE-only phone?
I agree with your points... It's also doubtful if VZ will Invest in outdated Tech, and Upgrade theri CDMA for Simultaneous Voice & Data... At the same time, it might be worth it for Apple to do iPhone that has both CDMA and LTE even in 2012, since Apple's CDMA iPhone roll outs in other CDMA countries around the world is later than Verizon, and those countries are not going to switch to 4G overnight... So, Apple might have to do it, in order to keep Android and others in check, but not given those competitors a breathing room!
Quote:
Originally Posted by CEOstevie
Eventually, it is likely that ATT will start carrying some good Android phones. My guess is sooner rather than later. None of them are famous for signal attenuation, detuning or dropped calls. It is also likely that Apple will fix the antenna problems on the ATT iPhone eventually.
Hang in there.
Android is not even an option for me... Why would I want to do that, and "re-invent the wheel", when nothing works better with Mac OS than their own iPhone! Ready-made Integration, Best Tech Support, vs. Android = Who You Gonna Call, Ghostbusters !!!!!?????? But..., I am not gonna call you a Troll... ! I am grateful to anyone who spent time answering my Q!!! Really, no BS!!!
If you like to tinker with your phone for some specific feature that you can't find on iPhone, than go ahead... I'm pretty picky myself too, but, I am not gonna have my life revolve around A PHONE, which is supposed to be just another APPLIANCE, like a refrigerator etc!
Of course, if one is on Windows, and doesn't care much about integration of their Smart Phone with their computer, and the Cloud, then maybe Android is for them. But even then, they better have a bunch of friends for tech support, which would still be no match for Mac Echo System! But, everyone is free to make their choice!!!
To end on a Peacful Note... I heard a funny line on TV....
With Phone Wars Coming, TV ads etc, now that iPhone is no longer ATT exclusive, it's going to be like Coke vs. Pepsi all over again! Except, VZ vs. ATT is a Fight To Early to Call!!!!
By March 2011 or so, we'll know how well VZ does with iPhone.... Soon after it'll be Macbook Pro Upgrade, and almost time for WWDC in June, where the Next iPhone will be announced!!! So, it's beginning to look like I'd wait till then, even though I am way to eager to do it all, but.... Definitely not before Macbook Pro Upgrade...
10.7 Lion I'll wait for 10.7.1 and I don't mind paying for that OS, and sit out the 1st wave of a New OS! To wait for 10.7 and then do iPhone, 10.4.11 - 10.7 Upgrade and Migration to MBP ??all at the same time?? would be crazy!
Again, thanks a lot for you replies! I know it's time consuming...
See the Non Technical discussions took way longer then the technical, and at least VZ admitted they were the ones stroking Apple for years not the other way around. As I said before this is way more important to VZ than Apple, then again this could give apple a proving ground for LTE, but as we know VZ LTE is data only till then end of 2012... so will will have to see, Maybe the ipad 2 will be LTE on VZ.
Comments
No one is saying Apple should only have built a CDMA version of the iPhone. Why don't you explain to us why you think Apple couldn't have built both, like they are going to now.
It was a new product in a new category, so Apple chose to build for the largest worldwide market, which wasn't CDMA then or now.
if Apple had built both versions to start with who knows how long the iPhone would have been constrained since both versions use many of the same parts and the GSM version is still in tight supply.
Business 101 It is better to attempt to sell to one market and try to do it well, than to attempt to address two markets and do poorly in both. Based on the supply constraint issues the iPhone (especially the iPhone 4) has suffered through, there is no way Apple could have supported both markets initially.
We get it. Apple is not perfect! My world just came crashing down on me. Damn you! Rot'nApple.
Apparently, you don't get it!
But you forgot, the Apple III, OpenDoc and Copland! Also the Pippin' and eWorld!
And you forgot Gil Amelio. Sorry my selected few were so boring to you.
You seem to mention this in just about every one of your posts.
Really?! Now who is speaking out of blind ignorance! I dare you to find from my 1,125 posts just 1 percent where I 'seem to mention this in just about every one of my posts'. It's only 10 posts aside from this one. Prove it. Back up your point!
With a user name like "Rot'nApple" I can't imagine why anyone would ever take you seriously - you obvious have a biased opinion and because of that, have somehow let emotion get in the way of logic.
And you are biased in your opinion and are talking out of your ass for even presuming to know the meaning behind my username. Again, talk about your blind ignorance...
Sorry, but to be anti-something as you are takes as much blind-ignorance and energy as it does to be a zealot or raving fanboy. They are the same, just on opposite sides.
Apparently you have no idea what the hell you are talking about, but when you review my posts looking for at least those 10 where "I seem to mention this in just about every one of my posts", you might be singing a different tune. However, it seems that, you like to leap before you look.
"Vaporware" is a term applied to ANNOUNCED products that NEVER materialize in the time frame given. It does not apply to products that have never been announced or promised to customers. Until that time this is usually referred to as R&D (research and development). Your use of vaporware is just a negative connotation in an attempt to belittle Apple's development efforts.
Thanks for the definition... Here's one for you. "Conspiracy" - any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. Wow. Just... wow! You would actually read my stated "Conspiracy Theory" that is filled with wild, absurd assumptions and presumptions, that one with any intelligence or at least one who has any familiarity with my posting ways, again there is that 'blind ignorance' popping up its ugly head, would know the difference between a factual, debatable, argumentative post or a presumptive, assumptive, absurd or humorous post that I might make.
It was an unseen device at the time because it was still under development. Steve Jobs himself said they started out designing an OS for a tablet and realized they could build a phone around it. I'm guessing they didn't start designing the hardware until after they had a carrier as a partner, which makes absolute sense. Why waste time and money on developing a prototype for product that requires a partnership with an outside company until you know who that partner is going to be and what tech is needed to build it? Simple really.
Isn't that what I said?!
Here's my two cents.
Keep it. You need change!
If the position for Sherif in Pima County, Arizona, ever became available, you should go for it. You're overly qualified!
I haven't done this much explaining since, I don't know when, and I would explain my username and where I stand in the Apple troll versus fanboy status, but you can learn that from your research. Apparently something you did very little of in response to my post. If that Sherif deal doesn't work out, there is always Congress where you would do well. It's another position where you don't have to research and can speak from blind ignorance.
/
/
/
Sure did seem to be a lot of people over the years, authoritatively declaring on these boards that Apple went to Verizon first and got told to go take a hike. Crazy old control freak Jobs overstepped his bounds and had to go plead his case to AT&T after Verizon showed him the door, or so the story went.
No worries, though-- this bit of urban legend will still be dredged up whenever and wherever Apple haters have an axe to grind, till the end of time.
What part of the interview left you with the impression he said Apple didn't go to Verizon first? He doesn't say either way. What he does say is "And because Apple was more focused on a single technology—the GSM technology—they chose AT&T. We had good discussions with them, but it was clear to us that they weren't looking to make a device for both sets of technologies."
No implication whether those discussions were before or after discussions with AT&T started, but certainly the timeframe he is discussing is prior to the iPhone launch. This, together with the interview with Jim Gerace, a Verizon VP that was actually there at the time, unlike Rose, show it is pretty clear that Verizon was in discussion with Apple about the original iPhone before AT&T was finally selected. Maybe Apple was only toying with V to get AT&T to bite and make the necessary concessions. But, it is impossible to make the leap that Verizion was not approached first. All we can say is that the were approached before AT&T was announced as Apple's partner.
What part of the interview left you with the impression he said Apple didn't go to Verizon first? He doesn't say either way. What he does say is "And because Apple was more focused on a single technology—the GSM technology—they chose AT&T. We had good discussions with them, but it was clear to us that they weren't looking to make a device for both sets of technologies."
No implication whether those discussions were before or after discussions with AT&T started, but certainly the timeframe he is discussing is prior to the iPhone launch. This, together with the interview with Jim Gerace, a Verizon VP that was actually there at the time, unlike Rose, show it is pretty clear that Verizon was in discussion with Apple about the original iPhone before AT&T was finally selected. Maybe Apple was only toying with V to get AT&T to bite and make the necessary concessions. But, it is impossible to make the leap that Verizion was not approached first. All we can say is that the were approached before AT&T was announced as Apple's partner.
Well, let's see:
And because Apple was more focused on a single technology—the GSM technology—they chose AT&T. We had good discussions with them, but it was clear to us that they weren't looking to make a device for both sets of technologies.
Did you think they made unreasonable demands at the time?
No. That was all part of the sort of mating dance they were going through. But most of that [was] used not against us, but used against the carriers they ended up signing with, all right? So no, I didn't think the terms were all that serious because we were never in the running.
So according to the CEO of the company (who was certainly "there", not sure what you mean about Rose), Apple discussed the iPhone with them prior to launch but they were never really under consideration as a partner because Apple wanted one carrier per market, and they wanted that carrier to be GSM. That seems pretty clear to me.
And it the very least it doesn't square with the notion that Apple came to Verizon first and was spurned because of Apple's onerous terms.
Well, let's see:
So according to the CEO of the company (who was certainly "there", not sure what you mean about Rose), Apple discussed the iPhone with them prior to launch but they were never really under consideration as a partner because Apple wanted one carrier per market, and they wanted that carrier to be GSM. That seems pretty clear to me.
And it the very least it doesn't square with the notion that Apple came to Verizon first and was spurned because of Apple's onerous terms.
Well, it certainly does nothing to dispel the idea that Apple went to Verizon first. There is no way to take that from the snippets of the interview available. That they were never in the running doesn't mean they weren't approached first, second or third. It doesn't imply where they were in line, one way or another.
What we do have, is a CEO talking about their relationship with Apple, a brand new and very important partner for them. He isn't going to go stepping on any toes. We also have an interview with Gerace, done in the actual time period before the original iPhone launch. From that interview, we know Verizon's feelings at the time, when they would not have been as concerned with their relationship with Apple.
"We said no. We have nothing bad to say about the Apple iPhone. We just couldn't reach a deal that was mutually beneficial."
"They would have been stepping in between us and our customers to the point where we would have almost had to take a back seat … on hardware and service support"
I think Apple did make demands that Verizon wouldn't have accepted back then, even if they were willing to CDMA. Those demands were necessary for the plans Apple had and I think beneficial to the consumers. They were revolutionary at the time. AT&T made concessions, there really is no denying that. That doesn't mean Verizon dropped the negotiations because of Jobs or Apple being demanding control freaks. They likely said no simply because of the technology differences. But to claim this interview does anything to dispel the 'myth' of Apple/Jobs being control freaks just doesn't work. Jobs is a control freak. Always has been. That is a big, big part of what makes him great.
You don't reveal where you're located, but I've never had any problem worth worrying about with AT&T coverage, either where I live or in the various places to which I've traveled, since switching to them from VZ over 2 years ago. And VZ is clearly the dominant carrier in my area.
This isn't to say that other people's coverage issues aren't real, only to point out that they aren't universal. Dare I add that people in NYC may be more vocal than average when they're not happy?
All that said, US cellular coverage overall is pathetic compared to that in western Europe.
I'm in NYC Area... My VZ, Treo 700p has good reception, but I do get drop calls even when talking to other VZ friends (not iPhone) when they are on Long Island... So VZ isn't perfect...
When I talk to ATT friends, who are on iPhone, drop calls are almost a norm...
Today I spoke to a non-iPhone friend in SF, zip 94122 http://bit.ly/gQuC9B, and I was near my home in NYC, where VZ is very reliable, we got disconnected 4-5 times... In their own SF house, their ATT signal is bad...
Verizon's CDMA network may never have simultaneous voice and data. The original poster's statement that LTE will be data only until the end of 2012 means that at that point the LTE network will handle voice and data simultaneously.
The real question is whether Apple would ever make an iPhone that has both CDMA and LTE. That would then get you your simultaneous voice (via CDMA) and data (via LTE).
I think it's a toss-up if that will happen. It might be too early (technologically speaking) to expect at CDMA/LTE iPhone in 2011. They could do it in 2012, but would they do it for only one year if the expectation is that in 2013 Verizon's network will be ready for an LTE-only phone?
I agree with your points... It's also doubtful if VZ will Invest in outdated Tech, and Upgrade theri CDMA for Simultaneous Voice & Data... At the same time, it might be worth it for Apple to do iPhone that has both CDMA and LTE even in 2012, since Apple's CDMA iPhone roll outs in other CDMA countries around the world is later than Verizon, and those countries are not going to switch to 4G overnight... So, Apple might have to do it, in order to keep Android and others in check, but not given those competitors a breathing room!
Eventually, it is likely that ATT will start carrying some good Android phones. My guess is sooner rather than later. None of them are famous for signal attenuation, detuning or dropped calls. It is also likely that Apple will fix the antenna problems on the ATT iPhone eventually.
Hang in there.
Android is not even an option for me... Why would I want to do that, and "re-invent the wheel", when nothing works better with Mac OS than their own iPhone! Ready-made Integration, Best Tech Support, vs. Android = Who You Gonna Call, Ghostbusters
If you like to tinker with your phone for some specific feature that you can't find on iPhone, than go ahead... I'm pretty picky myself too, but, I am not gonna have my life revolve around A PHONE, which is supposed to be just another APPLIANCE, like a refrigerator etc
Of course, if one is on Windows, and doesn't care much about integration of their Smart Phone with their computer, and the Cloud, then maybe Android is for them. But even then, they better have a bunch of friends for tech support, which would still be no match for Mac Echo System! But, everyone is free to make their choice!!!
To end on a Peacful Note... I heard a funny line on TV....
With Phone Wars Coming, TV ads etc, now that iPhone is no longer ATT exclusive, it's going to be like Coke vs. Pepsi all over again
By March 2011 or so, we'll know how well VZ does with iPhone.... Soon after it'll be Macbook Pro Upgrade, and almost time for WWDC in June, where the Next iPhone will be announced!!! So, it's beginning to look like I'd wait till then, even though I am way to eager to do it all, but.... Definitely not before Macbook Pro Upgrade...
10.7 Lion I'll wait for 10.7.1 and I don't mind paying for that OS, and sit out the 1st wave of a New OS
Again, thanks a lot for you replies! I know it's time consuming...
See the Non Technical discussions took way longer then the technical, and at least VZ admitted they were the ones stroking Apple for years not the other way around. As I said before this is way more important to VZ than Apple, then again this could give apple a proving ground for LTE, but as we know VZ LTE is data only till then end of 2012... so will will have to see, Maybe the ipad 2 will be LTE on VZ.
It's very detailed, Thanks for your effort!