iPhone will Never Ever... EVER Be On Verizon... at least until...

[sinsin07]

Oh wow, another original Iphone not comming to Verizon Thread

I guess this thread did not cover this:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/780083/

http://jobs.apple.com/index.ajs?BID=1&method=mExternal.showJob&RID=30993&CurrentPage=1

http://jobs.apple.com/index.ajs?BID=1&method=mExternal.showJob&RID=30994&CurrentPage=1

http://jobs.apple.com/index.ajs?BID=1&method=mExternal.showJob&RID=35157&CurrentPage=1


Above Jan 2009

Apple Job Posting

Job description

[FONT=arial, helvetica]JavaScript Warning![/FONT] [FONT=arial, helvetica] Your browser must be configured to support JavaScript before you can apply. Once you have properly configured your browser please try again. The form below WILL NOT submit until JavaScript is enabled. [/FONT]
JavaScript Warning! Your browser must be configured to support JavaScript before you can apply. Once you have properly configured your browser please try again. The form below WILL NOT submit until JavaScript is enabled.
Requisition Number 4082342 Job title Cellular Systems Perf Eng - Lab Test Location Santa Clara Valley
Country United States
City Cupertino
State/Province California
Job type Full Time
Job description Cellular Baseband Performance - Lab Test Automation/Development Engineer

The team is responsible for bringing up the advanced cellular baseband performance test lab. The scope includes new lab test station bringup, expansion of the test batches and replicating field issues in lab for performance studies in controlled environment as well as test setup automation. The team will work closely with internal
development team, radio stack vendor, certification and field test
teams.


The role will require the following skills:

Cellular Technology: GSM, GPRS, EDGE, WCDMA, HSDPA, HSUPA, CDMA etc.

Good understanding of 2G/3G idle, voice and data procedures including deep knowledge of protocol stack architecture, message flows, message contents and inter layer interactions.
Understand the development cycle of IOT, certification process and carrier approval process.
Strong interpersonal skills (required to establish and maintain inter-
departmental relationships).
Strong verbal and written communication skills
BSEE/EE or technical degree with relevant experience, and 3+ years
experience in technical role.
C/C++, TTCN expertise required. Knowledge of Perl, TCL, Visual C#/Visual Basic is a plus.
Expert script developer for Anite SAS/SAT, R&S CRTU/ML-API, Anritsu MD8480/PTS/RTD or Spirent APEX/8100 systems.

 

[chstr]

but..... but..... but.... verizon is soooo much better .... sniffle

 

[ynotm]

1. NO CDMA 5-YEAR EXCLUSIVE. iPhone came out in 2007. It's 2009. Apple has a 5 year no-CDMA-iPhone agreement with AT&T. (Has this been renegotiated like the "exclusivity" agreement to expire next year? Questions, questions... we'll likely see T-Mobile before anything else.)

Never heard of this, do you have a source? I remember 5 year exclusivity (which seemed to disappear after a year, which I thought was very odd), but a 5 year ban on CDMA versions is a very strange request. I'd love to see proof of this.

2. APPSTORE. Verizon has pledged that ALL PHONES on its network MUST buy apps through Verizon's own App Store. Apple says: Um, no. Moreover, even making an exception for Apple would open the flood gates for equal treatment complaints. From Apple's perspective, allowing Verizon to insinuate itself into that space in a non-starter... suggesting that Apple would need to re-educate consumers on one specific network as "different" from all the rest of their customers.

Nonsense. My parents both have Verizon blackberries, no Verizon store, but Blackberry App World.

Not only that, Verizon would literally be driving themselves out of the smartphone market with that policy. RIM, Android, WM6.5+, and Symbian all have appstores now.

This is FUD, plain and simple.

3. NETWORK CONTROL. Verizon won't allow any manufacturer to become involved with its provisioning and activation system. As far as they're concerned, that's just silly. AT&T's activation via iTunes has worked well (when it worked), but this is far too invasive for the type of "device approval" needed style of network Verizon runs.

Apple dropped iTunes activation with the 3G release (and only brought it back much, much later). It's something they seem to be flexible on now.

Not only that, I don't seem to recall anyone doing activations like this prior to the iPhone. If they could start it once on one network, it stands to reason it could happen again (especially with Verizon moving, albeit glacially slow, towards a more open policy [practically a necessity with the move to LTE and it's rules])

4. EXPENSIVE R&D. Making a phone for Verizon in the US, would be a U.S. specific development cost. Verizon's CDMA is a US specific technology. The rest of the world overwhelmingly uses GSM.

How on earth is it expensive? The phone is done, and dropping in a new radio would be a few million dollars of R&D tops. Verizon has around 100 million subscribers. Even if they nab, say, just 8% (educated guess, but probably close to the % of ATT subscribers) of those customers, and assuming the margins on an iPhone after marketing, R&D and components are something like 20% ($40 on the subsidized price of the volume SKU 16GB 3GS - very low ball estimate here), you're looking at $320 million+ in profit. Not a bad return, and I would bet those numbers extremely conservative. And that's only Verizon. Sprint has another 50 million subscribers (and if Apple's exclusivity was lost to VZ, you can bet the phone isn't just going to Verizon but to at least every major carrier in the US)

Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if they already have a CDMA version of the phone inside their walls. People said for years that OSX would never be on the x86 platform, but then BOOM, it was, and was revealed to have been all along. It's extremely conceivable that Apple would hedge their bets again - especially since their first partner choice was verizon. If the AT&T deal for some reason goes sour (admittedly unlikely), they can quickly switch to the largest provider in America (still their biggest market by far) in this case.

This argument has never made any sense to me. If every other cell phone manufacturer can get their devices working across all networks, why can't Apple? It's not cost holding up a CDMA release.

5. NO NEED. Verizon doesn't NEED the iPhone (its a "nice to have"). Apple doesn't NEED Verizon (their customers would love it though). OS makers and manufacturers are quickly catching up. Sprint is the network that would gain the MOST from getting the iPhone. Verizon has been doing a stellar job without Apple and will continue to. Even if they didn't get the tablet (which they clearly will), they already had one anyway.

Apple not needing them? Maybe true. But the AT&T market for iPhones is very finite (and theoretically, already becoming saturated, as we may be seeing signs of with the introduction of a $99 iPhone), and to grow their install base they will eventually be forced to move to VZ in America. As for Verizon, I know plenty of people who left Verizon for the iPhone (myself included), and it's an exodus I'm sure Verizon would love to stop.

 

[sinsin07]

Word of advice to the OP, if you are going to use the word "clever" (as in cleverboy), in your handle, then you need to live up to it. Nothing about your raving was clever or original. Next time you think you have something "clever" to post, call somebody.

 

[crackbookpro]

Since Verizon doesn't change the UIs on their smartphones, that would not be a concern.

-----

Remember, Apple courted Verizon for a year, not the other way 'round. And they never showed Verizon a prototype, which might've changed history.

Also, many of Verizon's original objections don't exist any more. Apple now sells through WalMart, Best Buy, and other Verizon partners. Apple allows subsidies now. Apple has both 3G and GPS now. The lack of these basics were valid Verizon reasons to not want an unknown device at the time.

So what's left? What are some remaining valid reasons against a deal?

Revenue sharing is a sticker, but it's negotiable.

Sharing warranty decisions was an original blocking point.

And who knows if Verizon would want the phone branded. (My guess is that a lot of people here in NYC would actually like it. They could lord it over the ATT model owners. Oh look, he has a Verizon iPhone... bet it works in this tunnel! *swoon*)

At the end of the day, kdraling hits some clear points. I do think Verizon will get an iPhone because of a market oppurtunity that still exists. Apple knows best when it comes to this. If you do not think Apple & Verizon are in collaboration talks about this just because of the technology being used - I think you need to understand what happens when two companies try to make something work. In the end, there is way too much money to be made.

Yes, there will be issues with control, but that may be in the talks now, and the R&D is something as well that may be in the works.

...a Verizon iPhone is no way out of the picture! OP, even though you have some great points, you are going out on a limb as to what Verizon's intentions & capabilities are. You have a good point about the tech Verizon is currently using, but there is NO way this puts up the final word - that "there will NEVER be a Verizon iPhone."

 

[alent1234]

Never heard of this, do you have a source? I remember 5 year exclusivity (which seemed to disappear after a year, which I thought was very odd), but a 5 year ban on CDMA versions is a very strange request. I'd love to see proof of this.


Nonsense. My parents both have Verizon blackberries, no Verizon store, but Blackberry App World.

Not only that, Verizon would literally be driving themselves out of the smartphone market with that policy. RIM, Android, WM6.5+, and Symbian all have appstores now.

This is FUD, plain and simple.


Apple dropped iTunes activation with the 3G release (and only brought it back much, much later). It's something they seem to be flexible on now.

Not only that, I don't seem to recall anyone doing activations like this prior to the iPhone. If they could start it once on one network, it stands to reason it could happen again (especially with Verizon moving, albeit glacially slow, towards a more open policy [practically a necessity with the move to LTE and it's rules])


How on earth is it expensive? The phone is done, and dropping in a new radio would be a few million dollars of R&D tops. Verizon has around 100 million subscribers. Even if they nab, say, just 8% (educated guess, but probably close to the % of ATT subscribers) of those customers, and assuming the margins on an iPhone after marketing, R&D and components are something like 20% ($40 on the subsidized price of the volume SKU 16GB 3GS - very low ball estimate here), you're looking at $320 million+ in profit. Not a bad return, and I would bet those numbers extremely conservative. And that's only Verizon. Sprint has another 50 million subscribers (and if Apple's exclusivity was lost to VZ, you can bet the phone isn't just going to Verizon but to at least every major carrier in the US)

Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if they already have a CDMA version of the phone inside their walls. People said for years that OSX would never be on the x86 platform, but then BOOM, it was, and was revealed to have been all along. It's extremely conceivable that Apple would hedge their bets again - especially since their first partner choice was verizon. If the AT&T deal for some reason goes sour (admittedly unlikely), they can quickly switch to the largest provider in America (still their biggest market by far) in this case.

This argument has never made any sense to me. If every other cell phone manufacturer can get their devices working across all networks, why can't Apple? It's not cost holding up a CDMA release.


Apple not needing them? Maybe true. But the AT&T market for iPhones is very finite (and theoretically, already becoming saturated, as we may be seeing signs of with the introduction of a $99 iPhone), and to grow their install base they will eventually be forced to move to VZ in America. As for Verizon, I know plenty of people who left Verizon for the iPhone (myself included), and it's an exodus I'm sure Verizon would love to stop.

not all blackberries work on CDMA/GSM at once. it's a premium feature meant for some business users.

for CDMA they would have to rewrite parts of the networking software in the iPhone OS and depending how some apps are written there could be compatibility issues

 

[mmzplanet]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-10361144-266.html

If VZW will not pick up the Palm Pre for the reasons listed in this article.... we can forget a VZW iPhone.

Although VZW may compromise with a device that will sell like crazy (iPhone) on their network.

 

[bozzykid]

for CDMA they would have to rewrite parts of the networking software in the iPhone OS and depending how some apps are written there could be compatibility issues

That is doubtful since the API does not reference GSM. It is a generic API. The only change needed would be the networking code in the core.

 

[kdarling]

for CDMA they would have to rewrite parts of the networking software in the iPhone OS and depending how some apps are written there could be compatibility issues

Perhaps, but minimal changes if any. It's just a radio swap and/or addition.

I write apps for Blackberry and WM, and don't do anything special between different network models.

Did people have to rewrite their iPhone apps when Apple added WCDMA for 3G? That was just as radical an addition.

If VZW will not pick up the Palm Pre for the reasons listed in this article.... we can forget a VZW iPhone.

News sites are dissing that rumor as unlikely. But Verizon needs to speak up.

 

[Cleverboy]

Hey guess what? None of you will NEVER EVER know what will happen. Quit trying to act tough using "facts" when this is mere speculation.

This is like every other damn iPhone to Verizon thread on this site. We'll have to wait till the CEO of either company makes an announcement. I don't understand why this is talked about over and over and over and over and over again.

/rant

The point of this thread is to put down the CONSTANT and INCESSANT patter about the iPhone possibly going to Verizon. The likelihood of this happening is VERY VERY LOW. Think "lottery win" type odds. It's more likely that Creative Labs will come out with a phone on Verizon than it is that Verizon will get the iPhone.

That's kind of why there is an "at least until" at the end of the title. Anyone can feel free to have their own "at least until", but mine stands as writ.

My opinion is that thinking of it as anything other than an unlikely possibility is overly optimistic. I'll be the first one to admit egg on my face if the near-impossible happens, but I think people need a reality check at some point.

That's all. There's an almost compulsive activity underway that has people guessing at how this can happen. Until it does... I say, assume it won't.

If you're interested in CDMA hiring rumors, maybe you should ask... "Will the iPhone come to Sprint?" I think this is a much MUCH higher probability, although the same technical hurdles apply... however, the "control" hurdles virtually disappear. Sprint is a whore right now. They'll agree to almost anything if it'll stop the bleeding.

But, Verizon? Hey, the Red Sox won the world series. As "Angels in the Outfield" taught us, "Anything can happen." Just realize that the payout is high for a reason.

~ CB

 

[Cleverboy]

Never heard of this, do you have a source? I remember 5 year exclusivity (which seemed to disappear after a year, which I thought was very odd), but a 5 year ban on CDMA versions is a very strange request. I'd love to see proof of this.

The news of this embargo being part of the original AT&T deal is like every other rumor, and subject to the weakness of truthfulness and timeliness, given clauses for renegotiation. While I agree Apple would be a fool not to give themselves an "out" on certain clauses in their contracts, I'm pretty confident that Apple does not view the potential of supporting a CDMA networks as highly as kdarling or yourself. Want a concrete quote? Here you go:

"CDMA doesn't really have a life to it after a point in time. We chose from the beginning of the iPhone to focus on one phone for the whole world." - Tim Cook, COO, Apple - Apr 2009

So. ONE PHONE. Software driven differentiation. This is Apple speaking here. I'm just saying.

Nonsense. My parents both have Verizon blackberries, no Verizon store, but Blackberry App World.

Cool. Did Blackberry AppWorld come pre-installed on their phones? When did they buy them? Has Verizon's store opened yet? Have they purchased either Blackberry AFTER such a launch? --Cause regarding iPhone on Verizon, we're talking NEXT year, not THIS year, and if its next year, Verizon is clearly setting out its roadmap of how it wants to operate its mobile devices.

Not only that, Verizon would literally be driving themselves out of the smartphone market with that policy. RIM, Android, WM6.5+, and Symbian all have appstores now.

You realize ALL of these, other than Apple are HIGHLY flexible on whether that store is pre-installed and how that device is configured by default, right? Apple subscribes to none of these models of business. They sell one hardware/software combo that is immutable across networks with very few compromises on that experience.

Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if they already have a CDMA version of the phone inside their walls.

I've said the same in this thread. Apple doesn't merely "theorize" on things. They develop and make hard decisions based on experience. They try many different form factors, network connections, etc. Does it equate to fully operational devices with all the trimming. No. Just prototypes no where near production.

As for Verizon, I know plenty of people who left Verizon for the iPhone (myself included), and it's an exodus I'm sure Verizon would love to stop.

Verizon is hardly out of the running because of the iPhone.

Yet.

Next year will be interesting. I lament the game Apple is playing. They are making it very hard for other manufacturers to compete, with their negotiating clout (technology, experience, momentum and marketshare). Literally NO ONE is playing the same game. I believe Microsoft is Apple's only competition, but their non-vertically integrated model is problematic in its inconsistency considering how good they are at it when they really try.

~ CB

 

[bjb.butler]

It sounds to me like the OP is just posting hella information, with no credible/up-to-date sources...

You don't know what kind of arrangements have been made, so your whole no cdma for five years thing is most likely inaccurate... Once I read that, I gave up on the post.

 

[sinsin07]

It sounds to me like the OP is just posting hella information, with no credible/up-to-date sources...

You don't know what kind of arrangements have been made, so your whole no cdma for five years thing is most likely inaccurate... Once I read that, I gave up on the post.

One of the best statements on this thread. I wish this thread was more "clever".

 

[beamer8912]

1. NO CDMA 5-YEAR EXCLUSIVE. iPhone came out in 2007. It's 2009. Apple has a 5 year no-CDMA-iPhone agreement with AT&T. (Has this been renegotiated like the "exclusivity" agreement to expire next year? Questions, questions... we'll likely see T-Mobile before anything else.)

As others have said, it was only 2 years. Point mooted.

2. APPSTORE. Verizon has pledged that ALL PHONES on its network MUST buy apps through Verizon's own App Store. Apple says: Um, no. Moreover, even making an exception for Apple would open the flood gates for equal treatment complaints. From Apple's perspective, allowing Verizon to insinuate itself into that space in a non-starter... suggesting that Apple would need to re-educate consumers on one specific network as "different" from all the rest of their customers.

See Blackberry phones on Verizon.

3. NETWORK CONTROL. Verizon won't allow any manufacturer to become involved with its provisioning and activation system. As far as they're concerned, that's just silly. AT&T's activation via iTunes has worked well (when it worked), but this is far too invasive for the type of "device approval" needed style of network Verizon runs.

So, because they couldn't activate their phones on iTunes the iPhone is never going to be on Verizon? Straws at best my friend.

4. EXPENSIVE R&D. Making a phone for Verizon in the US, would be a U.S. specific development cost. Verizon's CDMA is a US specific technology. The rest of the world overwhelmingly uses GSM.

The same "expensive" R&D that RIM and PALM "go through" to make all of their phones? Try again.

5. NO NEED. Verizon doesn't NEED the iPhone (its a "nice to have"). Apple doesn't NEED Verizon (their customers would love it though). OS makers and manufacturers are quickly catching up. Sprint is the network that would gain the MOST from getting the iPhone. Verizon has been doing a stellar job without Apple and will continue to. Even if they didn't get the tablet (which they clearly will), they already had one anyway.[/B]

Yes, both Apple and Verizon are going to say "NO" to money.

Sorry to say but your "points" boil down to the same thing everyone else has said. Apple and Verizon don't see eye to eye on 2-3 things. They work those out, and HELLO IPHONE ON VERIZON! WOOT!

 

[sinsin07]

As others have said, it was only 2 years. Point mooted.


See Blackberry phones on Verizon.



So, because they couldn't activate their phones on iTunes the iPhone is never going to be on Verizon? Straws at best my friend.



The same "expensive" R&D that RIM and PALM "go through" to make all of their phones? Try again.



Yes, both Apple and Verizon are going to say "NO" to money.

Sorry to say but your "points" boil down to the same thing everyone else has said. Apple and Verizon don't see eye to eye on 2-3 things. They work those out, and HELLO IPHONE ON VERIZON! WOOT!

Thank you. This makes sense. Where there are large sums of money to be made, who could say no?

 

[Cleverboy]

One of the best statements on this thread. I wish this thread was more "clever".

That's just hilarious. You should get a YouTube channel and try out for SNL. Seriously. My username is "Cleverboy" and being unimpressed with my reasoning you "wish this thread was more 'clever'". Impressive. Totally worth posting, don't let anyone tell you different.

...

Once More, with Gusto

That said, I guess this all becomes rehash. The true purpose of this thread was to flush out the people that for some reason want the iPhone to come to Verizon and will actively dismiss even statements from Apple to the contrary. I wanted to hear what the rationale was and if it added anything to my own conclusions.

It sounds like the BEST argument supporting an eventual Verizon iPhone is "never say never". Second best is "we heard Apple was hiring CDMA techs back in 2007" (overlooking that this means that Apple does lots of R&D, and that Sprint would be the more likely beneficiary of such work for a cellphone, though Verizon would likely benefit from a non-cellphone device that operates on CDMA, heavily rumored for the beginning of next year).

The WORST argument is "Hey, Apple could sell more units if they make an iPhone that supports CDMA! Why wouldn't they?" To which we return to Apple's Chief Operating Officer for his April 2009 comment on the subject.

While people would like to say that Apple has done "reversals" before... (They told the music industry DRM wouldn't work, and then they invented Fair Play. They commented that iPod video that bandwidth is too low for movie downloads and that no one wants to watch video on a small screen... bandwidth grew and consumers expressed interest in video iPods) this is different.

Verizon isn't looking to change for ANY phone manufacturer, least of all Apple. Apple isn't going to alter its business model with the iPhone for any carrier, outside of items like unlocking phones in France, unsupported "Visual Voicemail" through assorted carriers, and the disabling of WiFi capabilities to comply with governmental rules in China. All software adjustments that have to do with government or extra services the carrier does not wish to offer.

You show me one carrier that's made Apple change the iPhone around specific to their network, and I'm fairly certain there's a more logical way to look at it. For instance, you might say that with firmware 3.1 Apple disabled "tethering" for AT&T, when hackers found an easy way to enable for users. OR, you'd be more accurate to say that Apple simply added another layer of certification before allowing unauthorized carrier updates to modify the phone.

Were the iPhone on Verizon, there would be changes.

Here is your cold hard proof.

The Palm Pre may yet be coming to Verizon.

If it does, I'm sure we'll see the list of mobile OS's that will be aggregated into Verizon's App Store for Smart Phones grow by one.

http://gigaom.com/2009/07/13/verizon-to-mobile-developers-can-you-hear-me-now/

And while Verizon is romancing developers, the carrier isn’t as solicitous of its handset partners. Verizon’s Ryan Hughes, VP Partner Management, said in an interview Friday that the network operator’s app store will be the sole marketplace on devices sold by the company, meaning stores such as Research In Motion’s BlackBerry App World or Microsoft’s Windows Mobile Marketplace won’t get placement on Verizon handsets unless a consumer downloads them. Hughes also said that Verizon is focusing on aggregating content from four different developer communities: Windows Mobile, Palm, Android and BlackBerry.

I mean, silly comment... but wouldn't it be completely silly to go through all the work of creating an aggregate App Store, centralize your system for delivering Apps on your network... only to allow Apple to simply do whatever it wants? The exact same logic applies to Apple. Why would they open the door to any one carrier (of all their carriers worldwide), to control the App download/install process on the iPhone?

Here's another nut to chew on for those that do not know it.

Every application pre-installed on the iPhone was programmed by Apple.

Will this change just for Verizon? No. It's simply won't. When you RESTORE an iPhone, it RESTORES to a uniform image across ALL CARRIERS. There is no "AT&T restore image", there will be no "Verizon restore image". It would be an absolute MESS on the support level.

I have every confidence that Palm's Pre strategy NEEDS carriers... and plenty of them. They need Verizon more than Apple will ever need Verizon. So, if you see a Pre on Verizon next year, the odds are that Palm has compromised on something significant regarding the continuity of their user experience over different carriers.

Thank you. This makes sense. Where there are large sums of money to be made, who could say no?

LOL. Companies that have highly successful business plans & practices (like Verizon and Apple) that get broken and incur expensive complications in order to deal with an incompatible partner. You just say "NO" and you keep your well-oiled money machine running smoothly.

You say "YES", and you might as well use your business plan for toilet paper. Compromise is for the desperate or disadvantaged.

~ CB

 

[nateo200]

As others have said, it was only 2 years. Point mooted.

omfg your the 2nd person I've had to correct on this. READING COMPREHENSION my God....

 

[Cleverboy]

I just think the title of this post is beyond obvious, and that almost everything else is a moot point. I mean, its like saying Christmas will be on December 25th this year. Whoop-de-doo. It's just sad to hear people talking as if the date might change through some miraculous happenstance and the endless possibilities of possibility.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/17/verizon-asks-if-the-idoesnt-what-does/

That's a bold offensive for a carrier that historically has lacked breadth and depth in its smartphone lineup, but with the big new Android releases coming down the pike, this might be perfect timing -- and a strong implication that we can seriously put those endless Verizon iPhone rumors to bed for a little while.

Ya think? Does Verizon need to break it down to us like we're two year-olds?

~ CB

 

[xcrunner]

I just think the title of this post is beyond obvious, and that almost everything else is a moot point. I mean, its like saying Christmas will be on December 25th this year. Whoop-de-doo. It's just sad to hear people talking as if the date might change through some miraculous happenstance and the endless possibilities of possibility.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/17/verizon-asks-if-the-idoesnt-what-does/
Ya think? Does Verizon need to break it down to us like we're two year-olds?

~ CB

So, Verizon's app store is coming preloaded on this droid and nothing else...RIGHT? Wrong. Android's app store is still going to be on the phone - and preinstalled at that. Try using facts next time. Hint: a blog posting giving the author's personal view on the iphone coming to verizon is an opinion, not fact.

 

[nateo200]

So, Verizon's app store is coming preloaded on this droid and nothing else...RIGHT? Wrong. Android's app store is still going to be on the phone - and preinstalled at that. Try using facts next time. Hint: a blog posting giving the author's personal view on the iphone coming to verizon is an opinion, not fact.

I'm pretty sure it would be utterally pothetic for verizon to drag the iPhone through the mud with there recent commercials theN crawl back to apple begging for the damn phone they just **** on for months with direct in your face advertisements. It's like how you break up with your girl then try crawling back except on a large scale with millions to laugh at vzw's terrible business scheme. Not gonna happen.....

Perhaps, but minimal changes if any. It's just a radio swap and/or addition.

I write apps for Blackberry and WM, and don't do anything special between different network models.

Did people have to rewrite their iPhone apps when Apple added WCDMA for 3G? That was just as radical an addition.



News sites are dissing that rumor as unlikely. But Verizon needs to speak up.

You of all people would know this so I'll ask; with apps does the app require a certain network type to run or does it run off any generic Internet connection? In other words do apps distinguish greatly between wifi/3G/EDGE/GPRS? if not there wouldn't be a problem in that aspect. Also i am curious how much different is WCDMA and CDMA200?! I know the obvious differences but seeing as they use the same air interface is it possible to use a UMTS cable device on a CDMA2000 network without hardware revisions just a software/firmware update?!

 

[VoodooDaddy]

Without reading the whole thread to know if this has been said Apple knows they could sell probably upwards of another 7-9million units if they had an iPhone for VZW. And conversely VZW knows they could lock in millions of new customers that would defect from ATT if the iPhone were available.

Apple and VZW are in business to make $, and a partnership would be very lucrative to both.

Unless you work at Apple and are the one calling the shots dont pretend like you are an authoritarian on this subject.

 

[Nermal]

In other words do apps distinguish greatly between wifi/3G/EDGE/GPRS?

Apps will use standard APIs. The interface is determined by the underlying OS.

 

[Cleverboy]

So, Verizon's app store is coming preloaded on this droid and nothing else...RIGHT? Wrong. Android's app store is still going to be on the phone - and preinstalled at that. Try using facts next time. Hint: a blog posting giving the author's personal view on the iphone coming to verizon is an opinion, not fact.

I'm sorry, earlier, I was quoting Verizon. Maybe you skipped that part. Sigh. Wouldn't be the first time I guess. Carry on.

Anyway, the point is the amount of concessions, not just one particular concession to joining Verizon. Apple will not bend on many of it's concessions. This much is set in stone. People keep using the potential "money" Apple could make as the deciding factor, overlooking the fact that their argument isthe EXACT same flavor of argument for Apple to allow Mac clones and make more money on the sale of Mac OS through other PC vendors. Apple has said that, regarding CDMA support, they decided early on to make one phone for the globe. This means they either sticking with GSM, or will integrate a phone that can do both quad band GSM and CDMA. With Verizon attacking the phone with a big campaign citing how much
more Android phones can do, we'll have to see how it goes.

Regarding preinstalled Android Market, anything is possible. Let's get it straight that you don't know anything for sure unless you've got an official link or quote you've neglected to share (like my official Verizon quote on how all their smart phones will only have the VZ store preinstalled).

To me, whether Android or Pre gets them to about-face, it will be big news that they're either making exceptions or tossing the strategy entirely. Makes little sense strategy-wise given what they have said.

~ CB

 

[Cleverboy]

Without reading the whole thread to know if this has been said Apple knows they could sell probably upwards of another 7-9million units if they had an iPhone for VZW. And conversely VZW knows they could lock in millions of new customers that would defect from ATT if the iPhone were available.

Apple and VZW are in business to make $, and a partnership would be very lucrative to both.

Unless you work at Apple and are the one calling the shots dont pretend like you are an authoritarian on this subject.

We can all agree that Verizon with the iPhone has many significant hurdles that make it highly unlikely, however "sexy" it sounds. There's often a LOT of things that sound sexy, but that are from the business point of view, impracticable. I think statements that the iPhone will never be on Verizon until so very large hurdles are settled, is self-evident. As a whole, we can all agree that it is very unlikely. Does it make it less desireable? Of course not! I think it's mostly wish fulfillment that perpetuates this buzz. Apple will be doing business with Verizon next year it seems. It is highly unlikely to be an iPhone. It is highly likely to be a tablet device.

If they pull a rabbit out of their hats, let them surprise us. Harping on non-starter concepts as if they're simple business decisions given the companies involved seems silly. Maybe Apple should put a DVR in the Apple TV? Far more likely than iPhone on Verizon, and yet that's not happening anytime soon either (according to Apple).

We can hear what we want to hear, but both Verizon and Apple have made a series of statements that should more than dampen expectations. --and with Verizon's new ads... this has only been more true.

~ CB

 

[VoodooDaddy]

Just curious Cleverboy, why do you feel the need to defend your position on this so vehemently?

Id like it to come to VZW, as thats who Im currently with, and honestly for me is the best service at the moment.

Apple will be doing business with Verizon next year it seems. It is highly unlikely to be an iPhone. It is highly likely to be a tablet device.

So if Apple is bringing a tablet to VZW why not the iPhone too? I realize until VZW either adopts GSM or whatever the newest network standard is that it likely isnt going to happen though.