True.
Maybe Verizon will have the iPhone sooner than my "TO" and not "FROM" statement, by means of some power-efficient multi-standard chipset. I'm just a little skeptical here, because things are moving quickly. --PAUSE FOR EMPHASIS-- For all we know, within the next two years, the entire mobile data landscape may change drastically by forces that haven't fully revealed themselves... or shown the interconnected impact of a dozen separate initiatives. For all we know, in 3-4 years... most smartphone voice service may actually be accomplished by voice-over-ip, and be accompanied optionally by video. Technologies like CDMA and EDGE quickly become a distant memory and an imperfect vestige of the past.
Lol the dramaticness of that post made me lol. Honestly though the speed at which mobile networks are changing is a pain in the ass. I mean it feels like carriers are JUST finally starting ti really expand 3G coverage and now 4G. The world runs on GSM yet there's like 5 different frequencys for it. LTE needs to have a common frequency through out the world if you ask me. So when CDMA and EDGE turn obsolete we can take are handsets anywhere without worrying About frequency issues. How great would that be? But I doubt EDGE will be completely gone for a long ass time....I mean there's still AMPS networks running.
That's ok.
Sorry, but none of my first-post is "completely made-up", unless you haven't been reading the news. Much of it is certainly hearsay, as is most of what passes for journalism these days... and my post is hardly even journalism, its naked conjecture. Also, none of it has been "proven wrong". Simply because something is no longer true, doesn't mean that it was never true. I feel strongly that AT&T and Apple renogotiated much of their original agreement, and that the original agreement had ample room to be renegotiated at certain points.
On this point, we agree. I have serious doubts that Apple will be exclusive to AT&T in the U.S. by the end of 2010. As I already wrote though, its far more likely that they'll cut a deal with T-Mobile... or if you went for the longer odds, perhaps even Sprint.
Mission accomplished!
True. I'm more fascinated with the problem with having a "spectrum gap" than we're having with different frequencies.
Daniel is MUCH harsher on the notion that Apple is reticent to cannabilize its AT&T's customers, but I'd trust his instincts over mine. I never really considered how SCREWED T-Mobile must be feeling from that whole Sidekick disaster. I was just impressed at how catastrophic it must be on the customer service end.
Damn straight.
Second article is dead accurate. I almost feel bad for T-Mobile. They really get a bad rep but there great. It's all because there coverage isn't as large as AT&T's or Verizons that they are called '******" when in reality they openly support iphone users in the US. I think it wouldn't be so bad to add one radio (1700) to support T-Mobile UMTS. The sidekick issue really hit them hard though, it wasn't exactly there fault completely though. An iPhone on T-Mobile is realistic as the technology is there (very close at least) and the handset is available on the same carrier in other country's. It would really boost T-Mobile's image too. As for it being on Sprint....idk about that that's almost as crazy as it being on verizon............
Another funny pattern that seems to be developing, is some notion that Apple will somehow "TRADE" or "DROP" AT&T for another provider... which is ridiculous. Apple is likely to EXPAND to ADDITIONAL carriers. They are not, as some keep putting it, "JUMPING" over to [BLANK]. They're ADDING.
POINTS:
1. It's a good thing to have multiple carriers.
2. Apple is unlikely to remain exclusively an AT&T device in the U.S. in 2010.
3. T-Mobile is a very likely candidate for a 2nd carrier for the U.S. iPhone
4. By joining with Sprint, Apple could advertise the most affordable iPhone EVER for the U.S., when looking at the "data" packages too.
5. Apple is unlikely to join with Verizon (or Sprint), as its "second" carrier after AT&T, given their statements on CDMA.
6. The 2007 iPhone launch, and moreover the 2008 release of the iPhone 2.0 represented a paradigm shift, from carrier control to manufacturer control of Apps and software. Carriers are still catching up to the realities and implications of where smartphones are quickly taking us and the HUGE demand of bandwidth that is spiking.
7. Apple's January 2010 partnership announcement with Verizon (on the forthcoming tablet) will help each company decide whether there are more opportunities in working more closely and making some compromises.
Mission accomplished!
True. I'm more fascinated with the problem with having a "spectrum gap" than we're having with different frequencies.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/oct2009/db20091025_223713.htm
~ CB
--Hm. You're right. I think I could say it the same way, but the "real" shift, is in the fact that Apple created a "smartphone" that was far more accessible to the average consumer... immediately expanding the smartphone sector much faster than Blackberry had begun to do. That said, I know on Verizon, I felt they penalized consumers for choosing a smartphone over a "dumb" or "feature" phone, by charging MORE for the same level of service. You could get streaming TV, and navigation on your feature phone and then be charged $10-$30 more per month for a Palm or WinMo device and NOT have built in Navigation (or navigation services at all). Moreover, I'd read that Verizon has even disabled the GPS o some devices for use in applications outside of their own VZNavigator.
Nah. I think Apple tried to create a top-down unified picture of consistency for their platform. While they might get called "fascist" for imposing limitations that seem arbitrary... I think any rational analyst for the industry can understand what they're doing from the business end. It's just the consumer end that needs to be worked out. Apple vertically integrated business model likes "simple". Conversely, Microsoft's "flexibility" has caused it no END of headaches over the years. Meanwhile, Google's answer to both models is to unify everything through "cloud" services and Web 2.0 APIs. For their Android OS, they have been forced by carriers to remove ALL "tethering" apps and to be very conscious of "voip" and "streaming" as well. As a result of their more "open" approach, people "root" their phones and install these apps anyway... so, maybe that's the best of both worlds. It's certainly no consumer friendly, and by not producing the device and giving the OS away for free, Google isn't directly profiting from the activity, so the potential for liability is MUCH lower than Apple.
Open your mind a little. Saying iPhone will not be on Verizon does NOT mean that Apple will (or should) remain exclusive to AT&T. I'm predicting AT&T will lose exclusivity next year. I've already said this. AT&T doesn't need to crush competitors like T-Mobile by monopolizing the best new phones. For the record, I think that's awful and it needs to stop. T-Mobile has always gotten props for its service, and MANY iPhone switchers have lamented leaving them. Having a new iPhone that supported T-Mobile (3G) and other niche carriers would be great. I remember when the iPhone came out, there was an entire state in the U.S. without availability. That's just ridiculous.
At the rate AT&T is moving your never going to see 3G in your area...just sayin'
Exactly. Like I have said I like T-Mobile....there "the nice guy" in this nasty mobile phone business that the FCC is breathing over to avoid the already bad monopolizing of mobile phones. If anyone NEEDS the iPhone its no doubt T-Mobile.
If I were you, I'd just get the Droid and call it a day. My AT&T service availability has been GREAT here in Mass, but so help me, if it wasn't... the release of the Droid (here, 2 years after the iPhone) would make me regret whatever unfortunate agreement situation I was in on whatever network I was on. An iPhone with poor cellular performance or calling area availability is a non-starter for me. Remember this old chestnut. STILL TRUE.
That's the interesting thing about the network debate and why Verizon's "can you hear me now" campaign was so affective. But...I think Verizon's network is still dated, so its a mixed bag. My impression was that Cingular lost some network fidelity in some areas when its switched from TDMA, but it gained a lot of compatibility by being inline with the whole GSM standard. If "there's a map for" your area and AT&T, I think you're much better off than being on Verizon. If there's not, there probably isn't much use in wishful thinking. Bite the bullet and get with a carrier that can deliver.
I'm on the same boat as Cleverboy and I will personally happily eat my words then enjoy my new handset.I think your probably right. Verizon is the safest bet in the rural areas. I still really like the iPhone, but I have an iPod touch so I pretty much know what the iPhone is all about.
The Droid will be nice for those of us that can't get an iPhone or don't have good AT&T service. It looks like it is a great device in it's own right.
So just one question for you... you seem very certain that Verizon will never get the iPhone. What will you say if it does happen? Remember Apple is a company that has changed it's mind many times. It has declared that something wasn't any good only to introduce it themselves at a later date. Intel processors are just one example. If you could turn back the clock 5 years people would have told you Apple WILL NEVER use Intel processors. We see how that turned out.
In all honesty I would pay $500-$700 USD on an iPhone as long as the monthly bill's weren't crazy. (sub $50).a cdma only iphone on verizon would be pointless...i would much rather have an unlocked gsm version to use on att/tmobile. after travelling so much, swapping sim cards is the best thing instead of having a practically useless cdma only phone.
however, if verizon actually does get the iphone, it would be even more interesting if apple made it dual cdma/gsm (like the touch pro 2). however, verizon would rape the hell out of everyone who uses it, in terms of prices. they are already expensive enough....:/
On CDMA specifically? I'd just be very surprised. It would be the biggest surprise Apple has hit me with in its entire history... moreso than the introduction of the iPhone.
You're right. They DO tend to play with people. Sometimes they speak "backwards", by coming up with a solution to problems, and then pointing out the problems publicly as something they would need to overcome if they were to do it. This makes them look like geniuses when they make the final announcement. It's hilarious.
Conditions change, but we all see the trajectory Verizon is on. I think Apple would do well to stay the course, and join Verizon in 2012 on LTE. Anything can happen though, just not everything is likely to happen.Intel processors are just one example. If you could turn back the clock 5 years people would have told you Apple WILL NEVER use Intel processors. We see how that turned out.
Mind = Blown. I seriously never thought of that. THough I thought voice took priority if anything. The only way to fix that would be to have verizon fix there network or put in an extra radio which God know's won't happen.