 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / ATT Wireless / February 2008Why did Apple choose GSM for the iPhone?
The whole GSM vs CDMA debate is pretty much over for most of the world, all you have to look at is the graph of the competing standards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cellphone-subscribers-by-technology.svg Notice the other line about subscriber growth too. >The whole GSM vs CDMA debate is pretty much over for most of the >world, all you have to look at is the graph of the competing >standards: >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cellphone-subscribers-by-technology.svg > >Notice the other line about subscriber growth too. They probably would have gone CDMA if they struck a deal with Verizon. >>The whole GSM vs CDMA debate is pretty much over for most of the >>world, all you have to look at is the graph of the competing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > They probably would have gone CDMA if they struck a deal with Verizon. Yep. It's all about money. >>> The whole GSM vs CDMA debate is pretty much over for most of the >>> world, all you have to look at is the graph of the competing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Yep. It's all about money. Yeah, Apple actually approached Verizon before AT&T/Cingular about releasing the iPhone, but Verizon didn't like Apple's terms, and told them to fly a kite. >>>> The whole GSM vs CDMA debate is pretty much over for most of the >>>> world, all you have to look at is the graph of the competing >>>> standards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cellphone-subscribers-by-technology.svg >>>> Notice the other line about subscriber growth too. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > releasing the iPhone, but Verizon didn't like Apple's terms, and told > them to fly a kite. As AT&T is quickly learning as well just how rotten doing business with Apple is. I never thought I'd see the day when I considered a US cellular carrier the lesser of two evils in any debate. Dave >As AT&T is quickly learning as well just how rotten doing business with >Apple is. I never thought I'd see the day when I considered a US cellular >carrier the lesser of two evils in any debate. On what basis? I've seen no evidence that AT&T is dissatisfied with Apple; to the contrary, the iPhone has been a winner for AT&T.  SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ> > As AT&T is quickly learning as well just how rotten doing business with > Apple is. I never thought I'd see the day when I considered a US cellular > carrier the lesser of two evils in any debate. AT&T entered the agreement voluntarily. The iPhone did give them a lot of upside in new retail subscribers, which is where they have always trailed Verizon. They still trail them, but the rate at which Verizon is increasing their lead is slowing. The whole AT&T/Verizon/iPhone debacle reminds me of the the Seinfeld episode where Jerry finds out that he's dating a woman that Newman turned down. After Verizon turned down Apple for the iPhone, AT&T grabbed it without understanding why Verizon passed on it. Apple is hardly the only company that is able to dictate favorable terms for themselves in business dealings. >> As AT&T is quickly learning as well just how rotten doing business with >> Apple is. I never thought I'd see the day when I considered a US cellular [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >turned down. After Verizon turned down Apple for the iPhone, AT&T >grabbed it without understanding why Verizon passed on it. We'll never know for sure, but what probably happened is that AT&T beat out Verizon in the beauty contest. Verizon has tried to spin that loss away by claiming that it didn't really want it. Right. SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford >>>> The whole GSM vs CDMA debate is pretty much over for most of the >>>> world, all you have to look at is the graph of the competing [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >releasing the iPhone, but Verizon didn't like Apple's terms, and told >them to fly a kite. Nope. That's just Verizon trying to spin away it's iPhone loss to AT&T Wireless. SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford >They probably would have gone CDMA if they struck a deal with Verizon. Eventually Apple will make both, just like Motorola does with the RAZR. > >They probably would have gone CDMA if they struck a deal with Verizon. > > Eventually Apple will make both, just like Motorola does with the > RAZR. Or dual (one phone that does both GSM and CDMA). > Or dual (one phone that does both GSM and CDMA). Since both AT&T and Verizon are planning to use the LTE standard in the future I doubt that Apple will ever make a CDMA phone. SignatureCharles >> They probably would have gone CDMA if they struck a deal with >> Verizon. > > Eventually Apple will make both, just like Motorola does with the > RAZR. I could be wrong about this, but I believe AT&T has a 5 year exclusivity agreement with Apple regarding the iPhone. If so, I wouldn't count on seeing a CDMA version for quite some time to come. >>> They probably would have gone CDMA if they struck a deal with >>> Verizon. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >agreement with Apple regarding the iPhone. If so, I wouldn't count on seeing >a CDMA version for quite some time to come. If ever -- CDMA2000 is in decline, with Verizon pretty much the only one left standing. SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford > I could be wrong about this, but I believe AT&T has a 5 year exclusivity > agreement with Apple regarding the iPhone. If so, I wouldn't count on seeing > a CDMA version for quite some time to come. It's not clear if Apple is precluded from making a CDMA model or just precluded from a deal with any other U.S. carrier for five years. If it's the latter, they could market a CDMA version in say Korea, and have it make its way back to the U.S. without their explicit approval. Apple desperately wanted Verizon for the iPhone because Verizon has the largest retail subscriber base, and continues to increase its lead over 2nd place AT&T in new retail subscribers. The reason that sales have not met expectations is because they had to go with AT&T. If you look at all the independent surveys on network quality, you can understand why subscribers aren't switching from Verizon to AT&T in droves just to get an iPhone. If they sold a Korean CDMA version for a higher price and didn't stop it from being gray-marketed into the U.S., that could make up for the lack of revenue sharing, and greatly increase the sales of the iPhone. In any case, it's becoming moot as similar devices, but with more capability, and more applications, are eclipsing the iPhone. The Sony-Ericsson XPERIA™ X1 looks especially good. >Apple desperately wanted Verizon for the iPhone because Verizon has the >largest retail subscriber base, and continues to increase its lead over [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >subscribers aren't switching from Verizon to AT&T in droves just to get >an iPhone. Nonsense. AT&T won the Apple "beauty contest" for the iPhone. Verizon lost, and all the Verizon spin in the world won't change that simple fact. And sales of the iPhone have been doing very well indeed, easily the most successful smartphone launch in history. SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford > Apple desperately wanted Verizon for the iPhone because Verizon has the > largest retail subscriber base, and continues to increase its lead over [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > subscribers aren't switching from Verizon to AT&T in droves just to get > an iPhone. In guess you think if you keep repeating the above that will make it true. Your whole paragraph is a crock. SignatureCharles >> Apple desperately wanted Verizon for the iPhone because Verizon has the >> largest retail subscriber base, and continues to increase its lead over [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > In guess you think if you keep repeating the above that will make it > true. Your whole paragraph is a crock. If you have any citations that dispute the citations which have been posted here repeatedly, then come forward with them. Of course you won't. The USA Today report about Apple going to Verizon first has never been disputed by any of the interested parties. The facts about retail subscribers are public documents, and the surveys on network quality are available from the publishers and no one has disputed their accuracy based on anything other than their own sour grapes statements. >>> Apple desperately wanted Verizon for the iPhone because Verizon has the >>> largest retail subscriber base, and continues to increase its lead over [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >posted here repeatedly, then come forward with them. Of course you >won't. There are no *independent* citations of any kind. >The USA Today report about Apple going to Verizon first Was based entirely on claims by Verizon. >has never >been disputed by any of the interested parties. Meaningless. These companies don't comment on things like that. >The facts about retail >subscribers are public documents, and the surveys on network quality are >available from the publishers Misinterpreted by you in both cases. >and no one has disputed their accuracy >based on anything other than their own sour grapes statements. Simply not true. And no actual links to back up your claims, as usual. SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford > If you have any citations that dispute the citations which have been > posted here repeatedly, then come forward with them. Of course you > won't. I doubt many disagree with the facts you point out-just the over-the-top conclusions you draw from them. Yes, Apple probably approached Verizon first. Perhaps they approached both simultaneously to get "feelers" as to whether further pursuit was useful. Personally, I believe they approached Verizon first to "get it out of the way." Verizon'shistory of crippling handsets made them very unlikely to play well with the iPhone, and I suspect Apple didn't expect much from Verizon, but gave them a shot and realized quickly further talks were pointless. > The facts about retail subscribers are public documents, Yes, and the difference in customers between the top two carriers, either retail or total, is relatively negligible- within 10%. This really eliminates neither carrier as a desirable choice. > and the surveys on network quality are available from the publishers > and no one has disputed their accuracy based on anything other than > their own sour grapes statements. While true, and while I agree Verizon has a stronger network, it's not by anywhere near the margin you suggest. If Verizon was as superior as you believe, why haven't the 50+ million "retail" AT&T customers jumped ship yet? All contracts run out eventually, so why does ANYONE re-up on AT&T's "inferior" network. The fact that T-Mo, the carrier with the weakest network, consistently ranks at or near the top of customer satisfaction surveys points out that even their network is satisfactory. Now if I want to close with an SMS-like conclusion from the above, I could suggest that the Verizon customer service experience must be pretty lackluster if their superior network doesn't give them a commanding lead over T-Mo and their inferior network in satisfaction surveys like J.D. Powers'! Or, I could give a Navas-like conclusion and simply type "Rubbish." ;-) Either way, you're blurring the distinction between "fact" and "unsupported conclusion drawn from fact." > Personally, I believe they approached Verizon first to "get it out of the > way." Verizon'shistory of crippling handsets made them very unlikely to > play well with the iPhone, and I suspect Apple didn't expect much from > Verizon, but gave them a shot and realized quickly further talks were > pointless. Almost certainly the reason they approached Verizon first was because they knew two things: 1. Verizon has the most retail subscribers of any U.S. carrier, and continues to add more retail subscribers than AT&T. This meant the largest possible market in the U.S. for the iPhone. 2. Very few Verizon subscribers would give up the Verizon network in order to get an iPhone, while AT&T subscribers have less allegiance. The churn numbers confirm this. I'm not sure what conclusions you think I'm drawing that are unsupported by the citations I include. > Yes, and the difference in customers between the top two carriers, either > retail or total, is relatively negligible- within 10%. It's actually over 10%. At the end of 2007, AT&T wireless had 55 million retail post paid customers, while Verizon had 61 million. > While true, and while I agree Verizon has a stronger network, it's not by > anywhere near the margin you suggest. If Verizon was as superior as you > believe, why haven't the 50+ million "retail" AT&T customers jumped ship > yet? All contracts run out eventually, so why does ANYONE re-up on AT&T's > "inferior" network. A few reasons right off the top of my head: 1. A better selection of handsets 2. More worldwide roaming 3. Adequate service in the areas where they use their phones > The fact that T-Mo, the carrier with the weakest network, consistently > ranks at or near the top of customer satisfaction surveys points out that > even their network is satisfactory. No, what it proves is that there is more to customer satisfaction than the actual quality of the network. > Now if I want to close with an SMS-like conclusion from the above, I could > suggest that the Verizon customer service experience must be pretty > lackluster if their superior network doesn't give them a commanding lead > over T-Mo and their inferior network in satisfaction surveys like J.D. > Powers'! Actually, what you could conclude it that T-Mobile's customer service is outstanding, while Verizon's is lackluster. >> Personally, I believe they approached Verizon first to "get it out of the >> way." Verizon'shistory of crippling handsets made them very unlikely to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Almost certainly the reason they approached Verizon first was because >they knew two things: We have only the word of Verizon on that, which is meaningless. >1. Verizon has the most retail subscribers of any U.S. carrier, and >continues to add more retail subscribers than AT&T. This meant the >largest possible market in the U.S. for the iPhone. The difference compared to AT&T is again meaningless, and AT&T is actually ahead. >2. Very few Verizon subscribers would give up the Verizon network in >order to get an iPhone, while AT&T subscribers have less allegiance. The >churn numbers confirm this. The churn numbers actually say nothing of the sort -- they are low for both carriers. 3. The worldwide market is GSM/UMTS, and CDMA2000 is a dead end, making AT&T a much more attractive part of a global strategy. 4. Verizon modifies ("cripples" according to you) handsets, something that Apple won't tolerate. >I'm not sure what conclusions you think I'm drawing that are unsupported >by the citations I include. All of them. >> Yes, and the difference in customers between the top two carriers, either >> retail or total, is relatively negligible- within 10%. > >It's actually over 10%. At the end of 2007, AT&T wireless had 55 million >retail post paid customers, while Verizon had 61 million. Nope. You're cooking the books. (What a shock.) SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford > > Personally, I believe they approached Verizon first to "get it out of the > > way." Verizon'shistory of crippling handsets made them very unlikely to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > continues to add more retail subscribers than AT&T. This meant the > largest possible market in the U.S. for the iPhone. Again, by an extremely small margin. All else being equal, you'd take the larger carrier, but all things are rarely equal. Let's face it- Apple and Verizon would've been a lousy fit! > 2. Very few Verizon subscribers would give up the Verizon network in > order to get an iPhone, while AT&T subscribers have less allegiance. Again, that's an unwarranted conclusion, conveniently forgetting the small spike in Verizon churn in the 3rd-quarter last year (the iPhone's big quarter.) Apparently not ALL Verizon customers swear an allegiance! ;-) AT&T's churn is a little higher, but that's still the second best churn number in the industry. > The churn numbers confirm this. Again, all else being equal... > I'm not sure what conclusions you think I'm drawing that are unsupported by the citations I include. Everything beyond the hard numbers! Stuff like "Verizon has the lowest churn" is a fact, for example, while "very few Verizon customers would leave..." is an opinion. There is a difference, you know. > > Yes, and the difference in customers between the top two carriers, either > > retail or total, is relatively negligible- within 10%. > > It's actually over 10%. At the end of 2007, AT&T wireless had 55 million retail post paid customers, while Verizon had 61 million. You got me by 500k customers, give or take. (The difference was less when Apple and A&T did the deal, BTW!). > > While true, and while I agree Verizon has a stronger network, it's not by > > anywhere near the margin you suggest. If Verizon was as superior as you [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 2. More worldwide roaming > 3. Adequate service in the areas where they use their phones If all of those factors are more important to 63, er, 55 million customers, than "the network" then why do you think Apple would see Verizon and it's network as an advantage? The top two carriers are essentially interchangeable from Apple's standpoint, and equally viable. Why not just take the better deal? > > The fact that T-Mo, the carrier with the weakest network, consistently > > ranks at or near the top of customer satisfaction surveys points out that > > even their network is satisfactory. > > No, what it proves is that there is more to customer satisfaction than the actual quality of the network. Of course- yet if these non-Verizon networks wereaspoor as you think, we non-VZW users would all be walking around with dead phones! > > Now if I want to close with an SMS-like conclusion from the above, I could > > suggest that the Verizon customer service experience must be pretty [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Actually, what you could conclude it that T-Mobile's customer service is > outstanding, while Verizon's is lackluster. But I was mostly kidding- I've never really heard too much griping about VZW's CS, (at least compared to, say, Sprint's.) You can only draw your conclusion if you accept the premise Verizon's network is orders of magnitude better than others, when the reality is that all the national carriers have comparable networks within a few percentage points of each other (counted by POPs, rather than geography.) >> > Personally, I believe they approached Verizon first to "get it out >> > of [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > the national carriers have comparable networks within a few percentage > points of each other (counted by POPs, rather than geography.) Todd- you realize that you're arguing with the Verizon version of Navas, don't you? > Todd- you realize that you're arguing with the Verizon version of Navas, > don't you? Unfortunately, it seems more that way all the time, but I'm not ready to write Steven off just yet... Although I AM starting to wonder if SMS looks just like John Navas except with a goatee... ;-) >> Todd- you realize that you're arguing with the Verizon version of Navas, >> don't you? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Although I AM starting to wonder if SMS looks just like John Navas except > with a goatee... ;-) I have no goatee, and I've never seen Navas so I don't know if I look like him. "The Bob" appears to be more like Navas than me. Lots of attacks, but never any substance. >>> Todd- you realize that you're arguing with the Verizon version of >>> Navas, don't you? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > "The Bob" appears to be more like Navas than me. Lots of attacks, but > never any substance. Sorry, Steve- I've provided plenty of substance. The fact that you don't choose to recognize it is not surprising. > > "The Bob" appears to be more like Navas than me. Lots of attacks, but > > never any substance. > > Sorry, Steve- I've provided plenty of substance. The fact that you don't > choose to recognize it is not surprising. To be fair to Steve, it's kind of hard to tell how substantive your prior posts have been with the nymshifting... It took me a few posts to figure you out from your posting style, but then again I appreciate a few good ascerbic comments from a fellow Rocky Mountain wiseass! ;-) > I have no goatee, and I've never seen Navas so I don't know if I look like him. It was a "nerd-reference" to the "Mirror, Mirror" episode of the original Star Trek series, where the parallel-universe-opposite Mr. Spock sported a mustache and goatee. I must be a lot older (and geekier) than you guys... ;-) > "The Bob" appears to be more like Navas than me. Lots of attacks, but > never any substance. There's a lot of that going around here lately... Mostly well-deserved against our resident NG villian, but it's really lowering the S/N ratio, which seems to be his current plan. I'm certainly just as guilty as most of us lately- I need to restrain myself better and follow your filter-and-ignore policy. It seems to have worked for our iPhanboy Oxford, but of course he didn't have as much history invested here as He Who Must Not Be Named. Cheers! > I'm certainly just as guilty as most of us lately- I need to restrain > myself better and follow your filter-and-ignore policy. It seems to have > worked for our iPhanboy Oxford, but of course he didn't have as much > history invested here as He Who Must Not Be Named. After a while you forget about the filters and don't think about why the S/N ratio improved so much, then you go back and look at the filter log, and wow! Besides filtering specific posters, a few subject filters does wonders: Subject words and phrases to filter: "CHARTER" "FAQ for AT&T/Cingular Wireless" "Motorola cell phones FAQ" "Navas" "Oxford" (all the permutations of MI5 subject words) Posters to filter: "spamfilter1@navasgroup.com" "jarjar@nospam.com" "noone@home.com" "rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com" In Thunderbird you want to be sure to do the global filters, not the newsgroup specific filters. > After a while you forget about the filters and don't think about why the > S/N ratio improved so much, then you go back and look at the filter log, > and wow! I do most of my Usenet from my WinMo phone running the QMail client- it has filters but their implemented awkwardly. First you download the messages, then manually apply the filter which then goes through the posts and moves all "matching" posts to the trash bin. There may be an easier/automatic way, but while the program is in English, the author (and all documentation) is Japanese! Unless I'm slogging through days worth of noise, it's generally easier for me to just delete them manually when I see obvious timewasters like "FAQ for AT&T/Cingular..." or "iPhone gets Tetris" or whatever... > I do most of my Usenet from my WinMo phone running the QMail client- it > has filters but their implemented awkwardly. First you download the > messages, then manually apply the filter which then goes through the > posts and moves all "matching" posts to the trash bin. There may be an > easier/automatic way, but while the program is in English, the author > (and all documentation) is Japanese! The problem with Thunderbird is that there is no way to apply the filter after the messages are downloaded, so your newsgroup can get cluttered up with a new thread or poster that you want to filter. Outlook allows post-download filtering. Thunderbird has it for e-mail, but not for newsgroups. Some day we'll live in a world where they're aren't so many obnoxious jerks like "he who must not be named" and we won't have to deal with all these filters. > The problem with Thunderbird is that there is no way to apply the filter > after the messages are downloaded, so your newsgroup can get cluttered > up with a new thread or poster that you want to filter. Outlook allows > post-download filtering. So does Dialog. >> 1. Verizon has the most retail subscribers of any U.S. carrier, and >> continues to add more retail subscribers than AT&T. This meant the >> largest possible market in the U.S. for the iPhone. > > Again, by an extremely small margin. More than 10% more, and the gap is widening every quarter. All else being equal, you'd take the > larger carrier, but all things are rarely equal. Let's face it- Apple and > Verizon would've been a lousy fit! You may be right. Both are headstrong companies with an attitude of "we have all the supply, so we can demand whatever the $%#@ we want." Let's face it, Verizon knows that it gets away with a lot of what they do because for many subscribers there is simply no decent alternative. They periodically offer to let subscribers out of their contracts when they unilaterally change the terms for the worse. It's not surprising that Verizon didn't want to give Apple the revenue sharing that Apple wanted. > Again, that's an unwarranted conclusion, conveniently forgetting the small > spike in Verizon churn in the 3rd-quarter last year (the iPhone's big > quarter.) Apparently not ALL Verizon customers swear an allegiance! ;-) A small spike for what was supposed to be g-ds gift to the cellular phone industry. > You may be right. Both are headstrong companies with an attitude > of "we have all the supply, so we can demand whatever the $%#@ > we want." Let's face it, Verizon knows that it gets away with a lot > of what they do because for many subscribers there is simply no > decent alternative. Agreed. > They periodically offer to let subscribers out of their contracts when > they unilaterally change the terms for the worse. Which I've never understood (from any cell company- not just Verizon.) Most have billing systems advanced enough to handle myriads of "grandfathered" rate plans. Wouldn't it be cheaper to just grandfather, say, a $0.10 or $0.15 texting charge until the end of a contract, rather than let people walk out of a $50/month plan over a lousy nickel increase? > It's not surprising > that Verizon didn't want to give Apple the revenue sharing that Apple > wanted. I'm sure it was simply Verizon greed, but as a former cellular dealer I'd like to pretend it was at least partly out of respect for their dealer base. AT&T is essentially paying Apple the "dealer residuals" on each iPhone contract, and locking their entire dealer network out of a hot- selling phone possibly to prevent "double-dipping" of residuals. > > Again, that's an unwarranted conclusion, conveniently forgetting the small > > spike in Verizon churn in the 3rd-quarter last year (the iPhone's big > > quarter.) Apparently not ALL Verizon customers swear an allegiance! ;-) > A small spike for what was supposed to be g-ds gift to the cellular phone industry. Agreed, but it was a spike nonetheless. Frankly, for all the noise about the JesusPhone, all of the other carriers (except Sprint) are doing well in net adds- at last year's level or above, so the iPhone exclusivity isn't exactly crippling the competition. > Which I've never understood (from any cell company- not just Verizon.) > Most have billing systems advanced enough to handle myriads of > "grandfathered" rate plans. Wouldn't it be cheaper to just grandfather, say, > a $0.10 or $0.15 texting charge until the end of a contract, rather than > let people walk out of a $50/month plan over a lousy nickel increase? Yes, but they know that few people will take advantage of the escape clause. They must have calculated that the increased revenue from the higher rates more than offsets the lost subscribers. > I'm sure it was simply Verizon greed, but as a former cellular dealer I'd > like to pretend it was at least partly out of respect for their dealer > base. AT&T is essentially paying Apple the "dealer residuals" on each > iPhone contract, and locking their entire dealer network out of a hot- > selling phone possibly to prevent "double-dipping" of residuals. I know that AT&T's dealers are very upset about not being able to sell the iPhone, however I'd speculate that it was the revenue sharing and not the residuals that caused Verizon to pass on the iPhone. > Agreed, but it was a spike nonetheless. Frankly, for all the noise about > the JesusPhone, all of the other carriers (except Sprint) are doing well in > net adds- at last year's level or above, so the iPhone exclusivity isn't > exactly crippling the competition. True, I originally thought that the iPhone would enable AT&T to overtake Verizon in new retail additions, but in fact Verizon continues to widen its lead. With the right management, Sprint could probably turn things around, but they'll probably be sold to someone that can make better use of their network. >> Which I've never understood (from any cell company- not just Verizon.) >> Most have billing systems advanced enough to handle myriads of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >clause. They must have calculated that the increased revenue from the >higher rates more than offsets the lost subscribers. More to the point, they do their best not to alert people to the fact by burying that fact in dense and confusing legalese. Sadly, the Republican FTC doesn't seem to think there's anything wrong with that, and most of the state PUCs aren't up to the task. >> I'm sure it was simply Verizon greed, but as a former cellular dealer I'd >> like to pretend it was at least partly out of respect for their dealer [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I know that AT&T's dealers are very upset about not being able to sell >the iPhone, You know that how? How many have you talked to? Or is this something else that you think must be true so you say it's true? >however I'd speculate that it was the revenue sharing and >not the residuals that caused Verizon to pass on the iPhone. Verizon actually lost out to AT&T. >> Agreed, but it was a spike nonetheless. Frankly, for all the noise about >> the JesusPhone, all of the other carriers (except Sprint) are doing well in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Verizon in new retail additions, but in fact Verizon continues to widen >its lead. ... There is no such "lead" without cooking the books. AT&T is the largest carrier in the USA. SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford In alt.cellular.attws Todd Allcock <elecconnec@americaonline.com> wrote: >> > Now if I want to close with an SMS-like conclusion from the above, I > could [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > carriers have comparable networks within a few percentage points of each > other (counted by POPs, rather than geography.) I have had nothing but excellent customer service from Verizon and I have used it a few times [mostly related to my Daughter breaking phones or a temporary but significant period of overage where I didn't want to commit to a new higher plan for only two months of service. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse In the land of the dark the Ship of the Sun is driven by the Grateful Dead. -- Egyptian Book of the Dead > I have had nothing but excellent customer service from Verizon and I have used > it a few times [mostly related to my Daughter breaking phones or a temporary > but significant period of overage where I didn't want to commit to a new > higher plan for only two months of service. My experiences have been that they took care of whatever issue I had, but that the issue should have not occurred in the first place. I.e. I got a new handset and explicitly stated that I didn't want to change plans, but they changed my plan anyway. One call fixed the problem, but it was a problem that shouldn't have happened. I've known people to receive incorrect information on roaming, i.e. the infamous, "we have no roaming in Alaska, it's or 50th state you know," when in fact they did have free roaming (besides the fact that Alaska isn't the 50th state). >> Apple desperately wanted Verizon for the iPhone because Verizon has the >> largest retail subscriber base, and continues to increase its lead over [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >In guess you think if you keep repeating the above that will make it >true. Your whole paragraph is a crock. Yes and amen. SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford Apple wanted too much control over the phone and the profits, so Sprin and Verizon both declined the offer because of the amount of contro Apple wanted, at least that's what I read back when it first launched So its not so much GSM vs CDMA as it was control over the product. If you've noticed, all commercials for it seemed to have been by Apple I haven't seen any AT&T commercials advertising the iPhone like they d other phones -- mindfrost8 >Apple wanted too much control over the phone and the profits, so Sprint >and Verizon both declined the offer because of the amount of control >Apple wanted, at least that's what I read back when it first launched. >So its not so much GSM vs CDMA as it was control over the product. GSM means the iPhone is ready to go world-wide, rather then only in a couple markets. Of course, had Apple gone with CDMA, there wouldn't be any issue at all with unlocking since with the recent exception of Verizon, CDMA carriers don't tend to be friendly with regards to phones on their network other then those which the carrier sold. All that being said, if Apple had really wanted to stop unlocking before it became a mainstream problem, embedding the SIM rather then making it user-changeable would have done wonders. >If you've noticed, all commercials for it seemed to have been by Apple. >I haven't seen any AT&T commercials advertising the iPhone like they do >other phones. The reason for this is somewhat debatable -- If someone else wants to market their product, and every sale of their product requires my product, why not let them do it and market my own product independently? > GSM means the iPhone is ready to go world-wide, rather then only in a > couple markets. But that "couple markets" includes the USA and Japan. That's a pretty good couple of markets! Signature--Tim Smith >> GSM means the iPhone is ready to go world-wide, rather then only in a >> couple markets. > >But that "couple markets" includes the USA and Japan. That's a pretty >good couple of markets! Japan is W-CDMA, which is not compatible with the CDMA protocol used in US and Canada. In other words, from a development point of view, the choice would be CDMA for US and Canada, CDMA for Japan, or GSM for most of the cellular coverage across the planet, including US and Canada. >>> GSM means the iPhone is ready to go world-wide, rather then only in a >>> couple markets. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > choice would be CDMA for US and Canada, CDMA for Japan, or GSM for most > of the cellular coverage across the planet, including US and Canada. W-CDMA is UMTS/HSDPA which mainly applies to data anyway. Dave >>>> GSM means the iPhone is ready to go world-wide, rather then only in a >>>> couple markets. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >W-CDMA is UMTS/HSDPA which mainly applies to data anyway. While true, Japan's voice implementation is completely incompatible with what is used in Canada and the US. You cannot take a phone from a CDMA carrier in Canada or the US and roam in Japan, even if you are coming from a carrier with roaming agreements. However, some CDMA carriers do allow you to rent Japan-compatible CDMA phones. These only work in Japan, and do not function on the CDMA networks deployed in Canada or the US. The "couple markets" I mentioned above is Canada and the US, and that's pretty much it. >>> Japan is W-CDMA, which is not compatible with the CDMA protocol used in >>> US and Canada. In other words, from a development point of view, the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > carrier in Canada or the US and roam in Japan, even if you are coming > from a carrier with roaming agreements. The UMTS (W-CDMA) service in Japan is, however, perfectly compatible (DoCoMo's idiosyncrasies aside) with European UMTS service, which is the same as the 3G UMTS services operated by Rogers and AT&T in North America except that it runs at a different frequency (just like the difference between European and NA GSM). While there are very few phones which support both the Euro and NA UMTS bands at this point, AT&T does sell one (the 8525) which will work in Japan, and any recent SIM from a North American GSM operator will get service in Japan when plugged into the right kind of phone. Apart from the "CDMA" in the name of the air interface, the W-CDMA service in Japan has a lot more in common with GSM services than it has with CDMA2000 services. I assume when Apple delivers their 3G iPhone later this year they'll have something to sell in Japan and Korea as well. Dennis Ferguson >>>> GSM means the iPhone is ready to go world-wide, rather then only in a >>>> couple markets. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> choice would be CDMA for US and Canada, CDMA for Japan, or GSM for most >> of the cellular coverage across the planet, including US and Canada. There is actually at least one CDMA2000 carrier in Japan (KDDI), though the frequency the service uses is different than the US. Note, however, that Apple has so far done deals only with the (or close to the) largest carriers in their market, and the list of CDMA2000 carriers which are also the largest in their market is very, very short. > W-CDMA is UMTS/HSDPA which mainly applies to data anyway. ?? UMTS provides both voice and data service, just like GSM and CDMA2000 provide both voice and data service. Dennis Ferguson >>>>> GSM means the iPhone is ready to go world-wide, rather then only in a >>>>> couple markets. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Dennis Ferguson Yes I know this but didn't know anyone was using it for voice yet since GSM is very efficient with voice using about 13kbs while using the voice portion in most implementations. I know the carriers generally don't want to give up bandwidth they don't need to. Dave >>> W-CDMA is UMTS/HSDPA which mainly applies to data anyway. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > portion in most implementations. I know the carriers generally don't want > to give up bandwidth they don't need to. I don't think (W-)CDMA codecs are inferior to GSM, in fact most people think it is the other way round. (W-)CDMA codecs are variable bit rate; their worst case is similar to GSM codecs but when you aren't talking (which should be half the time, more or less) their bit rate drops off to close to nothing, leaving more of the channel for others to use. Unless they've implemented some new, fancy feature very recently, GSM channels are fixed speed and consume the same bandwidth whether you're talking or not. In any case, while I don't know how it works in North America, in Europe the UMTS services and the GSM services are mutually exclusive alternatives. That is, if you let your phone register with a UMTS network you use UMTS for voice and data, otherwise you let your phone register with a GSM network and use GSM for voice and data. Some operators (including my favorite for roaming in the UK/Europe) are UMTS-only. Dennis Ferguson >> Yes I know this but didn't know anyone was using it for voice yet since GSM >> is very efficient with voice using about 13kbs while using the voice [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >are fixed speed and consume the same bandwidth whether you're talking >or not. GSM now has variable rate codecs and channel sharing. SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford On Feb 17, 12:57 am, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote: > In article <rp9fr3he8ciduik9kgpssp1vocddnsu...@4ax.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -- > --Tim Smith You must not have looked at that Wickopedia chart. CDMA is very little and dropping compared to GSM when you look at the world market. On Feb 16, 8:58 pm, mindfrost82 <mindfrost82.34w...@no- > Apple wanted too much control over the phone and the profits, so Sprint > and Verizon both declined the offer because of the amount of control [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > mindfrost82's Profile:http://www.mindfrost82.com/member.php?userid=1 > View this thread:http://www.mindfrost82.com/showthread.php?t=113968 AT&T advertizes other high end phones like the Nokia N95 or N96? > On Feb 16, 8:58 pm, mindfrost82 <mindfrost82.34w...@no- >> Apple wanted too much control over the phone and the profits, so Sprint [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > AT&T advertizes other high end phones like the Nokia N95 or N96? Did you say N96? I know I love my N95-3 but it too will become old and worn. Dave On Feb 17, 6:47 pm, David W Studeman <eat_your_own_s...@hormel.com> wrote: > iphone4...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Feb 16, 8:58 pm, mindfrost82 <mindfrost82.34w...@no- [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The Nokia N96 redefines "high-end" Posted Feb 11th 2008 4:15AM by Chris Ziegler Filed under: Cellphones, Handhelds http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/11/the-nokia-n96-redefines-high-end/ >Apple wanted too much control over the phone and the profits, so Sprint >and Verizon both declined the offer because of the amount of control >Apple wanted, at least that's what I read back when it first launched. >So its not so much GSM vs CDMA as it was control over the product. Sprint wasn't a player. Apple did a beauty contest between the two largest US carriers. Verizon lost and AT&T Wireless won. What you read was just Verizon trying to spin that loss away. >If you've noticed, all commercials for it seemed to have been by Apple. Not terribly surprising. >I haven't seen any AT&T commercials advertising the iPhone like they do >other phones. There's quite a bit of promotion in AT&T Wireless stores. SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford > The whole GSM vs CDMA debate is pretty much over for most of the > world, all you have to look at is the graph of the competing > standards: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cellphone-subscribers-by-technology.svg > > Notice the other line about subscriber growth too. For now it's over, but if future plans come to fruition, CDMA's domination may be short lived. The U.S. carrier with the most data users, Verizon, has chosen LTE for 4G. Most of the world's carriers also plan to abandon CDMA for LTE when they move to 4G. While royalty rates will come down, Qualcomm still owns a significant about of the IP for LTE, with its recent acquisitions. In alt.cellular.attws 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote: > The whole GSM vs CDMA debate is pretty much over for most of the > world, all you have to look at is the graph of the competing > standards: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cellphone-subscribers-by-technology.svg > > Notice the other line about subscriber growth too. Apple is nothing if not about planned obsolecense and upgrades. With a company like Verizon, users will have to go through the hassle of calling up Verizon, buying a Verizon blessed [i]phone and then get it activated. With GSM, Apple simply releases a new iPhonse [unlocked ... but that is in the future] and a user is free to just take the SIM out of the old one and put it in the new one. That alone seems like a major reason to me. Also, since Europe is a major market for Apple, they are predominantly GSM, so it also make sense from that perspective. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse In the land of the dark the Ship of the Sun is driven by the Grateful Dead. -- Egyptian Book of the Dead > Apple is nothing if not about planned obsolecense and upgrades. With a > company like Verizon, users will have to go through the hassle of calling up > Verizon, buying a Verizon blessed [i]phone and then get it activated. With > GSM, Apple simply releases a new iPhonse [unlocked ... but that is in the > future] and a user is free to just take the SIM out of the old one and put it > in the new one. I've activated many phones on Verizon without ever calling them, or having to open the phone. It takes just a few seconds on-line to activate the phone. Buying a new iPhone from a Verizon store would not be materially more difficult than buying one from an Apple or AT&T store. > That alone seems like a major reason to me. If on-line activation versus swapping a SIM seems like a major reason, then you haven't been paying attention, since Apple first approached Verizon for the iPhone they obviously weren't too concerned about this issue. The major reason they wanted Verizon was because Verizon has significantly more retail subscribers (and continues to increase their lead in retail customers versus AT&T); it had nothing to do with GSM versus CDMA. It's all about subscriber growth and sales potential. They did what any company would do--try to get their product into the channel with the largest sales potential. > Also, since Europe is a major market for Apple, they are predominantly GSM, so > it also make sense from that perspective. Perhaps, but obviously Apple knew they could easily do both a GSM and CDMA version of the phone. Look at other countries, where Apple always first approaches the carrier with the largest sales potential, and if turned down they go down the line until they find a carrier that will agree to their revenue sharing terms. Also, one of the reasons the iPhone has done poorly in Europe is because of the lack of 3G, so it's unlikely that they did much research into the European market. In alt.cellular.attws SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote: >> Apple is nothing if not about planned obsolecense and upgrades. With a >> company like Verizon, users will have to go through the hassle of calling up [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > having to open the phone. It takes just a few seconds on-line to > activate the phone. Right ... but it has to be a Verizon approved phone. > Buying a new iPhone from a Verizon store would not be materially more > difficult than buying one from an Apple or AT&T store. True ... but later, when it is not AT&T exclusive, you can buy one anywhere and just put your SIM in it. Another major market for Apple is Europe, which is mostly GSM, so that is another advantage to their choice of technology. >> That alone seems like a major reason to me. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > did what any company would do--try to get their product into the channel > with the largest sales potential. You missed my point. You can only activate Verizon approved phones on their network [even via the online tool]. Verizon has promised to open this up, but they also promised to go to pro-rated early termination fees and I haven't seen that materialize ... so vapor is vapor until otherwise revealed. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse In the land of the dark the Ship of the Sun is driven by the Grateful Dead. -- Egyptian Book of the Dead > You missed my point. You can only activate Verizon approved phones on their > network [even via the online tool]. Verizon has promised to open this up, but > they also promised to go to pro-rated early termination fees and I haven't > seen that materialize ... so vapor is vapor until otherwise revealed. I didn't miss it. Technically you can only activate iPhones on AT&T. Apple didn't care about the phone being able to be used on multiple networks, in fact they made attempts to prevent this from occurring. Perhaps one reason Apple wanted Verizon so badly was because preventing the use of the phone on other CDMA networks would have been much easier. Indeed, maybe the reason they wanted Verizon in the U.S. was because the U.S. model phones could then not be used in Europe or much of Asia, on GSM networks, with Apple losing their cut. Look at where most of the unactivated iPhones ended up. You're also mistaken about ETFs on Verizon. Pro-rated termination fees are already in effect at Verizon (for more than a year in fact, since November 2006), the ETF goes down $5/month, i.e. at 23 months you'd pay $175-($5 x 23)=$60. AT&T and T-Mobile have announced pro-rated ETFs, but haven't implemented them yet. From: "http://www.verizonwireless.com/" "AN EARLY TERMINATION FEE WILL APPLY IF YOU CHOOSE TO END YOUR SERVICE BEFORE BECOMING A MONTH–TO–MONTH CUSTOMER, OR IF WE TERMINATE IT EARLY FOR GOOD CAUSE. FOR SERVICE ACTIVATED PRIOR TO 11/16/06, THE EARLY TERMINATION FEE IS $175 PER WIRELESS PHONE NUMBER. FOR SERVICE ACTIVATED ON OR AFTER 11/16/06, OR FOR LINES OF SERVICE WITH MINIMUM TERMS EXTENDED ON OR AFTER 11/16/06, THE EARLY TERMINATION FEE IS $175, WHICH WILL BE REDUCED BY $5 FOR EACH FULL MONTH TOWARD YOUR MINIMUM TERM THAT YOU COMPLETE." >Perhaps one reason Apple wanted Verizon so badly was because preventing >the use of the phone on other CDMA networks would have been much easier. Apple didn't want Verizon "so badly" -- it selected AT&T Wireless. There are few other CDMA2000 networks of any significance. SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford >If on-line activation versus swapping a SIM seems like a major reason, >then you haven't been paying attention, since Apple first approached [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >did what any company would do--try to get their product into the channel >with the largest sales potential. That's actually all about Verizon spin, trying to explain away how it lost the iPhone beauty contest to AT&T. GSM was clearly a much better fit for Apple, especially with CDMA2000 in serious decline. >> Also, since Europe is a major market for Apple, they are predominantly GSM, so >> it also make sense from that perspective. > >Perhaps, but obviously Apple knew they could easily do both a GSM and >CDMA version of the phone. Not so easy, actually, especially because of battery life issues. >Look at other countries, where Apple always >first approaches the carrier with the largest sales potential, and if >turned down they go down the line until they find a carrier that will >agree to their revenue sharing terms. Also, one of the reasons the >iPhone has done poorly in Europe is because of the lack of 3G, so it's >unlikely that they did much research into the European market. You obviously don't know Apple very well. SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.