 |
 | 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 / Sprint PCS / April 2008Sprint shows off iPhone lookalike
"Sprint Nextel showed off a new iPhone look-alike from Samsung on Tuesday at the CTIA conference in Las Vegas that the operator says allows much faster data access then the Apple phone." "The Instinct, co-developed by Sprint and Samsung, looks similar to the iPhone, including a touch screen. Unlike the iPhone, however, it includes GPS (Global Positioning System) and runs on Sprintʼs high-speed EV-DO (Evolution-Data Optimized) Revision A network. Sprintʼs network offers an average data download rate as high as 1.4Mbps. By contrast, EDGE (Enhanced Data Rates for GSM Evolution), which the iPhone operates on via AT&Tʼs network, usually offers less than 200k bps throughput." [more] http://www.macworld.com/article/132786/2008/04/iphone_sprint.html  SignatureDutch Sprint is the BOMB! They have the best phones and the best network. That is really fast data especially if you use the phone as a modem. Jar-Jar > "Sprint Nextel showed off a new iPhone look-alike from Samsung on > Tuesday at the CTIA conference in Las Vegas that the operator says [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > [more] > http://www.macworld.com/article/132786/2008/04/iphone_sprint.html > Sprint is the BOMB! They have the best phones and the best network. > That is really fast data especially if you use the phone as a modem. Patience, my son, patience! http://xohm.com/ The biggest OPEN SOURCE cellphone company on the planet comes to the rescue....from far North in Finland.... WiMax WILL happen, even in Sellphone-controlled America.... Amen bro! WiMax will rule! >> Sprint is the BOMB! They have the best phones and the best network. >> That is really fast data especially if you use the phone as a modem. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > WiMax WILL happen, even in Sellphone-controlled America.... > Sprint is the BOMB! They have the best phones and the best network. That is > really fast data especially if you use the phone as a modem. Gizmodo Guy: iPhone Clone Innovation is 'Positively Listles' Today, April 03, 2008, 19 hours ago Despite next-gen networks and haptics tech continuing to break on through to the realistic side, the year's big cellphone trade show disappointed Gizmodo's man on the floor because, well, the iPhone's still just too good. http://digg.com/apple/Gizmodo_Guy_iPhone_Clone_Innovation_is_Positively_Listles > "Sprint Nextel showed off a new iPhone look-alike from Samsung on > Tuesday at the CTIA conference in Las Vegas that the operator says [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > EDGE (Enhanced Data Rates for GSM Evolution), which the iPhone operates > on via AT&Tʼs network, usually offers less than 200k bps throughput." It appears as if Sprint forgot to include WiFi. It's very useful to have WiFi when traveling, and the data rates are higher. One reason so many iPhones have been unlocked is because a lot of users just want to use them on WiFi networks (partly because Edge is so slow, but also because they don't want to sign up for an expensive data plan). I hope Sprint survives, but at this juncture they have one of the worst networks (only T-Mobile is worse) and the worst selection of handsets. This is what's causing their incredibly high churn, not customer service problems. I know it is not in all states, but there are more states than just WI where Sprint's network covers all of verizon's and then some. Jerome is correct. In Southern Cal, Sprint kicks Verizon's butt. > I know it is not in all states, but there are more states than just > WI where Sprint's network covers all of verizon's and then some. > I hope Sprint survives, but at this juncture they have one of the worst > networks (only T-Mobile is worse) and the worst selection of handsets. > This is what's causing their incredibly high churn, not customer service > problems. I disagree. Their network hasn't become worse in the last few years, and their handset selection has always been lackluster. Why has that suddenly caused churn to increase? It's the botched integration of theNextel merger that's messed them up. It was the Nextel Merger that killed them and the outsourcing of customer support to clueless off-shore service centers. Customer service has been their achillies heel. Their well designed network is their asset. They have better connections and less dropped calls than ATT but their customer service has killed them! >> I hope Sprint survives, but at this juncture they have one of the worst >> networks (only T-Mobile is worse) and the worst selection of handsets. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > merger > that's messed them up. > I disagree. Their network hasn't become worse in the last few years, and > their handset selection has always been lackluster. Why has that suddenly > caused churn to increase? It's not that their network has become worse, it's that other networks have improved more, and consumers have become more aware of the differences between networks as a result of independent surveys of coverage. A few years ago, people were complaining more about Verizon's handset selection, and praising Sprint's selection. > It's the botched integration of theNextel merger > that's messed them up. Yes, a lot of their churn is Nextel accounts leaving as iDen is EOL. Sprint apparently thought that Nextel customers would all convert to Sprint plans, which isn't happening. In a survey of a few years ago, the number one cause of churn was handset problems, though in reality a lot of what a customer claims are handset problems (dropped calls, static) are more likely coverage problems. Second was cost, not that of a competitor, but just the cost of service in general, with those subscribers moving to prepaid. Third was coverage. Fourth was competitor's rates and plans, which accounted for only 9% of churn. Last was customer service. If Sprint would have an advertising campaign that centered around showing customers how to force their handsets to roam, and how much more coverage they receive as a result, that might help reduce the churn due to coverage issues. The "iPhone lookalike" is not going to help them much without WiFi. > > I disagree. Their network hasn't become worse in the last few years, and > > their handset selection has always been lackluster. Why has that suddenly [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the differences between networks as a result of independent surveys > of coverage. Then explain T-Mo's success? They have a worse network than Sprint, a piss- poor handset selection, and they're not bleeding customers. > A few years ago, people were complaining more about Verizon's > handset selection, and praising Sprint's selection. I don't remember anyone "praising" Sprint's selection, except maybe to say it stunk less than Verizon's ;-) > > It's the botched integration of theNextel merger > > that's messed them up. > > Yes, a lot of their churn is Nextel accounts leaving as iDen is EOL. > Sprint apparently thought that Nextel customers would all convert > to Sprint plans, which isn't happening. True. > The "iPhone lookalike" is not going to help them much without WiFi. Most consumers (including myself) won't care if it has WiFi as long as they have a reasonably-priced unlimited 3G plan. You're really splitting speed hairs on a mobile device is 3G is so painfully slow that you need to go to WiFi- YOU have a skewed perspective because you like in an area with fairly ubiquitous WiFi and see no need for a cellular data plan. Everywhere isn't the Bay Area, my friend! In the majority of the country, you either need to park in the suburbs like a soccer mom stalker, or develop a taste for overpriced coffee to find any WiFi. Most of the time you'll be using cellular data. If you've got to buy an unlimited 3G plan anyway, WiFi is far less important. And at Sprint's $15 for unlimited on-phone data, it doesn't exactly break the bank like a $30 or $40 AT&T or Verizon PDA data plan. WiFi is important to _me_ as a T-Mo customer because I'm on a 2G network. If I had 3G, it's unlikely I'd waste the time with the three screen taps it takes to turn WiFi on or off- I certainly don't bother for e-mail retrieval, or even for a quick web lookup. Only if I'm planning to do some surfing will I bother with WiFi. >>> I disagree. Their network hasn't become worse in the last few years, > and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Then explain T-Mo's success? They have a worse network than Sprint, a piss- > poor handset selection, and they're not bleeding customers. T-Mobile has never tried to market themselves as a carrier for those that are concerned about coverage. They offer a lot more peak minutes/$, they have a very low cost texting plan (400 texts for $5), and they market heavily to young people with some unique handsets. They're not a full service wireless provider either, eschewing the cost of building a 3G network because they didn't believe they could compete in that market. Also, T-Mobile has historically low profit margins in the U.S., despite having a high ARPU. > Most consumers (including myself) won't care if it has WiFi as long as they > have a reasonably-priced unlimited 3G plan. I think you're wrong about most customers. The problem with Sprint 3G is that you can't roam onto Verizon 3G. You can't use your device as a web access device when you're in a place with WiFi but no 3G coverage, including nearly everywhere outside the U.S.. Look at why the iPhone is being unlocked and sold in countries where it has no official carrier. It's because it's a web access device, as well as a phone and music player. > WiFi- YOU have a skewed perspective because you like in an area with fairly > ubiquitous WiFi and see no need for a cellular data plan. Actually I'd love a cellular data plan. While I know where to go to get WiFi, it's not really ubiquitous in the sense that every place you visit has it, and lately it seems that more individuals are being smart enough to secure their personal networks. Everywhere isn't > the Bay Area, my friend! In the majority of the country, you either need > to park in the suburbs like a soccer mom stalker, or develop a taste for > overpriced coffee to find any WiFi. Most of the time you'll be using > cellular data. Yes, that's why you need to sign up with a cellular data provider that has more coverage than Sprint. Sprint is a non-player to me. They don't have coverage where I live in Northern California, and in all the independent surveys show that their California coverage, north and south, is much worse than other carriers, which has also been the experience of every Sprint customer in California that I know personally. Of course these customers didn't know enough to force their handsets to roam onto Verizon, assuming their handsets had the capability. My SprintPCS PPC6700 works just fine on wifi, and I don't even have it activated as a phone at all. So not being in a SprintPCS 3g area has nothing to do with wifi access. I do not know if verizon customers can roam on SprintPCS' 3g network here where the verizon 3g network isn't. The phone I am currently using does not have roaming only, but even if I was to switch to the 6700, which has a roaming only setting, there is not a way to force it to a specific carrier. Here, it might just as likely go to uscellular. > T-Mobile has never tried to market themselves as a carrier for those > that are concerned about coverage. Because they don't have te coverage to back up such a claim. It's not like they advertise lack of coverage either! ;) Sprint never pushed the coverage card in their ads either- they pushed call quality ("pin drop.") > They offer a lot more peak minutes/$, they have a very low cost > texting plan (400 texts for $5), and they market heavily to young > people with some unique handsets. They're not a full service wireless > provider either, eschewing the cost of building a 3G network because > they didn't believe they could compete in that market. Actually it was Because they didn't have the bandwidth to compete without destroying call capacity. They'll be switching on 3G later this year, whenever the current government users of 1700MHz finally vacate. > Also, T-Mobile has historically low profit margins in the U.S., despite > having a high ARPU. > I think you're wrong about most customers. The problem with Sprint 3G > is that you can't roam onto Verizon 3G. You can't use your device as a > web access device when you're in a place with WiFi but no 3G coverage, > including nearly everywhere outside the U.S. 3G, even Sprint's, is far more ubiquitous than WiFi. And the phone will fall back on slower cellular data if outside 3G, so it's not useless. You're correct that international travelers would be less interested, but those folks that travel that often quite possibly aren't interested in a phone service that only works domestically anyhow. > Look at why the iPhone is being unlocked and sold in countries where > it has no official carrier. It's because it's a web access device, as well > as a phone and music player. No, it's because it's an iPhone. There are plenty of good WiFi/3G phones available, but only one "iPhone." > Actually I'd love a cellular data plan. While I know where to go to get > WiFi, it's not really ubiquitous in the sense that every place you visit > has it, and lately it seems that more individuals are being smart enough > to secure their personal networks. True enough. Cell data for "dumbphones" is certainly cheap enough- $5-15 dependig on carrier. > Everywhere isn't > > the Bay Area, my friend! In the majority of the country, you either need [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yes, that's why you need to sign up with a cellular data provider that > has more coverage than Sprint. Sprint has decent coverage, and a decent amount of 3G. > Sprint is a non-player to me. They don't have coverage where I live > in Northern California, and in all the independent surveys show that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > know enough to force their handsets to roam onto Verizon, assuming > their handsets had the capability. But you know better WRT the forced roaming, and know of the SERO plans, so why is Sprint a "non-player" for you? For me it's the handset investment- SERO would cost me roughly what I'm paying T-Mo now, but I would have to ante up nearly $500 for handsets roughly equivalent to my current units. In return I'd get faster data but fewer minutes. >> T-Mobile has never tried to market themselves as a carrier for those >> that are concerned about coverage. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > pushed the coverage card in their ads either- they pushed call quality > ("pin drop.") Sprint used to advertise that they had the largest all-digital network. This was actually true. Of course they had one of the smallest digital networks, and still do, but since they had no AMPS they were all digital, while Cingular, AT&T, and Verizon could not claim to be all-digital. > You're correct that international travelers would be less interested, but > those folks that travel that often quite possibly aren't interested in a > phone service that only works domestically anyhow. Perhaps, but can't Sprint roam onto other CDMA networks like Verizon can? The number of countries with both CDMA and GSM networks is growing, including India, China, Taiwan, and Israel. In Korea there is no GSM, only CDMA. >> Sprint is a non-player to me. They don't have coverage where I live >> in Northern California, and in all the independent surveys show that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But you know better WRT the forced roaming, and know of the SERO plans, so > why is Sprint a "non-player" for you? Because you can't always be roaming onto Verizon without them getting upset and possibly canceling your service. That and because even SERO would be more expensive than what I'm paying on Verizon. > Perhaps, but can't Sprint roam onto other CDMA networks like Verizon can? Yeah, they have high-priced international roaming- my point was the phone can't be used with local SIMs like a GSM phone. > > But you know better WRT the forced roaming, and know of the SERO plans, so > > why is Sprint a "non-player" for you? > > Because you can't always be roaming onto Verizon without them getting > upset and possibly canceling your service. You get to use 800 roaming minutes/month according to the current ToS. > That and because even SERO would be more expensive than what I'm > paying on Verizon. You're paying less than $30/month? No wonder you're so thrilled with Verizon- you have a cheap rate plan no one can currently get anymore, with extended coverage no one can get anymore either. You're not constantly telling us how great Verizon IS- you're telling us how great it WAS! ;-) >> Perhaps, but can't Sprint roam onto other CDMA networks like Verizon can? > > Yeah, they have high-priced international roaming- my point was the > phone can't be used with local SIMs like a GSM phone. What? Sprint phones CAN roam on other US CDMA networks. He wasn't talking about international roaming. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol > >> Perhaps, but can't Sprint roam onto other CDMA networks like Verizon can? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What? Sprint phones CAN roam on other US CDMA networks. He wasn't > talking about international roaming. We got off on a tangent- we were discussing the "flaws" of the new non-WiFi Sprint iPhone ripoff vs. a WiFi-capable iPhone. SMS' position is that not having WiFi is a handicap in places where there's no Sprint 3G, like overseas, (he just got back from Asia recently) and I suggested that most Sprint users probably don't take their Sprint phones overseas like many GSM users do/would. I conceded that there's more international CDMA roaming available today than in the past, but without the ability to use local service (i.e. a local prepaid GSM SIM) an unlocked GSM phone is more desirable when traveling internationally, ergo frequent overseas travelers likely wouldn't have Sprint or their new phone, anyway. Again, I'd easily trade the WiFi on my WiFi/EDGE PPC phone for the ability to use 3G but not WiFi- my mobile phone is primarily used when I'm, well, mobile. While WiFi+ 3G would certainly be the most desirable option, I'd personally take 3G + 2G (like the new Sprint device) over WiFi + 2G (like my T-Mobile MDA or the current iPhone.) If only I wasn't such a G** D****d cheapskate, that is... ;-) My $6/month unlimited data keeps me on T-Mo's slow GPRS/EDGE network. I'm considering a switch to a Sprint SERO plan now that just looked at the SERO site again and saw the Mogul's down to $200 after rebate. I just need to convince myself to jump from the industry's BEST customer service organization to it's worst... T-Mo needs to roll out 3G quickly, or st least bring out a decent 3G-ready WinMo phone (like AT&T's Tilt, which they already sell in every _other_ country they operate in!) if they want to keep me. > You're paying less than $30/month? > > No wonder you're so thrilled with Verizon- you have a cheap rate plan no > one can currently get anymore, with extended coverage no one can get > anymore either. You're not constantly telling us how great Verizon IS- > you're telling us how great it WAS! ;-) I just got a letter from Verizon lowering my rate (increasing my discount to 21%). So I'm right around $30 including all fees and taxes, but it's only 300 peak minutes per month. SERO is more expensive, but it's 500 minutes per month. OTOH, nearly everyone I know or work with is on Verizon, so the MTM more than makes up the difference. In California it's rare to find anyone on Sprint or T-Mobile. >> You're paying less than $30/month? >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >on Verizon, so the MTM more than makes up the difference. In California >it's rare to find anyone on Sprint or T-Mobile. I don't know how many customers Sprint has in California, but I really have to wonder if "rare" is the best word to describe the situation. SignaturePaul Miner >> You're correct that international travelers would be less interested, but >> those folks that travel that often quite possibly aren't interested in a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > including India, China, Taiwan, and Israel. In Korea there is no GSM, > only CDMA. That last sentence is very carefully worded, so let me make one of my own. The phone I use with AT&T GSM service also works in just about every country I've been to, including Japan and Korea, and lets me choose between using (usually) expensive roaming and cheaper local service, while the phone I use with Verizon CDMA service probably works in no more than a quarter of the countries I've been to and can be used only for expensive roaming (Canada and Mexico excepted). If I had to pick just one of these I think I'd keep the AT&T service for international travel. Dennis Ferguson > Then explain T-Mo's success? They have a worse network than Sprint, a piss- > poor handset selection, and they're not bleeding customers. I'll concede that Sprint has a much better network (still no nationwide T-mo 3G network, dammit!) but their handset selection isn't all that horrible. AT&T's is much better, yes, Sprint's may be somewhat better, but T-Mo's isn't horrible. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol > I'll concede that Sprint has a much better network (still no > nationwide T-mo 3G network, dammit!) Patience, grasshopper... ;-) > but their handset selection isn't > all that horrible. AT&T's is much better, yes, Sprint's may be > somewhat better, but T-Mo's isn't horrible. The problem w/T-Mo's selection, IMO, is their reluctance to offer 3G handsets prior to launching 3G. This really limits their selection of high- end handsets. The fact that by virtue of the not-fully compatible 3G Band they're stuck with, using high-end non-T-Mo branded handsets will likely be an undesirable option going forward. >> I disagree. Their network hasn't become worse in the last few years, >> and their handset selection has always been lackluster. Why has that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > A few years ago, people were complaining more about Verizon's handset > selection, and praising Sprint's selection. Um- no. That was never the case. Sprint has always been a late adopter of technology. >> It's the botched integration of theNextel merger >> that's messed them up. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > was coverage. Fourth was competitor's rates and plans, which accounted > for only 9% of churn. Last was customer service. Cite? > If Sprint would have an advertising campaign that centered around > showing customers how to force their handsets to roam, and how much > more coverage they receive as a result, that might help reduce the > churn due to coverage issues. Forcing roaming doesn't increase coverage, you moron. Forced roaming only improves the signal , not the coverage. > The "iPhone lookalike" is not going to help them much without WiFi. That's your problem- wifi is dinosaur technology and does not enhance mobility. If you knew anything about the company, it should be their push to offer complete mobility. Obviously, you're either too stupid or too uneducated to have picked up on that very public stance. >> A few years ago, people were complaining more about Verizon's handset >> selection, and praising Sprint's selection. > > Um- no. That was never the case. Sprint has always been a late adopter > of technology. I don't know if it was "never" the case- they offered digital handsets before back when Cingular and Verizon were still analog! ;-) . >>> A few years ago, people were complaining more about Verizon's handset >>> selection, and praising Sprint's selection. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > . Point taken, but that would have been the only time. And Stevie's reference was that up until a few years ago they were known for handsets. The days you speak of were more than a few years ago. >>> A few years ago, people were complaining more about Verizon's handset >>> selection, and praising Sprint's selection. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I don't know if it was "never" the case- they offered digital handsets > before back when Cingular and Verizon were still analog! ;-) Around 2003-2005, Sprint had some smart phone models that had people dumping Verizon for Sprint, as well as "regular phones" that Verizon had no competing models for. Verizon was taking an agonizingly long time to "approve" new handsets, with the real reason being that they needed time to cripple the firmware to prevent subscribers from doing such horrible things as transferring pictures to their computer, or uploading ringtones to the phone. Remember when Verizon rushed out the T720, desperate to have a model to compete against Sprint's color phones? It was a disastrous piece of junk. You can go back and read threads on Google Groups about Verizon's poor phone selection. I.e. "http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cellular.verizon/browse_thread/thread/71b0fe6 c709cb847/19c114c28b4baa36?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#19c114c28b4baa36". One good post in that thread: "Verizon's lack of an exciting phone selection is quite bothersome, especially to someone who values a flip model. With the v60 out of stock, there is not a good non-color flip choice, and all of the cheaper phones are candy bar. Sprint's Samsung a500 offers a TFT screen (which the a530 will lack) and is amazingly thin. The color LG model also seems thinner and sleeker than the chunky 4400 on Verizon. As you mentioned, the Sanyo is another nice phone for Sprint. Because Verizon offers the best reception, it does not need to woo customers with cutting edge handsets. However, with the largest subscribership, I would think Verizon would be in a position to make deals with manufacturers like Sanyo and Samsung to receive their best-designed products. Better phones will also cause more people to upgrade at full retail price (as most I expect sign up for two year deals). I, for one, hope for a better selection in the near future. I'm sick of hearing people defend Verizon's rigorous testing process. If Verizon thought it could increase profits with more desirable phones, we would see them." Those of us with long memories remember the days when Sprint was the CDMA carrier of choice in terms of handsets. "The Bob" is simply incorrect. You are incorrect again. Sprint actually has one of the best networks. Here in Southern California, it is as good or better than Verizon. Sprint has the world's worst customer service and is lacking in phone selection. Other than that, the network is superb and if you are in an area that doesn't have Sprint coverage, you will have roaming coverage. It is also a common fac that Sprint has less dropped calls than ATT. Also, Sprint rated the best data netowkr for speed and reliability. Do some googleing next time to get the facts. Jar-Jar >> "Sprint Nextel showed off a new iPhone look-alike from Samsung on >> Tuesday at the CTIA conference in Las Vegas that the operator says [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > This is what's causing their incredibly high churn, not customer service > problems. >> "Sprint Nextel showed off a new iPhone look-alike from Samsung on >> Tuesday at the CTIA conference in Las Vegas that the operator says [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > This is what's causing their incredibly high churn, not customer service > problems. That's what we need- the "professional" (not) opinion of a sales man. Your dislike of anything non-Verizon is well documented and your ability to be objective is non-existent. And please provide us with the independent source of your claim to their churn. Or is this another case of where you are more intelligent than everybody else in the industry? |
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.