Slashdot Mirror


Why AT&T Wants To Keep the iPhone Away From Verizon

Hugh Pickens writes "Saul Hansell of the NY Times has an interesting post analyzing AT&T's earnings report and highlighting the enormous stakes involved in the renewal of its exclusive contract to distribute Apple's iPhone in the United States. Hansell does some rough calculations: 'If the average iPhone customer brings in $90 a month, or $1,080 a year in revenue, and the operating profit margin stays constant at 26 percent, that means an iPhone customer represents at least $561 in operating profit over a two-year contract,' says Hansell. 'Put another way, if the company gets 2.5 million new customers a year because of its iPhone exclusivity, the deal represents at least $700 million a year in operating profits — profits that it could lose if Verizon sold the iPhone, too.' With those sort of numbers, AT&T has every reason to make Apple an offer it can't refuse to keep its exclusive deal for another few years. Of course, the incentives for Verizon are presumably the mirror image, so expect Verizon to come to Cupertino, checkbook in hand, to see what sort of deal they can make. 'The benefit of somewhat more iPhone sales from wide distribution is likely to be swamped by a huge bid from AT&T to keep exclusivity, and an equally high bid from Verizon to win some (or maybe even all) of the business for itself.'"

237 comments

  1. Apple by ucblockhead · · Score: 3, Informative

    What this means is that after the bidding war that will ensue when Apple's contract with AT&T runs out, Apple will end up getting the bulk of the profits.

    --
    The cake is a pie
    1. Re:Apple by penginkun · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well...yes. Who else? They made the device, they should be able to profit from it.

    2. Re:Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I personally will not buy an iphone, until I can get service from a company other that AT&T.

    3. Re:Apple by timeOday · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Another effect is that Apple's competitors in the smartphone market will throw more money at dethroning them (either by improving their products or dumping money into advertising). But of course, success always breeds competition (well, at least ideally). In the end this should benefit us all by resulting in better smartphone services without 100% profit margins, but perhaps not since the psychology of fads is that only 1 thing can be "it."

    4. Re:Apple by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      I personally will not buy an iphone, until I can get service from Vanessa Blouin.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Apple by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Might even make a two-year contract palatable.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    6. Re:Apple by superslacker87 · · Score: 1

      I personally realized that I am getting old when I had to JFGI Vanessa Blouin.

      --
      I run Ubuntu skinned to look like a Mac on a PC. Go figure.
    7. Re:Apple by penginkun · · Score: 1

      "Troll"? Seriously? For stating the bleeding obvious? Awesome.

    8. Re:Apple by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I personally realized that I am getting old when I had to JFGI Vanessa Blouin.

      Yeah. Me too. Kinda glad I did though.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    9. Re:Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is all correct, but as a consumer, I am ready to abandon the iphone because ATT is so inferior to Verizon. The dropped calls are making my family crazy. We love the iphone, but ATT is really, really bad. Apple genius deserves most of the profits. ATT does not offer much.

    10. Re:Apple by Frank+Dreben · · Score: 1

      I personally realized that I am getting old when I had to JFGI Vanessa Blouin.

      Yeah. Me too. Kinda glad I did though.

      Oh yeah, well not only did I have JFGI Vanessa, I had to JFGI "JFGI". How do you think I feel now?

    11. Re:Apple by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      I personally realized that I am getting old when I had to JFGI Vanessa Blouin.

      Yeah. Me too. Kinda glad I did though.

      Oh yeah, well not only did I have JFGI Vanessa, I had to JFGI "JFGI". How do you think I feel now?

      Better make sure your affairs are in order.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    12. Re:Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, so one word to sum up your post : gobshite.

    13. Re:Apple by saintofiago · · Score: 1

      Yet, the important question is; How do I, as a consumer benefit?

  2. Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Funny

    They might actually have to deliver that iPhone you see in the commercials. I'd love to trade with THAT iPhone but if they used mine in the commercials the commercial would have to end before it brought Slashdot up on the edge network...

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by Dragon+of+the+Pants · · Score: 3, Funny

      Last year called, they want their criticism back. Ever hear of 3G?

    2. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by cpt_drewbie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ever used AT&T's 3G network on an iPhone? Most of the time you probably would assume it's running over EDGE.

    3. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by maharb · · Score: 3, Informative

      That is not the experience I have seen. In fact lots of people I know refuse to go through the hassle of switching over to wifi when available because they are perfectly happy with the 3G speeds. Maybe certain areas are different but I have never experienced what you are describing.

    4. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by peragrin · · Score: 4, Informative

      last year called they want their criticism back.

      when i first got the 3G network performance was bad. Over the last six month AT&T has brought it almost to the point where the iphone processor is the limiting factor. With rendering times almost equal between 3G and wi-fi.

      What really gets me though is verizon can never have the iphone. Ever. It would have to be made exclusively for verizon customers. As Verizon uses phone technology that is incompatible with the majority of the world. GSM may not be the best solution, however it does have the largest user base. When will people understand this?

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    5. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by Otterley · · Score: 4, Informative

      The article claims that both AT&T and Verizon will be moving to LTE in the future. If this ever comes to pass, and Apple releases an LTE-compatible iPhone, the technology roadblock should vanish.

    6. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 0

      What really gets me though is verizon can never have the iphone. Ever. It would have to be made exclusively for verizon customers.

      Why? Because Apple doesn't have the money to develop two separate phone models with different technologies, or, better yet, put both technologies in the same phone and basically enable everyone to have service in just about every square mile of land in every developed country? Yeah, right. The fact of the matter is is that Verizon is proven to have a moderately faster broadband network, and a definitely more stable network in general. Having the iPhone on Verizon might make me want to buy one.

    7. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Apple doesn't have the money to develop two separate phone models with different technologies

      You're kidding, right? Didn't Apple just report an 18% profit growth last quarter? Do you have any idea how much cash on hand Apple has as a corporation?

      Those cash reserves are a big part of why Apple stock has held so strong these past years. In 2001 I was at a dinner with the CFO of Apple, and I was at the same table as him. He started talking about their cash position and the size of that position floored me. I immediately bought stock, made some dough and dumped it in 2007. So, regardless of how much I dislike the fact that OSX is proprietary to Apple-branded hardware, I will always love Apple. They paid for my kid's first two years of university and will probably cover her grad school too.

      They've got the money to develop an iPhone that will run on Verizon's network, have no fear.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by maxume · · Score: 1

      I imagine Apple would be able to make a few million sales to Verizon customers, so they could probably do the radio for ~$10 a phone (I can see where it could cost more than $10 million, but it seems likely that it wouldn't).

      So Apple might think they are better off spending their dollars elsewhere, but I can't see developing a Verizon only phone as that big of an impediment. As another reply noted, the networks are all converging on one standard, so the issue is going to (slowly) go away.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    9. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by billybob_jcv · · Score: 1

      Yeah - it's not like you can buy any other phones that are available on both Verizon and AT&T - It must be completely impossible... /sarcasm

    10. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      If you would read my entire, although admittedly long-winded, post, you will notice that I say "Because Apple doesn't have the money to develop two separate phone models with different technologies blah blah blah? Yeah, right."

    11. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 1

      My experience has been not the bandwidth, but the processing power of the device itself. Slashdot comes up slower than a PC when even connected via WiFi.

      --
      We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
    12. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by markdowling · · Score: 1

      Doesn't seem to worry RIM - they make scads of CDMA devices. President Obama's 8830 is a CDMA device (with a secondary SIM card), after all.

    13. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by Thansal · · Score: 1

      You're kidding, right? Didn't Apple just report an 18% profit growth last quarter? Do you have any idea how much cash on hand Apple has as a corporation?

      umm, yes, yes he was.

      Selective quoting + inability to detect sarcasm == win?

      Because Apple doesn't have the money to develop two separate phone models with different technologies, or, better yet, put both technologies in the same phone and basically enable everyone to have service in just about every square mile of land in every developed country? Yeah, right.

      there yah go :)

      Oh, and my 2 cents?

      I dislike both Verizon and AT&T, and the iPhone (well, specifically the price point for the data plans, which really boils down to the providers again) even more. Of course AT&T wants to keep the iPhone as an exclusive, it is a giant friken cash cow.

      --
      Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
    14. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by schnell · · Score: 2, Informative

      If this ever comes to pass, and Apple releases an LTE-compatible iPhone, the technology roadblock should vanish.

      Not necessarily. Cellular carriers don't flip a switch and make their network technologies change - it happens market by market, tower by tower. Until Verizon upgrades 100% of their nationwide network to LTE - which even optimistically takes several years and costs tens of billions of dollars - then large parts of their network will continue to be CDMA, which is incompatible with the GSM-based iPhone. So even if Verizon could get access to a future LTE-based iPhone, it wouldn't work on large parts of their network for quite some time.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    15. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      You're lucky. Really. I want to get an Android to use in Canada. None of the carriers here support it. But I can buy the developer version. And I can buy a sim from one of the GSM carriers up here and plug it into the phone and it will work. Except the 3G. Because for some reason the carriers here elected to use a 3G frequency incompatible with both the US and Europe. Grrrrrr.....

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    16. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by rxan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What really gets me though is verizon can never have the iphone. Ever. It would have to be made exclusively for verizon customers. As Verizon uses phone technology that is incompatible with the majority of the world.

      I would say that Apple, not Verizon, is the major reason that Verizon still won't get the iPhone for awhile.

      Apple has a history of only wanting to support one option for its customers, for unknown reasons. Most likely because they can reduce testing and development strain while still having a high quality product. I think Apple would only want to make one version of the iPhone because it's just easier.

      Not to say that Apple couldn't do it. They just won't. Just like we've seen them leave out simple features that customers want (cut & paste), just because it's easier for them. RIM has made differently networked BlackBerry models for carriers many times before, mostly with flawless results. So it is perfectly possible.

    17. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      Only partially correct, VZW is CDMA, as is Sprint PCS, Cricket & (IIRC) MetroPCS. True, CDMA is primarily a US technology, Japan uses it & I'm too lazy to look , but there are other countries that do too. I work for a CDMA carrier, but my posts do not necessarily reflect opinions of my employer, blah blah :)

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    18. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by rakslice · · Score: 1

      Tens of billions? That's like $100k/tower. The equipment is expensive, but is it _that_ expensive?

    19. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by da_matta · · Score: 1

      LTE alone is nothing. The point of LTE is that it provides next gen data bearer with voice & sms handover to (GSM) 2G/3G. You will never see the same coverage for LTE, and there's no point in providing it if you can't steer voice to 3G/2G. They could do that for CDMA also, but likely not as soon an easily.

    20. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by rnelsonee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People know Verizon uses CDMA. What you don't realize is that the applications, or any host-level networking protocol, doesn't care what technology it uses. Converting GSM to CDMA involves plopping a new chip in, and rewriting the data link and networking wrappers used by the OS. Properly written APIs won't even be aware of what technology is used. Blackberry has GSM and CDMA versions of phones, so it's already being done.

      And it's not like Apple hates CDMA. They went to Verizon before they went to Apple, and Verizon walked away for essentially business reasons (greed, I would say).

    21. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      Both Sprint and Verizon use CDMA. Also, their networks are top-notch. I've been on Sprint for a few years now and their coverage is amazing. I'd love for the iPhone to come to Sprint.

      So if Apple developed a CDMA iPhone, they'd gain compatibility with TWO big carriers. The additional sales they'd get from current Sprint and Verizon customers (like me!) who don't want to change providers will probably eclipse the development costs by a vast amount.

    22. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by adamchou · · Score: 1

      As Verizon uses phone technology that is incompatible with the majority of the world.

      besides just that, verizon has this stupid UI that severely limits the capability people have on the phone. i can't imagine they'd let the iphone's os run as is. they'll more likely than not severely limit it like all their other phones and effectively make the iphone useless.

    23. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe certain areas are different

      A *LOT* of areas are "different." Look at the various forums in howardforums, AT&T is about the worst in having frequent network problems and areas with very slow service, poor voice service, etc. They have still large areas with no 3G, and even larger areas where AT&T has no service at all and relies on roaming -- which is usually EDGE or even GPRS.

    24. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      it's not like Apple hates CDMA. They went to Verizon before they went to Apple, and Verizon walked away

      I think you hit on the real reason Apple won't sell iPhones to Verizon right there. Steve Jobs doesn't appreciate being snubbed and has a well-known penchant for holding long grudges about things like that.

      And lest anyone think I'm an Apple-hater, I own three Macs and two iPhones (along with PCs running XP and Ubuntu).

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    25. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by schnell · · Score: 2, Informative

      The equipment is expensive, but is it _that_ expensive?

      Yeah, it is. With 4G you are dealing with dramatically larger capacity so your whole infrastructure needs an overhaul.

      So of course you start with the equipment in each tower (which is pretty expensive). You also have to upgrade the backhaul circuits attached to each and every one of those thousands of towers from copper T1s or microwave to fiber/Metro Ethernet etc. to handle the much larger throughputs that LTE supports. On top of that, throw in all the heavy-duty routers, management and QoS gear for the core network and you're looking at some heavy-duty cash. AT&T and Verizon each spend many billions each year on network capital investment, and the costs of a wholesale technology upgrade go well beyond typical expansion/upgrade costs... Moving to 4G will save the carriers a lot of operational expense in teh long run (and that will be passed on to the users in terms of lower data costs), but the upfront implementation costs are ginormous.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    26. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by atamido · · Score: 1

      It is a huge hassle to develop two versions of the phone. Blackberry does this to ensure complete market penetration, and to ensure that agencies don't have to move to a different phone because of contractual agreements with a telco. Apple does not need that. Apple is pushed to consumers, and is trendy enough that people with switch carriers if they really want to use one.

    27. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by fangorious · · Score: 1

      It's the G1 that is incompatible, because T-Mobile USA's 3G network uses 1700 MHz for the downlink frequency, which no other carrier in the world uses.

    28. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by metamatic · · Score: 1

      Verizon's switching to GSM and CDMA is dying, so I kinda doubt Apple would waste any time on a CDMA iPhone at this point.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    29. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      That's informative - thank you! What does the rest of the USA use for 3G?

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    30. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      Upon investigation it turns that I was right - although you may have been right too. After your post I went back to check my info and found that Canada uses 1900 for 3G which I'm told is not used anywhere else in the world.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    31. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consider that even if Verizon goes to LTE, you still would then need an iPhone with CDMA for those areas not supporting LTE? Apple would then again be developing two iPhone models. One for all the GSM/LTE carriers and then one for Verizon. They do not do it today, why would they do it even if Verizon goes LTE?

       

    32. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by kthhrrsn · · Score: 1

      The BlackBerry Storm supports GSM and Verizon's 1xEV network. There's no reason why Apple couldn't come out w/a phone that does the same. There are other carriers in the western hemisphere that use EVDO, so it could be used on Verizon in the US, other carriers in Mexico & the Carribean, and switch to GSM for Europe & Asia. It would truly be a global iPhone.

    33. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by peragrin · · Score: 1

      why don't you find out how many phones are on both networks. the list is very small with random features missing in each making them not quite the same.

      Blackberries are the closest but they have variations.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    34. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by fangorious · · Score: 1

      AT&T uses 1900. So any AT&T Android phones should work in Canada.

    35. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      That's good to know - are there any AT&T Android phones yet?

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    36. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by laskeyel · · Score: 1

      Like in any commercial the product they present is in the absolute best condition the product will ever be in. That is to say, speeds are at a max; sound, color, clarity, and usability are at an all time high, etc. It's kind of like the paper towel commercials that claim you can use them for your whole kitchen. Uh, huh... yeah right!

    37. Re:Yeah God Forbid They Actually Have to COMPETE by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      Upon investigation it turns that I was right - although you may have been right too. After your post I went back to check my info and found that Canada uses 1900 for 3G which I'm told is not used anywhere else in the world.

      Rogers/Fido use the same GSM frequencies as AT&T use in the US.

      Rogers use 850 and 1900 for 3G while Fido use 850 and 2100 for 3G.

      Bell and Telus plan on using 850 and 1900 for their LTE/3G support in the future.

      The iPhone supports 850, 1900, 2100 for 3G and 850 900 1800 1900 for GPRS/GSM.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  3. Don't worry, AT&T by Daffy+Duck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You have some breathing room. It will take Verizon at least a year to figure out how to disable all of the iPhone's features so their customers have to buy them back one at a time.

    1. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by DustyShadow · · Score: 1

      Good point but I would assume the iphone on verizon would be just like the blackberry. AFAIK, verizon doesn't lock down anything on the blackberries (except for maybe GPS. I'm not sure about that).

    2. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by aesiamun · · Score: 5, Informative

      GPS is locked out on my 8830 from Verizon. I needed to buy a bluetooth GPS device to go geocaching.

    3. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by mysidia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If Verizon tried to pull something like that, i'm pretty sure Apple would just renew their agreement with AT&T.

      They want to sell as many units as possible. It hurts Verizon so badly not to be able to sell iPhones, that they'll cave, and not demand any features be disabled.

      Sure, Apple would make a deal to turn off features in a heartbeat if they could make a profit from it and it wouldn't sully their brand.

      Letting Verizon cripple the iPhone, which is advertised as a computing device, not just a phone, could do just that...

    4. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by Divebus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      HAH! That's why I detest Verizon and wouldn't mind trying AT&T. Verizon expects you to buy your own pictures back from them. I've [still] got one of those LG phones where Verizon forgot to turn off OBEX/OPP and I declined their generous offer for a free firmware upgrade.

      --

      Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
    5. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If Verizon tried to pull something like that, i'm pretty sure Apple would just renew their agreement with AT&T.

      Verizon WILL try to pull exactly that - they've demonstrated pretty much identical behavior to this many times. I left Verizon for T-Mobile because of it - when Verizon finally released its first Bluetooth phone, it disabled basic sync between a person's phone and his/her computer. I really wonder how many non-techie Verizon are blissfully unaware of some great features their Bluetooth phones would be capable of if only Verizon didn't disable them?

      Now what I'd really like to see is the iPhone on T-Mobile's network...

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    6. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      You have some breathing room. It will take Verizon at least a year to figure out how to disable all of the iPhone's features so their customers have to buy them back one at a time.

      You do have a good point, but I would like to point out that it really only counts on the Java phones. I just bought a Samsung Omnia a couple weeks ago (loving it btw, except shitty battery life... just plug it in every night and you're fine), which runs Windows Mobile, and I'm able to do everything on it that I was able to do with my Dell PDA. I don't need to install any software to get it to connect to my computer, and I have direct access to all the files on the device. I can drag any .cab over there and install it to my heart's content. They even gave me 8GB of internal storage to put my music and pictures on, and I can play it with whatever player I want to install. Also, even though Pandora is only supported on two specific phone models, you can still get it on any phone with some Googling.

      So I don't know if Verizon chose not to lock the device down, or if it's just because Windows Mobile is closed source and they really can't lock the device down. Whatever the reason, it's not locked down to any extent. All the components are usable by any program free of charge.

    7. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apple has caved to AT&T in ways that sully their brand before.

      The biggest example is the in-store-activation-only fiasco with the 3G launch. Compare and contrast that experience versus the original iPhone; when you could go in, plonk down your money, get the hell out of there, go home, and activate at your leisure. That idiocy alone pretty much guarantees that as soon as the iPhone is available on another carrier, I'll be dropping AT&T.

      Apple has also pulled apps from the store at AT&T's behest. And despite by "unlimited 3g data" plan, if I want to download the arger apps or podcast episodes; I can't do so over the cellular data network; I have to connect to WiFi.

      Granted... *I* know that none of that is inherent to the iPhone itself; but to AT&T's asshattery. But I suspect that there are plenty of people out there who don't quite make the distinction between the two; and who see Apple as something less than they should because of it.

      cya,
      john

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    8. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by wickerprints · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's the rare post where one cannot decide whether to mod +insightful, or +funny.

    9. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      I was just thinking - I want an iphone. And, I want the verizon network.

      Then you reminded me of something. I had (when it was good) a v3 from AT+T. Hackable goodness, everything there. Then we switched to a v3 from VZW. What happened to my phone? What's up with this horrible interface? Where are all the features? This isn't a v3, it's an upsell device with a good network and an ugly interface.

      ATT's network is improving in this area and they just bought a local GSM provider, so I don't think it will be a problem.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    10. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by nomadic · · Score: 2, Funny

      I want a pony.

    11. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by Tweenk · · Score: 1

      I'm glad this behavior is endemic to the US.

      In my country there doesn't exist a word for tethering - if you have Internet access in your phone, everyone takes it for granted that you will be using that access from your computer rather than from your phone. That's why I wondered what the hell tethering is, and when I learned I was horrified.

      On the other hand, 70% of WiFi access points in public places like galleries belong to one of the two big operators, and they charge batshit insane prices (~$3 for 1 hour of use) if you don't buy their monthly "mobile Internet" plan.

      --
      Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
    12. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      > Apple has also pulled apps from the store at AT&T's behest.
      Which apps?

      Just curious

    13. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by cawpin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Verizon has already announced that they will no longer be locking out features, specifically GPS capability, on new phones. It took a while but they finally learned. Speaking of Geocaching, the iPhone's "GPS" sucks so much you have to have another GPS device anyway. Yes, I'm speaking from experience.

    14. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by mcvos · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Speaking of Geocaching, the iPhone's "GPS" sucks so much you have to have another GPS device anyway. Yes, I'm speaking from experience.

      I can confirm this. iPhone's GPS certainly doesn't work indoors, but my impression is that even the leaves of trees are enough to stop the GPS signal. It's also way too slow to use the iPhone as a TomTom replacement.

    15. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you need to do is download and install the leaked firmware for the Verizon 8830. I've been running version 4.5.0.101 (138) now for quite a few months with almost no issues at all (no more than the Verizon firmware it ships with), and I have an unlocked GPS using BlackBerry Maps and also HTML email support and Docs-To-Go with read support for Word, Excel and Powerpoint documents (the Excel portion needs to be downloaded after you register (free) the Docs-To-Go app on your phone).

      It's pretty trivial to get it going, although the supplied musical ringtones are only a fraction of the length of a full, official firmware release so you might want to be geeky and grab those from the original Verizon firmware so you can slip those back in if that's an issue for you.

    16. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by Sparky9292 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I left Verizon for T-Mobile because of it - when Verizon finally released its first Bluetooth phone, it disabled basic sync between a person's phone and his/her computer. I really wonder how many non-techie Verizon are blissfully unaware of some great features their Bluetooth phones would be capable of if only Verizon didn't disable them?

      Sprint does the same thing with all of their phones. You can take pictures and play MP3's, but you have (or they want you) to use their expensive web service to download music. If you want to actually print a picture that you took with your camera, you have to send the photo to Sprint's site (for a fee) and then go to the web and print it there. Like an earlier poster said, Verizon, Time Warner, Cox, Sprint do not want to be dumb data pipes. They want to control the content as well.

    17. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by rnelsonee · · Score: 1

      So true. It's like AT&T making you buy the Unlimited Data plan, and then charging you for every 140-character SMS you send.

      Sprint will makes us buy the Unlimited Data plan for the Pre, I'm sure. But that includes web, SMS, GPS, MMS, and even TV services. I'm thinking of joining them just for having a common sense plan.

    18. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by Waste55 · · Score: 1

      iPhone is currently usable on t-mobile. Data plan is usable as well if you stick with EDGE and wi-fi.

      You just need to unlock it (you don't have to jailbreak it).

      You can also choose to get an unlock sim card off of ebay for about $10-$15. These require no software mods, and work with latest firmware\baseboard (not all software unlocks do).

      Just plug in and bam your on t-mobile.

    19. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm on T-Mobile with a G1 and would love to have an iPhone that I could just slip my sim into on a whim to use. Is this possible? Thanks.

    20. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      And they are making good on that GPS unlock promise. Leaked Verizon branded beta firmware for the Samsung Omnia i910 (a WM6.1 device) has unlocked GPS.

      And unlike AT&T, Verizon Wireless has been pretty proactive in fixing reported network problems. There are still areas in which AT&T has problems with dead zones and call drops that have been reported for well over 8-9 years. Verizon Wireless may be able to sway Apple depending on how fast they get LTE rolled out, unlike AT&T they have a heck of a lot more bandwidth and a nationwide 700Mhz license to speed things along.

      The technology excuse isn't a very good one either. There are a few multiband CDMA2000/GSM/HSPA being sold right now. The Blackberry Storm is a good example with its full 800/900/1800/1900/2100Mhz CDMA2000/GSM/HSPA radio.

    21. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by Moridin42 · · Score: 1

      I was far more pissed off with Verizon's device locks that prevented me from using my own mp3s as ringtones. If I wanted them, I'd have to buy the file and pay for the airtime off Vcast. I'd have doubts about going to Verizon even if they gave me an iPhone. Totally free.

      Of course.. having been a Cingular customer, I'm certain I wouldn't go to ATT for an iPhone either. So.. android phones, I'm looking at you.

      --
      I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
    22. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by mgblst · · Score: 0

      Just like very other GPS enabled mobile device I have used, including Nokia and Blackberry. They just aren't that good compared to a dedicated device.

    23. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by synaptik · · Score: 1

      Only the 2G iPhone. The 3G iPhone is incompatible with T-Mobile's 3G network.

      I use a 2G iPhone with my T-Mobile service. They won't officially support it, but it does work 99% (the 1% being visual voicemail, which is an AT&T exclusive feature, AFAICT. Plain ol' voice mail continues to work as you expect.)

      --
      HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
      NO CARRIER
    24. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent, I love my G1 and would never trade it in to use an iPhone exclusively. However, some of the iPhone apps I see people using do leave me feeling a little left out sometimes.

    25. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm so happy to live in a country where I can buy any phone (iPhone being the only exception) and use it on any network. I will NEVER buy an operator supplied phone.

    26. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiosity, where do you live?

    27. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by Waste55 · · Score: 1

      Well, you can use a 3G iphone, just you will only get an EDGE connection.

    28. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by cizoozic · · Score: 1

      I've had a Sprint exclusive phone for years and I'm pretty sure I can do anything you mentioned there with my handy dandy data cable or a MicroSD card reader.

    29. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea Yea, Lets just bash the United States (Who is still the largest economy for any one nation, Yes the EU may be higher but that is a bunch of countries tied together). That and I bet the reason you don't say what is country you are from so we can point out a Hundred Major problems with your country that you are willing to hide because of national pride.

      Look at all services we get! You Americans are so lame! We only have to pay 85% of our incomes to taxes. While you Americans have to Pay for these services out of your pocket and only end up paying 25% in taxes and 40% on all those services which we get for free. Never Mind that 65% is less then 85% We get it for free! There!

    30. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by technomom · · Score: 1

      From a former AT&T user, now a Verizon user: AT&T/Apple gets it all right, except for the actual phone part. Phone service in the New York area sucks compared to Verizon. I hate Verizon but I have to admit that there are few places where I completely lose the signal these days. That's a far cry from when I used AT&T and a short drive up the Taconic Parkway would see my phone down to 0 bars about 4 times. So, my take is this: If you like the widgets - phone photography, internet apps, GPS - get AT&T. If you want to make a phone call, get Verizon.

    31. Re:Don't worry, AT&T by Divebus · · Score: 1

      If you want to make a phone call, get Verizon.

      Thanks for that insight. I've always suspected that to be the case and I'd prefer to have phone contact all the way up 9W to Poughkeepsie if I need it. I ask everyone I know with an iPhone how their coverage is and they always say "it's not bad... but look at this cool app". So, you've hit the nail on the head. They love their iPhone so much they'll put up with sketchy coverage. I'll probably get one anyway.

      --

      Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
  4. RE: GOD Forbid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God forbid there should be any benefit to the consumer.

  5. CDMA / GSM by jmauro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I thought Verizon couldn't use the iPhone because it's GSM and Verizon uses CDMA. There isn't a CDMA version marketed anywhere in the world, they're all GSM. The only options in the US are AT&T and T-Mobile, any bid from any of the other companies would pretty much require them to front the cost of making a CDMA version of the phone since it'd only sell in the US.

    1. Re:CDMA / GSM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Apple said from the beginning it did not want to use CDMA because of its limited range to only North America. GSM is used around the world. Verizon Wireless execs have recently said (check out macrumors and appleinsider.com for the specifics) they don't expect to make an offer to carry iPhones until they roll out 4G LTE technology (aka the next GSM version), the same 4G technology ATT is using.

      You won't see an non-ATT iPhone until LTE hits.

    2. Re:CDMA / GSM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Apple went to Verizon first. They laughed them out of the room when Apple told them the terms.

      Verizon does know one thing people are fickle. The terms Apple was asking for was too big of a risk at the time. They were just finishing ridding out the razr wave. Which was GSM first... Many of the phones that Verizon has are not exactly cutting edge phones. But they are tried and true phones. Meaning the return rates/attach rates/costs are understood up front. The only thing semi cutting edge about Verizon is their network. They want to get people on the 2 year plan. That means giving away a cheap phone, of which the iPhone is not. It would even be less so with the terms Apple came to them with. Verizonwireless is insanely profitable for a reason. Verizon is VERY methodical about the customer lock in. That is where they have been making money for years...

      It would NOT be that big of a deal for Apple to stick a CDMA chip radio in there (I know of at least 3 chipsets that would work). You seem to think they cant have 2 versions of the iPhone? Many cell phone companies do exactly that.

      AT&T on the other hand AT the time iPhone came out was not exactly the 'best' network. Coverage was spotty. Customer service was even more spotty. EDGE ruled their network and EVDO was blowing it away. They did know one thing Apple COULD make 2 versions of the phone. They learned that from Motorola with the razr. That is why there was an exclusivity clause. Not because Apple didnt have the technical knowledge to make a CDMA phone, or that CDMA was worse. It was all about money.

      GSM may be world wide but it is also in some of the cheapest areas (because the phones chipsets are cheap to make). Such as India and many 3rd world countries. The iPhone is a 700 dollar phone. The sales there are probably rather low and rare. That leaves countries where CDMA and GSM are both in existence.

      Just remember because your favorite company/phone uses GSM/CDMA means that it is the 'best'. GSM is turning into LTE thru HSPDA and so is CDMA thru WCDMA/EVDO. LTE is much closer tech wise to CDMA than others will lead you to believe. Notice who didnt really squeak about LTE, Qualcomm. They tried to push their own but when the market said LTE the said 'oh shucks darn, ok'. They are not out there bad mouthing it. They got behind it in a HUGE way...

    3. Re:CDMA / GSM by ottothecow · · Score: 1
      have you ever used a verizon razr and compared it to a at&t (then cingular) razr?

      The verizon razr is a piece of crap. The phone is physically different (apparently it breaks more often and IMHO the slight keyboard layout change is awful). The motorola software is replaced with the shitty verizon interface that they put on all of their phones. The verizon camera is higher resolution (although it still sucks) but I wouldnt be surprised if bluetooth transfer was disabled so you had to pay to send yourself your pictures.

      --
      Bottles.
    4. Re:CDMA / GSM by rakslice · · Score: 0, Troll

      Presumably if every other major cell phone manufacturer can make pretty much identical phone models for GSM and CDMA, it can also by done by... Oh wait, it's Apple; nm. =)

    5. Re:CDMA / GSM by cawpin · · Score: 1

      "Apple said from the beginning it did not want to use CDMA because of its limited range to only North America." Wrong. "Apple went to Verizon first." Correct.

    6. Re:CDMA / GSM by cpicon92 · · Score: 0

      They have CDMA in Korea...

    7. Re:CDMA / GSM by Trojan35 · · Score: 1

      Verizon is supposedly rolling out LTE (same as GSM providers) in late 2010-2011. But it will require more towers than the EVDO technology so LTE technology will be spotty if it doesn't also include an EVDO chip (which runs into the CDMA/GSM problem).

      So it won't exactly be a $ vs $ comparison. Apple will also have many other choices:
      1) Stick with ATT for full LTE/GSM compatibility in countries without 4th Gen?
      2) Go with ATT LTE, but have spotty coverage in non-LTE areas around the world and the US? Could hurt iPhone/Apple Brand
      3) Go with ATT LTE and have GSM AND CDMA chips, for full coverage? Could be an engineering/battery/royalty nightmare

      Either way, there are many factors in place other than just the $ bid.

    8. Re:CDMA / GSM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That logic works most of the time except that you're forgetting about South Korea, Japan, other asian countries, the Carribean and parts of Central and South America whom all use CDMA.

    9. Re:CDMA / GSM by rdoger6424 · · Score: 1

      don't forget Israel, Australia, and New Zealand

      --
      "Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"
  6. Apple unlikely to make iPhone available to others by elektrizitat · · Score: 3, Informative

    I would personally like to see the iPhone available on other carriers, but at least for now this doesn't look likely as Tim Cook has stated that he is happy staying with AT&T and GSM technology: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/04/22/apple_happy_with_att_indicates_no_plans_for_cdma_iphone.html

  7. Re:Apple unlikely to make iPhone available to othe by DustyShadow · · Score: 1

    It makes sense for him to say they are happy with ATT. If he said they were not happy or if they were planning on offering to other customers, potential iphone buyers may be tempted to wait it out.

  8. Aren't iPhone sales down? by IANAAC · · Score: 1
    I know that Apple's overall revenue is up, but aren't their iPhone sales down substantially (albeit, expected)?

    I think, at least until another model ships, iPhone sales have peaked in the US.

    1. Re:Aren't iPhone sales down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No.

      Sold 3.79 million last quarter; a 123% growth over the same quarter last year.

    2. Re:Aren't iPhone sales down? by koiransuklaa · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Comparing to a year ago is fine, but you know what they say about statistics... Let me tweak your comment just a bit (it's still factually correct):

      Sold 3.79 million last quarter; a 45% drop in two quarters.

      Not nearly as impressive anymore, is it? I always get suspicious when I see a specific percentage figures used like Apple often do in their result announcements... It's childishly easy to find a single large figure that looks good (especially in a market like this) and the media and bloggers seem to all happily repeat the same number over and over: 123% growth! Wow, 123%!

    3. Re:Aren't iPhone sales down? by Xuranova · · Score: 1

      but all companies compare to the same time the previous year. This isn't some random metric Apple made up. I'm sure Apple would like to take credit for a making a metric all companies use but they can't.

      --
      "There is no real right or wrong, just what the majority accepts at the time."
    4. Re:Aren't iPhone sales down? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      a 123% growth over the same quarter last year.

      This is the kind of statistic you would hear from a divisional vice-president to stockholders when their sales were tanking. "Look! We're up from the same time last year! Forget about the fact that we're way behind the last two quarters, it's all about how much better we are than a year ago! And we're selling infinitely more iPhones than we sold in 1999!"

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Aren't iPhone sales down? by chaim79 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Look at any quarterly sales report from just about any company and you will see a pattern for the quarters, it's almost never a steady anything (rise, loss, flat-line) it's always fluctuating by quarter. That's why it's customary to compare against the same quarter last year, it would be the same part of the fluctuation and would more accurately reflect a rise or fall.

      --
      DEMETRIUS: Villain, what hast thou done?
      AARON: Villain, I have done thy mother.
      Shakespeare invents 'your mom'
    6. Re:Aren't iPhone sales down? by koiransuklaa · · Score: 1

      I already said comparing to a year back is fine, the problem is that no-one seems to wonder why Apple chose that particular number to highlight in their report... This is definitely not a "random metric", I'm sure Apple carefully chose it and I'm willing to bet real money that the report six months from now will not highlight this same metric (quarterly sales compared to previous year) because then they would be comparing to iphone 3G launch figures.

      What I'm asking for is a bit more analysis before saying things like "Oh no, iphone sales haven't dropped, they have grown 123%".

    7. Re:Aren't iPhone sales down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you want to compare against the Christmas quarter?
      Good god! You're right! The numbers are down!

    8. Re:Aren't iPhone sales down? by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Year-over-year is the most common metric for sales. Products like the iPhone have much bigger sales during the Christmas season, so that's the metric you want to use to get a sense of what's going on. If Apple were flogging quarterly changes it would be a red flag for a stock analyst.

    9. Re:Aren't iPhone sales down? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      For Apple, their biggest quarter like other companies that sell to the consumer is the holiday season. I remember some blogger a few years predicting doom for Apple because their iPod sales fell in the quarter following the holidays. Analysts were like, duh, that's not news. That's normal for any consumer company like Apple.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    10. Re:Aren't iPhone sales down? by laskeyel · · Score: 1

      Companies comparing quarters from year-to-year happen when companies are generally impressed with their progress from the same time the previous. Companies compare to the previous quarter when sales are huge, or in the case of the auto-industries now, when their sales are plummeting. For example, Ford reported a $1.4 billion spend in the last quarter, but compared that to a fourth quarter spend last year of $7.2 billion.

  9. Re:Not news, not for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because Slashdot nerds think they are economists. Just look at all the free-market libertarian bullshit around here.

  10. what that means for us by v1 · · Score: 1

    is the price of the iphone should drop because AT&T is paying more into the kickback fund at Cupertino.

    I don't see this as a particularly bad thing, as long as AT&T doesn't hike their contract cost to offset it. Chip away some of that 26% and put it back in my pocket thx.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:what that means for us by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      is the price of the iphone should drop because AT&T is paying more into the kickback fund at Cupertino.

      I don't see this as a particularly bad thing, as long as AT&T doesn't hike their contract cost to offset it. Chip away some of that 26% and put it back in my pocket thx.

      Both of those things have already happened: iphone price drop and AT&T contract rate. You can bet that both of those things will happen again.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  11. Re:Apple unlikely to make iPhone available to othe by BlueF · · Score: 1

    This is really too bad. Out of every carrier I've used in the last 5 years -- Edge, US Cellular, Sprint, Verizon, T-mobile, then AT&T -- Verizon has seemed the most solid. I am always on the brink of going back to Verizon, were it not for the boring but entirely functional razr. No other phone seems worth using for cool factor other than the iPhone. Too bad it's proven to be such a trade off for reliability.

  12. Whoever writes the biggest check will lose by cavehobbit · · Score: 1

    Rim, Nokia, HTC, Sony-Ericsson, Samsung, every phone maker is bringing out competing products, if they have not already.

    There is maybe 1 more year of dominance by Apple here, then it's over.

    If I was ATT, I would let Verizon overbid to get a share of the I-phone market, then promote competing products that have the same capabilities.

    It would help if they upgraded their network more quickly to handle the traffic though.

    1. Re:Whoever writes the biggest check will lose by Brett+Buck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Rim, Nokia, HTC, Sony-Ericsson, Samsung, every phone maker is bringing out competing products, if they have not already.

      There is maybe 1 more year of dominance by Apple here, then it's over.

      Sounds a lot like....

      No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.

            Brett

    2. Re:Whoever writes the biggest check will lose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of media players that compete with the ipod, yet the ipod still sells no problem. Apple has excellent marketing and ability to lock you in so that you BELIEVE (whether true or not) that you need their products.

      I predict that once the iPhone is available on other US carriers, the holdouts that refused to switch to AT&T for the iPhone will flock to it. Expanding market availability would only strengthen Apple, even if there are very good competing products.

    3. Re:Whoever writes the biggest check will lose by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Wait, are you implying a blackberry doesnt have wifi? Because I think thats just incorrect (seeing as I have a blackberry right next to me on my WPA2-AES wifi).

    4. Re:Whoever writes the biggest check will lose by Xuranova · · Score: 1

      This comment will be saved and referenced in one year.

      --
      "There is no real right or wrong, just what the majority accepts at the time."
    5. Re:Whoever writes the biggest check will lose by elfurbe · · Score: 1
    6. Re:Whoever writes the biggest check will lose by dreamt · · Score: 1

      Like the Storm? I tried to use the Storm and it was awful. I switched to AT&T and the iPhone.

    7. Re:Whoever writes the biggest check will lose by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      Merely suggesting that the same sort of analysis being applied to the iPhone and its impending "demise" was originally applied to the iPod by no less a slashdot personage as CmdrTaco. We all see how that turned out.

      Point being, people keep trying to pooh-pooh the various Apple products based strictly on perceptions of technical merit, and they keep being proved utterly and completely wrong.

              Brett

    8. Re:Whoever writes the biggest check will lose by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      which was pretty much true then.
      ipod was a hype. iphone is a hype.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    9. Re:Whoever writes the biggest check will lose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple is just another case that can't be explained rationaly. Really, there is not a single Apple product where you can explain the success with the features it has. Like those games computers suck at, because the human makes non-rational moves. Just look at those presentations of Jobs where he shows a off the handle bar of the iBook (or something) as if it was a warp drive or cure for cancer or something. Maybe some time in the future we have methods to describe that. Until then my theory is that most people are just stupid meatbags.

  13. it makes sense by bravo369 · · Score: 1

    It makes sense. The iphone has grown on me but not enough to switch to AT&T. if Verizon gets it then it will be something I consider

  14. and of course the consumer loses by jessejay356 · · Score: 1

    Since they will be paying some ridiculous amount to Apple, they have no reason to give good deals on the phone and service. Like AT&T they will have an "iPhone" tax. $70 a month seems high to me, yet is the cheapest plan you can get. Why not a $40 more limited plan? They don't nearly as much then!?!

    1. Re:and of course the consumer loses by what+about · · Score: 1

      Your are of course right, the customer pays it all, as always.

      This is why it is extremly important to have at least two players in the market, symbian is not competitor for iPhone, Google may be.
      (I own a nokia E90, nice hardware, can be better software, extremly expensive ....)

      On a related matter, just to give you an idea, in Italy, now, I pay 25euros/month to Wind to have
      350minutes/month, billed by the second, no rx charge, no connection charge (any italian telephone)
      100SMS each month
      1Gb month internet browsing/email/whatever (I can tether my PC using the E90)

      I have to add 12euros/month taxes (this money go to the gov.) and 20% VAT
      (Yes, I know, we are taxed to death)

  15. Verizon rejected.... by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Verizon rejected the iPhone in the beginning, and they will do it again for the same reason: they want control over their network. They don't want to become just a dumb pipe, because then they are a commodity. Apple having complete control over the iPhone sets a dangerous precedent, it was the first time a phone maker had so much control.

    From my perspective the commoditization of the networks can't happen soon enough. The network maintainers SHOULD be separated from the service providers, and the service providers should lease the network from the maintainers, like Virgin Mobile does now. This will increase competition, and be the best for the customer. The same thing should happen with internet service.

    --
    Qxe4
    1. Re:Verizon rejected.... by Weedhopper · · Score: 1

      While the latter half of you post may have merit, it is invalidated by the fact that Verizon never had a chance to reject the iPhone because the iPhone never would have worked in the Verizon network. Different technologies. Apple never seriously considered making a CDMA phone.

    2. Re:Verizon rejected.... by andy1307 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wireless companies are all about subscribers/quarter. There is no way Verizon will pass up on an opportunity to keep their numbers up. Take a look at what's happening to Sprint-Nextel.

    3. Re:Verizon rejected.... by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Informative

      Switching from a GSM phone to a CDMA phone is simple, on the software side it's a matter of changing a few low level AT commands, and on the hardware side it's a matter of swapping out the modem. If Apple chooses to do it, they will.

      Furthermore, you've done bad research. Not only did Apple consider making a CDMA phone, Verizon completely rejected them. In essence neither the latter half nor the former half of your post has merit.

      --
      Qxe4
    4. Re:Verizon rejected.... by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      This attitude won't last forever. Arguably, it's already over. Verizon has made a lot of concessions on their smart phones. And they know they're bleeding customers to AT&T despite AT&T's crappier network.

      AT&T doesn't get a signal inside buildings in my region, so I'm hoping Verizon will wise up...

    5. Re:Verizon rejected.... by GizmoToy · · Score: 1

      How does "Apple may be more likely to work with us once we roll out LTE" invalidate the fact Apple approached Verizon before AT&T? Verizon's VP confirmed they turned Apple down when the two companies couldn't agree on a deal.

      phantomfive is exactly correct. Even swapping out the chipsets is relatively straightforward. There are hundreds or thousands of phones that do just that, many from companies smaller than Apple. The hurdle is not technical, as you imply.

    6. Re:Verizon rejected.... by Weedhopper · · Score: 1

      Okay, if I'm wrong, I stand corrected.

      Actually, now that I think about it and I do remember reading about the Verizon thing, so I know I'm wrong.

      But there's been multiple articles in the recent past from multiple sources that have quoted Verizon execs as saying that Apple never seriously considered a CDMA phone. That's fresh in my mind.

      To me, this is conflicting information.

    7. Re:Verizon rejected.... by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

      http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10222486-94.html

      '(Verizon CEO) Seidenberg added that Apple never "seriously considered making a CDMA version of the iPhone because it didn't have as wide a distribution opportunity," the article said.'

      How difficult is it for the truth to be repeated as often as rumor?

      --
      http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    8. Re:Verizon rejected.... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I would say that's very interesting, but after all you are just a script.

      --
      Qxe4
    9. Re:Verizon rejected.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On some phones, the modem* is on the same die as the processor. Is some cases there is no modem-less equivalent.

      *Most of the processing for both GSM and CDMA in modern cell phones is done digitally by a specialized DSP. Since many of these operations are in fact modulation and demodulation they are still called modems.

    10. Re:Verizon rejected.... by atamido · · Score: 1

      The iPhone uses a single chip to perform several functions, including GSM communications. It would be non-trivial to simply replace this chip with another one. It would also require writing brand new drivers for the new chip, which as was discovered when they changed to the newer 3G chip from 2G, is also non-trivial. Apple considered making the initial version CDMA, but now that they have a world GSM market that they are catering to with an intentionally limited product line, a CDMA make no sense.

    11. Re:Verizon rejected.... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Most CDMA and GSM modems communicate with their host system through either USB or serial. Thus the driver is already written. Communicating with one of these modems is done through AT commands, the same that were used with Hayes modems in the 1980s. This is standard: you can plug one of these devices into a linux box and use WVDIAL to connect. There are some specific AT commands that change depending on the chipset you are using, dealing with things like SMS communication and signal strength.

      A programmer working with a cell modem will typically encapsulate these AT command calls as quickly as possible, not only to facilitate the swapping out of modems, but also because they are a pain to deal with, and putting them in a function ensures you only have to deal with them once.

      CDMA modems have a separate diagnostic port, which is speaks a proprietary protocol, therefore I can't tell you what it does. But it's cool.

      It would not be hard to switch the iphone to CDMA.

      --
      Qxe4
    12. Re:Verizon rejected.... by atamido · · Score: 1

      As I said, it is a multifunction chip. It is not a simple matter of replacing the GSM bit with the CDMA bit. It would be non-trivial.

    13. Re:Verizon rejected.... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It would take a single programmer about three weeks, depending on the state of the code.

      --
      Qxe4
    14. Re:Verizon rejected.... by atamido · · Score: 1

      It took Apple many many months to get any level of maturity for the current communications chip's drivers. I think you may be overly optimistic.

      In any case, if they do release a CDMA phone it probably wasn't too hard and I'll have to eat my words.

    15. Re:Verizon rejected.... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why you are saying it took them a long time. Did you read that somewhere? USB drivers are quite complex, and typically are shipped with bugs, especially on embedded systems. If that is what you are talking about, then I would be surprised if it didn't take them a long time.

      On the other hand, once you have established communication through the USB port, actually talking to the modem is not hard. I know because I've spent a lot of time working with both GSM and CDMA, and have actually written a library which does exactly what we are talking about right now.

      --
      Qxe4
    16. Re:Verizon rejected.... by dkf · · Score: 1

      It would take a single programmer about three weeks, depending on the state of the code.

      My bet is that it's not just changing a few drivers. There's probably a custom communications link inside (to reduce power use and weight, critical things for a phone) and it's quite possible that the hardware itself is different. (Did Apple put reconfigurable hardware inside the comms module? If not, or not enough, switching to CDMA might be a lot of work...)

      And anyway, it's only for one market. Easier for Apple to just blow off Verizon.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    17. Re:Verizon rejected.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have seen those also. Say that as a Verizon Exec. you've made a huge mistake, one that potentially cost your company tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, by rejecting a company that approached you about a partnership. That company went on to have a hugely successful relationship with your biggest competitor.

      If you were responsible for that situation, what would you do when asked about it? You say "Oh, they weren't serious about partnering with us anyway. They were always going to go to our competitor." That way, you can claim no mistake was actually made and keep your job.

      Maybe I'm off base, but that comment sounded very transparent to me.

    18. Re:Verizon rejected.... by qwertyatwork · · Score: 1

      So let me see if I have this right. The cell phone companies spend massive amounts of money, time and effort to build out a cellular network, and now it should be taken from them so you can have something for free?

    19. Re:Verizon rejected.... by qwertyatwork · · Score: 1

      I was a cellular technician for a few years, so I speak with some authority when I say you have NO idea what your talking about. AT commands? Really? You couldn't have made up something better? I mean, that's just lame. A hardware modem in a cell phone? Do you completely lack any imagination, or are you just not trying?

    20. Re:Verizon rejected.... by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      --
      Qxe4
    21. Re:Verizon rejected.... by qwertyatwork · · Score: 0, Troll

      Send me to a page that requires a username and password to log in. That's not going to work. It didn't take to much research to find the manual. The AT commands are for the device itself. Things such as changing DTMF length, turning speaker phone on. Absolutely nothing to do with either a CDMA or GSM network. I love the freedom that the internet gives us. I hate how 12 year olds like you post shit you know nothing about.

      And fuck me? Sorry, Im to busy fucking your mother.

    22. Re:Verizon rejected.... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I said how it should be, I didn't say how we should get there. There are plenty of alternatives that don't include 'taking it from them so I can have something for free.' Also, I never said I wanted something for free.

      Eventually it is likely to turn into a scenario I described, because it is more efficient, and thus will cost less. Network owners will be separate from the service providers, and whatever service provider can provide the best service cheapest will win, and whatever network can maintain good service for the lowest cost will win. It is starting to happen now.

      --
      Qxe4
    23. Re:Verizon rejected.... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I have no idea what you are even talking about. What is your point? Are you trying to convince me that a cell phone doesn't use AT commands? Are you trying to convince me that a cell phone doesn't have a module that can be called a modem? Are you trying to convince me that I am 12 years old? Or are you just bored at work so in the mood to troll someone for the fun of it?

      --
      Qxe4
    24. Re:Verizon rejected.... by qwertyatwork · · Score: 1

      My point is you have absolutely no idea what your talking about.

    25. Re:Verizon rejected.... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You're wrong.

      --
      Qxe4
    26. Re:Verizon rejected.... by clf8 · · Score: 1

      Just swap out the modem, change some code, EASY! How's that go?
      1. Swap out modem
      2. ???
      3. Profit!

      No, actually it's not. Sure, if Apple did things right it would be relatively easy, but it's going to take time and effort. For a dead technology with a limited market.

      When VZW goes LTE, then the iPhone will technically work on their network. Of course, the carriers and/or Apple will likely try to keep the phone on whatever network it's supposed to be on.

  16. not necessarily verizon by fermion · · Score: 1, Interesting
    It was always my belief that verizon did not want the iPhone because it was not a good fit. Verizon always seemed to me, at least traditionally, to cater to a group of people who did not paying more for cell phone service, and their policies do tend to limit customers, at least in my experiece. It seems that this would be the Apple group, but it really isn't, because Apple does try to reach out to all potential customers, something Verizon has only started recently.

    Before the iPhone, and after all the mergers of the mobile companies in the US, ATT and Verizon had about each shares, maybe a bit more than 25%, and t-mobile was just barely in double digits, and the new companies, like boost and cricket were barely on the radar. It is my opinion that these later companies are where the growth is going to be, not Verizon.

    The only reason people are talking about Verizon is because people know with Verizon want an iPhone. I don't know why. Everyone says it is just another phone, and they can go get a G1 from t-mobile, or a superior blackberry from Verizon, or a cheap phone from the other dealers, but some people seemed really annoyed they can't get a iphone from verizon.

    There is a reason for this. In the US every carrier wants a custom phone, and they want a custom phone with sub custom features. You know how you can update the phone now? It would be more difficult and more confusing if Verizon got it pesky fingers on it.

    The other reason is that there would be little benifit to apple. There would be no differentiation, but there would be added expense of producing a phone with either extra circuitry or two phones, again confusing the public.

    Here is what te next iPhone should do. A $99 phone sold through boost and cricket. Here is why. Right now it is reported tat 90% of teens with an MP3 player has an iPod. As they grow up, they will continue to buy iPods, and will likely upgrade from the models they use know. They start with a shuffle, continue with a mini, then buy an iPhone. It works for cigarettes, why not music players. It would make sense to apple to make a phone so that the first phone will be an iPhone mini.

    What do many parents want? Control over the phone. We have parental controls in Mac OS X, why not the iphone? What do kids want, unlimited text. Both want no contract. Some families have the resources to pay $200 for a phone and already have a family plan, but other do not. Will Verizon allow apple to leverage this base? No. It will only help with the business user than wants a blackberry, so why bother.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  17. Maybe in a vacuum? by crhylove · · Score: 1

    There is NO WAY I'm paying the exorbitant fees for at&t/apple.

    I KNOW I'm not alone. Most of my friends/family/coworkers are all agreed: They're waiting for an iPhone killer that isn't encumbered by DRM and the lock in. Plus the monthly plans are way too high.

    The moment there's a good iPhone killer and cheaper monthly plans (I'm looking at what the G1 SHOULD have been), everyone will get that.

    My dream phone:
    Looks like an iphone, but it has:
    a full FOSS stack, including media viewing/listening, an SDHC slot, a headphone jack, a standard USB jack, GPS, a SNES emulator, and a camera on both sides so I can skype where wifi is available.

    It's not rocket science, you could have this phone out in numbers for $100 at volume.

    It's ludicrous that none of the apple competitors have put one out yet.

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    1. Re:Maybe in a vacuum? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes just ludicrous. It's such an obvious and easy way to just scoop up the entire smart phone market.

      Guess why you called it your "dream" phone.

    2. Re:Maybe in a vacuum? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's almost as though it's not as simple as you think it is.

    3. Re:Maybe in a vacuum? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My dream phone:
      Looks like an iphone, but it has:
      a full FOSS stack, including media viewing/listening, an SDHC slot, a headphone jack, a standard USB jack, GPS, a SNES emulator, and a camera on both sides so I can skype where wifi is available.
      It's not rocket science, you could have this phone out in numbers for $100 at volume.
      It's ludicrous that none of the apple competitors have put one out yet.

      Dumb ass.

    4. Re:Maybe in a vacuum? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may not be willing to but oh 30 million other ppl don't agree with you and have purchased an iPhone. I suggest you stop waiting and build your dream phone and try to sell it. Let us know how it goes.

  18. 90$/month by andy1307 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    That's the average? I pay around 75$/month.

    1. Re:90$/month by mcvos · · Score: 1

      That's the average? I pay around 75$/month.

      What do you do to pay that much? Or is that in New Zealand dollars?

      In Netherland, a T-Mobile iPhone subscription costs EUR 30 per month, which would convert to about US$40.

      I would never in my life pay $90 for any phone subscription that doesn't come standard with tethering plus lots of spectacular extras. Many years ago, when UMTS was still new, my UMTS PCMCIA card cost EUR 70 per month. Nowadays it costs about EUR 30 or less.

      Any the EUR 30 per month subscription is still profitable enough to pay for much of the iPhone itself; if you ignore the price of a subscription, an iPhone is way cheaper than an iPhone Touch which can do less. So the subscription could have been even cheaper than that.

  19. AT&T Crappy Service by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Informative

    If AT&T can't hold their customers away from Verizon (and all the current customers are locked into 2 year contracts with nasty termination fees) it's because of their crappy service and high rates. If they fixed that then they would need to worry about the competition so much. In fact, competition is exactly their problem - they don't want any!

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:AT&T Crappy Service by anjilslaire · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Indeed. I was on AT&T a year or so ago, when they announced they were prorating the early term fees. I had about 2 months left, my phone was acting up, and th wife wanted verizon because all of her family uses it, so no minutes would be used.

      So figuring I'd eat the prorated fees, I called to cancel. The phone support said the pro-rating was for new customers only. Now remember, new users get 30 days to cancel, so why give them prorated fees, and not existing users. After an hour on th phone with 3 different people, I finally said "Fine. Charge me, I want to cancel my service on principal now. I'll pay your fees and never use your service again. Also, be aware that I'll be filing a complaint with the BBB", and ended the call on a stiff but polite note.

      I went to BBB.org and found a fantastic online form that allowed me to explain everything, with account numbers, etc. 3 days later I received a call from Executive Support at AT&T, apologizing for the issue that should have been solved (prorated) at T1. They negated my ETFs and actually pro-rated my final month of service bill too. Long story short: The Better Business Bureau actually works.

    2. Re:AT&T Crappy Service by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      A telecommunication company is a telecommunication company. It doesn't matter if they are Sprint, At&t, Verizon, T-Mobile, or anyone else. They all have crappy service an high rates (this is America after all). But At&t has the iPhone. They are the friend of my friend. . .

      All the telecommunications companies have formerly dissatisfied customers like yourself who strongly support their opposition, but that doesn't make you sound any less like a Verizon advertisement. "Crappy service and high rates" is what all of these companies accuse each other of and it's true. The false implication is that there's an American telecommunications company which doesn't provide crappy service and high rates.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  20. 4G GSM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    What really gets me though is verizon can never have the iphone. Ever. It would have to be made exclusively for verizon customers. As Verizon uses phone technology that is incompatible with the majority of the world. GSM may not be the best solution, however it does have the largest user base. When will people understand this?

    Verizon has already announced that they will use GSM's 4G technology (LTE) for their network.

    http://consumerist.com/consumer/unlocked/verizon-to-go-gsm-328914.php
    http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/12/verizon-says-early-lte-deployment-in-2009.ars

  21. Apple doesn't want to make different iphone models by alen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    just like with computers, apple wants to make only minor variations of a model. for the iphone it's how much storage you want. with their computers it's only a few minor variations as well.

    more choices means more expensive to produce, more testing, etc. Less profits due to higher costs.

    and with CDMA, why make a phone for a dying technology?

  22. Verizon is in Apple's Best Interest! (Re: Apple) by StCredZero · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A Verizon iPhone would be in the best interest of Apple, even if they had to give up some profits. Why?

    1) AT&T's network Sucks. I have heard many complaints that the iPhone is wonderful -- at everything but being a plain cellphone.

    2) AT&T's customer service sucks. DNA from a big telco. Monopoly mindset. Nuff said!

    3) Mindshare is king. If there were a Verizon iPhone, there would be more Apple iPhone mindshare. I hated to leave Verizon's better network and service for AT&T's suckyness, but I did it anyways. Lower that barrier, and many more people like me would have an iPhone. In the long run mindshare = more profits!

  23. Verizon turned down the iPhone by SeaDuck79 · · Score: 1

    I spoke to a Verizon rep about this about a year ago. He said that Apple and Verizon were talking about an exclusive agreement before they went with AT&T, but the money wasn't right for Verizon to do the deal.

    I understand that the major complaint from most iPhone users is the network, and Verizon's is the best, but is that enough to warrant the agreement with Apple, now that Verizon is doing pretty well with the BB Storm and some of the other competitors?

    Frankly, I think that losing the iPhone would kill AT&T as a major competitor. The iPhone is really about the only reason to consider them as a network.

    1. Re:Verizon turned down the iPhone by mergy · · Score: 1
      ///The iPhone is really about the only reason to consider them as a network.///

      Correct.

      I was on Verizon for years and prior to them I was on Sprint in the San Francisco Bay Area. I moved to the iPhone and AT&T because of the iPhone and very happy I did because the iPhone is amazing. It is better than any Palm, Blackberry or other phone I have had but the AT&T service BLOWS!

      There are a lot of bad areas in San Francisco for AT&T that Verizon's coverage was solid in. The other CONSTANT frustration is when I call other iPhone/AT&T users and get dropped ALL THE TIME!

      Horrible = AT&T

  24. I don't understand by buss_error · · Score: 0, Troll

    why the iPhone is so popular. I looked at it, sure, it's nice, but the price is so high I can't justify buying one - let alone the monthly charge.

    On the other hand, I want a phone. I don't want a camera, music player, handheld computer, contact manager, schedule keeper, blah blah blah. I want a phone. I want a phone to make phone calls. It's nice if it keeps a phone book, but the numbers I need, I know. Most of the time, (not the case with the iPhone, mostly) these "multi-tool" tech things don't do ANYTHING very well, though they do a lot.

    --
    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
    1. Re:I don't understand by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I want a phone.

      If that's really all you want, then the iPhone is obviously not for you. I was never interested in a phone with a camera and tons of other useless gimmicks. I have always been interested in a tiny portable computer, however. And that's exactly what an iPhone is (or would have been, had it not been locked down).

      And it just so happens that the crappy, unreasonably limited photo camera in my iPhone actually makes better pictures indoors than my beautiful Olympus 4 megapixel camera.

    2. Re:I don't understand by changedx · · Score: 1

      You don't want an iPhone. You want a Jitterbug.

  25. Apple is an unamerican, anticompetitive company .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    that has been manipulating the market and the public for years. Sadly, many consumers have bought into an elitist, exclusionary scheme to milk the world, all so a few people can live like kings.

    Personally, I believe Apple never would have been successfully in a free and open market. We citizens tragically have let the greedy overrun the ethics and principles that America was built upon and should stand for. Sadly, we've become tools of the overly-affluent and power-mad.

  26. Re:Verizon is in Apple's Best Interest! (Re: Apple by dreamt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't know. I just switched from Verizon to an iPhone and everyone I talk to tells me that my iPhone sounds clearer. And my house is in a Verizon dead-zone (I live about 10 miles outside of Boston -- there should be no dead zones that close to such a large technology based city).

    Still have not dealt with customer service, but its not like Verizon's service was particularly great. And it was also from a big telco.

  27. disgusting by Komaji · · Score: 1

    These companies gouge and placate their "valued" customers. They only care about just how far they can reach into our pockets. So here they are now scrambling for a bigger piece or to protect their monopolistic cartels.

    1. Re:disgusting by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Nobody has a gun to his head. ATT and Verizon offer a service which people can purchase or not depending on their own situation. What is the problem?

  28. Re:Verizon is in Apple's Best Interest! (Re: Apple by jae471 · · Score: 3, Informative

    2) AT&T's customer service sucks. DNA from a big telco. Monopoly mindset. Nuff said!

    Because Verizon (nee Bell Atlantic) is so much less of a big telco then the current AT&T (nee Southwest Bell)? Both are spinoffs of Ma Bell who gobbled up as many of their smaller siblings as the could.

    That said, competition is a Good Thing.

  29. Re:Verizon is in Apple's Best Interest! (Re: Apple by GizmoToy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A Verizon iPhone would be in the best interest of Apple, even if they had to give up some profits. Why?

    1) AT&T's network Sucks. I have heard many complaints that the iPhone is wonderful -- at everything but being a plain cellphone.

    2) AT&T's customer service sucks. DNA from a big telco. Monopoly mindset. Nuff said!

    3) Mindshare is king. If there were a Verizon iPhone, there would be more Apple iPhone mindshare. I hated to leave Verizon's better network and service for AT&T's suckyness, but I did it anyways. Lower that barrier, and many more people like me would have an iPhone. In the long run mindshare = more profits!

    Experiences with cell phone companies are so varied, it's impossible to draw any conclusions approaching 1) or 2)... if anything, all you can come up with is "All cell phone companies suck."

    For every "AT&T's network sucks" you'll have a "Verizon's network sucks", and the same for customer service.

    As an example, my wife and I both defected from Verizon. I've been with AT&T for 6-7 years, and her since the iPhone 3G launched. She left Verizon because of several experiences with rude customer service, and spotty coverage.

  30. Seriously? by theantipode · · Score: 0

    I might have considered the iPhone if it were on any other network. It was this lone limiting factor that kept me from putting down the extra coin. I'd make the wiretapping argument, but Verizon is equally as guilty.

    --
    When I am king, you will be first against the wall
    With your opinion which is of no consequence at all
  31. Re:Apple is an unamerican, anticompetitive company by troll8901 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This comment is rated Funny. I've reread this twice, but I still don't understand the joke. Can someone explain it to me please?

  32. why doesn't AT&T advertise iPhone? by swell · · Score: 1

    Doesn't it seem logical that if the phone is a big money maker they would want to promote it?

    Here in California I have seen many AT&T ads for other brands of cell phones. Never for the iPhone. Is it different where you live?

    Come to think of it I've seen many Apple ads for the iPhone and AT&T is never mentioned.

    So, if these guys are making each other rich, why aren't they more friendly to each other? Makes me doubt the NYT analysis.

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
  33. Re:Verizon is in Apple's Best Interest! (Re: Apple by mcvos · · Score: 1

    I don't know. I just switched from Verizon to an iPhone and everyone I talk to tells me that my iPhone sounds clearer.

    That's because of hardware, and has nothing to do with AT&T. The iPhone sounds absolutely fantastic. When it works.

  34. It was called Netshare by rsborg · · Score: 1

    Link. Apple allowed it, then (I'm assuming) AT&T complained, and Apple removed it.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  35. Don't RTFA! by RandomUsername99 · · Score: 2

    Here's the CliffsNotes version.

    If you do the calculations (insert calculations), AT&T selling a product and related services makes AT&T money. Here's the tricky part. If VERIZON were to sell those *same* products and related services, THEY would be making the money, and not AT&T. Since AT&T considers the amount of money made to be a good indicator of company success, they greatly prefer if people give THEM money, rather than Verizon.

  36. Re:Verizon is in Apple's Best Interest! (Re: Apple by F_Prefect · · Score: 1

    That's because of hardware, and has nothing to do with AT&T. The iPhone sounds absolutely fantastic. When it works.

    I've just got one issue with the iPhone. Yesterday it decided to fill up 1/2 of it's memory with "other". Nobody could tell me what it was. I head to the local Apple store and there I get a unpleasant surprise. I was told that the water submersion sensors were tripped and that they couldn't help me anymore. I'd like to know how a water sensor trips when it doesn't get wet.

    --
    You can be replaced by a very small shell script.
  37. Re:Apple is an unamerican, anticompetitive company by Jonas+the+Bold · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's funny because free markets encourage monopolistic behavior, and any kind of antitrust activity is regulation of the otherwise free market.

    --
    Everything seemed to be going so nice
    'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
  38. Ring Ring by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Funny

    Switching from a GSM phone to a CDMA phone is simple, ... on the hardware side it's a matter of swapping out the modem.

    Ring Ring!

    It's for you!

    It's analog radio engineers, everywhere, saying they want you to come over for a... a party. Yes, a party. To celebrate the ease of switching out radios.

    I think I hear the FCC in the background gathering pitchforks too. Not quite sure what the intent is there.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Ring Ring by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      lol. I can imagine it might be difficult to deal with all the radio issues. In my experience, wireless modems have always come in pre-fabricated structures, complete with some kind of shielding. Looking at pictures of some of the iphones that have been taken apart, it seems Apple used a similar device. I have used these in a number of different places without any trouble, so I suspect all the radio issues have been solved by the manufacturer. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that has been my experience.

      --
      Qxe4
  39. No one WONDERS? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I already said comparing to a year back is fine, the problem is that no-one seems to wonder why Apple chose that particular number to highlight in their report...

    Gee, do you think it might just be because it's the QUARTERLY report. As in the report for the phones sold this QUARTER. And for comparison, you'd probably want to compare against the SAME QUARTER last year. Right? Surely you see that?

    We don't WONDER because we KNOW. We all of us understand why you compare like quarterly sales instead of cherry-picking quarters on either end. That would be a hell of a report, comparing sales from 1978 Q4 against 1989 Q1. "Those were some mighty fine quarters. Never mind what we sold just now".

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:No one WONDERS? by koiransuklaa · · Score: 1

      If you read my posts you'll see I never said Apple should use something else -- I'm saying people should understand that Apple will highlight the things that make it look good (and will be silent when the same figure is not a good one), and just repeating those figures may lead you to not see the big picture (like the fact that iPhone 3G sold insanely well but the sales are dropping faster than with e.g. Nokia models). Let's just wait until autumn and see how prominently the same percentage is shown on the report then...

    2. Re:No one WONDERS? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I'm saying people should understand that Apple will highlight the things that make it look good (and will be silent when the same figure is not a good one)

      That is true of virtually all companies. They only highlight the good parts of the earnings. But that is the whole point of Public Relations. Apple, like all companies, do report on the bad parts as required by law. You do understand that quarterly earnings come in 2 parts right? There's the actual quarterly report filed to the SEC (10Q). This will have the hard numbers like revenue (profit or loss), costs, analysis, etc. In this report, revenue and costs are compared quarter to quarter and year to year for the same quarter as well as detailed explanations of the results including surcharges, predictions, etc. As part of the 10Q, Apple will note things that may threaten their sales like the downturn in the economy, competitors' products, etc. Then there's the Press Release for the 10Q which is a condensed version for the media as well as investors. Companies may only highlight the good aspects of the 10Q in their Press Release. If you don't like Apple's PR about their earnings, you are more than free to read the 10Q and go over the details yourself.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:No one WONDERS? by koiransuklaa · · Score: 1

      You do understand that quarterly earnings come in 2 parts right? ...
      If you don't like Apple's PR about their earnings, you are more than free to read the 10Q and go over the details yourself.

      Please guys, read my original post. I understand how earnings reports work and I'm not really complaining about Apple: the only reasons for even mentioning the company were a) they are exceptionally good at writing these reports and b) their reports seem to get quoted without context more often than most companies. I guess the latter could be just perception though.

      The thing I actually complained about was fanboys and media that use the report soundbytes without applying common sense. IANAAC originally made a valid question about iPhone sales, a question about a really volatile market that in my opinion shouldn't be answered in one syllable. Still, an AC responded saying that iPhone sales are fine: sales are up 123%. How insightful.

    4. Re:No one WONDERS? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      The thing I actually complained about was fanboys and media that use the report soundbytes without applying common sense. IANAAC originally made a valid question about iPhone sales, a question about a really volatile market that in my opinion shouldn't be answered in one syllable. Still, an AC responded saying that iPhone sales are fine: sales are up 123%. How insightful.

      This is what the OP said:

      I know that Apple's overall revenue is up, but aren't their iPhone sales down substantially (albeit, expected)?
      I think, at least until another model ships, iPhone sales have peaked in the US.

      The OP asked a simple question: Are sales down? The next poster responded no, they are up from 123% from previous year. The OP did not mention anything about a volatile market nor implied it. What the OP did imply is that the sales may have peaked without explaining this comment. If the OP said something along the lines of "Given the economic downturn I would expect sales to have peaked and any future sales to be lower." That post might generate a more lengthy discussion.

      Your post went on:

      Comparing to a year ago is fine, but you know what they say about statistics... Let me tweak your comment just a bit (it's still factually correct):
      Sold 3.79 million last quarter; a 45% drop in two quarters.
      Not nearly as impressive anymore, is it? I always get suspicious when I see a specific percentage figures used like Apple often do in their result announcements... It's childishly easy to find a single large figure that looks good (especially in a market like this) and the media and bloggers seem to all happily repeat the same number over and over: 123% growth! Wow, 123%!

      Are you complaining that the media will summarize Apple's summary of their earnings? You do understand that most media has to squeeze the information to fit it in a 30 second soundbite or 1 paragraph clip or even worse a 30 character scrolling newsflash? If you want the detail analysis, the media figures you will read the 10-Q yourself.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  40. Re:Apple doesn't want to make different iphone mod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and with CDMA, why make a phone for a dying technology?

    Because people still sold a bunch of buggywhips and horseshoes after the first car was made.

  41. Re:Verizon is in Apple's Best Interest! (Re: Apple by fangorious · · Score: 2, Informative

    The current AT&T is really SBC, which is the same as Verzion: one of the RBOCs created by breaking up the old AT&T. Neither one has any more or less history as a monopolistic big telco than the other because they're both cut from the same block.

  42. Re:Verizon is in Apple's Best Interest! (Re: Apple by thatnerdguy · · Score: 1

    Apparently someone forgot to tell you that they dropped your iPhone in the toilet...while downloading something mysteriously called "other". My vote is porn!

    --
    I saw the Sign, and it opened up my eyes
  43. unlocked phones by dafing · · Score: 1
    If you are worried about monthly charges, and I am, get an unlocked phone. I got what I still think is a killer deal, I bought my iPhone, the original iPhone, for $790 nzd, thats 451 usd according to google. I'm on prepay , Vodafone. I spend about, hmm, 5-10 nzd a month on my phone, through 20c each text messages really. Although, its mostly to one friend, who I could just pay 6nzd and get unlimited calling, and txting to, "best mates".

    I know Americans think that paying for things outright is the devil, but its how the rest of the world probably operates? At the moment, the iPhone 3G, bought officially, costs about 1200 NZD for the 16GB, without a plan. Put it on prepaid, and boom, away you go. Then again, I dont use my phone much for calls etc, because they are too expensive for me, and I use my iPhone on Wifi daily, never use the gprs speed service, that costs a dollar per day for up to 10MB.

    --
    --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
  44. iPhone on Verizon wont happen by jonwil · · Score: 2

    No way will Verizon be willing to give up control over app approval for phones on its network (look at the BREW crap they have on their phones now).
    No way will Verizon be willing to give up the Verizon music/ringtones/movies/tv/content store for the ITMS
    No way will Verizon be willing to allow GPS and other things without taking its cut.

    1. Re:iPhone on Verizon wont happen by ZFox · · Score: 1

      ...and yet they did all that with the BB Storm. Strange.

  45. Re:Apple is an unamerican, anticompetitive company by troll8901 · · Score: 1

    Thank you for your explanation!

  46. Re:Verizon is in Apple's Best Interest! (Re: Apple by NateTech · · Score: 1

    LOL...

    AT&T's network sounds just like any other GSM network, anywhere in the world.

    Verizon doesn't have DNA from a big telco or a monopoly mindset? Puh-leeze.

    Who doesn't know about the iPhone? You're kidding right?

    --
    +++OK ATH
  47. Bad Assumptions by salesgeek · · Score: 1

    This article assumes that there is no competition for the iPhone. As a G-1 owner, all I can do is give a hooked grin to the author and snicker just a little. Android is that good.

    --
    -- $G
    1. Re:Bad Assumptions by n2art2 · · Score: 1

      Lier, Lier, pants on fire!

      Take it back, take it back!

      --
      Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
    2. Re:Bad Assumptions by tsotha · · Score: 1

      That's what cracks me up about this entire conversation. The iPhone simply isn't the best phone on the market now. It's not even close. I have a friend in Japan who carries an iPhone because it's part of his "look". But he also carries a second, much more capable phone to actually use when he needs to get something done.

    3. Re:Bad Assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG, Android is not all that. (Yes im a Unix-Like freak!!!) Wheres the integration that Googles so well know for? Where the Thousands of apps we were promised.

    4. Re:Bad Assumptions by tomservo291 · · Score: 1

      I had to decide to go with with an iPhone or a G1. As a developer, both are appealing. However, I went with the iPhone for a few reasons: T-Mobile 3G coverage in NE is non-existent (obvious show stopper) Android market doesnt appear to be a real way to make any money. Sure, it's hit or miss with the Apple app store, but atleast there you have a chance of having a hit.

    5. Re:Bad Assumptions by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      It all changes as Samsung and Motorola release their Android phones. T-Mobile is just the first to offer an Android phone. As Moto and Samsung join in, Android will be on more than one carrier's network.

      Market share in mobile phones swings fast, and Android is the platform of the future.

      --
      -- $G
  48. Re:Verizon is in Apple's Best Interest! (Re: Apple by txoof · · Score: 0

    1) AT&T's network Sucks. I have heard many complaints that the iPhone is wonderful -- at everything but being a plain cellphone.

    My iphone is amazing at everything except being a phone. I've used it all over my home city and in several cities across the USA and it SUCKS. From this I gather that the service is not the issue, but rather the phone.

    Standing side-by-side with other AT&T users using different handsets, I can't even connect a call, let alone complete one. The other user is calling away without issue. I fault Apple on this one, not AT&T.

    As far as price, AT&T is WICKED expensive and the text messaging fees are absurd considering that SMS travel over network infrastructure that is necessary for phones to work and cost virtually nothing to deliver. I would really like to see one of the big 4 providers drop the SMS bullshit and offer unlimited texting for a few dollars a month rather than the insane amounts that are being charged right now.

    --
    This one's tricky. You have to use imaginary numbers, like eleventeen... --Hobbes
  49. it's the netbook, stupid by vaporland · · Score: 1

    Apple will release a carrier-subsidized touchscreen netbook running the locked down OS X iPhone variant. This device will have a mini PCIe slot so that Sprint, Verizon, AT&T, et al, can offer plug-in access to their networks and offer data plans with the ersatz iNetPhoneBook.

    The netbook will be nearly free; the price of the data plans will make your eyes water like a three-day-old onion.

    --
    Ask Me About... The 80's!
  50. Re:Verizon is in Apple's Best Interest! (Re: Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's highly unlikely they will ever go Verizon. It would require a completely new design for the phone since it would need a new radio to support their system. It's far more likely for T-Mobile to get the phone next. Who cares if you get a big check to go elsewhere when you spend that money redesigning something that'll ONLY work in the US? They went with GSM/3G design for a reason.

  51. Re:Verizon is in Apple's Best Interest! (Re: Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree with Gizmo Toy. I have been an AT&T user for years for mobile phone and Verizon for other services. The customer service for the latter is horrifyingly distasteful (my experience). AT&T was OK to above average. Network coverage is relative to where you are trying to get the signals. 3G rollout was s lower because it was a new and faster coverage so the geography coverage took some time. Also, some townships do not allow cell towers to dot their landscape, hence "dead zones" exist. The most important factor is to make sure your cell signal is string in your home and office.

  52. They said that about the iPod too. by n2art2 · · Score: 1

    Rim, Nokia, HTC, Sony-Ericsson, Samsung, every phone maker is bringing out competing products, if they have not already.

    There is maybe 1 more year of dominance by Apple here, then it's over.

    Remember when they said that about the iPod? Every audio player maker is bringing out competing products, if they have not already.

    There is maybe 1 more year of dominance by Apple here, then it's over.

    **Disclaimer: Happy iPhone owner, never owned an iPod, owner of many Apple Computers

    --
    Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
  53. Re:Apple doesn't want to make different iphone mod by tsotha · · Score: 1

    Most mobile manufacturers make both a GSM and CDMA version of their popular handsets. This is just part of the business in the US, and the Apple's lack of a CDMA iPhone is due more to a lack of a business relationship with Verizon than technical problems.

  54. Re:Verizon is in Apple's Best Interest! (Re: Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello,

    My name is John . I totally agree with all your statements pertaining to AT&T.
    They training is terrible. I am in total agreement with your statements.

  55. Re:Verizon is in Apple's Best Interest! (Re: Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly.. I left Verizon because I think their network and service sucks. When in reality they all suck and most of all suck your money. The prices that are charged for cell services is outrageously crazy. It's all unregulated BS.

  56. Re:Verizon is in Apple's Best Interest! (Re: Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have been a Verizon customer in Ohio for over 10 years - recently switched to ATT for an iPhone. love the phone but the ATT network is noticeably missing in many parts of the state. I travel a lot and can't believe ATT has such spotty coverage. There are days where I cannot even use the phone...

  57. Re:Verizon is in Apple's Best Interest! (Re: Apple by moniker127 · · Score: 1

    Well, verizon uses a frequency that has higher penetration, and longer range, but lower throughput. AT&T's 3G network is awesome if you're in most metropolitan cities. The only place where it can start to be a problem is if your out in the boonies, or in somewhere like NYC where there are 9000 iphones all sucking down streaming video from one tower at once.

  58. Re:Verizon is in Apple's Best Interest! (Re: Apple by kevinmf · · Score: 1

    But a Verizon version would not work outside the US because of their CDMA network. They would have to start producing 2 models of it, the other for the global marketplace.

  59. Anonymous (Not really) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suppose Verizon gets the iPhone...

    Not every new or old AT&T customer with an iPhone will jump ship for Verizon (you'd have to buy a new iPhone), and not every person who wants an iPhone would go to Verizon exclusively. Yes, AT&T would lose some business and Verizon would gain, but to assume people would all drop AT&T, buy new phones and go to Verizon so they can have the mythical crowd of people following them around is just plain ignorant.

    As for this company sux versus that one: they're both huge cell phone providers. Look at surveys to see who rocks and who doesn't. Personally, I like my Crackberry and took back the iPhone after 3 weeks because, while it's a cool toy, it isn't all that great as an organizer or as a phone.

    I'm waiting for AT&T to ink that contract with Apple and then start selling an Android phone.

  60. Don't forget the Apps Sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another reason still to open up the iPhone to Verison would be the influx of new customers with new phones would be adding millions of iPhone applications to their new phones. No matter how small the profit on those things it adds up in the end - 40 million quarters still makes 10 million dollars.

  61. Re:Verizon is in Apple's Best Interest! (Re: Apple by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 1

    Considering that T-Mobile has the German contract, O2 has the UK contract, and so on, it's only logical that the other GSM net providers would want in on the deal, the ability to switch the SIM card, and so on.

    Come to think of it, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple planned it this way when they chose T-Mobile, O2, Orange and so on. Roaming within Europe is due to become a lot cheaper, so they may have set it up as a way to break the telco's hold much like they turned the tables on the music publishers with the iTunes Music Store...

  62. Re:Verizon is in Apple's Best Interest! (Re: Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a totally individual thing. I was relatively happy with Verizon coverage and service for years. Then I wanted an iPhone nearly two years ago so I switched. Much to my surprise, the AT&T coverage was actually better in the places I travel, and their customer service has been outstanding, both online and in the local store.

    So my conclusion is that most of us probably evaluate rival companies based more on hearsay than actual experience.

  63. Interesting by tekshogun · · Score: 1

    I think the iPhone is a little overrated. A lot of potential exist in the Google Phone, Blackberry, and Windows Mobile markets.

  64. Here comes the third competitor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why hasn't anyone thought of O2 yet? they had the orignal contract with Apple, they dont block anything, they give huge internet speeds, and seriosly, why dont you just buy a Ipod Touch and then with the money left over just buy another phone

  65. Re:Verizon is in Apple's Best Interest! (Re: Apple by JoshNorton · · Score: 1

    Goddamn, I wish I had some modpoints.
    No matter which carrier they went with, that one would have had people gnashing teeth and rending garments because of bad experiences. Conversely, you'd have people who use the chosen one who all say that they haven't had any problems. (We haven't really had much problem with AT&T, for what that's worth.)

    All cell carriers suck a bunch of the time.

    --
    "Stupid! Stupid stupid stupid stupid! I touched the hot wire right there - I'm an idiot!"
  66. Upgrade, then upgrade again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are two options in upgrading the quality of the network:
    1) Build more cell sites
    2) Use new longer distance protocols

    The main points for 1 include: much more cost in buying land, maintaining towers, fighting vandalism, getting permits, granola neighbors complaining about EM upsetting their che, etc.

    The main points for 2 include: cheap or free infrastructure upgrade, force all your users to buy a new device from you or renew their contract to get a new device.

    I think even the Fanbois can see how this one will play out. LTE will be around for two to four years, then it will be replaced with something else. If the government worked for the people, and not for the campaign donor, we'd have universal wireless and cellular VoIP would be practically free.

  67. Re:Verizon is in Apple's Best Interest! (Re: Apple by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

    Come to think of it, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple planned it this way when they chose T-Mobile, O2, Orange and so on. Roaming within Europe is due to become a lot cheaper, so they may have set it up as a way to break the telco's hold much like they turned the tables on the music publishers with the iTunes Music Store...

    You may be on to something - just look at how easy it is to replace the SIM card on the iPhone - no need for a replaceable battery just for that.

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  68. Re:Verizon is in Apple's Best Interest! (Re: Apple by RyanPMcBride · · Score: 1

    My experience has been similar. For me, I never seem to get a medium-strength signal. It's either 0 bars or no bars. Gets a bit frustrating.

  69. Re:Verizon is in Apple's Best Interest! (Re: Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are dead wrong. I ran screaming from AT&T and Verizon has been fabulous- both in operation and customer service. It was so bad that I am enduring a lesser phone because I wouldn't go back to AT&T on a bet. If Verizon had the iPhone hoards would desert AT&T. If they lost it they would lose most of their business.

  70. Re:Verizon is in Apple's Best Interest! (Re: Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Verizon iPhone would be in the best interest of Apple, even if they had to give up some profits. Why?

    1) AT&T's network Sucks. I have heard many complaints that the iPhone is wonderful -- at everything but being a plain cellphone.

    2) AT&T's customer service sucks. DNA from a big telco. Monopoly mindset. Nuff said!

    3) Mindshare is king. If there were a Verizon iPhone, there would be more Apple iPhone mindshare. I hated to leave Verizon's better network and service for AT&T's suckyness, but I did it anyways. Lower that barrier, and many more people like me would have an iPhone. In the long run mindshare = more profits!

    A Verizon iPhone would be in the best interest of Apple, even if they had to give up some profits. Why?

    1) AT&T's network Sucks. I have heard many complaints that the iPhone is wonderful -- at everything but being a plain cellphone.

    2) AT&T's customer service sucks. DNA from a big telco. Monopoly mindset. Nuff said!

    3) Mindshare is king. If there were a Verizon iPhone, there would be more Apple iPhone mindshare. I hated to leave Verizon's better network and service for AT&T's suckyness, but I did it anyways. Lower that barrier, and many more people like me would have an iPhone. In the long run mindshare = more profits!

    Saying that AT&T's customer service sucks is just plain stupid. Maybe you had a bad experience (who hasn't), but AT&T works damn hard to please you customer's out there. I know, because I work there and I will put my skills up against anybody. Is AT&T perfect? By all means no. Is AT&T a good company? By all means yes. When Verizon gets the iPhone, I look forward to it. They turned it down the 1st time, and now that it has become so popular they want a piece of the action. It will come down to service and the network. It will bring out the best in both companies. Game on!

  71. Re:Verizon is in Apple's Best Interest! (Re: Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ti'm tired of hearing everyone slam AT&T's service. maybe you live in a "sucky" place. I live in the central FL on the coast, have family with iphones in urban areas in NJ and the most rural areas of NJ and NY and AT&T works great there (ie. they all have iphones).
      Verizon will have to change the way it does business in a big way. Right now they charge $60 for unlimited 3G data on top of your voice plan.

  72. Re:Verizon is in Apple's Best Interest! (Re: Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only reason I haven't gotten an iPhone is AT&T.

  73. Re:Verizon is in Apple's Best Interest! (Re: Apple by kehren77 · · Score: 1

    It all depends on where you live. I switched to Verizon years ago from AT&T (technically it was still Cingular at the time). Their coverage in my area (Minnesota/Wisconsin) is terrible. Verizon's is excellent. Sure, I'd love an iPhone. But what good is it if I can never use the phone feature. Then I might as well buy an iPod Touch.