Slashdot Mirror
Why Verizon Doesn't Want You To Buy an iPhone
Hugh Pickens writes "Sascha Segan writes that although Verizon adamantly denies steering customers away from Apple's iPhones in favor of 4G LTE-enabled Android devices, he is convinced that Verizon has a strong reason to push buyers away from the iPhone. 'Here's the problem,' writes Segan. 'Verizon has spent millions of dollars rolling out its massive LTE network' but the carrier can't easily add capacity on its old 3G network. Since the iPhone isn't a 4G phone, sales of Verizon iPhones just crowd up their already busy 3G network while their 4G network has plenty of space. 'The iPhone is a great device. But it's making a crowded network more crowded. Until the LTE iPhone comes along, to rebalance its network, Verizon may quietly push Android phones.'"
Add an unlimited plan that applies to 4g only. That'll give Android users some bragging rights for at least a few months. Then, when the iPhone gets 4g, Verizon won't need the plan and can drop it, and that'll allow Android users to blame the iPhone for ruining the party.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Here's the problem: the Lumia 900 is an GSM/LTE cellphone, not a CDMA/LTE cellphone. As such, the Lumia 900 can be engineered for GSM networks (which is essentially most of the world's cellphone networks!) that have added LTE functionality, for example Australia's own cellphone network with GSM and LTE.
This article misses a major clue -- people who are buying iPhones are not doing so because their carrier steers them towards them. As many people know about the iPhone as know about Verizon. There are people who wouldn't switch to Verizon because they didn't offer the iPhone. Name another phone that people do that for. The truth is, if Apple pushes people away from Verizon it will make a bigger difference for Verizon than it will for Apple if Verizon steers people away from iPhone.
Currently hooked on AMP
I'll just quote from the source articles and let you make up your own minds.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/03/technology/verizon-iphone-sales/
Anecdotal evidence is stacking up on chat forums and other outlets...
http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/03/technology/verizon-iphone-sales/
A pretty hot story is going around, stoked by CNNMoney...
[give some facts]
Maybe those are minor factors, but they aren't the primary reason.
[reach any conclusion you want]
MAYBE it's true, maybe it's not, but I fucking hate "new media".
#7 isn't bad for a phone which nobody wants.
Yes it is. It's a disaster. Because it's the only Windows phone anybody is pushing. You're basically comparing the entire Windows phone market to specific models of Android phones -- and even by doing that, you end up as #7 rather than #1.
That's one of the reasons carriers are willing to pay a higher subsidy for iPhone users. Apple customers buy more stuff across the board. They buy more services, they buy more accessories, they add more people to their accounts.... Apple focuses like a laser not on market share, but market share among profitable customers. That's why they generally pull 80+% out of markets they often have 10% or less share of.
Well of course the numbers are larger you silly child there are more accessories for iPhone than for Android. Its a numbers game at that point and not a telling of the markets movement.
I'll have to remember this one.... Making more varieties of something guarantees you will take all the top sales spots. Brilliant!
If the #1 selling item does 1 million units and the #2 does 100,000 - then making 8 different varieties of the #1 item and splitting the market 8 different ways will move the #2 guy down to #9 without any change in actual units being sold.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
There was no intent to "badmouth" CDMA. As you correctly point out, Wideband CDMA ultimately won the day as a technology. Your recap of the technologies' comparative strengths is very well written. But when I spoke of CDMA as having dead-ended, I was referring to the vendor technology path, not the underlying technology itself. Most people are only familiar with "CDMA" and "GSM" as the two competing cellular technology families in the US, without necessarily understanding what that means (other than "one has a SIM card and the other doesn't.") Telling them that their 2G "GSM" is really EDGE - and their 3G HSPA acts more like CDMA than GSM - will for most audiences just confuse the issue. So I stand by my assertion that "CDMA" the technology path is dead, and "GSM" is moving forward, but there's no value judgement on the technologies underlying that implicit in my comments.
"95% of all Slashdot