Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Apr 12, 2013, 09:00 AM   #51
Rocketman
macrumors 603
 
Rocketman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Claremont, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by SILen(e View Post
the chipsets required for LTE at that time, which had a very high power drain (i remember a review of some HTC LTE device which drained the battery while navigating with LTE - while plugged in to a car charger!).
This is central to the Apple philosophy. Make it user friendly or don't release it. In Apple's case they have an 8 hour threshold of good enough. I for one will look forward to the distant day when an Apple handtop has a 3-4 day battery life. For now I would opt for a mere 24 hours on a BTO basis. Thicker is actually better in some meaningful ways.

Rocketman
__________________
Think Different-ly!
All 357 R or D House jobs bills over 4 years died in the D Senate, ordered by the D President. Buy a model rocket here: http://v-serv.com/usr/instaship-visual.htm Thanks.
Rocketman is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2013, 11:41 AM   #52
carl0sian
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
I convinced Steve to release the original iPhone
carl0sian is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2013, 11:45 AM   #53
NorCalLights
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
What an idiot.

Also... I was streaming video on my iPhone 3GS in 2009, and I have a feeling Mr. Jobs was too. There are a few holes in this story.
NorCalLights is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2013, 12:56 PM   #54
demodave
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Lubbock, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by komodrone View Post
in a way, Steve convinced Verizon to convince Steve to add LTE to iPhone.

Image
Ancient reality-distortion mid-trick. "This is the LTE phone that you thought you wanted me to make."
__________________
15" MBP, 2.66 GHz Core i&, 2 GB 1067 MHz DDR3, running OS 10.6.6
Mac Mini, 2.53 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4 GB 1067 MHz DDR3, running OS X Server 10.6.6
demodave is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2013, 01:09 PM   #55
demodave
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Lubbock, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pirate515 View Post
I wouldn't call it "crawling back", I'm pretty sure Verizon would still be around even if they didn't carry iPhone as of today. IMO, both saw an opportunity to make more money and finally took it.

[massive cut]

At the end of the day, I would say that both Apple and Verizon both saw benefits of doing business together and finally put their "differences" aside and seized the opportunity.
YES! This is exactly like the stuck-up so-and-so at a party who says, "I don't want sex" when they really mean "I don't want sex *with you*" and then later, after a couple drinks admits they want sex *ahem*. [Please pardon the graphic imagery. Mods feel free to not post this if it is deemed offensive.]

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenesisST View Post
That's why he's an "executive"!
No, that's my he's a C-level. C is an abbreviation.
__________________
15" MBP, 2.66 GHz Core i&, 2 GB 1067 MHz DDR3, running OS 10.6.6
Mac Mini, 2.53 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4 GB 1067 MHz DDR3, running OS X Server 10.6.6
demodave is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2013, 04:06 PM   #56
BossHogg
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hazzard County, GA
Didn't he and Denny Strigl turn down the original iPhone deal with Jobs because they wanted to focus on that AWESOME VCast music system ????

Should have both been fired for that one !
__________________
Convert since 2005
BossHogg is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2013, 06:30 PM   #57
gnasher729
macrumors G5
 
gnasher729's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8thark View Post
This is not entirely true. Apple originally pitched the iPhone to many US carriers and the only one that would take them was AT&T with an exclusivity contract. The others were like "an Apple phone? haha". After the success of the iPhone on AT&T and the exclusivity contract with t hem was up, the other carriers quickly added the iPhone to their lineups. They wanted a piece of that profit action too.
Fact is that the iPhone required investment, and a single carrier with an exclusive contract was always going to benefit much more from such an investment than multiple carriers. Verizon would have gladly taken the iPhone had they been the only one, just as AT&T wouldn't have been happy with a non-exclusive contract. Obvious that whoever didn't make the iPhone deal would then talk it down.
gnasher729 is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2013, 04:28 AM   #58
the8thark
macrumors 68040
 
the8thark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnasher729 View Post
Fact is that the iPhone required investment, and a single carrier with an exclusive contract was always going to benefit much more from such an investment than multiple carriers. Verizon would have gladly taken the iPhone had they been the only one, just as AT&T wouldn't have been happy with a non-exclusive contract. Obvious that whoever didn't make the iPhone deal would then talk it down.
This is not true. AT&T was the only one to initially accept the iPhone. The others rejected it. And AT&T would only take it on the exclusivity contract. Which was good cause no-one else wanted it. When the exclusivity contract was up everyone wanted it as we know cause it's a profit making phone.
__________________
Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
the8thark is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2013, 12:06 PM   #59
John.B
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Flyover Country
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8thark View Post
This is not true. AT&T was the only one to initially accept the iPhone. The others rejected it. And AT&T would only take it on the exclusivity contract. Which was good cause no-one else wanted it. When the exclusivity contract was up everyone wanted it as we know cause it's a profit making phone.
Splitting hairs here, but AT&T was the only one to accept the iPhone on Apple's terms. It's not that the other carriers didn't want it, it's that they couldn't abide the restrictions (no garrish carrier logos, no carrier shovelware/crapware, music/movies could be added only via iTunes, etc.)
__________________
Apple develops an improved programming language. Google copied Java. Everything you need to know, right there.

MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A
John.B is offline   1 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Former Apple CEO John Sculley: Forcing Steve Jobs Out Was a 'Mistake' MacRumors Mac Blog Discussion 81 Apr 22, 2014 08:33 AM
iPhone 5s/5c LTE Band Tweaks Combine AT&T and Verizon in One Model, Add China Mobile MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 68 Mar 13, 2014 02:08 PM
Disney CEO Remembers Relationship with Steve Jobs MacRumors Mac Blog Discussion 21 Jan 26, 2013 08:53 PM
Steve Jobs' Efforts to Support Ousted HP CEO Mark Hurd and Protect HP's Legacy MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 65 Jan 11, 2013 04:16 PM
If Steve Jobs was still was CEO, do you think the new iPhone would look different? lejudicieux iPhone 27 Aug 4, 2012 01:35 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:04 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC