iPhone on Verizon - hope lives

[yadmonkey]

Here's why today's events have actually increased my hopes for a CDMA iPhone (to be taken with a grain of salt of course!):

• Apple barely mentioned AT&T at their WWDC keynote.
• Apple is no longer getting revenue-sharing from AT&T.
• Apple is allowing AT&T to subsidize the iPhone 3G, something they were previously against.
• According to AT&T's press release today, "under the terms of a new agreement with Apple, AT&T remains the exclusive U.S. carrier of the iPhone 3G." So...
• Reports of a 5 year contract were greatly exaggerated.
• Look at the wording - AT&T remains the exclusive carrier of the iPhone 3G. A CDMA iPhone targeted at Verizon subscribers wouldn't use 3G and thus wouldn't be an iPhone 3G.

The press release is so slippery with its wording, that it just looks to me like the AT&T exclusivity might be coming to an end. Now consider this:

• Verizon is opening its network this year to "any app, any device." That means no crappy Verizon branding and no crappy Verizon proprietary interface.
• Verizon has 80 million subscribers since they acquired Alltel.
• If just 2 percent of those subscribers bought an iPhone, it'd mean 1.6 million iPhone sold, or a 26% increase in worldwide sales just based solely on Verizon in the USA.
• It would not require significant R&D to make a CDMA version of the iPhone because the network chipset (CDMA versus GSM) has little to do with the iPhone as a platform.

So it doesn't look like AT&T has long-term exclusivity. The widespread 5-year assumption was B.S. Apple losing revenue-sharing and allowing subsidizing on their phones means that they obviously aren't offering AT&T as much as they previously did in return for those things. Based on the wording of that press release, AT&T doesn't have a long term exclusive, almost certainly not more than another year unless they sign another deal.

I'm probably crazy, but for me hope lives...

 

[EPA1]

One word, 3 letters. G S M.


Nope!

 

[butterfly0fdoom]

People. Stop forgetting that for the iPhone to be on Verizon, Apple needs to announce a CDMA version.

Just wait for for the iPhone 4G. Your hope better be able to live on until 2011.

 

[NDimichino]

If Verizon made an iPhone they would make it flip, slide and shimmy open seven ways and have 37 qwerty keyboards that appear out of nowhere. It would be a scene man.

 

[Corbet]

Keep dreaming. Maybe in 4 years you'll get your wish!

I'll be enjoying my iPhone while you wait!

 

[Koodauw]

I think you make a good point. If the contract was renegotiated, anything is possible. In my Area AT&T is pretty good though, so I can't complain.

 

[GFLPraxis]

The subsidy IS curious to me. It makes me wonder if Apple might switch to offering a non-subsidized version. Imagine: $199 for an iPhone from AT&T or $399 for an unlocked one. Most people would still go for AT&T but a lot would grab the unlocked.

People. Stop forgetting that for the iPhone to be on Verizon, Apple needs to announce a CDMA version.

Just wait for for the iPhone 4G. Your hope better be able to live on until 2011.

Did you even bother reading the OP? His theory is that the AT&T press release is worded so as to say that AT&T is the exclusive carrier of the "iPhone 3G" rather than iPhone because Apple might be releasing an "iPhone CDMA" for Verizon.

He didn't forget anything. Try bothering to read a post before you treat the poster like an ignorant child next time.

 

[yadmonkey]

One word, 3 letters. G S M.


Nope!

Please explain your point. Why can't a CDMA version be created, especially considering the potential market? It's not like they'd have to make a new OS - just work the existing OS with the same processor plus a CMDA chipset instead of a GSM chipset. Many phones have been created for multiple network technologies.

People. Stop forgetting that for the iPhone to be on Verizon, Apple needs to announce a CDMA version.

Just wait for for the iPhone 4G. Your hope better be able to live on until 2011.

What ever happened to reading comprehension? I didn't forget that. "CDMA" is used three times in my post.

If Verizon made an iPhone they would make it flip, slide and shimmy open seven ways and have 37 qwerty keyboards that appear out of nowhere. It would be a scene man.

Again, reading comprehension. Verizon is opening its network, which means companies can bring their devices to Verizon's network without getting all the gross Verizon branding and other meddling.

Keep dreaming. Maybe in 4 years you'll get your wish!

I'll be enjoying my iPhone while you wait!

Is reading comprehension really that bad here? What does 4 years have to do with anything? The 5-year exclusive contract has proven to be a myth.

 

[feelthefire]

Please explain your point. Why can't a CDMA version be created, especially considering the potential market? It's not like they'd have to make a new OS - just work the existing OS with the same processor plus a CMDA chipset instead of a GSM chipset. Many phones have been created for multiple network technologies.



What ever happened to reading comprehension? I didn't forget that. "CDMA" is used three times in my post.



Again, reading comprehension. Verizon is opening its network, which means companies can bring their devices to Verizon's network without getting all the gross Verizon branding and other meddling.



Is reading comprehension really that bad here? What does 4 years have to do with anything? The 5-year exclusive contract has proven to be a myth.

How has it been proven to be a myth? just because Apple now allows subsidies (could have been in the contract all along that the "second" iPhone could be more mainstreamed) doesn't mean there's no exclusivity. Many other phones have been on exclusivity deals and subsidized.

It was announced publicly last year that Apple was prohibited from DEVELOPING a CDMA iPhone until its contract with AT&T was over, and that contract was reported to be 5 years.

The only way it could be "proven" that the exclusivity deal was a "myth" is to see the handset appear for sale locked to another carrier, which hasn't happened. It looks like the Apple Store online won't even be selling them, which arguably means the phone is now MORE exclusive to AT&T, not less.

 

[fishkorp]

I said it in your other very similar thread, Apple is not going to make a phone for a single carrier. The world wide GMS market is billions of customers. Other than Verizon in the US, there is no major CDMA player in pretty much the entire world. Most of the world (at least the world that can afford an iPhone) is GSM. It's like making a shoe that only comes in size 14 vs making a shoe that comes in every size.

And it's not as simple as just popping in a chip, much more R&D would need to go into it and you can bet what that costs will probably not be offset by the money brought in by selling the phone, especially with reduced price and no revenue sharing. If you want an iPhone that bad, suck it up and switch to a GSM provider.

 

[fishkorp]

Is reading comprehension really that bad here? What does 4 years have to do with anything? The 5-year exclusive contract has proven to be a myth.

A myth? Because they changed the wording to say "iPhone 3G" instead of "iPhone?" Well guess what, that's because the iPhone 3G is the only iPhone you can now buy. Since Apple and AT&T are both all out of gen 1 iPhones, the only iPhone is the iPhone 3G. Stop picking apart words and getting your hopes up.

 

[tdar]

A myth? Because they changed the wording to say "iPhone 3G" instead of "iPhone?" Well guess what, that's because the iPhone 3G is the only iPhone you can now buy. Since Apple and AT&T are both all out of gen 1 iPhones, the only iPhone is the iPhone 3G. Stop picking apart words and getting your hopes up.

What I don't get is why some of you seem to be so against this. Every time someone expresses their hope that we who for some reason or another choose to or have to use Verizon might be able to have an iPhone, some feel some unexplainable need to find a whole list of reasons why it "can't" happen. Why do you care?

time to except some facts... VZ will soon be the largest cell provider in the largest cell market in the world. They will have more users than some group of the member country's in that 70 country list we saw yesterday combined. If every country on that list was important enough to be worthy of service than why is it so hard to understand that the 80+ million people that VZ has is a big draw and might be something that Apple would want to take advantage of.

Are there issues to be resolved? Sure on both sides. But The "new" agreement with ATT is a serious retrenchment from Apple's original position and brings them much closer to what Verizon wanted and what they feel they could live with.

Would Apple be willing to do the design work and design a CDMA iPhone when Verzion has said that they are moving to LTE in 3 + years (as is ATT), maybe. They did a 2G phone for only 1 year.....

But it's not impossible.... ATT would be willing to give up that exclusive for the right amount of money. Designing a CDMA phone is something that is well known....The differences between Apple and VZ are much smaller than they were 2 years ago and Verizon is a much bigger player than they were then... Apple seems to like being with number 1.....That's Verizon

 

[extraextra]

My issue is only with the contract. I don't know what the details of it were, but I'm assuming that there'd have to be a substantial reason for Apple to leave AT&T (or start allowing iPhones to be sold by other service providers) or there'd be a hefty price to pay for breaking the contract early.

 

[fasttech]

I am a Verizon customer probably going to switch to get an iPhone. Normally I would have no hope of them going to Verizon, except for one blurb I saw about Softbank in Japan getting the iPhone coming up in July. They are a W-CDMA network. Their phones they sell look to be generally dual mode GSM/W-CDMA but I think the GSM part was when they roamed on other networks.

 

[aristobrat]

time to except some facts...

IMO, when Verizon said that its 4G network was going to be LTE (which is not CDMA-based), and that they'd be testing LTE in late '08, that squashed any chance for a CDMA based iPhone.

CDMA has 451 million worldwide customers. http://www.cdg.org/
GSM had 3 billion worldwide customers. http://www.gsmworld.com/about/history.shtml

I'm not sure it makes any sense to develop a CDMA-version of a phone just for Verizon's 80 million customers, especially when they're migrating away from CDMA. There's really not much of a CDMA market left at all after Verizon leaves.

On the plus side, they picked the same technology (LTE) for their 4G network as AT&T did, so there won't be this GSM vs CDMA thing to deal with down the road.

 

[Merlosso]

IMO, when Verizon said that its 4G network was going to be LTE (which is not CDMA-based), and that they'd be testing LTE in late '08, that squashed any chance for a CDMA based iPhone.

CDMA has 451 million worldwide customers. http://www.cdg.org/
GSM had 3 billion worldwide customers. http://www.gsmworld.com/about/history.shtml

I'm not sure it makes any sense to develop a CDMA-version of a phone just for Verizon's 80 million customers, especially when they're migrating away from CDMA. There's really not much of a CDMA market left at all after Verizon leaves.

On the plus side, they picked the same technology (LTE) for their 4G network as AT&T did, so there won't be this GSM vs CDMA thing to deal with down the road.

It doesn't get any clearer than that. Well said.

 

[tdar]

IMO, when Verizon said that its 4G network was going to be LTE (which is not CDMA-based), and that they'd be testing LTE in late '08, that squashed any chance for a CDMA based iPhone.

CDMA has 451 million worldwide customers. http://www.cdg.org/
GSM had 3 billion worldwide customers. http://www.gsmworld.com/about/history.shtml

I'm not sure it makes any sense to develop a CDMA-version of a phone just for Verizon's 80 million customers, especially when they're migrating away from CDMA. There's really not much of a CDMA market left at all after Verizon leaves.

On the plus side, they picked the same technology (LTE) for their 4G network as AT&T did, so there won't be this GSM vs CDMA thing to deal with down the road.

I understand what you are saying....but as I noted, Apple saw the value of supporting the GSM 2.5 system even knowing that it would only be for a year.
If this is true, then it's also true that some value exists to support the US CDMA system for 3 to 4 years (most likely the life of more than one version of the phone)

One should also note that while Verizon has stated that they will move to an LTE system, that will be first on the 700Mhz spectrum and for now anyway the CDMA will remain as is.


While we are thinking mostly of Verizon+ Altel and their customers, given how Sprint is doing you might add their customers as well. They have 40 million customers. So in the largest Cell market in the world....120 million are on CDMA. It is possible that may be too much to overlook is all that we are saying. If you were making a product, would you ignore 120 million customers?

 

[yadmonkey]

A myth? Because they changed the wording to say "iPhone 3G" instead of "iPhone?" Well guess what, that's because the iPhone 3G is the only iPhone you can now buy. Since Apple and AT&T are both all out of gen 1 iPhones, the only iPhone is the iPhone 3G. Stop picking apart words and getting your hopes up.

Are you seriously telling me not to speculate on a rumors site? Why do you even care to chime in when you have nothing to add other than what's available now? That's obvious - I'm talking about the future here.

AT&T's own words:

"under the terms of a new agreement with Apple, AT&T remains the exclusive U.S. carrier of the iPhone 3G."

This is why I think the 5 year exclusive was a myth:

1. It's a "new agreement" with Apple. That implies that the old one was done with. Of course, agreements can also be re-negotiated, so let's look at why that doesn't seem like the case here...

2. The new agreement seems to be less on Apple's terms. No more revenue sharing, something Apple previously got out of it. And now subsidizing, something Apple was previously against. This says to me that Apple is getting less out of AT&T because they're offering less (exclusivity). Why would they re-negotiate for less if there was already a long-term agreement in place which offered more?

These press releases are always carefully worded for the maximum benefit of the company making the release. If AT&T had full exclusivity for the iPhone in the long term, they would have been explicit about it. Rather, this reeks of slippery wording.

IMO, when Verizon said that its 4G network was going to be LTE (which is not CDMA-based), and that they'd be testing LTE in late '08, that squashed any chance for a CDMA based iPhone.

CDMA has 451 million worldwide customers. http://www.cdg.org/
GSM had 3 billion worldwide customers. http://www.gsmworld.com/about/history.shtml

I'm not sure it makes any sense to develop a CDMA-version of a phone just for Verizon's 80 million customers, especially when they're migrating away from CDMA. There's really not much of a CDMA market left at all after Verizon leaves.

On the plus side, they picked the same technology (LTE) for their 4G network as AT&T did, so there won't be this GSM vs CDMA thing to deal with down the road.

Aristobrat, thank you for being the one dissenting voice to actually use good logic and reason. Your points are well taken. I do think that 451 million, while not impressive compared to 3 billion, is still a huge potential market. Even if Verizon is moving away from CDMA, it won't happen for 3-4 years and it won't happen overnight, rendering all current CDMA phones useless. Considering that some people are already upgrading their iPhones after a year or less, then 4+ potential years of CDMA iPhone would be worth it for me (and many others) to invest in a phone which will be obsolete in a few year (as will the 3G iPhone).

 

[butterfly0fdoom]

Did you even bother reading the OP? His theory is that the AT&T press release is worded so as to say that AT&T is the exclusive carrier of the "iPhone 3G" rather than iPhone because Apple might be releasing an "iPhone CDMA" for Verizon.

He didn't forget anything. Try bothering to read a post before you treat the poster like an ignorant child next time.

You don't see Apple releasing the iPhone 3G for T-Mobile in the US. The exclusive contract includes the "iPhone 3G", which is named differently than the "iPhone". The contract, I would presume, covers any form of iPhones from Apple (I'm sure most people deduced this when we figured there's going to be a second generation iPhone). We've practically had a thread every week of "iPhone for Verizon?!?"

I don't think it's so much a new agreement as it is a revised agreement with new terms, as well.

 

[yadmonkey]

You don't see Apple releasing the iPhone 3G for T-Mobile in the US. The exclusive contract includes the "iPhone 3G", which is named differently than the "iPhone".

I'm not arguing that. The 3G iPhone clearly isn't coming to other carriers.

The contract, I would presume, covers any form of iPhones from Apple (I'm sure most people deduced this when we figured there's going to be a second generation iPhone).

Why would you presume this. These press releases are written carefully. If they had true exclusivity, they would have been explicit about it. Otherwise, they know they can use slippery language because people like you will presume things which aren't said directly.

We've practically had a thread every week of "iPhone for Verizon?!?"

That's not relevant. Besides, I took time to write out a clear and logical argument for a CDMA iPhone and I had the humility to suggest you take it with a grain of salt. Most of the threads to which you refer start with little more than "Do you think there will ever be a Verizon iPhone".[/QUOTE]

I don't think it's so much a new agreement as it is a revised agreement with new terms, as well.

AT&T is calling it a "new agreement". And why on Earth would Apple agree to revise the agreement to concede on subsidies and revenue-sharing if there were already a longer agreement in place which included those things?

 

[Niiro13]

Here's why today's events have actually increased my hopes for a CDMA iPhone (to be taken with a grain of salt of course!):
...
I'm probably crazy, but for me hope lives...

Now the question is:

If Apple never had a deal that made it exclusive to AT&T...would they still take the effort to put in a CMDA chipset, then order another 10 million (so price is down)?

 

[butterfly0fdoom]

Most of the threads to which you refer start with little more than "Do you think there will ever be a Verizon iPhone".

And your thread title isn't a whole lot different. "Do you ever thing there will be one" and "hope lives for one" both imply wishful thinking. Your "clear and logical" argument isn't "clear and logical". Well, it's clear. But Verizon's customer base has nothing to do with why hope lives for a Verizon iPhone, at least within the next four years. Apple's ability to piece together a CDMA iPhone has nothing to do with it, either. Verizon's "any app any device" campaign is nothing but marketing fluff (unlocked CDMA phones are obscenely hard to come by). You forgot one big factor: two big egos does not a good relationship make.

 

[yadmonkey]

And your thread title isn't a whole lot different. "Do you ever thing there will be one" and "hope lives for one" both imply wishful thinking. Your "clear and logical" argument isn't "clear and logical". Well, it's clear. But Verizon's customer base has nothing to do with why hope lives for a Verizon iPhone, at least within the next four years. Apple's ability to piece together a CDMA iPhone has nothing to do with it, either. Verizon's "any app any device" campaign is nothing but marketing fluff (unlocked CDMA phones are obscenely hard to come by). You forgot one big factor: two big egos does not a good relationship make.

So apparently you respond to the titles of threads and not the content. That explains your approach to discourse thus far.

 

[butterfly0fdoom]

So apparently you respond to the titles of threads and not the content. That explains your approach to discourse thus far.

No, I actually read your post, too. Clearly, you only read the first sentence of what I say.

 

[yadmonkey]

No, I actually read your post, too. Clearly, you only read the first sentence of what I say.

No, I read your entire post as well. I didn't respond to the rest because it consists of a few declarative statements with very little to back them up.

But Verizon's customer base has nothing to do with why hope lives for a Verizon iPhone, at least within the next four years.

Please explain. Why four years? Please provide supporting evidence or at least a rational explanation.

Apple's ability to piece together a CDMA iPhone has nothing to do with it, either.

I agree. I mentioned it because many people seem to think that Apple would have to entirely reinvent the iPhone to put it on another network. My point is that it's not a large obstacle.

Verizon's "any app any device" campaign is nothing but marketing fluff (unlocked CDMA phones are obscenely hard to come by)

Explanation please. How do you know it's marketing fluff? Yes, unlocked CDMA phones are scarce, but wouldn't it stand to reason that they might become more common now that North America's largest CDMA provider has opened their network?

You forgot one big factor: two big egos does not a good relationship make.

I couldn't disagree more. History is absolutely littered with fruitful, if often difficult, collaborations between big egos. Examples? Every winning sports team ever. Most musical collaborations. The founding fathers. Great actors in the greatest movies. Young Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. Hell, even Abbot and Costello hated each other. Do you really think that great things happen without big egos clashing?