Apple Tablet to Support Multiple Wireless Carriers Including Verizon?

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I have to believe that if this tablet is supposed to work with wireless carriers, that someone at some carrier would have leaked something by now. Apple is very tight-lipped about their products but the same security measures aren't in place at any wireless provider. Just look back at gadget sites over the past few years. Something is always leaked.

I am not in favor of a forced monthly fee. Make it a hybrid of sorts. Give me wifi only or the ability to connect it to a carrier if I choose. In my case, AT&T doesn't seem to be able to deliver consistant voice service to my iPhone, let alone a good data network. I'm nowhere near a 3G service area. So, forcing a customer like me into a monthly contract for service that I can't even get is a big deal breaker. Hopefully Steve and Co. has considered this.

I strongly suspect it will be as you are wanting it... OPTIONAL 3G contracts else WIFI (maybe (hopefully) wimax though). Of course, the issue with this will be that without the likes of a 3G company helping to pay the TOTAL price Apple wants for it, the unsubsidized prices will probably be a bit higher than anyone suspects. For example, if someone asks, "how much does an iPhone cost?" the crowd usually knows the subsidized price. Look up the unsubsidized price and then extrapolate that to this bigger-screen, even more capable Tablet.

 

[SteveSparks]

If it can double as a (first purchase, super-sized) iPhone, yes. As a great mobile VOIP phone (not dependent on a locked wifi location), yes. And before anyone implies I mean holding a 10" screen up to your ear, that's NOT the idea (picture dialing on your Tablet, but using your ear buds with microphone (or a wireless bluetooth headset) for your communicating- just like you can do with the iPhone now, without holding the iPhone up to your ear).

Where do you put this phone in you "car" to make calls when driving. I could see the idea at a desk but in a car, on a boat at the airport?

Too big to drive with one hand and dial with the other, do you replace your pocket sized cell phone with a tablet or do you pay two monthly fees?

I don't see tablet monthly fees as justifiable as a cell phone with tablet like features that you find in the iPhone. You need a new "can't live without" or a affordable nice to have device in a tablet. I see the "nice to have" as the one winning the game and that means affordable an really no monthly fee.

 

[dguisinger]

The issue here is that Verizon has slammed AT&T with a very tangible, highly resonating concept... that is true. AT&T's initial reaction was to try to prevent this message from continuing via legal means, but courts generally support truth.

So now Apple is trying to address the issue by asking: what do we do that Verizon can't. And this answer is the best they can do.

The correct solution is what has been stated many times before: beat Verizon at their own game... build a bigger network. And that would also solve several other issues such as poor reception, etc. But rather than spend money to satisfy customers, AT&T would rather try to smooth it over with advertising. From a user's point of view, that's very much the WRONG answer, but it is a much cheaper way to go.

Oh yes, because all the text messages I get when a tower upgrade in my area is completed isn't tangible network upgrades..... nor is todays announcement that their towers are all upgraded to 7.2Mbps and that the backhaul upgrades are in progress. Pull your head out of your ass unless you like the extra warmth it gives you. Just because someone advertises doesn't mean they aren't working on things you don't physically see.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I agree with you that it's unlikely. It's the direction I wish things would go, however. I'd love to see the pricing model turned on its head. Instead of having carriers subsidize the price of mobile devices, I'd much rather pay an inflated up-front price that would essentially pre-pay connectivity. Rather than having it nickel-and-dimed back out of me over the next two years. There's a time-value to money. Perhaps if you paid it in advance a discount could be offered due to 1) they'd have the revenue now and 2) no chance of cancellation over the life of the contract.

As it is now, our devices are subsidized heavily, which we pay back over the contract term. But it's not like AT&T reduces your wireless bill once you've repaid the subsidy. They continue to charge the same amount, ad infinitum.

Sure. But I bet if you really tried, you could call up say- AT&T- and get a longer-term advance prepaid plan with a discount. I don't see why a 3G provider would be against collecting the majority of the total money up front, so they would probably be willing. Sometimes, I prepay my utilities several months ahead. When next month's bill comes it is negative, meaning they owe me service and I don't need to send them a check. You can prepay subscriptions to things like satt/cable too. Just send them a big check and you'll get most of what you want (though getting a bit of a discount for doing so may take jumping through a few hoops).

And of course, when the prepayment term ends, so ends the "free" (because you prepaid it) 3G, requiring you to go again. But I'm confident you approximate this wish... if you wanted to do so.

Just to complete my thought - the Kindle has done this already. Yes, most of what you get over 3G is purchased books. But there is a web browser. That you could, in theory, use 24/7 to look at "free" content on the web. In theory.

Maybe so, but Amazon is paying for that 3G for you. If in theory, people stopped buying books for Kindle and just used the 3G for web browsing 24/7, it would only be a matter of (short) time before new fees were announced for "heavy data" users, waived in exchange for buying a certain minimum amount of books each month.

Apple could do the same thing, but you still "pay" for the 3G, just within other purchases. More simply, there is no such thing as free 3G. It is not Apples- or Amazons- call to give us free 3G. That call belongs to the companies that serve up the 3G service. And their business involves making money in exchange for serving 3G. Giving it away doesn’t work for them.

But all that said, I do share the wish, even broader than yours... wouldn't we be a much more productive society if the fundamental basics of life such as communications were free- or much nearer to free- than they are now. Do we have to have a system forever and ever that tries to charge the maximum it can get for the most basic needs in life? Wouldn't it be great if we worked as a society toward minimizing the basic costs of life for the benefit of all people, making our money in support of capitalism on the non-essentials. Or do we keep marching toward the day where we'll have an oxygen subscription fee, and similar?

 

[cmaier]

Though they seem to like adding them lately - adding SD card slots to the iMac and their laptops.

If they add a slot like the iPhone SIM slot, paperclip sales will rocket.

they take away expresscard and add sd. Hardly a slot improvement

 

[Yvan256]

they take away expresscard and add sd. Hardly a slot improvement

It's a smaller one that more people use.

 

[dguisinger]

It's a smaller one that more people use.

You know what I would be interested in from them? I have the 17" with express slot just in case I ever need it.

But.. what I'd rather have is an External PCIe connector (you usually don't find these on anything but high-end servers) and a docking setup that allows me to have whatever it is my heart desires sitting on a on a desk. After all, if its something specialized I want to plug in to, I most likely wouldn't need it while mobile. And External PCIe *is* a standard connector.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Where do you put this phone in you "car" to make calls when driving. I could see the idea at a desk but in a car, on a boat at the airport? Too big to drive with one hand and dial with the other, do you replace your pocket sized cell phone with a tablet or do you pay two monthly fees?

You can lay it in the seat next to you after you've dialed, then use the bluetooth headset, iphone earbuds + microphone, or even the JupiterJack-type stuff to communicate EXACTLY like you do with a cell phone. No one should be dialing cell phones while they are driving. But communicating while you are driving should work pretty much the same.

Even if the thing is 10" and the seat next to you is filled, you could lay it in the floor under your legs, tuck it under or next to the seat, etc. 10" is not that big. It should be very easy to use this as a phone assuming it comes with the technology to do so. Just think beyond needing to hold the phone in your hands to use it as a phone, and it can work very well. Pull it out of the bag or open the portfolio to touch the screen for dialing, then once you're connected it can be in the bag over your shoulder, or in the back seat, etc. Easy.

Definitely NOT 2 monthly fees. For me, it would be my first "iPhone", and thus my ONE monthly 3G fee. For those who already have an iPhone, if you want a Tablet, either you're buying an unsubsidized one at full (Apple) price, or yes, you're paying 2 monthly fees to get the subsidized price. I would think for those that want both, it will be the former most of the time. But I really think that if you have an iPhone, you'll really have to be wowed to add a Tablet too.

 

[TraceyS/FL]

Sure. But I bet if you really tried, you could call up say- AT&T- and get a longer-term advance prepaid plan with a discount. I don't see why a 3G provider would be against collecting the majority of the total money up front, so they would probably be willing. Sometimes, I prepay my utilities several months ahead. When next month's bill comes it is negative, meaning they owe me service and I don't need to send them a check. You can prepay subscriptions to things like satt/cable too. Just send them a big check and you'll get most of what you want (though getting a bit of a discount for doing so may take jumping through a few hoops).

HA. You have to be a LONG TIME customer to get those types of discounts. Unless the net is Sprint - and you get into "retentions". But hey, maybe that has changed recently...

AND, we did the prepaid thing (not intentional though) with Comcast, set up on an autopayment. Had a negative balance.... they raised the monthly rate. They sent letters out telling you that it was going up on such and such day so you could adjust autopayments and the like. Only, apparently, by their own admission, because we had a negative balance - THEY DIDN"T SEND US ONE.

SOOO, one Sunday we had a contractor banging on the door to disconnect the cable. Yup, because of 2 months of "shorting" them like $3. It was seriously shut off on a Sunday over $7 and change....

Sure, we should have been able to make the adjustment just by looking at the first bill. But gee, out of sight-autopayment, out of mind. The Customer Service manager also said in no way should it have been scheduled for a full disconnect over the amount - it was 2 months of shorting that kicked it. AND admitted they were at fault for NOT sending the letter to all customers.

My point being - i'm pretty sure AT&T could muck up a prepayment like Comcast did! LOL!!

 

[aegisdesign]

they take away expresscard and add sd. Hardly a slot improvement

The last time I had a use for a PC Card or expresscard type slot other than for an SD card adaptor was 1997 adding SCSI, ethernet or wifi to a toshiba laptop.

So removing an unused slot WAS a slot improvement for some.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Oh yes, because all the text messages I get when a tower upgrade in my area is completed isn't tangible network upgrades..... nor is todays announcement that their towers are all upgraded to 7.2Mbps and that the backhaul upgrades are in progress. Pull your head out of your ass unless you like the extra warmth it gives you. Just because someone advertises doesn't mean they aren't working on things you don't physically see.

Well I've removed my head long enough to tell you that I'm sure AT&T appreciates your support. The simple facts are that Verizons 3G message is TRUE. And AT&T could aggressively spend to out-Verizon Verizon's coverage if they simply chose to do so. But instead, they choose to try to maximize value for shareholders by doing the least amount of infrastructure building they can get away with while trying to collect as much revenue as they can. If lots of people in- say- NYC can't get consistently good coverage... or even connect... well that's just too bad for them. The shareholders like profits... even if the profits come at the expense of customer satisfaction.

It's great that AT&T does spend some money on their infrastructure and upgrades. Maybe that will someday help them rank higher than LAST in customer satisfaction of U.S. carriers. I find no fault with AT&T for trying to make the most from doing the least they possibly can. That is... unfortunately... the system we choose to live within. But defending them as you are doing implies you work for/with them, or otherwise don't experience some of the miseries that others using their network do. Either way, congratulations.

 

[ct2k7]

Whoever said the concept of a tablet (pc) is for internet use is wrong, but is more rather the main concept and reason for netbooks.

 

[dguisinger]

Well I've removed my head long enough to tell you that I'm sure AT&T appreciates your support. The simple facts are that Verizons 3G message is TRUE. And AT&T could aggressively spend to out Verizon, Verizon's coverage if they chose to do so. But instead, they choose to try to maximize value of shareholders by doing the least amount of infrastructure building while trying to collect as much revenue as they can. If lots of people in- say- NYC can't get consistently good coverage... or even connect... well that's just too bad for them. The shareholders like profits... even if the profits come at the expense of customer satisfaction.

It's great that AT&T does spend some money on their infrastructure and upgrades. Maybe that will someday help them rank higher than LAST in customer satisfaction of U.S. carriers. I find no fault with AT&T for trying to make the most from doing the least they possibly can. That is... unfortunately... the system we choose to live within. But defending them as you are doing implies you work for/with them, or otherwise don't experience some of the miseries that others using their network do. Either way, congratulations.

You obviously don't understand cell phone technology enough to realize congested networks in congested areas are tough to fix without more available spectrum from the FCC. I'll stick with reality, you can stick with kissing a Verizon executives ass and keep your pompous attitudes.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

My point being - i'm pretty sure AT&T could muck up a prepayment like Comcast did! LOL!!

I can completely appreciate your pain. When dealing with the devils (these near-monopoly Goliaths) why should individuals like us expect anything less? Perhaps some day a bunch of David's will rise up and slay these Goliaths?

 

[dguisinger]

I can completely appreciate your pain. When dealing with the devils (these near-monopoly Goliaths) why should individuals like us expect anything less? Perhaps some day a bunch of David's will rise up and slay these Goliaths?

See now I get it Darryl, you just are anti-AT&T no matter what the problem is. Notice the guy said it got fixed and they apologized and said it was their fault - so AT&T fixed it and you still say they have to rise up against them. I'm sure Verizon and Verizon Wireless are just so much less evil and monopolistic and so much less dedicated to their shareholders. Hypocrite. (Or Troll)

 

[rnizlek]

I can completely appreciate your pain. When dealing with the devils (these near-monopoly Goliaths) why should individuals like us expect anything less? Perhaps some day a bunch of David's will rise up and slay these Goliaths?

Well, it's not easy. We did it where I lived - the city started it's own telecom provider and ran fiber to 95% of all the premises in the city (Burlington Telecom). Of course, now it's under attack from local politicians who are trying to kill it for their political gain after the present administration gave it a loan out of the city's general fund without asking anyone. Who knows if it's going to survive the political firestorm, but it would really be a shame if it didn't. BT really gives every other provider in the area a run for it's money.

A few other places are trying this sort of thing, also. But most people in this country would cry foul if one's local government tried to start providing telecom services. That's why I live where I do.

 

[can.rules]

Link to story:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...let_will_use_Verizon_s_3G_network_sources_say

This is just ridiculous. Why would you want 3g connectivity on a tablet when you can tether it via Bluetooth through the iPhone you already have? Don't have an iPhone you say, apple will gladly sell you one.

Verizon is not going to happen. Maybe eventually you'll be able to tether through an android or bb, but I wouldn't hold my breath as you cannot tether and talk at the same time.

 

[rnizlek]

See now I get it Darryl, you just are anti-AT&T no matter what the problem is. Notice the guy said it got fixed and they apologized and said it was their fault - so AT&T fixed it and you still say they have to rise up against them. I'm sure Verizon and Verizon Wireless are just so much less evil and monopolistic and so much less dedicated to their shareholders. Hypocrite. (Or Troll)

I don't think that was his point at all. I could be wrong. AT&T has done well by me and I'm actually very satisfied with the level of service they've provided by me.

But I think in other areas (maybe not wireless providers, but certainly providers like Comcast) there are alternatives if people want to pursue them. Giant public corporations that are only out there to make a buck for shareholders aren't the only way to provide connectivity to this country. See my post above.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

See now I get it Darryl, you just are anti-AT&T no matter what the problem is. Notice the guy said it got fixed and they apologized and said it was their fault - so AT&T fixed it and you still say they have to rise up against them. I'm sure Verizon and Verizon Wireless are just so much less evil and monopolistic and so much less dedicated to their shareholders. Hypocrite. (Or Troll)

Hmmm... an AT&T fanboy. As far as I know you are the first.

No, I think of Verizon exactly the same as I think of AT&T... both are Devils, ripping off the public with a service that should be much less costly than it is. You don't have retail kiosks every block stocked by employees, and multiple outlets in every mall (sometimes 2 or three from either of these guys in the same mall) if the profits on these services is not sky high (which is also more tangibly evidenced in their financial reports).

My point is that BOTH could deliver substantially better service... for substantially lower prices if their focus was more Apple-like in trying to delight their customers. You've chosen to take a response I posted personally (do you work for/with AT&T?), when you can roll through hundreds of threads on this and other sites praising the iPhone and uniformly finding fault with the iPhone service provider. Put any 10 iPhone users in a room and ask them what is the #1 thing they would change, and I bet YOU would then be calling the majority of them "trolls".

Had Apple gone with Verizon instead of AT&T, would things have been any much better? Probably not.

I'm with neither carrier, and dread the day I have to go with one or the other for service, as I know it is a relative ripoff either way. But based on what I've read from iPhone users, it sure seems like an awful lot of them dream about the day that they can have a choice of carrier beyond AT&T.

 

[TraceyS/FL]

See now I get it Darryl, you just are anti-AT&T no matter what the problem is. Notice the guy said it got fixed and they apologized and said it was their fault - so AT&T fixed it and you still say they have to rise up against them. I'm sure Verizon and Verizon Wireless are just so much less evil and monopolistic and so much less dedicated to their shareholders. Hypocrite. (Or Troll)

1. woman. not a guy

2. it was Comcast - not AT&T.

I haven't dealt with AT&T since they tried to convince us to switch to them.... telling us that the rate Verizon (GTE Mobilnet) was giving us was a lie - despite seeing it in print on the bill, AND, it didn't matter if they didn't have coverage off the highway in 1/2 of our working area. Because - you normally find farm fields right along the highway

That AT&T Salesperson left a pretty bad impression.... rude and obnoxious. And while a couple of people doesn't represent everyone in a company - it wasn't the way to go about attempting to get a $15k+/mo plus account either (which would have been $25k at the rates they offered). It has carried forward for years - and was echoed in other attempts at dealing with them.... nope, no AT&T for me.

ANYWAY, just wanted to clear that up

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Well, it's not easy. We did it where I lived - the city started it's own telecom provider and ran fiber to 95% of all the premises in the city (Burlington Telecom). Of course, now it's under attack from local politicians who are trying to kill it for their political gain after the present administration gave it a loan out of the city's general fund without asking anyone. Who knows if it's going to survive the political firestorm, but it would really be a shame if it didn't. BT really gives every other provider in the area a run for it's money.

A few other places are trying this sort of thing, also. But most people in this country would cry foul if one's local government tried to start providing telecom services. That's why I live where I do.

Yes, you generally don't want bigger government to be the alternative. What is desperately needed is more competition. However the Goliaths (who pull the strings of those politicians by the way) don't want more competition. Few competitors keep prices higher through direct or indirect price collusion.

Notice that when any small competitor pops up and gains some ground on similar good service at lower prices, they get gobbled up in an acquisition. What was the last fairly big one? Alcatel or something like that?

Recently, the digital TV transition freed up a bunch of very valuable spectrum perfect for cell phone use. We, the people, own that spectrum, and it was auctioned off to the highest bidders on our behalf. Guess who got the vast majority of it? Yes, these same Goliaths. I was a bit excited ahead of the auction to hear rumors that both Apple and Google were interested in bidding on it. But in the end the same players gobble it up. No new competition, and thus no new pressure to deliver great service at lower prices.

 

[dguisinger]

Hmmm... an AT&T fanboy. As far as I know you are the first.

No, I think of Verizon exactly the same as I think of AT&T... both are Devils, ripping off the public with a service that should be much less costly than it is. You don't have retail kiosks every block stocked by employees, and multiple outlets in every mall (sometimes 2 or three from either of these guys in the same mall) if the profits on these services is not sky high (which is also more tangibly evidenced in their financial reports).

My point is that BOTH could deliver substantially better service... for substantially lower prices if their focus was more Apple-like in trying to delight their customers. You've chosen to take a response I posted personally (do you work for/with AT&T?), when you can roll through hundreds of threads on this and other sites praising the iPhone and uniformly finding fault with the iPhone service provider. Put any 10 iPhone users in a room and ask them what is the #1 thing they would change, and I bet YOU would then be calling the majority of them "trolls".

Had Apple gone with Verizon instead of AT&T, would things have been any much better? Probably not.

I'm with neither carrier, and dread the day I have to go with one or the other for service, as I know it is a relative ripoff either way. But based on what I've read from iPhone users, it sure seems like an awful lot of them dream about the day that they can have a choice of carrier beyond AT&T.

I agree things would not be better if Apple had gone with Verizon. No, I don't work for cell carriers thank god.

I do get tired however of all the pissing and moaning by people who don't administer cell phone networks claiming the networks are doing nothing. It takes years to get extra spectrum space (which then means, sorry to say it, you need new cell phones to support the extra bands). It takes a long time to verify and upgrade tens of thousands of towers. I would think it costs a lot more than you think, marketing expenses are minor compared to the sudden increase in network expenses AT&T is likely facing after the iPhone. They would market no matter what because all companies do.

It just appears to me you are unfairly being the opposite of what you are accusing me of. You accuse me of carrying water for AT&T, whereas I accuse you of the exact opposite from all your posts in this thread.

Am I happy with my service with AT&T? Sure, in Minneapolis the service is great. Everyone knows service varies around the country. I've used T-Mobile and Sprint PCS as well. I have to say of the 3, I will *never* do business with Sprint again... but everyone's milage will vary depending on the reps they deal with and what their local coverage is like.

Which is why I go back to my original point - just because you don't physically see their upgrade process with your own eyes don't mean they aren't working around the clock to fix it, and doesn't mean they are worse than anyone else.

Which you seem to have confirmed part of that point in your last response with what we apparently do agree on - that none of the carriers probably would have handled a massive explosion of data traffic well.

 

[TraceyS/FL]

I don't think that was his point at all. I could be wrong. AT&T has done well by me and I'm actually very satisfied with the level of service they've provided by me.

But I think in other areas (maybe not wireless providers, but certainly providers like Comcast) there are alternatives if people want to pursue them. Giant public corporations that are only out there to make a buck for shareholders aren't the only way to provide connectivity to this country. See my post above.

In our area - it's Comcast for internet or Embarq/CenturyLink?/Sprint for DSL.

The DSL offerings have improved recently speedwise, but we needed more than the DSL was bringing us. It's a rural area - i get my cable on a wire on a pole still..... probably NOT high on the list for fiber.

But, there needs to be the option for competition from other companies. The Cities/Towns get paid big money for keeping things as exclusive providers..... UGH. i just don't have time to take on the political side of things right now, or i would try!

 

[dguisinger]

1. woman. not a guy

2. it was Comcast - not AT&T.

I haven't dealt with AT&T since they tried to convince us to switch to them.... telling us that the rate Verizon (GTE Mobilnet) was giving us was a lie - despite seeing it in print on the bill, AND, it didn't matter if they didn't have coverage off the highway in 1/2 of our working area. Because - you normally find farm fields right along the highway

That AT&T Salesperson left a pretty bad impression.... rude and obnoxious. And while a couple of people doesn't represent everyone in a company - it wasn't the way to go about attempting to get a $15k+/mo plus account either (which would have been $25k at the rates they offered). It has carried forward for years - and was echoed in other attempts at dealing with them.... nope, no AT&T for me.

ANYWAY, just wanted to clear that up

haha, oops and oops
Actually... in our area Comcast came from MediaOne. Wasn't MediaOne part of a AT&T joint venture at one point?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

This is just ridiculous. Why would you want 3g connectivity on a tablet when you can tether it via Bluetooth through the iPhone you already have? Don't have an iPhone you say, apple will gladly sell you one.

Or get 3G functionality in this Tablet and then you can use it as a phone, so you don't have to carry both with you. Oh, and 3G is the ONLY way to be able to have always-on internet access as you are traveling about. So if this thing is a "mobility" solution so we can buy a new e-Magazine, or download iTunes media whenever we want it, we'll need something more dependable than wifi only as an (optional) source of internet service.

I appreciate those with iPhones not wanting to pay the bit extra for this thing to have 3G hardware inside. But again, I don't believe Apple is building this to sell to just iPhone users. I think they are chasing the netbook market, and probably the e-book (and mobile media) market too. It seems having an always-available internet connection as a built-in option makes the Tablet a maximum appeal product. Requiring an iPhone purchase to achieve this makes it even more expensive vs. the netbooks/ebook readers/etc against which it is perceived to be competing.

What do you think? If they build in optional 3G service hardware that it adds hundreds to the cost? Far from it. And another way to look at it is this: if they DON'T build 3G hardware into the Tablet such that there is no option for AT&T, Verizon or similar to chip in (via a contract subsidy) toward the TOTAL price Apple will want for it, are you ready to pay up for the full Tablet price (even if you don't already have an iPhone)? It just makes good business and marketing sense to build it in as an option, so they can actually deliver on the "shocking low price" rumors also attached to this device.