iPhone on Verizon: 'A Decision That is Exclusively in Apple's Court'

[Rodimus Prime]

wait... sorry.. so your telling me, that BlackBERRIES didn't have wifi before, but they will soon have wifi.. (rev 2 models). Your also telling me that CDMA is faster than wifi??? The STORM (rev 1.) didn't come with WIFI, and it was supposed to be an "iPhone Killer".

The TOUR was in development before WIFI got pressured? and the first rev. doesn't have wifi.. but the second will.. and the iPhone hasn't had an impact on this at all???? Ok... (being serious) what phone came up with Wifi as a standard option then? Because I CAN'T think of a smartphone that had wifi before the iPhone, honestly..

No read it again. The CDMA wireless connection could out pace what the phones could handle any how. *aka the difference in speed loading a web page would be negligible. now compared 3G to wifi on todays phones yes there is a difference but it is pretty small.

As for phones pre iPhone that had WiFi I know they are out there considering T-Mobile was starting to run is UMA services.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/03/01/8401024/index.htm in case you are wondering that is from March 2007. iPhone was announced.

So it is not like I need to find a phone to prove it. T-Mobile rolling out UMA proves that it was already coming out and happening before the iPhone. GSM were getting wifi due to the speed increase of the internet.

 

[kdarling]

Ok... (being serious) what phone came up with Wifi as a standard option then? Because I CAN'T think of a smartphone that had wifi before the iPhone, honestly..

On Verizon, the Samsung i730 had WiFi back in 2005. After that came the UStarCom XV6700, XV6800 and Samsung i760.

On ATT, their versions, the PPC 6700 and 6800 also had WiFi starting back in 2005. Ditto for Sprint.

I'm sure there were others in the USA that I don't recall, and more around the world. The first one might've been a Japanese in 2004. No wait, I think Nokia had one or more WiFi smartphones in 2004 as well.

 

[Surklyn]

No read it again. The CDMA wireless connection could out pace what the phones could handle any how. *aka the difference in speed loading a web page would be negligible. now compared 3G to wifi on todays phones yes there is a difference but it is pretty small.

As for phones pre iPhone that had WiFi I know they are out there considering T-Mobile was starting to run is UMA services.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/03/01/8401024/index.htm in case you are wondering that is from March 2007. iPhone was announced.

So it is not like I need to find a phone to prove it. T-Mobile rolling out UMA proves that it was already coming out and happening before the iPhone. GSM were getting wifi due to the speed increase of the internet.

Ok.. not to be TOO confrontational.. ( LOL ) but for the sake of argument.

The reason why phones could "outpace" CDMA is because the phones were optimized for CDMA and not WIFI, or any other "hi-speed" connection (3G).

I'm reading, and re-reading your post the best I can. Your telling me that CDMA is slower (but ONLY NEGLIGIBLY slower than WIFI and 3G?) because damn I can tell a serious difference between 3G and WIFI. (don't have a CDMA phone... so I can't compare that, but obviously EDGE is the slowest).

My Argument is that CDMA phones could outpace "similar" phones of it's era is because wifi, and 3g weren't all that popular back then, (AND/OR) the amount of data sent through a "regular" phone in regards to a phone such as an iPhone or (BB) is much less...

 

[Surklyn]

The Verizon Samsung i730 had WiFi back in 2005. After that came the UStarCom XV6700, XV6800 and Samsung i760.

On ATT, their versions, the PPC 6700 and 6800 also had WiFi starting back in 2005.

I'm sure there were others in the USA that I don't recall, and more around the world.

Thank you. Seriously.

 

[kdarling]

CDMA smartphones had WiFi pretty early on. At least, the top of the line do-it-all models did. Lesser models did not.

WiFi simply wasn't needed for CDMA 3G smartphones as much, because EVDO was rolled out widely. I know I rarely turned on WiFi on a CDMA smartphone, even if watching my Slingbox.

Verizon Blackberrys didn't have WiFi because they were sold mostly to enterprises who worried about security and users surfing outside the company. No WiFi, no camera, was the watchword of the day.

Now more Blackberrys are sold to regular consumers, and desired feature sets have changed.

 

[Surklyn]

CDMA smartphones had WiFi pretty early on. At least, the top of the line do-it-all models did. Lesser models did not.

WiFi simply wasn't needed for CDMA 3G smartphones as much, because EVDO was rolled out widely. I know I rarely turned on WiFi on a CDMA smartphone, even if watching my Slingbox.

Verizon Blackberrys didn't have WiFi because they were sold mostly to enterprises who worried about security and users surfing outside the company. No WiFi, no camera, was the watchword of the day.

Now more Blackberrys are sold to regular consumers, and desired feature sets have changed.

now that's a rational reply, and it makes sense. Thanks. I can't argue with that one.

 

[Cleverboy]

As Apple's senior executives are quick to point out, they decided early on to have a "one phone" for the world strategy. This has served them well. This strategy would not have been as practical (by EVERYONE'S measure) had Apple began in the U.S. with Verizon.

Not really, otherwise they would have chosen one of the radio chipsets that supports both CDMA *and* GSM. That's right, all of these arguments about GSM *or* CDMA become silly as soon as one realizes that some chipsets support both.

Hardly. Since when does "as practical" mean "impossible"? "As practical" means "as practical". The implicit meaning is pretty clear.

There have been chipsets that do "both", even some that now do LTE, GSM, and CDMA... but the question isn't how many spots can you keep your feet on in this game of mobile chipset Twister... its delivering a single dependable consumer implementation that at once delivers on Apple's historically high margins and doesn't produce unnecessary risk of failure when the new hardware is in the channel.

Remember the early 3G reports of an immature stack and concern about where the problem lay? Imagine the compromise inherent in a combination chip not as widely tested and used. Apple bet the company on the iPhone. They have specifically stated their view on CDMA and its future prospects. It seems like they consider this a moot issue.

It's pretty clear Apple's philosophy has never been Jack-of-all-Trades Master-of-Nothing. It's the stuff of every single disappointing keynote presentation since the dawn of the iPhone. But, people will still keep dreaming their radical "Apple conquers the world" dreams.

I imagine the ONLY thing that might get Apple to reconsider Verizon, is a troubling trajectory of success with Android's business model. I'm not sure I see that happening. Android isn't really targeting the iPhone crowd. With its multi-profile, multi-handset, multi-interface/configuration strategy... Android is clearly targeting WinMo/Palm/Symbian/Blackberry.

iPhone OS will never be Android, and Android will never be the iPhone OS. The big question will be, which model will be more successful in the long run. I'd bet dollars to donuts... on Android. Apple just wants their slice of smartphone marketshare. Android wouldn't mind eating most of the whole pie.

~ CB

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Ok.. not to be TOO confrontational.. ( LOL ) but for the sake of argument.

The reason why phones could "outpace" CDMA is because the phones were optimized for CDMA and not WIFI, or any other "hi-speed" connection (3G).

I'm reading, and re-reading your post the best I can. Your telling me that CDMA is slower (but ONLY NEGLIGIBLY slower than WIFI and 3G?) because damn I can tell a serious difference between 3G and WIFI. (don't have a CDMA phone... so I can't compare that, but obviously EDGE is the slowest).

My Argument is that CDMA phones could outpace "similar" phones of it's era is because wifi, and 3g weren't all that popular back then, (AND/OR) the amount of data sent through a "regular" phone in regards to a phone such as an iPhone or (BB) is much less...

Some one else already pointed that WiFi CDMA have been around for a while and why BB lagged.

But it more what I mean is 3G CDMA (and 3G) 2 years ago the speed difference between 3G and WiFi was negligible. Not because 3G was faster but because 3G exceeded that the phone could handle any how so even if one could download a web page 10 times faster over wifi it would still render in the same amount of speed.

The phone is only as fast as its slowest point. At the time the slowest point was the phone not the connection.

 

[Cleverboy]

CDMA smartphones had WiFi pretty early on. At least, the top of the line do-it-all models did. Lesser models did not.

WiFi simply wasn't needed for CDMA 3G smartphones as much, because EVDO was rolled out widely. I know I rarely turned on WiFi on a CDMA smartphone, even if watching my Slingbox.
Verizon Blackberrys didn't have WiFi because they were sold mostly to enterprises who worried about security and users surfing outside the company. No WiFi, no camera, was the watchword of the day.
Now more Blackberrys are sold to regular consumers, and desired feature sets have changed.

I'm pretty clear that "No-WiFi" earlier on, was something insisted upon not simply by CDMA "business phones" offered by Verizon, but specifically because Verizon (and others) wanted to keep their customers on their own network and not break the walled-garden. The aversion to being an interchangeable "dumb pipe" was so radically high, it seemed carriers found any number of disincentives for customers wanting an affordable Wifi capable phone. --Especially before the advent of unlimited data plans.

Only now have carriers begun to embrace it, once they realized that they're running into a significant spectrum gap. Down playing this dynamic does the whole drama a disservice.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/oct2009/db20091025_223713_page_2.htm

There's this "the technology existed, therefore it must have been easy to get access too" mindset seems to slip in every so often, and I think its probably related to what you did occupationally. Verizon's announcement that it is now being more "open", is specifically related to its long history of being very VERY picky about what devices it allows on its network. Given the difference between provisioning on CDMA and non-provisioning on GSM networks, its all the more relevant a point to bring up.

~ CB

 

[macshill]

Here in Canada, Telus annouces the Nov. 5th 3G+ network that's leading up the upcoming 4G network and with the Rogers exclusivity running out soon, it'll be nice to have a choice. As an added bonus, it can take stress off Rogers' sytem. A win-win for all. You guys need a choice.

http://www.mediacastermagazine.com/issues/ISArticle.asp?aid=1000345455

 

[cleric]

4G doesn't matter they still need CDMA fall back.

 

[mtoddy]

My money is on T-Mobile.....their network can support it right now.

Actually, no it can't--not for 3G anyways. Apple would need to change the UMTS frequencies to 1700/2100.

 

[macintoshtoffy]

Note to Verizon: 2001 calls and it wants its CDMA network back. Fix up your damn network and you'll get a greater selection of phones to offer customers. AT&T is already moving to 850/2100, when is Verizon going to make that shift?

 

[kdarling]

I'm pretty clear that "No-WiFi" earlier on, was something insisted upon not simply by CDMA "business phones" offered by Verizon, but specifically because Verizon (and others) wanted to keep their customers on their own network and not break the walled-garden.

It's just been pointed out that Verizon _had_ WiFi on their high end WM phones just as early as ATT or Sprint did. If you wanted WiFi, you could have it. The claim that Verizon didn't have WiFi is an ATT fanboy myth.

Their lesser WM phones did not always have WiFi, partly because it wasn't needed because of EVDO, and partly because it saved battery not to have it. Verizon has even been known to declock some phones just to get another half hour of run time out... something that Apple also did with the iPhone.

Now if you want to talk about leaving important radios out, let's talk about the iPhone Mark I, which unbelievably came without 3G, at a time when it was standard on other smartphones.

Note to Verizon: 2001 calls and it wants its CDMA network back. Fix up your damn network and you'll get a greater selection of phones to offer customers.

2001 called, all right. It said for you to check Verizon's current and coming stock of smartphones. All the current HTCs, including the Imagio with MediaFlo digital TV, the Omnia 2, several Androids, Storm 2, and soon the Pre models.

Verizon is no longer short on hot phones. Far from it.

 

[LagunaSol]

It said for you to check Verizon's current and coming stock of smartphones. All the current HTCs, including the Imagio with MediaFlo digital TV, the Omnia 2, several Androids, Storm 2, and soon the Pre models.

Verizon is no longer short on hot phones. Far from it.

You didn't name any "hot phones" in your list. Got any others?

 

[Rodimus Prime]

It's just been pointed out that Verizon _had_ WiFi on their high end WM phones just as early as ATT or Sprint did. If you wanted WiFi, you could have it. The claim that Verizon didn't have WiFi is an ATT fanboy myth.

Their lesser WM phones did not always have WiFi, partly because it wasn't needed because of EVDO, and partly because it saved battery not to have it. Verizon has even been known to declock some phones just to get another half hour of run time out... something that Apple also did with the iPhone.

Now if you want to talk about leaving important radios out, let's talk about the iPhone Mark I, which unbelievably came without 3G, at a time when it was standard on other smartphones.

I would not call it a ATT fanboy Myth but more Apple Fanboy myths.

Come on this these thread alone you had people claiming the iPhone having WiFi was why everyone was trying to get it in there phones and then demanded proof that it was that way. We supplied proof of some phones had it and they tried to discredit it. Besides trying to think of a phone out in 2007 is hard to think of the specs of any since back then even double since smart phones were just starting to get off the ground. At the time the other popular Smart phone I knew about from back then was the blackjack.

 

[christian_k]

Being someone not from the US I wonder why a lot of people thing
"4G=Verizon" or "LTE=Verizon" or think LTE is the next step _only_ on top of CDMA.

Here in Europe combined LTE / UMTS (including HSDPA and HSUPA) / GSM networks will be the next step. Phones and networks will support hand over between 2G/3G and 4G. For example T-Mobile in Germany is currently testing this on real network. From a customers point of view this offers the benefit of SIM-cards (you can easily switch your operator).

So an iPhone 4G with HSDPA and LTE could be used on a future AT&T-LTE network and nearly everywhere else in the world while a Verzon (LTE+CDMA) version again would be limited to the USA, in theory it could be used in LTE covered areas outside the USA, but LTE coverage will be too limited without a fallback option to older networks for several years.

Christian

 

[LagunaSol]

Wow some one really full of themselves and really thinks the iPhone was THAT game changing.

And you're completely naive to think that it wasn't.

Either that or so drunk on Apple haterade you can't see straight.

(And how would this be "full of myself" anyway? Did I invent the iPhone?)

Your denial of the iPhone's massive impact on the mobile market won't make it go away.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

And you're completely naive to think that it wasn't.

Either that or so drunk on Apple haterade you can't see straight.

(And how would this be "full of myself" anyway? Did I invent the iPhone?)

Your denial of the iPhone's massive impact on the mobile market won't make it go away.

Some one needs to go off the Apple koolaid there.....

Just because I point out some of the massive crap spit out by the Apple fanboys does not mean that I hate the iPhone or naive. it is more the other way around. The naive ones are the ones on the koolaid.

What tend to do is look back a little farther than the iPhone and start connecting the dots. the iPhone was NOT the first touch screen device. It was the first multitouch and showed that it works pretty very well but notfrom the first device that was touch screen only.

Yes the iPhone added to the wave of the smart phones becoming the new but smart phones were already picking up steam before the iPhone came out. but then again asking some one high on the koolaid to see how the dots connect is near impossible.

 

[LagunaSol]

Yes the iPhone added to the wave of the smart phones becoming the new but smart phones were already picking up steam before the iPhone came out. but then again asking some one high on the koolaid to see how the dots connect is near impossible.

Yeah, I'm sure if the iPhone had never happened that we'd still be seeing a lot of finger-touch-heavy UIs, a strong emphasis on on-device app stores, much heavier emphasis on usability, less carrier control over devices and their software, etc. etc.

Seems you're drinking some koolaid of your own. The biggest dot in your "connect the dot" puzzle is the iPhone. Though you'll never admit it.

Enjoy Fantasyland.

 

[seedster2]

Verizon has made more money without the iphone for the last 2 years than AT&T with the iphone. Verizon's share price has not drop as much as AT&T's share price.

It means that Verizon made the right call all along.

Agreed. I think it is telling that Verizon doesn't have a blackbuster handset like the iPhone and continues to do well against competitors. It's indicative of successful marketing and reputation of their robust coverage.

The important part of what Verizon would not give into was Apple's plan to not have a subsidy. Apple wanted the customer to pay the full price for the phone (most people seem to have forgotten that the first iPhone was priced at $599) and for the portion of the monthly revenue that normally goes to repaying the subsidy to go to Apple. Cingular agreed and that is why we have the iPhone on ATT today. Of course Verizon was correct...that idea did not work and the iPhone 3g had the terms changed back to the traditional cell phone model.

I've always said that business model would fail. It appears that verizon had the foresight and leverage to turn down the proposition. I recall everyone saying Apple's approach would change the telecom industry. Total underestimation of the players in this difficult market.

Let's start fresh and simply say that you think Apple's revenue-sharing model held it back. I would no more connect that to Verizon than saying that AT&T is the sole cause of Apple's GSM strategy, and why the iPhone is able to be a "world-phone" like Blackberry and enjoy broad support across the globe. The two things are related but separate.

Suffice it to say, that had Apple gone with Verizon, there would have been a multitude of repercussions, and they would not have all been good, or advantageous to either company (especially depending on the outcome of negotiations between them).

As Apple's senior executives are quick to point out, they decided early on to have a "one phone" for the world strategy. This has served them well. This strategy would not have been as practical (by EVERYONE'S measure) had Apple began in the U.S. with Verizon.

~ CB

Why would you expect any exec, much less apple's, to willfully admit they screwed up by misjudging a market?

Apple concurrently built intel based macs while they were using PPC. Why wouldn't they be wise enough to develop a CDMA handset alongside a GSM as a contingency plan.

I do believe that their initial business model did hold back the iPhone and if that approach was still in effect, sales would have lagged.

Not really, otherwise they would have chosen one of the radio chipsets that supports both CDMA *and* GSM.

That's right, all of these arguments about GSM *or* CDMA become silly as soon as one realizes that some chipsets support both.

Good point.

 

[heisetax]

Verizon is losing customers in no small part to their insistence on crippling good phones just to make a buck and to make it look like "theirs". Prime example: the RAZR had Bluetooth & USB file access, making transferring photos to a PC easy & free ... but Verizon ripped out that ability in favor of forcing customers to either transfer photos at $0.05 each or do a physical card swap, both of which are annoying at best; in addition, they were keen on making the GUI look like all other Verizon-branded phones, not caring that users want the best phone they can and don't care that it looks like a phone they don't use.

I'm sure the "it's up to Apple" includes the footnote "but we have to make it look like a lame Verizon GUI, and have to charge users for everything we possibly can". IIRC, Apple had to throw around considerable weight just to get AT&T to accept the iPhone as-is.

I have Verizon cell phone service for the cell phone service not because of all of the other features that should be included but Verizon takes away unless I choose to give them more money for my own personal work. Things are so crippled with my nice Motorola KRazr that 99% of the mini-USB chargers that I have tried with the phone is listed as an unauthorized charger & will not charge my phone.

When, if I finally give in & mix my computer work with my cell phone then unless Verizon changes 180 degrees from how they are now I will be forced to change cell phone companies. I agree with you that Verizon may want the iPhone, but the iPhone exists because of the lack of control by the cell phone company that normally limits service.

When the Motorola Droid comes out I'll wait to see if Verizon will let it operate the way they say that it can operate or if they treat it like all other smart phones & clip it at its knees. If they allow the Droid to work then it will show Apple that even they can give up control. They will help Apple & also help those that have to have Verizon cell phone service & want an iPhone. Without the success of the Droid or some other phone on Verizon with Verizon giving up their ultra tight grip on cell phones on their system, Verizon will just stay with business as usual. That would mean very little difference between a smart phone & a "dumb" phone.

Apple with their App Store shows that they want to be in control as much as Verizon does. This shows that Apple is really no different than other companies that everyone belittles here. The fact that I can't get the iPhone on Verizon & Apple's complete control of applications on the iPhone are the 2 leading causes as to why I do not have an iPhone. Eliminating one of those 2 reasons would force me to make a decision. Apple's control of the iPod Touch/iPhone App Store has also kept me away from the iPod Touch.

Who will give in the most? Will the iPhone ever make it to Verizon. In order to make the iPhone better we need a strong smartphone competitor. Who will stand up to the plate & fill that need?

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Yeah, I'm sure if the iPhone had never happened that we'd still be seeing a lot of finger-touch-heavy UIs, a strong emphasis on on-device app stores, much heavier emphasis on usability, less carrier control over devices and their software, etc. etc.

Seems you're drinking some koolaid of your own. The biggest dot in your "connect the dot" puzzle is the iPhone. Though you'll never admit it.

Enjoy Fantasyland.

You are still in yours.

The carriers never had much control over the smart phones. AT&T/Cingular put next to no limitation even on there dumb phones all BEFORE the iPhone came out. Damn no change there.

Dumb phones have the carrier controls on them so you can not compare the iPhone to dumb phones. Those still have carrier OS and control over them. As for smart phones hate to tell you this but carrier put little control over them if any at all. Verizon was the worse offender of this and even they hardly put any controls over the smart phones. ATT never put any limitation on the smart phones.

Apps store might of gotten more steam with Apple but it was not the first. Blackberry App stores existed 3rd party before the iPhone.

iPhone help make touch heavy OS popular but before the iPhone touch screen based OS still were already out there and working. The biggest thing the iPhone brought to the table was multitouch and well the name apple who have a huge following who worship at the Church of Apple and think of SJ as a god.

People have to dig back and try to think before the iPhone of the smart phones hitting the market.

most of your "Game changing" argument is comparing the iPhone (smart phone) to dumb phones. Not exactly in the same playing field.

 

[twoodcc]

this might happen in 2013. maybe

 

[macintoshtoffy]

2001 called, all right. It said for you to check Verizon's current and coming stock of smartphones. All the current HTCs, including the Imagio with MediaFlo digital TV, the Omnia 2, several Androids, Storm 2, and soon the Pre models.

Verizon is no longer short on hot phones. Far from it.

<rant>

The fact that you have to wait till the carrier 'offers it' to you shows just how backwards the United States phone and mobile service is - christ, it reminds me of New Zealand 30 years ago when you had to rent your phone and getting a line installed would take 6 weeks! But you haven't answered my original question of Verizon sticking with CDMA when all carriers have moved onto W-CDMA (which is basically GSM) - When is Verizon going to make the leap out of the primordial ooze of 2001 technology and get with the programme? Add to that the fact that the receiver of the call pays as well - I'm surprised anyone can be bothered having a phone in the US!

</rant>