Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

DEE9299

macrumors 6502a
Oct 3, 2009
573
0
Boston Mass.
This is my take on the whole carrier situation.


1. Apple should have created their on cell carrier when they so how big the iphone was going to be. We all know they have the tech savy to o so along with the money to back it, that way the iphone would be working they way they intended it to.

2. I think a verizon based iphone would be great but as with all verizon phones they want 1 of 2 things either their name to show when you power the phone on or their logo either on the front or the back of the phone. I do not think Apple will go for this they did not before and thats probably how AT&T got it.

3. We know what Apple wants in terms of money from the phones sales. We know that everyone has a favorite carrier provider. Why not make it so all carriers can use the phone that way Apple has the market covered.
 

chaos86

macrumors 65816
Sep 11, 2003
1,006
7
127.0.0.1
There are Verizon ads attacking AT&T...

And Droid ads attacking Apple...

But we haven't seen a Verizon ad going after Apple. The Droid ads have some Verizon branding at the end, but that's to be expected. So the article is void.
 

xcrunner

macrumors regular
Dec 17, 2007
186
0
lolz that "source" is the biggest load of bull ever. There's a reason no one else is covering it. Do you work that that sorry excuse of a site OP?
 

thelatinist

macrumors 603
Aug 15, 2009
5,937
51
Connecticut, USA
Apple should have created their on cell carrier when they so how big the iphone was going to be. We all know they have the tech savy to o so along with the money to back it, that way the iphone would be working they way they intended it to.

Apple does not have the money they would need to buy RF spectrum to run as their own carrier, nor to create a nationwide network infrastructure. All they could do would be to lease time on someone else's network...and they would then have to deal with all the limitations of whatever network they chose. And I doubt any network would want to take on the burden of the iPhone without getting the glory (and the money) of it.
 

kdarling

macrumors P6
Back when the iPhone was first shown, it was revealed that Apple had originally considered becoming a MVNO like Virgin Mobile.

But after talking to Cingular about it, they realized they didn't want the pain of dealing with all the related issues. Far better to let someone else take the heat for bad coverage.

"Mr. Jobs played hardball. He pointed to statistics showing that carriers' traditional voice revenues were declining. But he also made a compelling argument: He said that Apple could help Cingular capitalize on the Internet, people familiar with the discussions say.

"Early on, both sides determined it would be a bad idea for Apple to offer its own cellphone service, leasing access to Cingular's network. Even though Virgin Mobile USA and other startup cellphone operators were using that method with some success, Mr. Jobs was cautious. He viewed the cellphone business as an unforgiving one, where carriers are blamed for network problems and overwhelmed by customer complaints."
- WSJ, Feb 2007

.
 

thelatinist

macrumors 603
Aug 15, 2009
5,937
51
Connecticut, USA
Mr. Jobs played hardball. He pointed to statistics showing that carriers' traditional voice revenues were declining. But he also made a compelling argument: He said that Apple could help Cingular capitalize on the Internet, people familiar with the discussions say.

I can't imagine that Cingular or AT&T would have been willing to make the investments they've had to make without the potential for new prepaid voice contracts, their bread-and-butter. Selling time to MVNO's is a good way to leverage excess capacity, but creating capacity just to sell wholesale is not a profitable strategy. And as we all know, Cingular/AT&T doesn't have all that much capacity to spare.
 

kdarling

macrumors P6
He pointed to statistics showing that carriers' traditional voice revenues were declining.
I can't imagine that Cingular or AT&T would have been willing to make the investments they've had to make without the potential for new prepaid voice contracts, their bread-and-butter.

I now realize that he was talking about declining landline voice revenues.

The way the reporter wrote it, was confusing and made it sound like wireless.
 

scaredpoet

macrumors 604
Apr 6, 2007
6,627
342
However, the source did have a rather interesting bit of information: Apple has supposedly killed the Verizon deal. Permanently. Why? All that was said is that Apple wishes to focus on and remain with ATT. The source added that Verizon’s recent ads (most notably the Droid campaign, which directly attacked the iPhone) were a contributing factor in the decision. The iPhone 4G will still retain its 4G functionality, though.

Noise, speculation and I don't think rumor has any merit. And this is coming from someone who would otherwise agree that the chances of Verizon getting the iPhone are still slim to none.

It seems highly unlikely that the next iPhone would be announced so soon, considering they are still months away from release. Apple will generate buzz about new, upcoming products months in advance, but will not jeopardize sales of existing product by pre-announcing something new more than just a couple weeks before the new item ships.

Second, 4G just isnt' ready. No one in the US has LTE, nor will be ready during the lifecycle of a 4G iPhone releasing before the second half of 2010. Not AT&T, not T-Mobile, not Verizon.

This rumor doesn't carry any weight with me. It doesn't take into account the timeframe of 4G deployment, and doesn't jive with any common sense, nor with typical Apple behavior. Sorry.
 

defpearlpilot

macrumors newbie
Jan 9, 2010
3
0
Hindsight is nice, but Apple has had failures, and certainly had bad luck with the only iPod phone Verizon knew about in 2005.

I'm just curious why you keep harping on the ROCKR? It wasn't designed by Apple. All they did was license iTunes and perhaps help with the implementation. Of course Apple had failures but I would never attribute this one to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_ROKR_E1
 

Applejuiced

macrumors Westmere
Apr 16, 2008
40,672
6,533
At the iPhone hacks section.
Before the ROCKR there was a few cellphones with itunes installed on them.
I remember my Motorolla SLVR had iTunes and allowed my music library to be synced etc...
A max of 100 songs but it was something with the whole itunes/ipod feel.
It doesnt mean it was an Apple phone or anything close to an iphone.
 

Michael CM1

macrumors 603
Feb 4, 2008
5,681
276
I don't know how many times I have to type this, but **the next iPhone will not use 4G.** Apple is not going to sacrifice battery life with a 4G radio when there is nearly ZERO 4G coverage in the US. Verizon and AT&T are just going to START rolling it out this year, and Sprint's network consists of FOUR CITIES.

This "4G" stuff makes as much sense as Apple putting HD DVD drives in the next MacBook Pro.
 

Rodimus Prime

macrumors G4
Oct 9, 2006
10,136
4
It comes down to this. Who has more to loose if apple killed the deal with VZ?
The correct answer is Apple not Verizon. The biggest thing preventing people from getting the iPhone right now is it is limited to ATT. It is not that AT&T is bad just some people do not like them or can not get AT&T service where they are. Same issues it of the iPhone was limited to just verizon.
Other one is people like their current carrier and do not want to change.

So ask yourself who has more to loose? If you say verizon you are a shining example of a clueless stupid apple fanboy. :-D
 

archipellago

macrumors 65816
Aug 16, 2008
1,155
0
So ATT has just announced basically every Android phone by nearly every relevant company will be on their network, and apple is staying with them?

hmmm...

seems to me like ATT is either hoping that Apple goes multi carrier, is planning for the end of the exclusive deal or is trying to strengthen its' bargaining position.

ATT may feel the cost of dealing with Apple is too high now they have a range of other phones on board.
 

defpearlpilot

macrumors newbie
Jan 9, 2010
3
0
It comes down to this. Who has more to loose if apple killed the deal with VZ?
The correct answer is Apple not Verizon. The biggest thing preventing people from getting the iPhone right now is it is limited to ATT. It is not that AT&T is bad just some people do not like them or can not get AT&T service where they are. Same issues it of the iPhone was limited to just verizon.
Other one is people like their current carrier and do not want to change.

So ask yourself who has more to loose? If you say verizon you are a shining example of a clueless stupid apple fanboy. :-D

First of all, you can't lose something you don't have. As others have mentioned, Apple has global customers. And perhaps you don't really understand how Apple does things. It's actually one of the things that they are criticized for and that is - control of hardware. They have a very limited set of components that are used within their hardware. (Even their software is tightly scoped.) Consider that Apple is already phasing out support of their 2006 models. And this stuff is still Intel based! This helps keep them agile. This also allows them to have a simplified marketing message.

Their image and reputation is probably more important then their number of customers or Sales. And while Apple is known to be greedy, they are not stupid enough to throw away their modus operandi for an extra few million potential* customers. Keeping in mind that I am talking about customers in terms of the iPhone.

One of the smartest things that they did was give the iPod Touch all the capabilities of the iPhone except for the cellular radio. Of course the ideal situation for most people is not to have dedicated devices, but it clearly hasn't hurt Apple in that regard. So have they really "lost," as you put it, potential customers? No, they haven't. I know as many people that have a Blackberry and an iPod touch and those that have just an iPhone.

So what's the point of all this? It's still the iTunes store and the App store.
You are putting far too much emphasis on the iPhone and not considering what the end goal is.
 

kdarling

macrumors P6
I'm just curious why you keep harping on the ROCKR? It wasn't designed by Apple. All they did was license iTunes and perhaps help with the implementation. Of course Apple had failures but I would never attribute this one to them.

Apple was involved with Motorola at least a bit in designing the ROKR interface. (Apple also limited it to 100 songs, so it would have less than their own Shuffle.) Most importantly, it was very publicly linked to Apple, and backed by them:

The ROKR was introduced by Jobs with one of his signature "and one more thing" speeches. "Today we are introducing the iTunes Phone", is how he put it. Sound a little familiar? You can view the video here.

Jobs had a definite lack of enthusiasm about it, as did the crowd. As Daring Fireball notes, you can see his annoyed look near the end when it doesn't restart playing as he expected.

The point is, Verizon never saw an iPhone. Does anyone really think they would've turned it down if they had? All they had to go on as far as imagining what an Apple related iPod phone would be like, was the ROKR. If you were Verizon, would that excite you into a contract with very restricted terms, that could give you a PR black eye? Hardly. OTOH, Cingular had nothing to lose.

So when we're trying to have intelligent debate about why or why not Verizon and Apple will get together, the ideas about Verizon turning down the actual iPhone design or that they should've had blind faith in Apple phone design ability, are a bad basis to start with.
 

defpearlpilot

macrumors newbie
Jan 9, 2010
3
0
The point is, Verizon never saw an iPhone. Does anyone really think they would've turned it down if they had? All they had to go on as far as imagining what an Apple related iPod phone would be like, was the ROKR. If you were Verizon, would that excite you into a contract with very restricted terms, that could give you a PR black eye? Hardly. OTOH, Cingular had nothing to lose.

So when we're trying to have intelligent debate about why or why not Verizon and Apple will get together, the ideas about Verizon turning down the actual iPhone design or that they should've had blind faith in Apple phone design ability, are a bad basis to start with.

I see your point. However, I was simply trying to say that Verizon shouldn't have even considered that phone as demonstrative of what Apple could do. They should have considered what Apple had designed on their own - their other product lines like the extremely successful iPod.

I agree that Verizon would have balked but not necessarily because they haven't seen an Apple iPhone. Granted, they are conservative. But more so they are just as controlling of their business as Apple is of theirs. And we know how many demands Jobs made on Cingular/AT&T.
 

Wicked1

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Apr 13, 2009
3,283
14
New Jersey
Personally as an iPhone user and AT&T customer, AT&T is now in a great position to have Apple give them a little more slack this time around. AT&T basically gave into everything Apple wanted for the last 3 years, but this time around it may be too costly for AT&T to continue paying the piper, so if I were AT&T who kinda has iPhone customers by the neck you could do this:

Tell Apple they need to come to an agreement that will benefit themselves because Apple will learn there is not another network that can handle the iPhone so for them to yank it from AT&T will kill iPhone sales because Verizon is not going to be the next AT&T they are hard lined like Apple.

Apple will see sales drop and AT&T will get people to switch to Blackberry and Android based OS phones. (This is largely based on what is out there and in the pipe).

Sprint, T-Mobile will not be able to handle the large volume of iPhone users and I do not think they would get down on their knees like AT&T did, I think Apple will have to give in a little more this time around.

Verizon wants everything on their terms according to what we read about the iPhone and what we know about what concessions RIM makes with their BB devices like omitting WiFi from their phones bc Verizon doesnt want it on all their RIM based phones.

As more regular cell phones go away and more Smartphone based phones pop up, I think we will bear the brunt of that in performance and pricing, bc the way I see it, it gives Wireless carriers a new chance to fund their new network projects by saying ok you want this and that, well it will cost you. I think $30 data plans are going to their grave and we will start paying for what you use and I think it will cost us more, they have to make up their costs of their new networks somehow.

Just my $.02 cents into the whole thing...
 

thelatinist

macrumors 603
Aug 15, 2009
5,937
51
Connecticut, USA
Tell Apple they need to come to an agreement that will benefit themselves because Apple will learn there is not another network that can handle the iPhone so for them to yank it from AT&T will kill iPhone sales because Verizon is not going to be the next AT&T they are hard lined like Apple.

Exactly what change do you expect AT&T could get in the terms? Do you think Apple's going to lower the wholesale price of the iPhone for them? Not very likely. What other concession do you think AT&T wants or could get?
 

yg17

macrumors Pentium
Aug 1, 2004
15,027
3,002
St. Louis, MO
The point is, Verizon never saw an iPhone. Does anyone really think they would've turned it down if they had? All they had to go on as far as imagining what an Apple related iPod phone would be like, was the ROKR. If you were Verizon, would that excite you into a contract with very restricted terms, that could give you a PR black eye? Hardly. OTOH, Cingular had nothing to lose.

The original iPhone, at the time of release, sucked. There was no 3G, no GPS, no MMS, no 3rd party apps. It didn't do things that phones a fraction of the price did. And that's another thing, the price. It was expensive and there was no subsidy. I could see why Verizon would turn it down. AT&T took a chance and lucked out, but the iPhone could've easily been a huge flop.
 

str1f3

macrumors 68000
Aug 24, 2008
1,859
0
Apple was involved with Motorola at least a bit in designing the ROKR interface. (Apple also limited it to 100 songs, so it would have less than their own Shuffle.) Most importantly, it was very publicly linked to Apple, and backed by them:

The ROKR was introduced by Jobs with one of his signature "and one more thing" speeches. "Today we are introducing the iTunes Phone", is how he put it. Sound a little familiar? You can view the video here.

Jobs had a definite lack of enthusiasm about it, as did the crowd. As Daring Fireball notes, you can see his annoyed look near the end when it doesn't restart playing as he expected.

The point is, Verizon never saw an iPhone. Does anyone really think they would've turned it down if they had? All they had to go on as far as imagining what an Apple related iPod phone would be like, was the ROKR. If you were Verizon, would that excite you into a contract with very restricted terms, that could give you a PR black eye? Hardly. OTOH, Cingular had nothing to lose.

So when we're trying to have intelligent debate about why or why not Verizon and Apple will get together, the ideas about Verizon turning down the actual iPhone design or that they should've had blind faith in Apple phone design ability, are a bad basis to start with.

Regardless of how it went down, looking back on it, Verizon made the wrong move. There is no excuse this time to make the same mistake again. AT&T made the right decision in trusting Jobs. It may have been a gamble but you don't get anywhere by playing it safe.

I think this rumor is garbage. Apple is not going to make a financial decision based on hurt feelings. If that was the case Jobs wouldn't have come back to Apple or let MS take a small share in the company when he did come back.
 

anjinha

macrumors 604
Oct 21, 2006
7,324
205
San Francisco, CA
Noise, speculation and I don't think rumor has any merit. And this is coming from someone who would otherwise agree that the chances of Verizon getting the iPhone are still slim to none.

It seems highly unlikely that the next iPhone would be announced so soon, considering they are still months away from release. Apple will generate buzz about new, upcoming products months in advance, but will not jeopardize sales of existing product by pre-announcing something new more than just a couple weeks before the new item ships.

Second, 4G just isnt' ready. No one in the US has LTE, nor will be ready during the lifecycle of a 4G iPhone releasing before the second half of 2010. Not AT&T, not T-Mobile, not Verizon.

This rumor doesn't carry any weight with me. It doesn't take into account the timeframe of 4G deployment, and doesn't jive with any common sense, nor with typical Apple behavior. Sorry.

I don't know how many times I have to type this, but **the next iPhone will not use 4G.** Apple is not going to sacrifice battery life with a 4G radio when there is nearly ZERO 4G coverage in the US. Verizon and AT&T are just going to START rolling it out this year, and Sprint's network consists of FOUR CITIES.

This "4G" stuff makes as much sense as Apple putting HD DVD drives in the next MacBook Pro.

4G as in 4th Generation iPhone.
 

kdarling

macrumors P6
I guess kdarling was at that particular meeting since he knows what Verizon was and wasnt shown to them and why the two companies didnt come to an aggreement.

Debate is good. Challenge is good. Calling people trolls or bashing their posts without backup info, as you often do to others around here, is just being lazy and rude. Perhaps you could do some research and thinking of your own. At least try once in a while.

We know from multiple interviews and histories that Apple approached Verizon in Summer 2005. Yet Apple didn't even start making internal UI software mockups on old iPods until shortly after that in Fall 2005, the dedicated project team wasn't assembled until Late 2005 and the OSX port wasn't started until Early 2006. So no, it was not possible back then for Verizon to see a working iPhone.

I see your point. However, I was simply trying to say that Verizon shouldn't have even considered that phone as demonstrative of what Apple could do. They should have considered what Apple had designed on their own - their other product lines like the extremely successful iPod.

Yes sir, I think we all wish they would have had that foresight :)

As for people's comments about ATT "giving in" to Apple, ATT has strongly said they did not.

What ATT did for the first model was to beef up EDGE for it (which unfortunately distracted them from 3G upgrades) and implement VVM, which was no big deal (and probably half paid for by Apple... I've done many phone carrier contracts similar to that one). The only really special thing ATT did for the first model was to give Apple the monthly subsidy money (aka revenue sharing) that ATT would've normally given to the customer, but which cost ATT nothing extra.

After that first year though, we don't know what transpired between them, except that their new 3G contract "eliminated revenue sharing."

Again, some major reasons why Verizon didn't sign a deal sight unseen, were because Apple wanted the monthly subsidy stipend (instead of lowering the customer price), Apple wanted control over warranties and replacement (e.g. no insurance), and Apple didn't want to sell the phone via Verizon's partners (such as Best Buy). Most of those early contract control requirements Apple has since given up on, in order to boost sales.

I think this rumor is garbage. Apple is not going to make a financial decision based on hurt feelings.

Exactly. It'd be more about business matters like insurance, store revenue sharing, or branding.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.