Length of AT&T's exclusive contract revealed

[andyblila]

Of course VZW isn't going to switch its network to GSM. Apple will make a CDMA iphone, simple as that. If HTC can have CDMA and GSM versions of the same handset, I'm sure apple engineers can figure it out too.

There are more CDMA customers in the US than GSM. There's no reason why there can't be a CDMA iphone. The only one I keep hearing is that apple wants iphone to be exclusive and limited. Yah, I'm sure the shareholders will be just fine with that.

You're thinking local. There are many more GSM customers WORLDWIDE than CDMA. In case you haven't been reading the news...iPhone is debuting in 22 countries around the world. The US is just one of those. For the record...I did not say they couldn't build a CDMA iPhone, I said I feel like they wouldn't.

 

[kdawg]

Originally Posted by maddan
I am really happy regarding the news! I love the fact that since AT&T is the exclusive carrier in the U.S., less people will have the chance of acquiring the phone. Maybe I am being a little selfish, but I would rather another "Razr" episode did not occur; people who can afford a product paying $800 when it first comes out (because of exclusivity), and then it becoming available for free with a two-year contract. Talk about unfair...

That is the price you pay to be on the bleeding edge of technology so get used to it! I guess you will have to throw away your phone when you see a guy behind the counter at tacobell with one in his belt clip!!!! LOL.
Usually I wait to buy a product so the bugs are worked out. I got my Razr for free when I joined T-mobile. I see no need to pay that high of a price for a phone that you cannot get insurance for. By the sound of your post you have some social issues if you need a phone to be “cool”…. Talk about being a snob.

PS, I rate this as negative. Apple would have sold way more phones if they didn't lock to carriers... GREEDY

 

[butterfly0fdoom]

Of course VZW isn't going to switch its network to GSM. Apple will make a CDMA iphone, simple as that. If HTC can have CDMA and GSM versions of the same handset, I'm sure apple engineers can figure it out too.

There are more CDMA customers in the US than GSM. There's no reason why there can't be a CDMA iphone. The only one I keep hearing is that apple wants iphone to be exclusive and limited. Yah, I'm sure the shareholders will be just fine with that.

For 4G, Verizon is joining the GSM camp when they roll-out LTE. Although therein lies the problem of network compatibility. LTE is the upgrade path for GSM, so AT&T will have an easier time establish a 4G network than VZW. Apple engineers can figure it out, yes, but with Verizon insulting Apple in press statements ("Someday, Steve Jobs will get old", anyone?) and Verizon/Alltel switching to LTE, WHY would Apple want to even bother? Remember GSM is way more global users than CDMA. The world doesn't revolve around America.

Also, stop forgetting that the reasons behind no CDMA iPhone isn't the hardware, it's the software and the services. iTunes vs. VZW Music Store?

The "New" AT&T is worse than the old. When I see AT&T pull WiFi at restaurants when you already pay for iPhones data access, or when I see that cool tethering app appear, then disappear from the App Store, it really doesn't baffle me at all. The number crunchers at AT&T are socially inept when it comes to customer service/loyalty and when their contract with Apple is up, people will be leaving AT&T in droves.

AT&T (and other cellphone carriers in the US) have cheaper non-tethering plans and pricier plans that allow tethering. The iPhone can only be had with the non-tethering plan. It's perfectly reasonable that they're not allowing that tethering app since tethering = more bandwidth use, something that owners of other phones have to pay extra for.

 

[trainby4]

ok big news from little kid

ok i was in new york about a month ago, and i was able to ask some people from the verizon branch over there( dont know who i talked to, someone on the higher floor, ceo, coo, idk) and i asked him whats going on with verizon and iphone, he said that once the 3g network on verizon opens up that the iphone 3g will be on verizon, with some modifications for the cdma system, and i talked to a manager in rockaway mall apple store, and she said that it shall be coming out between october-december, along with the macbook touch (its confirmed by apples rockaway manager that the macbook touch is a real apple idea and soon to be product), hope this helps

 

[manhattanboy]

ok i was in new york about a month ago, and i was able to ask some people from the verizon branch over there( dont know who i talked to, someone on the higher floor, ceo, coo, idk) and i asked him whats going on with verizon and iphone, he said that once the 3g network on verizon opens up that the iphone 3g will be on verizon, with some modifications for the cdma system, and i talked to a manager in rockaway mall apple store, and she said that it shall be coming out between october-december, along with the macbook touch (its confirmed by apples rockaway manager that the macbook touch is a real apple idea and soon to be product), hope this helps

I am confused. So you are saying that an iPhone is coming out this year for Verizon? For some reason that seems to contradict everything that this exclusivity deal with ATT has going.
Maybe verizon is getting the iPhone nano that was rumored???

 

[johnsy]

At&t suck.

 

[bytethese]

I am confused. So you are saying that an iPhone is coming out this year for Verizon? For some reason that seems to contradict everything that this exclusivity deal with ATT has going.
Maybe verizon is getting the iPhone nano that was rumored???

Don't be.

I wouldn't take the word of a person who creates an account today, makes one post to post that nice set of details. Seems VERY fishy to me.

 

[kdarling]

For 4G, Verizon is joining the GSM camp when they roll-out LTE. Although therein lies the problem of network compatibility. LTE is the upgrade path for GSM, so AT&T will have an easier time establish a 4G network than VZW.

No.

LTE for 4G is totally different technology for both the GSM and CDMA camps. From the transmission standard, to the totally IP based protocol, it's new for everyone.

The bigger switch was when GSM used CDMA for 3G.

Apple engineers can figure it out, yes, but with Verizon insulting Apple in press statements ("Someday, Steve Jobs will get old", anyone?) and Verizon/Alltel switching to LTE, WHY would Apple want to even bother?

And ATT publicly said that "Apple bent over" for them with concessions for the first iPhone. So what? Companies aren't teenagers with grudges.

 

[wreckshop]

You're thinking local. There are many more GSM customers WORLDWIDE than CDMA. In case you haven't been reading the news...iPhone is debuting in 22 countries around the world. The US is just one of those. For the record...I did not say they couldn't build a CDMA iPhone, I said I feel like they wouldn't.

Out of those 22 countries, guess which one has purchased roughly half of all iphone 3Gs sold so far? Let's put this in perspective. Sprint and Verizon have over 100 million subscribers. That's more subscribers than the total population of any single country of Western Europe. You don't neglect the CDMA market if you want to hang with the big dogs in the US (samsung, motorola, nokia). Case in point: Look at Sony Ericsson. SE only makes GSM handsets, and as a result hardly have any marketshare in the US. Do you really think that Apple's shareholders will be pleased that Apple is passing over sales to over half the potential userbase in the market where iphone sells best?

I swear, you guys act like you've never seen CDMA and GSM versions of the same exact phone before.

 

[DakotaGuy]

I swear, you guys act like you've never seen CDMA and GSM versions of the same exact phone before.

I know! If all the other phone manufactures can do it, why can't Apple? Verizon is soon going to be #1 in the US by a long shot after the Verizon/Alltel merger. The development cost of making some simple changes (like every other phone maker does) is FAR LESS to the profit they would make on a CDMA version.

 

[andyblila]

Out of those 22 countries, guess which one has purchased roughly half of all iphone 3Gs sold so far? Let's put this in perspective. Sprint and Verizon have over 100 million subscribers. That's more subscribers than the total population of any single country of Western Europe. You don't neglect the CDMA market if you want to hang with the big dogs in the US (samsung, motorola, nokia). Case in point: Look at Sony Ericsson. SE only makes GSM handsets, and as a result hardly have any marketshare in the US. Do you really think that Apple's shareholders will be pleased that Apple is passing over sales to over half the potential userbase in the market where iphone sells best?

I swear, you guys act like you've never seen CDMA and GSM versions of the same exact phone before.

I think Apple is doing fine. over 1 million phones in a weekend. Plus AT&T exclusivity until 2010. DOn't think that AT&T won't make concessions to keep it going longer. Add that to the Verizon snub and I'm pretty sure Jobs won't let VZW see the iPhone for quite some time.

 

[jettredmont]

I was one of the people who really thought an iPhone would end up on Verizon (CDMA version of course) this year or next. It just didn't make sense to me that Jobs would limit his potential market. Of course, part of my interest was selfish - I was a long time Verizon customer and wanted badly to have this phone on that network.

But I finally caved on Monday and switched my wife and I to AT&T for the iPhone. Part of the decision was due to signs that AT&T is working hard on expanding 3G and network coverage in California (and it's decent in my area now). Verizon is still much better, but I was sick of Windows smartphones, and wasn't sure about a Blackberry.

Anyway, I'm loving my new phone, and reading this article about the contract extension to 2010 makes me even happier that I switched.

Similar boat here. Although, a sense of urgency added to my dilemma: my Treo's crappy keyboard stopped working (as well as the synching cable) this month. In my area, all indications are that AT&T's coverage continues to suck, whereas Verizon's coverage continues to be excellent. My wife actually got a Blackberry Pearl earlier this year, with which she has rapidly become disgusted (the "pearl" scroll ball just plain doesn't work, so doing anything on the device is a matter of flicking the ball repeatedly for 30 seconds at a time until it decides to register it; the "predictive" typing is stupid beyond belief and hinges on you being able to scroll down which she can't do easily because the scroll ball sucks; the music player is absolute crap, skipping the last couple of seconds on most mp3s and hiccupping a few times every minute or so; the paint job has numerous chips in it despite her babying it beyond belief; the browser is ugly and mostly non-functional; settings are convoluted and fragile; NOTHING on the phone works in low-speed-data areas like central Nevada; etc). There's no way in hell I'm buying a Blackberry!

Sticking with Verizon, it looks like I'm going to have to go Win Mobile 6. I haven't bee overly happy with Win Mobile 5 on my Treo, so I'm not overly enthused about doubling-down on the next version. At least the outliner app I bought for my Treo will continue to work on my next phone. It's looking like the Samsung is going to be the one getting my money. The downside, though, is that this ties me to that phone for at least another two years (and it damned well better not conk out on me after two years like the Treo did!) I really really want to buy an iPhone, but until Apple is on a decent (in my area) network, that's a no-go. As "decent in my area" depends on the specific area (I'm sure there are places in the US where AT&T is a good choice for network coverage; I just haven't ever been to one), Apple will always have this issue with a huge portion of the population until they drop the exclusivity agreements.

In any case, I'd much rather send my money to Apple than to Samsung or (ick!) LG. But, in the end, more important than the phone itself is the network to which it connects. A pretty but useless phone in half of the locations I visit is just not going to do it.

 

[wreckshop]

I think Apple is doing fine. over 1 million phones in a weekend. Plus AT&T exclusivity until 2010. DOn't think that AT&T won't make concessions to keep it going longer. Add that to the Verizon snub and I'm pretty sure Jobs won't let VZW see the iPhone for quite some time.

Ok, let me break it down for you. Apple sold 1M iphones in a weekend. Roughly half of them in the United States. The US is clearly iphone's most lucrative market. The current US market for iphone is about 62M subscribers. Apple can only sell x number of iphones to ATT subscribers before that market is saturated. There are over 100M CDMA subscribers in the US alone. Apple can easily double, perhaps triple the number of iphones sold if there was a CDMA version.

Now if you really think apple will forgo selling MILLIONS of iphones to Sprint and VZW users just because of some corporate trash talk, you really don't understand how large corporations work.

 

[andyblila]

Ok, let me break it down for you. Apple sold 1M iphones in a weekend. Roughly half of them in the United States. The US is clearly iphone's most lucrative market. The current US market for iphone is about 62M subscribers. Apple can only sell x number of iphones to ATT subscribers before that market is saturated. There are over 100M CDMA subscribers in the US alone. Apple can easily double, perhaps triple the number of iphones sold if there was a CDMA version.

Now if you really think apple will forgo selling MILLIONS of iphones to Sprint and VZW users just because of some corporate trash talk, you really don't understand how large corporations work.

Of course you're right. Guess I shouldn't take into account the 438M+ world wide GSM subscribers Apple is targeting. You are 100% percent correct the 100M CDMA subscribers are much more important. I forgot when I got my Masters in math that 100 is greater than 438. Apparently, I was absent the day in Business 101 where they mentioned that the US market is far more important than the world market. So continue to break it down for me???? I didn't miss the bus.....apparently YOU did.

 

[onionperson654]

Don't you think that Apple could offer the iPhone to Verizon (and perhaps others) but require a $300 subsidy?

Cell oporartors already pay $200 for many phones, and the iPhone is easily worth an additional $100, considering bringing in/holding customers and the high price of data plans. $300 seems like a bargain. Best of all, the other companies wouldn't have much of a choice to stay competative.

 

[andyblila]

Don't you think that Apple could offer the iPhone to Verizon (and perhaps others) but require a $300 subsidy?

Cell oporartors already pay $200 for many phones, and the iPhone is easily worth an additional $100, considering bringing in/holding customers and the high price of data plans. $300 seems like a bargain. Best of all, the other companies wouldn't have much of a choice to stay competative.

That's not the issue. The issue is that iPhone is GSM and Verizon has a CDMA network.

 

[wreckshop]

Of course you're right. Guess I shouldn't take into account the 438M+ world wide GSM subscribers Apple is targeting. You are 100% percent correct the 100M CDMA subscribers are much more important. I forgot when I got my Masters in math that 100 is greater than 438. Apparently, I was absent the day in Business 101 where they mentioned that the US market is far more important than the world market. So continue to break it down for me???? I didn't miss the bus.....apparently YOU did.

Apple can sell a CDMA and GSM iphone at the same time, just like all the other handset manufacturers do. 100m + 438m = 538m. 538m > 438m. Make sense now?

RAZR was the "hot" phone too at one time, and it was an ATT exclusive. Motorola followed the $$ and decided to make CDMA versions too. Historically, I cannot think of a single example where a hot GSM handset didn't eventually end up CDMA.

I don't know why you try to dismiss the CDMA market as being small. 100m+ is not a small market. That's more than the total population of many countries around the world. There are many examples of American corporations targeting small markets. Microsoft xbox in japan for example.

 

[butterfly0fdoom]

And ATT publicly said that "Apple bent over" for them with concessions for the first iPhone. So what? Companies aren't teenagers with grudges.

Clearly Verizon is. There are some things that Apple would never bend over for. Verizon wants customers to pay for their special services for synching and media purchasing while Apple wants iTunes to be their ultimate portal to the iPhone. Clearly, personal (and, in Verizon's case, financial) considerations are to be made here. Because while Smartphones aren't forced to use Verizon's horrible interface, they still have to pipe through Verizon's services most of the time.

 

[Digital Skunk]

I am going to have to agree with Wreckshop. Apple would have made a lot more money if they had released the phone unlocked, and allowed people to choose the network. They would have also changed the game even more so, forcing other handset makers to follow suite.

They changed the game as far as software, but nothing else. The cell market is the same, locking people into a carrier, nothing more, nothing innovative. And it's not hard for Apple to make two versions of the same phone and work with other cell providers.

And GSM may be worldwide, but Apple is a US company that is banking on the success of the phone in the states first and foremost, then abroad, so the 100m CDMA customers left behind, and the good amount of unhappy/uninterested AT&T customers are worth looking at.

 

[butterfly0fdoom]

I am going to have to agree with Wreckshop. Apple would have made a lot more money if they had released the phone unlocked, and allowed people to choose the network. They would have also changed the game even more so, forcing other handset makers to follow suite.

They changed the game as far as software, but nothing else. The cell market is the same, locking people into a carrier, nothing more, nothing innovative. And it's not hard for Apple to make two versions of the same phone and work with other cell providers.

And GSM may be worldwide, but Apple is a US company that is banking on the success of the phone in the states first and foremost, then abroad, so the 100m CDMA customers left behind, and the good amount of unhappy/uninterested AT&T customers are worth looking at.

Well, now, even if the sold the phone as unlocked, you still wouldn't be able to get it on Verizon; you'd get to choose between AT&T, T-mobile, and whatever random small carrier you happen to live near.

It's not hard for Apple to work with other cell providers, but, like I and some others have said, Verizon forces users to use their for-pay services whereas Apple would want users to use their own services instead; it's conflicting interests. Sprint has the same issue to a lesser extent. AT&T and T-mobile don't have their own music stores and fewer for-pay OTA services, but T-mobile's network coverage is inferior to AT&T's. Therefore, it's still easier to just work with AT&T.

If you're one of those unhappy CDMA providers, it's not all Apple's fault. You have Verizon and Sprint to blame, too.

 

[pavvento]

All of you people talking about market share are getting it all wrong. Sure, Apple could have sold more iPhones if they were not carrier locked, but that does not mean they would be making more money.

This isn't like computers or something else where the more you sell the more you make. The bulk of the profit is coming from the agreement with AT&T. AT&T is willing to pay more money because of the exclusivity.

Apple is not interested in selling as many phones as possible, they are interested in making as much money as possible, and if that means having an exclusive carrier and selling less phones than thats what they'll do (and did).

 

[andyblila]

All of you people talking about market share are getting it all wrong. Sure, Apple could have sold more iPhones if they were not carrier locked, but that does not mean they would be making more money.

This isn't like computers or something else where the more you sell the more you make. The bulk of the profit is coming from the agreement with AT&T. AT&T is willing to pay more money because of the exclusivity.

Apple is not interested in selling as many phones as possible, they are interested in making as much money as possible, and if that means having an exclusive carrier and selling less phones than thats what they'll do (and did).

My thoughts exactly. I feel sorry for the obvious VZW lover who is obviously hoping that iPhone will release a CDMA version. Unfortunately, if Apple was planning to....they wouldn't have extended AT&T's contract. It's all about the $ and AT&T is willing to pay for the exclusivity.

 

[Geckotek]

.......

 

[kdarling]

It's not hard for Apple to work with other cell providers, but, like I and some others have said, Verizon forces users to use their for-pay services whereas Apple would want users to use their own services instead; it's conflicting interests.

"Forces" is a strong word that should be reserved for Apple's control.

The only service that Verizon forces on smartphones is GPS access, and that can be gotten around by using cooked ROM images. Everything else from using Slingbox to Java, video and music and ringtone files, are all up to you to get from wherever you please.

Your overall point is good: that Verizon and others probably don't see a huge benefit to working with Apple. However, that raises the obvious question:

If you really believe that Apple would never play with any other US carrier, then what's the point of ATT getting an "exclusive"?

Maybe they don't think it's as impossible as you do.

 

[wreckshop]

My thoughts exactly. I feel sorry for the obvious VZW lover who is obviously hoping that iPhone will release a CDMA version. Unfortunately, if Apple was planning to....they wouldn't have extended AT&T's contract. It's all about the $ and AT&T is willing to pay for the exclusivity.

ATT pays apple a subsidy of $300 for each iphone sold. The standard carrier handset subsidy is $200. Apple can increase sales 2x if iphone was on VZW and ATT.

example:

iphone sales ATT exclusive = 1M x $300 = $300M

iphone sales ATT + VZW = 2M x $200 = $400M

$400m > $300m. not to mention additional revenue from 2x increase from app store sales, accessory sales, etc..

I thought you were good at math