Personally, I'd prefer a CDMA iPhone, since Verizon is the only reliable service provider in my area.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Opinions wanted - CDMA iPhone vs. GSM iPhone, which would YOU prefer?
- Thread starter foreignconcepts
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
@Kdarling,
You seem to forget Nokia also has phones that go to the Internet. Just because the iPhone is not used in large amounts does not mean that GSM data is not used. Maybe I am wrong but you show a typical US based myopic view of all things US. If the iPhone never existed and the US never used GSM, it would still survive and be used by more people than CDMA. Which goes to prove that GSM sells while CDMA doesn't.
You seem to forget Nokia also has phones that go to the Internet. Just because the iPhone is not used in large amounts does not mean that GSM data is not used. Maybe I am wrong but you show a typical US based myopic view of all things US. If the iPhone never existed and the US never used GSM, it would still survive and be used by more people than CDMA. Which goes to prove that GSM sells while CDMA doesn't.
Agreed. People here completely forget this, and only tailor their answer to the small world that they live in (read: only where they go daily in life). If One has friends outside of the country they live in, and want to visit them, chances are that CDMA doesn't exist where they live. So you're stuck either with no phone at all, or high international roaming charges, both of which people complain about.
But that's the price you pay with CDMA.
BL.
I understand people travel outside the USA but one should choose the best coverage where they reside. If CDMA is better coverage where they reside they shouldn't make their decision on gsm because they might travel if gsm is not as good.
If CDMA offers better service than gsm where you reside why would you gsm even though you would travel outside the USA?
If you are a frequent traveler that's a different story.
Marc
Begging your pardon, but you seem to be extremely confused as to what my posts were about. Perhaps you arrived in the middle of the thread? They have nothing to do with GSM vs CDMA usage, or their relative popularity.
My responses only address the oft-repeated, but demonstrably incorrect, assertion that the larger world GSM market for all phones (mostly cheap dumb ones) automatically translates into a similarly larger market for an expensive iPhone, that would supposedly dwarf a CDMA iPhone market.
To sum up: It's quite possible that iPhone sales from the 200 million sub North American CDMA market would end up almost as large as the iPhone sales we've seen from a billion GSM subs around the world.
.
You travel to all of those places? My bet is that 80% of iPhone users on AT&T in North America don't travel outside of the U.S. Maybe once a year, for vacation perhaps - but the majority of people don't. And when you're travelling in a different country, most iPhone users WONT use data - it will cost a fortune. So why not buy a cheap GSM prepaid phone for that purpose? I got a Nokia prepaid phone shipped from AT&T for $8. Travel to Europe, buy a sim card there, and use that.
I like being able to use my phone anywhere in the world too - but how often in the past 3 years that I've had an iPhone have I had to use it? Once, when I took a cruise - and I had my phone shut off because I didn't want data roaming, and had no reason to make phone calls. I've gone all over the U.S., including hawaii, and I'd be fine with CDMA anywhere. AT&T's network SUCKS BALLS in Chicago. I'm so fed up with them, and can't wait to go to Verizon. Try loading ANYTHING in Chicago's loop - good luck. And then I take the train back out to the suburbs, and there are 5 dead zones on the train line - the train line which is the busiest in all of Illinois, where over 10,000 people travel daily. I watch as Tmobile and Verizon/Sprint users browse the web and make calls - and I'll make a call, and see a landmark and be like "oh crap i'm going to lose you..." and it drops. I can't stream music at all either - constantly buffering/loading.
Perhaps AT&T's network is good elsewhere. But in Chicago is sucks. I'd rather go with slower speeds with a solid signal than with AT&T's **** network.
GSM. SIM cards make more sense these days. Wherever you go, you can just buy a new SIM card and plug it into your phone and get service. Also, it's easier to replace if it ever breaks and it's just nice to have that option to be able to unlock your phone on other GSM networks. Also, if your phone breaks, the SIM card will still hold your info like contacts, phone number, etc. so you can just get a different phone and it would still work.
That's a popular idea, and is possible.
First, the $800 isn't realistic. Almost everyone gets it subsidized for $100-200. Second, there is a good market for used phones amongst CDMA users.
Most iPhones sold are permanently locked to their carrier. That's why they often don't make the best choice if someone wants a phone for world travel.
Not on an iPhone. It has no way of transferring contacts from phone to SIM.
Between that and the locking, it's pretty clear that Apple didn't use GSM for its usual benefits to the user, but only as a way to make money for itself.
Only if it's unlocked
Only if it's unlocked. Which, due to some unfortunate coincidences, is impossible for me right now.
Oh, yes, AT&T will let me use data and phone service if I go abroad. They will just charge me thousands of dollars for the privilege, that's all.
-fred
Only if it's unlocked. Which, due to some unfortunate coincidences, is impossible for me right now.
Oh, yes, AT&T will let me use data and phone service if I go abroad. They will just charge me thousands of dollars for the privilege, that's all.
-fred
But you're missing the point. I don't HAVE to travel to all of those places (and for the record, I've spent a lot of time between here (USA), Canada, New Zealand, and Australia). As long as I may have the need to travel to any of those places, especially for an extended period of time, I won't have to worry about huge charges. I would rather have the ability to use a GSM phone in those areas than be stock without one at all, thanks to having a CDMA phone.
That's my point. Int'l roaming and data and the costs for that, versus a jailbreak/unlock (free) and a sim card out of a vending machine. Pop the card in, and you're good to go. And yes, they do sell sim cards in vending machines overseas.
BL.
Ditto!
I can't wait till many of the Verizon fanboys switch over and loose this feature. Then just MAYBE they'll want their GSM iPhone back.
Wow, 70 threads later... I still say GSM. CDMA's only advantage is the fact that it was in North America first, and therefore has more towers - there are some places where there simply aren't the same amount of GSM towers yet. For example, I've found that if you head anywhere north of Portland, ME, on the 95 your service is spotty, and that's where the CDMA band would take over for you. Best of both worlds? https://www.macrumors.com/2010/10/11/mid-2011-iphone-to-utilize-dual-mode-gsm-cdma-chip-skip-4g/
CDMA's real advantage is that you need less towers to cover the same area as you do with GSM. That's it.
Personally, I've found (in the US at least) that I've usually got good coverage and speed in most areas of the country. Big cities with high populations are where it suffers and that's only because of lack of 3G speed.
China and India have 2 of the top 3 CDMA carriers in the world.
Try again.
Edit: can't use my old CDMA phone in Ireland, true...but I never go there so who cares. I have used my CDMA phone in both China and Korea.
eh? why? if you are talking about max distance to tower limit of GSM, 95% of the time that is null due to general RF performance of handsets not being able to go that distance regardless what tech you are using. In addition, that limit doesn't exist with HSPA, as well as GSM sites can be configured to go beyond the initial limit.