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.
Verizon Activates 3.9 Million iPhones in Q3 2013, Just Over Half of All Smartphone Activations
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think Apple is more concerned about making their devices super thin rather than accommodating Verizon for choosing to use CDMA for their network technology. So in this instance I would blame the carrier. Most people who use Verizon are pretty used to the fact that voice+data isn't the norm for the network (except on newer Androids with 2 radios).
There are still 2 other major carriers in the US who offer simultaneous voice+data on all their phones plus the majority of the rest of the world also uses this technology. So in this case you definitely blame the carrier.
If you're used to not having that capability, I guess you'd have that opinion. They say you can get used to hanging by your thumbs.
But, for someone who has used either an SVDO device on Verizon, or any HSPA device on AT&T, losing that ability is a huge step backward.
AT&T, T-Mobile and and 85% of the cellular networks in the world can easily do with a single radio, what takes two to do the same thing on Verizon. In what universe is that Apple's fault?
Verizon and other CDMA carriers certainly had the option to advance their CDMA networks to EV-DV and later UMB, which would've allowed one radio to do the job that requires two now. But they weren't interested, and those standards were abandoned due to that lack of interest. Now, phone vendors have to make phones with bigger batteries and clunkier electronics if they want to make up for CDMA carriers' shortsightedness.
I'm not saying it's Apple's fault. I just think the perspective most people demonstrate about it is interesting. What's also interesting as that all the other major manufacturers don't seem to have a problem including the two radios where the inability to talk and surf with Verizon is isolated to Apple products.
Verizon's inability to provide talk and surf at the same time bothers me none at all given that I am not a Verizon customer. My carrier offers that capability so in that regard, I am all good. I am not interested in paying for two radios (whether it be in money or battery time or bulkier form factor) just so a carrier I don't use has the ability to provide this to their customers.
If it bothers any of Verizon's customers or potential customers, they can always vote with their money and go somewhere else.
I don't think there's hard data that says what most people think, either way. On here you might get more people "siding" with Apple, but there's a natural bias. Go to an Android forum and I'm sure the anecdotal evidence will be very different.
The other manufacturers also don't seem to have a problem installing lots of bloatware at the behest of the carriers. Should Apple install carrier bloatware, too?
Historically, Apple's position has been that carriers have interests that end up being "requirements" they push on phone vendors to make the carrier's lives easier, even if it means a lousy user experience or added cost. Verizon, historically, has been the worst at this. It's a game Apple has so far refused to play, and it seems to be working pretty well for them. Like kobalap said above me: people have choices. If they think Verizon is being silly on this, they can get an iPhone on another carrier. If they think Apple is the silly one, they can get a bulky 7 inch Android Phablet that does SVDO. Or, they can decide they don't care either way.
Last edited:
I'm not suggesting they should. Believe me, I love Apple. I'm a stockholder and have several Apple devices in my home. I was just making some observations.
What's ironic about the situation, is that GSM phones required TWO radios to handle 2G and 3G. One TDMA radio. One (W)CDMA radio.
The more advanced (at the beginning) carriers around the world jumped straight to CDMA so they only needed ONE CDMA radio for both 2G and 3G.
Over time, as the CDMA that GSM used got more advanced, it could handle enough bandwidth for voice + data.
Carriers like Verizon, stuck with less bandwidth in the USA, could not move to that as easily. Thus their huge interest in making sure that they bought the widest LTE frequencies possible, so as not to repeat history, once the current temporary situation without VoLTE is over with.
all this shows is that people who like walled gardens, like walled gardens.
The ones who want a device from a company who tells you what you can and cant do with it, also like phone companies that do the same.
I like choice.
So I have been gone from both for years... Except when I visit the nut house.... Oh I mean MR.
The ones who want a device from a company who tells you what you can and cant do with it, also like phone companies that do the same.
I like choice.
So I have been gone from both for years... Except when I visit the nut house.... Oh I mean MR.
Yeah, I wouldn't be so sure. I think that the plastic 5C is her to stay for a second round, where it will become the cheap entry; look for a big price reduction next year.
The new flagship iPhone is the only one that'll carry the highest specs - and that'll be the new 'big-screen' iPhone 6.
Whatever you do - DO NOT sign up for Verizon in New York City. In particular Manhattan. Almost unusable service. Both voice and data.
Lots of threads of people complaining about it. It's like the bad old days of ATT on the iphone 1.
ATT is MUCH MUCH BETTER in NYC
Lots of threads of people complaining about it. It's like the bad old days of ATT on the iphone 1.
ATT is MUCH MUCH BETTER in NYC
Is this a sarcastic post or did AT&T and Verizon flip in NYC? I have not been there for a while...
" over 99% LTE coverage "
Can't wait for that to be actually true, because we have border to border 3g supposedly but only 5 cities with LTE.
The rest of the state is completely oversaturated on 3g and 2g with the increasing year over year added load of smartphones. Locations that worked well a few years ago now are poor to nothing. MiFi and iPhones completely useless in locations with 2-3 bars where you used to get a connection all day long. You can call, complain, request help, they'll investigate ... nothing ever happens.
3rd party coverage maps from user based testing paints a far less red map than verizon's blatant lie.
Switching to another provider only results in drastic coverage reduction.
The question is if switching to an lte phone would put you ahead of the 3g saturation, if lte is not saturated and alloted more tower capacity?
Or is it n MBps per tower? regardless of lte/3g.
Can't wait for that to be actually true, because we have border to border 3g supposedly but only 5 cities with LTE.
The rest of the state is completely oversaturated on 3g and 2g with the increasing year over year added load of smartphones. Locations that worked well a few years ago now are poor to nothing. MiFi and iPhones completely useless in locations with 2-3 bars where you used to get a connection all day long. You can call, complain, request help, they'll investigate ... nothing ever happens.
3rd party coverage maps from user based testing paints a far less red map than verizon's blatant lie.
Switching to another provider only results in drastic coverage reduction.
The question is if switching to an lte phone would put you ahead of the 3g saturation, if lte is not saturated and alloted more tower capacity?
Or is it n MBps per tower? regardless of lte/3g.
Sorry.. this is a bit late replying, but ATT and Verizon did indeed flip in NYC as far as Data and call quality. Verizon just admitted they're over capacity here in the city. Data crawls here. Some parts of town you get absolutely nothing.
Everyone with ATT gets great data speed.
I see, makes me glad I stuck with AT&T (had it before iPhone was available on Verizon, and stuck with it because of unlimited data being grandfathered through 2 upgrades 3G->4->5s)
