Apple tries very hard to minimize the number of SKUs they manufacture, except to cover different sales price points. No reason to do the latter for two similar products at the same price point. It just creates a bigger inventory risk problem, and current CEO Tim Cook hates those kinds of supply chain management issues.
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 iPhone Carries World-Mode 'Gobi' Chip From Qualcomm
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple tries very hard to minimize the number of SKUs they manufacture, except to cover different sales price points. No reason to do the latter for two similar products at the same price point. It just creates a bigger inventory risk problem, and current CEO Tim Cook hates those kinds of supply chain management issues.
A Verizon phone with a SIM slot and GSM compatibility for use on other networks?
Will Verizon allow this?
Will Verizon allow this?
That's absolute nonsense. AT&T GSM four years ago covered almost the entire country (not where I live, but still). Verizon LTE covers a few major cities.
They don't now, but I don't think it's a technical issue, it would be easy for them to allow them, and it's possible that Apple has negotiated something with Verizon to get them to do it.
"No SIM for you!"
Evidently, Apple wants it this way...but maybe Verizon said "No SIM for you!".
Evidently, Apple wants it this way...but maybe Verizon said "No SIM for you!".
The Droid Pro, among other phones, already has this feature. I don't know how Verizon does things, but here in NZ the "world phones" typically had the SIM slot locked to only take a roaming SIM. It wouldn't surprise me if Verizon does the same.
Which makes me wonder, why not put a sim slot in it?
So they can sell another when the time is right to offer a true world mode phone
Bravo !
I'm on the same wavelength you are. My Business travel is International, the last two new ThinkPads I've had included Gobi, it's ultimately useful. I truly wish it was incorporated in my new MBP, but alas as you suggest Apples about fashion. The precise reason my last 4 MBP's have run so warm. When in fact, doing the same resource intense work on my new ThinkPad leaves it running cool & quite.
via iP4
The current GSM iPhone vibrate will make a pretty loud noise if the phone is put on a hard surfaced wood table, sans case. That's the opposite of the behavior I want from a "Silent" switch.
Not only that it supports AWS but UMTS 1700Mhz is also fully supported.
This is huge especially since we know AT&T exclusivity is over, and as long as T-Mobile and Apple reach the common ground we should expect iPhones on all carriers.
There are plenty of dual mode Verizon CDMA+GSM phones now. You leave the SIM installed and either manually or automatically select which network to use.
As for the antenna: both Verizon and AT&T use the same bands, so there's no need for different ones if they wish a dual mode phone.
Which makes me wonder, why not put a sim slot in it?
Perhaps this partly explains Apple's desire last year to do away with removable SIMs.
My guess is those iPhone 4 parts we saw several weeks ago with the same four antenna gaps as the VZW iPhone 4 but with SIM slot are probably the iPhone3,2 that has never been released, using this same chip, and if the iPhone 5 is going to be a dual mode phone, I suspect the iPhone3,2 is probably going to be an 8GB dual-mode iPhone 4 to take the place of the current 8GB 3GS in the lineup. My theory, anyway.
do you mean phone or iphone, because if its the latter i doubt Verizon would have any say in the matter. Apple will do whatever is more cost effective.
I can't discuss Verizon specifically but Telecom NZ ran into issues with CDMA phones from other operators. Section 3 of this newsletter describes some of the issues involved.
That can't be it. The GSM iPhone is virtually identical and has a sim slot. But the antenna is different on both models, so TFA's guess is probably correct, it was too hard to get good reception on both CDMA and GSM, so they gave up.
No doubt the iPhone 5 will have solved any such issues.
Wasn't Apple looking at a software option that would replace SIM cards? I think the idea was that people could get network authentication via Apple. I envisioned people going to the iNetwork store to buy wireless service.
Bummer that this phone won't work as a world phone. That would have made so much sense. For example, I live in a GSM deprived part of the US but travel quite a bit. Alas, so close but so far with the Verizon iPhone. Bah!
Bummer that this phone won't work as a world phone. That would have made so much sense. For example, I live in a GSM deprived part of the US but travel quite a bit. Alas, so close but so far with the Verizon iPhone. Bah!
Unfortunately, I think the iPhone's success made things more restrictive as far as handset exclusivity, rather than loosen it...
But AT&T doesn't use a standard frequency, and the iPhone's antenna needs to function on all GSM frequencies, not just 850Mhz.
The contract that you sign with whomever subsidized the phone determines that.
The iPhone is usually locked into a two year contract, and new much improved models have been coming out every year. This leads to a purchasing pattern of buying a new phone every two years regardless of whether you switch carrier or not, and almost never switching carrier inside the two year period.
I was wondering when someone would remember that video.
It could also have been for the iPhone 5 though as I suspect it will be like the 3G > 3Gs where the case stays relatively the same. Also, I don't think you need that many antenna breaks for either CDMA or GSM alone but perhaps you do when using both.
Doesn't CDMA actually have less frequencies than GSM?
Frequencies for ALL technologies (GSM, UMTS, CDMA1X, EVDO, LTE, WiMax) are where the various governments allow them to be, e.g., all over the damn map. 400, 450, 700, lower 800, higher 800, 900, 1.2, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 2.2, 2.5 and probably more.
Nothing is "standard" - that was just a pipe dream by some bureaucrat who had no idea of what was already existing outside of his domain.
Sure, there are more common bands that are used widely, but expect the unexpected and you'll be all set.
Now, the problem with all of this is that making a mobile or handset that hits all of the bands is always going to be a compromise technically, or it will just be too big and too expensive.
If you filter out the smaller markets and smaller operators then things get a bit clearer, but certainly not clear. Some of those oddball bands I mentioned above are certainly not in wide use, so they probably could be ignored - but if you're a user of one of those bands, you won't be happy with that, will you?
A quieter/softer vibration still will not yield the "silent" operation you apparently expect from the mute switch on the phone. The solution is not to make the vibration more quiet... perhaps a better solution would be to make the "silent" switch disable the vibrate function entirely for a truly silent experience. Or in an ideal world, have the mute switch user-configurable to either 1) turn of all sound and vibration or 2) turn off all sound.
Regardless, if the phone vibrates, I want to hear and feel it - otherwise, what is the point?