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 Preparation and Demands for iPhone?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The merits of logos isn't even really the point (even though I do hate them.) The point is that Apple has not ever made this concession to any company on any product.
That's great.
I wonder how their data plans are going to be. Hopefully they have 500MB for $15 because 200MB is just ....
I wonder how their data plans are going to be. Hopefully they have 500MB for $15 because 200MB is just ....
My iPod has a "DLO" logo on the front of it...because it is in a case. I've learned to cope, 12 step program.
It boggles my mind that anyone who follows Apple to the point of reading and commenting in this forum thinks there will ever be an iPhone 1) with any logo other than the2) with any app store other than the App Store 3) with any apps preinstalled that are not personally chosen by Steve Jobs and 4) with any way to purchase content other than iTunes.
I emphatically agree with 2 - there is no way Apple is going to allow an alternative app store at this time. Apple isn't going to reject an app and then have Verizon turn around and approve it for their store. More importantly, the app store is Apple's way of driving, and controlling, the platform. They are not going to let Verizon have one too.
However, 4 is wrong. Apple allows a great deal of non-iTunes content on the iPhone. Kindle app, nook, netflick, various music services, etc, all deliver non-Apple content. So I don't think Apple would have any real objections to a V-cast application from Verizon that allowed Verizon to sell any media they like. As long as the app abides by Apple's app guidelines.
Good point. I'd argue that there's an important distinction between subscription services like Netflix and buying content through iTunes, though. Are there music or other content services in the app store that let you purchase content outright without paying a subscription? To me, the Kindle and nook apps and similar are really the only things that compete directly with any service Apple offers.
Verizon may very well be allowed to offer a vcast app, but as you said it will have to abide by Apple's other app guidelines. And it certainly won't be preinstalled.
thats is becoming less and less of a problem, I maybe make a voice call once a week, other than that its text messages and emails, or video calls. if i needed to do a voice call i could do that on data too
Good point, but Apple designed and made the phone, not Verizon. I just can't see the iPhone having a Verizon logo, where would it be? I can't really care less if Verizon gets the iPhone, I'll hold onto my unlimited data as long as I possibly can. Without a doubt Verizon will be placing tiered plans if they get the iPhone.
I don't doubt that any Apple iPhone won't have a Verizon logo on the front, it's just not Apple's style. That doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
And there is plenty of room right about the ear speaker for a logo. Just like my Incredible. I know Steve would have a fit though. It just doesn't fit the industry norm, of course, that's how Apple rolls.
Whitespace Revolution will kill 3G and 4G.
I agree. Carriers are only a tiny step above cable providers.
All the carriers are going down in the next few years, if they don't adapt
quickly. Now that the FCC has opened up TV "whitespace" for unlicensed
use, hoards of entrepreneurial companies will be there with "WiFi-like"
services that travel for miles and through walls (just like broadcast TV).
This will make broad bandwidth, long-distance services cheap (if not
free) and undermine/devalue the complex, relatively narrow-band and
short-range, 3G and 4G systems the carriers are rolling out. Over time,
the carriers will have to lower prices and weaken contract terms to
compete and try to earn back their infrastructure investments; in the
process, they'll try hard to slow (and dominate) the "whitespace" revolution.
I agree. Carriers are only a tiny step above cable providers.
All the carriers are going down in the next few years, if they don't adapt
quickly. Now that the FCC has opened up TV "whitespace" for unlicensed
use, hoards of entrepreneurial companies will be there with "WiFi-like"
services that travel for miles and through walls (just like broadcast TV).
This will make broad bandwidth, long-distance services cheap (if not
free) and undermine/devalue the complex, relatively narrow-band and
short-range, 3G and 4G systems the carriers are rolling out. Over time,
the carriers will have to lower prices and weaken contract terms to
compete and try to earn back their infrastructure investments; in the
process, they'll try hard to slow (and dominate) the "whitespace" revolution.
hmmm when I recently priced 3 smart phones with data and unlimited texts the two companies were nearly identically priced. Surely not enough to base the decision solely on price alone.
It came down to coverage where my wife and I work.
I think Apple would realize most users are already iTunes customers and would probably snub a V-Cast app for iTunes.
Now if it meant leaving off the iTunes store, Apple would laugh and walk out the door.
guys, just don't set your expectations too high as CDMA is a dead-end technology anyways...
Now let's hope LTE iPhone (I propose iPhone 4G will be its name) will come soon enough. I'm expecting to see it next summer, so I'm holding on my obsolete 3G as of now.
And how is it dead exactly? Be sure to include how it's any more "dead" than HSDPA.
Gotta love it when ppl that don't know what they're talking about jump on here to add their "2 cents" (it's not worth that much).
Stories like this make me think that the US is a bit… backward. You still use CDMA over there? We shut down our CDMA in Australia in 2008, now we have 3.5G network coverage for 99% of the population
I'd call that pretty dead.My sentiments exactly. However I would welcome a LTE/CDMA capable iPhone 4 for Verizon. I imagine CDMA allows data only through one end due to security purposes?
Stories like this make me think that the US is a bit backward. You still use CDMA over there? We shut down our CDMA in Australia in 2008, now we have 3.5G network coverage for 99% of the population
Yet another person clueless about wireless technolgies but decides to speak up anyway.
CDMA is no more dead than the current GSM standard (W-CDMA). It's just the natural cycle of technology. CDMA has long been considered to have superior voice quality. In fact, this is why GSM switched from a TDMA air interface to a W-CDMA air interface (for spread-spectrum). In fact, one could more easily argue that GSM is dead. At least the original technologies GSM was based on have been retired.
So yeah....all technologies die as we grow beyond them and on to newer standards. But CDMA will be around quite some time (as will W-CDMA...the current GSM standard) until LTE is fully built out and voice solutions are completed.
Saying CDMA is dead is false. Saying TDMA is dead would be closer to a true statement.
No need to be rude. I'm not clueless. I was talking about CDMA in my country, I should have been more specific. I was simply stating that in my Australia we do not use CDMA (CDMA 1.X, CDMA2000 [which I believe is what Verizon uses] and CDMA-EVDO) at all any more, we shut it down, instead we use a 'hybrid' (if you want to call it that) UTMS/HSDPA network we call 'NextG' (a fancy name for 3.5G, which uses W-CDMA) capable of a theoretical 14mbps downstream speed for 99% of the population. 50% of our population is also covered by HSPA+ capable of 42mbps. In relation to my country, CDMA is obsolete and technically is dead; this isn't so for the US obviously, but where I'm from it's dead.
I live in a rural area in a town of 5000 people and I can get a theoretical 20mbps speed on mobile networks.
In relation to my country, CDMA 1/2000/EVDO is obsolete and technically is dead, sure, we make small use of W-CDMA, but it's not exactly what I meant originally; this isn't so for the US obviously, but where I'm from it's dead.
BUT back to the news story at hand: I don't get though is why Apple doesn't open up the iPhone to all other telco's in the US, from what I've heard AT&T is terrible. Here we have iPhone's available unlocked from Apple or from any one of our carriers (probably 'cause the Competition and Consumer Commission would chuck a fit), why doesn't Apple do this in the US?
Any you think you are any better making statements like this?
Sounds what you are saying is similar to VHS vs Beta. The issue here is that 99% of the world uses systems that are absolutely incompatible with the technology that is used with Verizon and Sprint, and other minor regional companies. Even if it is a superior technology, which may be nothing more than a religious argument, it hardly matters. Of course, most of cell phone users in the US will never use a cell phone outside of the US. This is certainly a large reason why Apple sells a GSM phone, rather than a CDMA one. Nothing prevents them from making a phone specific to Verizon, but they will won't stop making a GSM one.
-jt2
Carriers in the US like to have phones locked to their network. Even if the same model phone is available on all networks, you can bet that they are locked to the carrier, and won't be unlocked by said carrier until you complete the contract, and then only if you beg them. Also, Verizon and Sprint like to put custom software on the phones they sell, and won't allow each other's phones to operate on their network.
I do wish that we could just settle on one good technology, and have a wide deployment, but everyone wants do do different things.
-jt2
You imply that because the carriers in your country made a decision to switch from CDMA to another technology that there is something technically obsoltete about CDMA. In fact, you even state in this post that it is. That's actually not the case.
And I'm fairly certain you don't make "small use" of W-CDMA. If you have GSM based 3G data, you have a large use of W-CDMA.
It is actually kind of a VHS vs Beta thing. Each technology has it's advantatges. For a long time CDMA had the advantage where 3G data speeds were concerned. HSDPA has caught up and is passing CDMA in data speeds. And since the CDMA carriers have chosen to go LTE, we will not see some of the latest speed and other technology updates to CDMA. (We might see simultaneous voice+data from Verizon) But CDMA was by no means inferior. But the EU started a trend when they made it a standard across all of Europe. That trend has continued across many countries and the advent of the iPhone pushed it even further. (Canadian CDMA carriers cite the desire to carry the more attractive GSM phone offerings, including the iPhone, as one of the reasons for switching).
And while a large portion of the world uses GSM, it's not 99%. And years ago it wasn't even a majority. Believe it or not, GSM was NOT really Global when it first took he name "Global System for Mobile Communications".
They are doing just that by moving to LTE. But there are many circumstances that lead to where we are. One of which is the fact that in the beginning CDMA was actually much better than TDMA. I know, I sold TDMA phones when they were first released in the early 90's and they sounded like you were talking under water half the time. Each carrier chose the pony they wanted to ride that supported the frequency the FCC had alloted them. That's very simplified of course.
Either way, people that say CDMA is dead are speaking from a position of misinformation (is that PC enough for ya?) CDMA is a good technology that will eventually be retired and replaced by LTE, but not for many years.
Edit: I'm happy to see carriers in the US move to a standard that MIGHT allow us to move phones back and forth between carriers. But I'm guessing our consumer non-friendly carriers will still find a way to stick it to us. It just irks me to see people make blanket statements that are untrue and they obviously don't understand the technology standards, where they came from, and how we got where we are.
EDIT: AND, the reason Apple makes a GSM phone instead of a CDMA phone is NOT because GSM is so ubiquitous, it's because Verizon turned them down first.
Ouch... A friend showed it to me, didn't even see that.
I fell for one of these a while back. That's why I check the accounts now.