Verizon to Require 4G LTE Compatibility for 'All' Future Smartphones

[MacNewsFix]

Riiiight. Apple made a CDMA phone so it could be on Verizon.

If it came down to scorched earth policy, apple needs the carriers more than the carriers need apple. If the carriers decide one day to stop selling iphone then apple is screwed. Without the carriers cooperation no one will buy an iphone. Verizon would be more than happy selling its own branded droids to everyone.

Just because Apple designs a phone so it is compatible with the many global carriers not on GSM, it can hardly be construed that the carriers are "calling the shots." That Verizon is seemingly bumping Android phone prices to help soften the blow from the subsidy Verizon must pay Apple is more telling of who is in the driver seat in that relationship. Another good example is what went on behind the scenes when Sprint CEO Dan Hesse was debating with the board on buying $20 billion in iPhones and likely not recouping the cost until 2014:

The board ultimately signed off on what the company internally called the "Sony" project, concluding Sprint couldn't compete otherwise. Directors figured, "How can we pass this up? We have to have it," the person familiar with the matter said.​

To me, the true litmus test is that I don't know any other phones devoid of crapware and/or carrier marketing material except for the iPhones.

 

[linux2mac]

Just because Apple designs a phone so it is compatible with the many global carriers not on GSM, it can hardly be construed that the carriers are "calling the shots." That Verizon is seemingly bumping Android phone prices to help soften the blow from the subsidy Verizon must pay Apple is more telling of who is in the driver seat in that relationship. Another good example is what went on behind the scenes when Sprint CEO Dan Hesse was debating with the board on buying $20 billion in iPhones and likely not recouping the cost until 2014:

The board ultimately signed off on what the company internally called the "Sony" project, concluding Sprint couldn't compete otherwise. Directors figured, "How can we pass this up? We have to have it," the person familiar with the matter said.​

To me, the true litmus test is that I don't know any other phones devoid of crapware and/or carrier marketing material except for the iPhones.

I was just going to mention the Sprint CEO's decision to invest $20 billion to get the iPhone. It's pretty obvious folks want iOS devices, not crapdroids or fragmentoids!

 

[skoorbevad]

I was just going to mention the Sprint CEO's decision to invest $20 billion to get the iPhone. It's pretty obvious folks want iOS devices, not crapdroids or fragmentoids!

Yet the sales figures for Android handsets stand in stark opposition to your statement.

Some people want iOS devices, others want Android. iOS is not the end-all-be-all of embedded device interface design -- it's probably difficult for you to understand, but there are people out there who don't like it. Market numbers reflect it.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Just because Apple designs a phone so it is compatible with the many global carriers not on GSM, it can hardly be construed that the carriers are "calling the shots." That Verizon is seemingly bumping Android phone prices to help soften the blow from the subsidy Verizon must pay Apple is more telling of who is in the driver seat in that relationship. Another good example is what went on behind the scenes when Sprint CEO Dan Hesse was debating with the board on buying $20 billion in iPhones and likely not recouping the cost until 2014:

The board ultimately signed off on what the company internally called the "Sony" project, concluding Sprint couldn't compete otherwise. Directors figured, "How can we pass this up? We have to have it," the person familiar with the matter said.​

To me, the true litmus test is that I don't know any other phones devoid of crapware and/or carrier marketing material except for the iPhones.

Verizon has already proved not having the iPhone did not really hurt them and when they got it it also did not help them either. Most of the Verizon iPhone buyers were already Verizon customers so it had a net effect of zero. Sprint and tmobile it can and does help stop the bleeding.

I really hope AT&T does not copy verizon on pricing of lte devices so verizon has to drop there price.

 

[kdarling]

Just because Apple designs a phone so it is compatible with the many global carriers not on GSM, it can hardly be construed that the carriers are "calling the shots." That Verizon is seemingly bumping Android phone prices to help soften the blow from the subsidy Verizon must pay Apple is more telling of who is in the driver seat in that relationship.

Quoting RoughlyDrafted's strawman articles is usually a bad idea even during the best of times; in this case especially, some of Dilger's ideas are beyond ridiculous.

A subsidy is a phone loan from the carrier to a customer. It's not a bonus paid to the phone maker like Dilger seems to think.

The phone manufacturer gets the same negotiated wholesale price (which might get adjusted for getting rid of old stock) whether the carrier loans the customer $500 or $0.

The subsidy (customer loan) is determined by what the phone itself costs and what the carrier thinks they can charge. Right now, some Android phones are hot and so their initial asking prices are high.

 

[Wicked1]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/9A405)

Verizon is definitely not stupid enough to try to influence Apple (and risk losing the iPhone), so they're either aware that the next iPhone is LTE capable, or are prepared to make an exception for it.

I am sure if Apple says support both they will, kind of funny that only one Windows phone will support it, Android does, but interesting to see what RIM does since their new OS and devices are not due out until year end 2012.

Besides no one carrier out there supports true 4G, they are all burstable but no one has sustained rates of 50-100mbps, so more like 3G enhanced for now.

 

[linux2mac]

For all those that continue to doubt Apple having the upper hand with the mobile carriers, consider this:

Notice how the only logo on the iPhone is the Apple logo? Yet every other crapdroid and flavor of fragmentoid has their respective carrier's logo and colors emblazoned on it.

Again, John Gruber says it best:

http://isource.com/2012/01/12/recomm...-the-carriers/

"Negotiations with the carriers:

• Android handset makers: Here are our phones. How would you like us to change them so that you will sell them?

• Microsoft: Here’s $200 million. Please sell our phones.

• Apple: Here is our new phone. It comes in black or white. We will let you sell it."

Ya, Apple is really at the mercy of the mobile carriers.

Where do you guys come up with this stuff? Absolutely hysterical!!

 

[Rodimus Prime]

For all those that continue to doubt Apple having the upper hand with the mobile carriers, consider this:

Notice how the only logo on the iPhone is the Apple logo? Yet every other crapdroid and flavor of fragmentoid has their respective carrier's logo and colors emblazoned on it.

Again, John Gruber says it best:

http://isource.com/2012/01/12/recomm...-the-carriers/

"Negotiations with the carriers:

• Android handset makers: Here are our phones. How would you like us to change them so that you will sell them?

• Microsoft: Here’s $200 million. Please sell our phones.

• Apple: Here is our new phone. It comes in black or white. We will let you sell it."

Ya, Apple is really at the mercy of the mobile carriers.

Where do you guys come up with this stuff? Absolutely hysterical!!

some ways yes but at the same token in the Verizon vs Apple. Verizon has the upper hand. Verizon losing the iPhone hurts Apple a lot more than Verizon. Proof is in look at Verizon before the iPhone and after they iPhone. Their rate of gaining and losing customers was not really effected. Most of the people who got the iPhone on Verizon were already Verizon customers. These kind of shows the iPhone had little effect on Verizon. There was no mass leaving of AT&T for Verizon when they got it. No mass leaving for other Sprint when Sprint got the iPhone.

For the smaller players it helps slow down the bleed but for the big boys like AT&T and Verizon it has little effect on them.

 

[linux2mac]

some ways yes but at the same token in the Verizon vs Apple. Verizon has the upper hand. Verizon losing the iPhone hurts Apple a lot more than Verizon. Proof is in look at Verizon before the iPhone and after they iPhone. Their rate of gaining and losing customers was not really effected. Most of the people who got the iPhone on Verizon were already Verizon customers. These kind of shows the iPhone had little effect on Verizon. There was no mass leaving of AT&T for Verizon when they got it. No mass leaving for other Sprint when Sprint got the iPhone.

For the smaller players it helps slow down the bleed but for the big boys like AT&T and Verizon it has little effect on them.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

Now with Apple gaining ground internationally (*cough* China *cough* billions of people and demand for the iPhone over there *cough* riots), I would like to see Verizon's attitude if Apple slammed the door on their face.

Once again:

"Here is our new phone. It comes in black or white. We will let you sell it."

Apple: Who's your daddy Verizon?
Verizon: You are Apple.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

Now with Apple gaining ground internationally (*cough* China *cough* billions of people and demand for the iPhone over there *cough* riots), I would like to see Verizon's attitude if Apple slammed the door on their face.

Once again:

"Here is our new phone. It comes in black or white. We will let you sell it."

Apple: Who's your daddy Verizon?
Verizon: You are Apple.

And I ask who would lose more sales. Verizon or Apple. The answer is Apple.

You are confusing Apple other markets with the Verizon market. I pointed to something we know is true. Verizon not having and even gaining the iPhone had little effect on the customer base and at their turn over and gaining rate.
Vast majority of Verizon iPhones were sold to existing Verizon customer. That is the key part. That same group is not going to jump ship for just the iPhone. They already proved they were not willing to do that.

 

[kdarling]

Apple really needed Verizon five years ago

A bit over six years ago, Apple bent over in what will someday be taught as one of the worst contract negotations ever, and agreed to a five year exclusivity in the USA, something unheard of before.

The reason it was unheard of was because it was such a dumb move. AT&T even publicly stated that they got the best of the deal.

Instead of taking over the US cell market, Apple chose to block themselves out of well over half of it. Moreover, AT&T didn't have home coverage in all of the country, so people in a dozen states couldn't even own an iPhone.

All the exclusivity did was give AT&T some rather unfortunate leverage over iPhone apps, and worse, unbelievably gave the rest of the phone competition an multi-year long window of opportunity to come up with new handsets without any fear of Apple competing on every carrier.

The end result? Android, and the manufacturers who use it, got an enormous foothold where they might not have done so otherwise. Apple would not be likely to repeat such a mistake.

 

[linux2mac]

And I ask who would lose more sales. Verizon or Apple. The answer is Apple.

You are confusing Apple other markets with the Verizon market. I pointed to something we know is true. Verizon not having and even gaining the iPhone had little effect on the customer base and at their turn over and gaining rate.
Vast majority of Verizon iPhones were sold to existing Verizon customer. That is the key part. That same group is not going to jump ship for just the iPhone. They already proved they were not willing to do that.

If Verizon has the upper hand, then why is the Verizon logo and branding not present on the iPhone? I am sure Verizon would prefer to have their logo on the iPhone but Apple will not permit it. Every other phone maker has to succomb to having their phone desecrated with their respective carrier's logo and branding except Apple. Remind me again who is making the rules? Hmmm..........

 

[Rodimus Prime]

If Verizon has the upper hand, then why is the Verizon logo and branding not present on the iPhone? I am sure Verizon would prefer to have their logo on the iPhone but Apple will not permit it. Every other phone maker has to succomb to having their phone desecrated with their respective carrier's logo and branding except Apple. Remind me again who is making the rules? Hmmm..........

so on that case not worth much to them does not change the fact who holds more of the cards. Having the logo requirement just one of the many cards Verizon could play. Apple has more power than others but in the end the carriers in the US are the real power player. In the LTE case I could see more Verizon standing their ground and telling Apple to put LTE in the phone. I could see them much more willing to bend the rules for Blackberry than for Apple. Reason being is the Enterprise side is huge amounts of money and losing an enterprise customers is worth to much. But blackberry has always been in a class of its own.

 

[deconstruct60]

A bit over six years ago, Apple bent over in what will someday be taught as one of the worst contract negotations ever, and agreed to a five year exclusivity in the USA, something unheard of before.

The reason it was unheard of was because it was such a dumb move.

Unlikely it will be classified that way in the long term by anyone looking at this

The fundamental flaw in most of these "who won/lost with the iPhone" is the notion that there is only one single winner (or loser).

Apple wanted to to market with a sight unseen phone. ATT got something for taking that risk and Apple gave up some flexibility. Apple's intent never was to "take over" the cellphone market. In fact, they made several comments as to they were only looking for 10% (not 40%, 50%, etc. dominating position).

Both ATT and Apple have made a bucket load of money off the initial contract.

Instead of taking over the US cell market, Apple chose to block themselves out of well over half of it.

That wasn't the objective. In fact, having a non-monopoly position in the market actually enhances their sometime dictatorial ("no apps", "no flash" , "no links to external stores" , etc.) declarations. If they had 50+% of the market those would land them in loosing court cases and/or in the bullseye of regulating bodies. ( just as the iPod did ).

Moreover, AT&T didn't have home coverage in all of the country, so people in a dozen states couldn't even own an iPhone.

ATT was "big enough" on several factors. First, to give Apple credibility to deal with service providers in other countries. ( It isn't solely a USA only market ). Second, given their "non first place" status much more willing to take a large risk. (indeed, Verizon wasn't willing to gamble and wouldn't close a deal. )

Finally, Apple are masters at marketing scarcity (just today there are mobs outside stores in China. ). So "you can't get one" helped as much as hurt... so it was a wash.

The end result? Android, and the manufacturers who use it, got an enormous foothold where they might not have done so otherwise. Apple would not be likely to repeat such a mistake.

There is no flaw in letting other players into the market. In fact, if others didn't produce bad ideas, Apple wouldn't have folks to "copy and improve" on. Crushing everyone everywhere is a dubious strategy.


When "being a player in the market" turned into "Kill Android at all costs by starting Thermonuclear patent war" .... yeah the exclusivity was not as optimal. I suspect this "patent troll war" is what is going to be "bonehead" move long term.

 

[divinox]

I am sure if Apple says support both they will, kind of funny that only one Windows phone will support it, Android does, but interesting to see what RIM does since their new OS and devices are not due out until year end 2012.

Besides no one carrier out there supports true 4G, they are all burstable but no one has sustained rates of 50-100mbps, so more like 3G enhanced for now.

Only one, you say; at least two were announced this past week (Lumia 900, Titan II).

 

[cwwilson]

The 4S would have been too legit with 4G. I see this as a very good sign of things to come so long as the battery doesn't take a major hit.

 

[divinox]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

Now with Apple gaining ground internationally (*cough* China *cough* billions of people and demand for the iPhone over there *cough* riots), I would like to see Verizon's attitude if Apple slammed the door on their face.

Once again:

"Here is our new phone. It comes in black or white. We will let you sell it."

Apple: Who's your daddy Verizon?
Verizon: You are Apple.

Re: China.

a) the vast majority of chinese people are as likely to ever own an iPhone as a bentley.
b) 99% of people standing in those lines are scalpers and/or hired by scalpers.

Certainly, Apple products are in demand. But lets not go nuts over things, shall we?

Re: general discussion

Personally, i don't get why carriers put themselves in this position. To me it just screams lack of will and strategic vision. Happy I'm not long in either of them.

----------

A bit over six years ago, Apple bent over in what will someday be taught as one of the worst contract negotations ever, and agreed to a five year exclusivity in the USA, something unheard of before.

The reason it was unheard of was because it was such a dumb move. AT&T even publicly stated that they got the best of the deal.

Instead of taking over the US cell market, Apple chose to block themselves out of well over half of it. Moreover, AT&T didn't have home coverage in all of the country, so people in a dozen states couldn't even own an iPhone.

All the exclusivity did was give AT&T some rather unfortunate leverage over iPhone apps, and worse, unbelievably gave the rest of the phone competition an multi-year long window of opportunity to come up with new handsets without any fear of Apple competing on every carrier.

The end result? Android, and the manufacturers who use it, got an enormous foothold where they might not have done so otherwise. Apple would not be likely to repeat such a mistake.

True true.

 

[seedster2]

For all those that continue to doubt Apple having the upper hand with the mobile carriers, consider this:

Notice how the only logo on the iPhone is the Apple logo? Yet every other crapdroid and flavor of fragmentoid has their respective carrier's logo and colors emblazoned on it.

Again, John Gruber says it best:

http://isource.com/2012/01/12/recomm...-the-carriers/

"Negotiations with the carriers:

• Android handset makers: Here are our phones. How would you like us to change them so that you will sell them?

• Microsoft: Here’s $200 million. Please sell our phones.

• Apple: Here is our new phone. It comes in black or white. We will let you sell it."

Ya, Apple is really at the mercy of the mobile carriers.

Where do you guys come up with this stuff? Absolutely hysterical!!

Carriers clearly dictate the future of the iPhone from what apps are permissible, the subsidization and functionalities. If you can't acknowledge this then your head is in the sand.

If Verizon has the upper hand, then why is the Verizon logo and branding not present on the iPhone? I am sure Verizon would prefer to have their logo on the iPhone but Apple will not permit it. Every other phone maker has to succomb to having their phone desecrated with their respective carrier's logo and branding except Apple. Remind me again who is making the rules? Hmmm..........

This is your best argument?

A bit over six years ago, Apple bent over in what will someday be taught as one of the worst contract negotations ever, and agreed to a five year exclusivity in the USA, something unheard of before.

The reason it was unheard of was because it was such a dumb move. AT&T even publicly stated that they got the best of the deal.

Instead of taking over the US cell market, Apple chose to block themselves out of well over half of it. Moreover, AT&T didn't have home coverage in all of the country, so people in a dozen states couldn't even own an iPhone.

All the exclusivity did was give AT&T some rather unfortunate leverage over iPhone apps, and worse, unbelievably gave the rest of the phone competition an multi-year long window of opportunity to come up with new handsets without any fear of Apple competing on every carrier.

The end result? Android, and the manufacturers who use it, got an enormous foothold where they might not have done so otherwise. Apple would not be likely to repeat such a mistake.

Bingo

 

[Dbrown]

If Verizon has the upper hand, then why is the Verizon logo and branding not present on the iPhone? I am sure Verizon would prefer to have their logo on the iPhone but Apple will not permit it. Every other phone maker has to succomb to having their phone desecrated with their respective carrier's logo and branding except Apple. Remind me again who is making the rules? Hmmm..........

Apple can't push an update without Verizon signing off on it.

 

[malman89]

For all those that continue to doubt Apple having the upper hand with the mobile carriers, consider this:

Whoop-de-doo, they can't slap their logo on it. If the carriers suddenly don't want to support the iPhone, that fancy logo-less phone turns into a shiny brick or iPod touch. People still need to buy phones - they're not going to suddenly have no phone at all if they can't have their Phone.

The carriers still have plenty of cards in their deck. They just feel no need to use them at this time.

 

[oban14]

3G iphone 4s on verizon is horrible slow. Data speeds in line with dialup.

Which is why Apple needs to hurry up and make LTE products. Verizon's LTE network blows every other 3G/4G network in the USA out of the water.

 

[SAIRUS]

Like the 4S which had a 16 month window, and their best results yet?

Wait a second, I hope you realize something. Imagine now another 16 months go by. No iPhone for 2012!

 

[bo-waleed]

Hi guys
does this mean there won't be 3G network anymore in Varizon ? in the future.

 

[MacNewsFix]

Verizon has already proved not having the iPhone did not really hurt them and when they got it it also did not help them either. Most of the Verizon iPhone buyers were already Verizon customers so it had a net effect of zero. Sprint and tmobile it can and does help stop the bleeding.

So people only leave discount carriers Sprint and T-Mobile to get iPhones (complete with its mandatory monthly data fee), but Verizon, the most expensive carrier, had customers that were impervious to the siren call of the iPhone?

Whaaaaaa?

Quoting RoughlyDrafted's strawman articles is usually a bad idea even during the best of times; in this case especially, some of Dilger's ideas are beyond ridiculous.


A subsidy is a phone loan from the carrier to a customer. It's not a bonus paid to the phone maker like Dilger seems to think.

The phone manufacturer gets the same negotiated wholesale price (which might get adjusted for getting rid of old stock) whether the carrier loans the customer $500 or $0.

The subsidy (customer loan) is determined by what the phone itself costs and what the carrier thinks they can charge. Right now, some Android phones are hot and so their initial asking prices are high.

I'm not sure about the UK, but in the USA, Apple seems to be the one determining the price of their phones with the exceptions of a few, very rare, short-term promotions in which the retailers (ex. Radio Shack) typically eat the discount. The phones are the same price no matter which carrier I choose. That's no coincidence. That's clout.

 

[Dbrown]

So people only leave discount carriers Sprint and T-Mobile to get iPhones (complete with its mandatory monthly data fee), but Verizon, the most expensive carrier, had customers that were impervious to the siren call of the iPhone?

People leave sprint and tmo because those two have crappy networks. ATT isn't much better but at least they had the iphone exclusively so there's a reason to switch.

If you care about having a reliable network, then you'd be on VZW. Thats why VZW subscribers pay the highest rates and deal with all the nickel and diming. Very few existing VZW customers would give up that reliability for an iphone.