Everyone knew the iPhone was a success, but wow!

4phun <[email protected]> wrote in
news:1302a1cd-9517-4956-a098-488506afa29f@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> On Dec 18, 8:14 pm, CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>> DennisC <[email protected]> wrote
>> innews:[email protected]
>> om:
>>
>> > On Dec 16, 3:42 pm, "LHA" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> "Mark Thompson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> >> > In its first full quarter of sales, the iPhone has already
>> >> > climbed past
>>
>> >> As long as I have to use the Stinkular network, you can keep your
>> >> Iphone.
>>
>> > If Verizon had the iPhone they would cripple it so much it wouldn't
>> > be the success it is.
>>
>> > Dennis
>>
>> How much more crippled could it be and still be worth buying?
>
> Look at the Voyager for your answer. People buy that because they
> can't get an iPhone from Verizon. If you happen to live in the vast
> areas of this country where you can't even get an EVDO signal from
> Verizon you will find all their phones are crippled by having to use
> the butt ugly slow Verizon 1 RX. Network.
>
> The Voyager is crippled even more since it can not connect to WIFI in
> these areas. This is a real bummer for students who usually are
> covered by WIFI on most college campuses.
>

And how does any of that comment on the list of features that you so
conveniently clipped?

GPS
Voice Dialing
PUSH email syncing
Limited web capapbility- not all media formats supported.

Your wifi argument is lame- the chances of findng EVDO in a rural area is
no worse than finding a wifi hotspot.

The Voyager has more functionality than the iPhone, which is ridiculously
funny considering the fact that it is tied to most locked down network on
the planet.

---

› See More: Everyone knew the iPhone was a success, but wow!

Mark Thompson wrote:
> In its first full quarter of sales, the iPhone has already climbed past
> Microsoftąs entire lineup of Windows Mobile smartphones in North
> America, according to figures compiled by Canalys and published by
> Symbian.


Wow, I also hear McDonalds sold the most burgers.

On Dec 19, 10:58 am, Todd Allcock <[email protected]>
wrote:
> At 18 Dec 2007 22:08:16 -0800 Mr. Strat wrote:
>
> > > Yep... for starters, they'd call it the vPhone. ;-)
>
> > And they'd have to cripple it.
>
> How true. They'd probably remove all bluetooth support except headset
> profile, disallow it's use as a cellular modem, and prevent buying music
> via iTunes via cellular...
>
> ...Hey! Wait a minute,...

LOL exactly 100% correct.. Apple is no different from the big V...
the phone is already crippled just as much as ANY VERIZON PHONE...






4phun <[email protected]> wrote in
news:e0c95598-9143-4ec7-906d-875f9aa5185f@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

>> -

> Another thing is that GSM adoption is expanding in North, Central and
> South America which will continue the success of the GSM format Apple
> choose to support over CDMA. Verizon is begining to test converting
> their phone system to GSM as already noted.


Thats retarded, you know Apple went to verizon and the FCC with a CDMA
handset FIRST.... Verizon turned them down, so they went to ATT and
GSM...

Plus, the 4G/LTE GSM system Verizon is testing is nothing like the GSM
the Hype-Phone uses...

You are an idiot..
..

4phun wrote:

> Another thing is that GSM adoption is expanding in North, Central and
> South America which will continue the success of the GSM format Apple
> choose to support over CDMA. Verizon is begining to test converting
> their phone system to GSM as already noted.

Actually, CDMA continues to gain market share at the expense of GSM
worldwide, and in North America has the largest subscriber base (which
is why Apple went to Verizon with the iPhone first).

The reason Verizon passed AT&T in the number of subscribers is because
of their superior network. See the latest Consumer Reports for details.
This is the reason that Apple approached Verizon first, they didn't care
about GSM versus CDMA, they wanted the premium carrier for their new
product.

It's all moot, as the entire world is moving to CDMA, albeit a different
version than the one used by Verizon, Sprint, and the carriers in Korea.

In article <[email protected]>, SMS ???? ? wrote:
> Actually, CDMA continues to gain market share at the expense of GSM
> worldwide, and in North America has the largest subscriber base (which
> is why Apple went to Verizon with the iPhone first).
Actually thats not quite true. If it is, why is Verizon going to go
with LTE and not Qualcomm's 4G standard? Also Qualcomm is a greedy
company and charges high licensing fees. GSM is an open standard
whereas CDMA is propietary.
Apple went to Verizon at first as there IS MORE U.S CDMA
customers than GSM customers. APPLE wanted to lock down its Iphone
which is very common on CDMA systems. Verizon, the largest of the CDMA
providers didn't want to play ball, therefore, Apple went to the next
largest market penetration. That would be AT&T/Cingular

--

From the Desk of the Sysop of:
Planet Maca's Opus, a Free open BBS system. telnet://pinkrose.dhis.org
Web Site: http://pinkrose.dhis.org, Dialup 860-618-3091 300-33600 bps
The New Cnews maintainer
B'ichela

In article <[email protected]>, B'ichela
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Actually thats not quite true. If it is, why is Verizon going to go
> with LTE and not Qualcomm's 4G standard? Also Qualcomm is a greedy
> company and charges high licensing fees. GSM is an open standard
> whereas CDMA is propietary.
> Apple went to Verizon at first as there IS MORE U.S CDMA
> customers than GSM customers. APPLE wanted to lock down its Iphone
> which is very common on CDMA systems. Verizon, the largest of the CDMA
> providers didn't want to play ball, therefore, Apple went to the next
> largest market penetration. That would be AT&T/Cingular

The more likely scenario is that Verizon wanted to cripple the phone
like they do all of their others, and Apple told them to get lost.

"Mr. Strat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:271220072028114099%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, B'ichela
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Actually thats not quite true. If it is, why is Verizon going to go
>> with LTE and not Qualcomm's 4G standard? Also Qualcomm is a greedy
>> company and charges high licensing fees. GSM is an open standard
>> whereas CDMA is propietary.
>> Apple went to Verizon at first as there IS MORE U.S CDMA
>> customers than GSM customers. APPLE wanted to lock down its Iphone
>> which is very common on CDMA systems. Verizon, the largest of the CDMA
>> providers didn't want to play ball, therefore, Apple went to the next
>> largest market penetration. That would be AT&T/Cingular
>
> The more likely scenario is that Verizon wanted to cripple the phone
> like they do all of their others, and Apple told them to get lost.


No. Verizon turned Apple down.

In article <Sn%[email protected]>, Kevin
Weaver <[email protected]> wrote:

> No. Verizon turned Apple down.

Regardless, Verizon still sucks due to their predatory business
practices.

Mr. Strat wrote:
> In article <Sn%[email protected]>, Kevin
> Weaver <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> No. Verizon turned Apple down.
>
> Regardless, Verizon still sucks due to their predatory business
> practices.

While their business practices may suck, and I've criticized them
repeatedly for some of the crap they pull, you of course understand how
they've now managed to pass AT&T in retail subscribers.

Every survey of users as to what matters most to them gives the same
result--coverage. Handset selection is usually somewhere near the bottom
of the survey results.

If you look at Consumer Reports, JD Power, or any other independent
survey, the results are always the same, and always overwhelming when it
comes to coverage comparisons. In Consumer Reports it's listed as "No
Service." In 17 out of 20 markets, Verizon had the best score for "No
Service," while in the other three they were tied with Alltel.

In article <[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:

> While their business practices may suck, and I've criticized them
> repeatedly for some of the crap they pull, you of course understand how
> they've now managed to pass AT&T in retail subscribers.

No way I'll stand up for AT&T. I use TMO. Although this area is heavily
Verizon, I've had no problems with coverage.

But I'm guessing that the reason Apple didn't go with Verizon is
because Verizon wanted to cripple the iPhone like they do the rest of
their phones and Apple wouldn't let them.

I'm hoping to see a non-carrier specific version of the iPhone at
MacWorld in a couple weeks so I can dump my RAZR when my contract is up
later this year.

Mr. Strat wrote:

> But I'm guessing that the reason Apple didn't go with Verizon is
> because Verizon wanted to cripple the iPhone like they do the rest of
> their phones and Apple wouldn't let them.

I doubt it. Apple did the kind of things that Verizon does. I.e. if you
want to use an iTunes song as a ring tone you have to pay twice, once
for the song and once to use it as a ringtone. People complain about
Verizon disabling ringtone creation in Motorola Phone Tools, with good
reason, what Verizon did was a despicable act because they thought it
would cut into ringtone sales. But when Jobs announced the ability to
pay a second time for iTunes songs to be used as ringtones, he got
thunderous applause.

Verizon would not pay Apple a monthly fee per handset. They were willing
to give up the customers that chose AT&T solely for the iPhone
availability. I think it was a dumb decision by Verizon, but then I
don't have access to all the studies led to their decision.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:

> ... when Jobs announced the ability to
> pay a second time for iTunes songs to be used as ringtones, he got
> thunderous applause.

Expected reaction by fan-sheep.

At 29 Dec 2007 09:30:28 -0800 Mr. Strat wrote:


> I'm hoping to see a non-carrier specific version of the iPhone at
> MacWorld in a couple weeks so I can dump my RAZR when my contract is up
> later this year.


You reaize that AT&T has a multi-year exclusivity contract for the iPhone,
right? (The pundits are claiming five years, though AT&T and Apple are,
AFAIK, publicily silent about the terms.)

You're better off just buying an unlocked one if you really want an iPhone.

In article <[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:

> You reaize that AT&T has a multi-year exclusivity contract for the iPhone,
> right? (The pundits are claiming five years, though AT&T and Apple are,
> AFAIK, publicily silent about the terms.)

I know that. But they can come out with a different model that's not
locked to a crappy carriet.

> You're better off just buying an unlocked one if you really want an iPhone.

I've considered that option too...or just buying one and unlocking it
myself.

At 30 Dec 2007 10:07:40 -0800 Mr. Strat wrote:

> > You reaize that AT&T has a multi-year exclusivity contract for
> > the iPhone, right? (The pundits are claiming five years, though
> > AT&T and Apple are, AFAIK, publicily silent about the terms.)
>
> I know that. But they can come out with a different model that's not
> locked to a crappy carriet.
Somehow I think AT&T's lawyers just might have considered that possibility
during the negotiations!

You won't be seeing a competing unlocked mobile phone from Apple in the US.

Buying an overseas grey market unlocked iPhone (from a country that
requires unocked phones) is a possibility, however simply unlocking an AT&T
locked model would be cheaper.