Why did Apple choose GSM for the iPhone?

[email protected] wrote:

> On Feb 16, 8:58Â*pm, mindfrost82 <mindfrost82.34w...@no-
> mx.mindfrost82.com> wrote:
>> Apple wanted too much control over the phone and the profits, so Sprint
>> and Verizon both declined the offer because of the amount of control
>> Apple wanted, at least that's what I read back when it first launched.
>> So its not so much GSM vs CDMA as it was control over the product.
>>
>> If you've noticed, all commercials for it seemed to have been by Apple.
>> I haven't seen any AT&T commercials advertising the iPhone like they do
>> other phones.
>>
>> --
>> mindfrost82
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> mindfrost82's Profile:http://www.mindfrost82.com/member.php?userid=1
>> View this thread:http://www.mindfrost82.com/showthread.php?t=113968
>
> AT&T advertizes other high end phones like the Nokia N95 or N96?


Did you say N96? I know I love my N95-3 but it too will become old and worn.


Dave

---

› See More: Why did Apple choose GSM for the iPhone?

On Feb 17, 6:47*pm, David W Studeman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 8:58*pm, mindfrost82 <mindfrost82.34w...@no-
> > mx.mindfrost82.com> wrote:
> >> Apple wanted too much control over the phone and the profits, so Sprint
> >> and Verizon both declined the offer because of the amount of control
> >> Apple wanted, at least that's what I read back when it first launched.
> >> So its not so much GSM vs CDMA as it was control over the product.
>
> >> If you've noticed, all commercials for it seemed to have been by Apple.
> >> I haven't seen any AT&T commercials advertising the iPhone like they do
> >> other phones.
>
> >> --
> >> mindfrost82
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> mindfrost82's Profile:http://www.mindfrost82.com/member.php?userid=1
> >> View this thread:http://www.mindfrost82.com/showthread.php?t=113968
>
> > AT&T advertizes other high end phones like the Nokia N95 or N96?
>
> Did you say N96? I know I love my N95-3 but it too will become old and worn.
>
> Dave- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Nokia N96 redefines "high-end"
Posted Feb 11th 2008 4:15AM by Chris Ziegler
Filed under: Cellphones, Handhelds
http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/11/t...ines-high-end/

In message <[email protected]> David W Studeman
<[email protected]> wrote:

>DevilsPGD wrote:
>
>> In message <[email protected]> Tim
>> Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>> DevilsPGD <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> GSM means the iPhone is ready to go world-wide, rather then only in a
>>>> couple markets.
>>>
>>>But that "couple markets" includes the USA and Japan. That's a pretty
>>>good couple of markets!
>>
>> Japan is W-CDMA, which is not compatible with the CDMA protocol used in
>> US and Canada. In other words, from a development point of view, the
>> choice would be CDMA for US and Canada, CDMA for Japan, or GSM for most
>> of the cellular coverage across the planet, including US and Canada.
>
>W-CDMA is UMTS/HSDPA which mainly applies to data anyway.

While true, Japan's voice implementation is completely incompatible with
what is used in Canada and the US. You cannot take a phone from a CDMA
carrier in Canada or the US and roam in Japan, even if you are coming
from a carrier with roaming agreements.

However, some CDMA carriers do allow you to rent Japan-compatible CDMA
phones. These only work in Japan, and do not function on the CDMA
networks deployed in Canada or the US.

The "couple markets" I mentioned above is Canada and the US, and that's
pretty much it.

On 2008-02-17, David W Studeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> DevilsPGD wrote:
>
>> In message <[email protected]> Tim
>> Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>> DevilsPGD <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> GSM means the iPhone is ready to go world-wide, rather then only in a
>>>> couple markets.
>>>
>>>But that "couple markets" includes the USA and Japan. That's a pretty
>>>good couple of markets!
>>
>> Japan is W-CDMA, which is not compatible with the CDMA protocol used in
>> US and Canada. In other words, from a development point of view, the
>> choice would be CDMA for US and Canada, CDMA for Japan, or GSM for most
>> of the cellular coverage across the planet, including US and Canada.

There is actually at least one CDMA2000 carrier in Japan (KDDI), though
the frequency the service uses is different than the US. Note, however,
that Apple has so far done deals only with the (or close to the) largest
carriers in their market, and the list of CDMA2000 carriers which are
also the largest in their market is very, very short.

> W-CDMA is UMTS/HSDPA which mainly applies to data anyway.

?? UMTS provides both voice and data service, just like GSM and CDMA2000
provide both voice and data service.

Dennis Ferguson

Dennis Ferguson wrote:

> On 2008-02-17, David W Studeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> DevilsPGD wrote:
>>
>>> In message <[email protected]> Tim
>>> Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> DevilsPGD <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> GSM means the iPhone is ready to go world-wide, rather then only in a
>>>>> couple markets.
>>>>
>>>>But that "couple markets" includes the USA and Japan. That's a pretty
>>>>good couple of markets!
>>>
>>> Japan is W-CDMA, which is not compatible with the CDMA protocol used in
>>> US and Canada. In other words, from a development point of view, the
>>> choice would be CDMA for US and Canada, CDMA for Japan, or GSM for most
>>> of the cellular coverage across the planet, including US and Canada.
>
> There is actually at least one CDMA2000 carrier in Japan (KDDI), though
> the frequency the service uses is different than the US. Note, however,
> that Apple has so far done deals only with the (or close to the) largest
> carriers in their market, and the list of CDMA2000 carriers which are
> also the largest in their market is very, very short.
>
>> W-CDMA is UMTS/HSDPA which mainly applies to data anyway.
>
> ?? UMTS provides both voice and data service, just like GSM and CDMA2000
> provide both voice and data service.
>
> Dennis Ferguson


Yes I know this but didn't know anyone was using it for voice yet since GSM
is very efficient with voice using about 13kbs while using the voice
portion in most implementations. I know the carriers generally don't want
to give up bandwidth they don't need to.


Dave

On 2008-02-18, David W Studeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>> On 2008-02-17, David W Studeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> W-CDMA is UMTS/HSDPA which mainly applies to data anyway.
>>
>> ?? UMTS provides both voice and data service, just like GSM and CDMA2000
>> provide both voice and data service.
>
>
> Yes I know this but didn't know anyone was using it for voice yet since GSM
> is very efficient with voice using about 13kbs while using the voice
> portion in most implementations. I know the carriers generally don't want
> to give up bandwidth they don't need to.

I don't think (W-)CDMA codecs are inferior to GSM, in fact most people
think it is the other way round. (W-)CDMA codecs are variable bit rate;
their worst case is similar to GSM codecs but when you aren't talking
(which should be half the time, more or less) their bit rate drops off
to close to nothing, leaving more of the channel for others to use. Unless
they've implemented some new, fancy feature very recently, GSM channels
are fixed speed and consume the same bandwidth whether you're talking
or not.

In any case, while I don't know how it works in North America, in Europe
the UMTS services and the GSM services are mutually exclusive alternatives.
That is, if you let your phone register with a UMTS network you use UMTS
for voice and data, otherwise you let your phone register with a GSM network
and use GSM for voice and data. Some operators (including my favorite for
roaming in the UK/Europe) are UMTS-only.

Dennis Ferguson

On 2008-02-18, DevilsPGD <[email protected]> wrote:
> In message <[email protected]> David W Studeman
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>DevilsPGD wrote:
>>> Japan is W-CDMA, which is not compatible with the CDMA protocol used in
>>> US and Canada. In other words, from a development point of view, the
>>> choice would be CDMA for US and Canada, CDMA for Japan, or GSM for most
>>> of the cellular coverage across the planet, including US and Canada.
>>
>>W-CDMA is UMTS/HSDPA which mainly applies to data anyway.
>
> While true, Japan's voice implementation is completely incompatible with
> what is used in Canada and the US. You cannot take a phone from a CDMA
> carrier in Canada or the US and roam in Japan, even if you are coming
> from a carrier with roaming agreements.

The UMTS (W-CDMA) service in Japan is, however, perfectly compatible
(DoCoMo's idiosyncrasies aside) with European UMTS service, which
is the same as the 3G UMTS services operated by Rogers and AT&T in
North America except that it runs at a different frequency (just
like the difference between European and NA GSM). While there are
very few phones which support both the Euro and NA UMTS bands at
this point, AT&T does sell one (the 8525) which will work in Japan,
and any recent SIM from a North American GSM operator will get service
in Japan when plugged into the right kind of phone.

Apart from the "CDMA" in the name of the air interface, the W-CDMA
service in Japan has a lot more in common with GSM services than it
has with CDMA2000 services. I assume when Apple delivers their 3G
iPhone later this year they'll have something to sell in Japan and
Korea as well.

Dennis Ferguson

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 02:13:41 -0600, Avi Goldstein
<[email protected]> wrote in
<2008021702134116807-aviationwizard@msncom>:

>On 2008-02-16 16:40:46 -0600, Traveling Man <[email protected]> said:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:57:30 -0500, Diamond Dave wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:48:09 -0800 (PST), 4phun <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The whole GSM vs CDMA debate is pretty much over for most of the
>>>> world, all you have to look at is the graph of the competing
>>>> standards:
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...technology.svg
>>>>
>>>> Notice the other line about subscriber growth too.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They probably would have gone CDMA if they struck a deal with Verizon.
>>
>> Yep. It's all about money.
>
>Yeah, Apple actually approached Verizon before AT&T/Cingular about
>releasing the iPhone, but Verizon didn't like Apple's terms, and told
>them to fly a kite.

Nope. That's just Verizon trying to spin away it's iPhone loss to AT&T
Wireless.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:38:51 -0500, "Carl"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>Scott in SoCal wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:57:30 -0500, Diamond Dave
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> They probably would have gone CDMA if they struck a deal with
>>> Verizon.
>>
>> Eventually Apple will make both, just like Motorola does with the
>> RAZR.
>>
>I could be wrong about this, but I believe AT&T has a 5 year exclusivity
>agreement with Apple regarding the iPhone. If so, I wouldn't count on seeing
>a CDMA version for quite some time to come.

If ever -- CDMA2000 is in decline, with Verizon pretty much the only one
left standing.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 01:58:36 +0000, mindfrost82
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>Apple wanted too much control over the phone and the profits, so Sprint
>and Verizon both declined the offer because of the amount of control
>Apple wanted, at least that's what I read back when it first launched.
>So its not so much GSM vs CDMA as it was control over the product.

Sprint wasn't a player. Apple did a beauty contest between the two
largest US carriers. Verizon lost and AT&T Wireless won. What you read
was just Verizon trying to spin that loss away.

>If you've noticed, all commercials for it seemed to have been by Apple.

Not terribly surprising.

>I haven't seen any AT&T commercials advertising the iPhone like they do
>other phones.

There's quite a bit of promotion in AT&T Wireless stores.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:55:06 GMT, Dennis Ferguson
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>On 2008-02-18, David W Studeman <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Yes I know this but didn't know anyone was using it for voice yet since GSM
>> is very efficient with voice using about 13kbs while using the voice
>> portion in most implementations. I know the carriers generally don't want
>> to give up bandwidth they don't need to.
>
>I don't think (W-)CDMA codecs are inferior to GSM, in fact most people
>think it is the other way round. (W-)CDMA codecs are variable bit rate;
>their worst case is similar to GSM codecs but when you aren't talking
>(which should be half the time, more or less) their bit rate drops off
>to close to nothing, leaving more of the channel for others to use. Unless
>they've implemented some new, fancy feature very recently, GSM channels
>are fixed speed and consume the same bandwidth whether you're talking
>or not.

GSM now has variable rate codecs and channel sharing.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:42:23 -0800, David W Studeman
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>As AT&T is quickly learning as well just how rotten doing business with
>Apple is. I never thought I'd see the day when I considered a US cellular
>carrier the lesser of two evils in any debate.

On what basis? I've seen no evidence that AT&T is dissatisfied with
Apple; to the contrary, the iPhone has been a winner for AT&T.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

4phun wrote:
> The whole GSM vs CDMA debate is pretty much over for most of the
> world, all you have to look at is the graph of the competing
> standards:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...technology.svg
>
> Notice the other line about subscriber growth too.

For now it's over, but if future plans come to fruition, CDMA's
domination may be short lived.

The U.S. carrier with the most data users, Verizon, has chosen LTE for
4G. Most of the world's carriers also plan to abandon CDMA for LTE when
they move to 4G.

While royalty rates will come down, Qualcomm still owns a significant
about of the IP for LTE, with its recent acquisitions.

David W Studeman wrote:

> As AT&T is quickly learning as well just how rotten doing business with
> Apple is. I never thought I'd see the day when I considered a US cellular
> carrier the lesser of two evils in any debate.

AT&T entered the agreement voluntarily. The iPhone did give them a lot
of upside in new retail subscribers, which is where they have always
trailed Verizon. They still trail them, but the rate at which Verizon is
increasing their lead is slowing.

The whole AT&T/Verizon/iPhone debacle reminds me of the the Seinfeld
episode where Jerry finds out that he's dating a woman that Newman
turned down. After Verizon turned down Apple for the iPhone, AT&T
grabbed it without understanding why Verizon passed on it.

Apple is hardly the only company that is able to dictate favorable terms
for themselves in business dealings.

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:50:36 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>David W Studeman wrote:
>
>> As AT&T is quickly learning as well just how rotten doing business with
>> Apple is. I never thought I'd see the day when I considered a US cellular
>> carrier the lesser of two evils in any debate.
>
>AT&T entered the agreement voluntarily. The iPhone did give them a lot
>of upside in new retail subscribers, which is where they have always
>trailed Verizon. They still trail them, but the rate at which Verizon is
>increasing their lead is slowing.
>
>The whole AT&T/Verizon/iPhone debacle reminds me of the the Seinfeld
>episode where Jerry finds out that he's dating a woman that Newman
>turned down. After Verizon turned down Apple for the iPhone, AT&T
>grabbed it without understanding why Verizon passed on it.

We'll never know for sure, but what probably happened is that AT&T beat
out Verizon in the beauty contest. Verizon has tried to spin that loss
away by claiming that it didn't really want it. Right.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford