Why did Apple choose GSM for the iPhone?

John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following
in news:[email protected]:

> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:05:07 -0600, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the
>>following in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> There was only one article, based on spin from Verizon, repeated
>>> over and over by Verizon apologists.
>>
>>Really?
>
> Really.
>
>>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
>>
>>http://online.wsj.com/public/article...8001288511981-
euxzmjNFZTZhA
>>_ 2z8OBtD6GK900_20070224.html
>>
>>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...d=19&entry_id=
13
>>019
>>
>>
http://www.iphonematters.com/article...tly_pulls_a_ve
>>rizo n_with_apple_over_the_iphone_392/
>>
>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01...d_down_iphone/
>>
>>Want me to keep going? Got anything to refute it besides your own
>>uninformed opinion?
>
> Those are all the same single source.

Actually, I count at least three different sources in the list below.

> Key phrases there are:
> * "According to Verizon"
> * "Verizon Communications president and chief operating officer
> Denny Strigl said"
> * "Verizon vice president Jim Gerace (one of many veeps at the
> company)
> said"
> * "We can only assume"
> * "It seems"
> * "Verizon Wireless apparently"
> * "according to Jim Gerace, a Verizon Wireless vice president"
> They actually support what I'm saying.
> Read more carefully before posting.
>

And your evidence to the contrary? Where is YOUR evidence that this is
not the way it went down. Show me the articles that refute this. You
can't, because they don't exist.

Pull your head out of the sand and join the real world.

---

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

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:36:42 -0600, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following
>in news:[email protected]:

>And your evidence to the contrary? Where is YOUR evidence that this is
>not the way it went down. Show me the articles that refute this. You
>can't, because they don't exist.

I have no obligation to prove a negative, and I'm not going to waste my
time on unsubstantiated spin. You're the one touting it, so the onus is
on you.

>Pull your head out of the sand and join the real world.

Take your own advice. If you really think Verizon is a good source,
then you're more naive than I thought.

Regardless, I'm not going to waste any more time on this silliness. You
can have the last word, and rant on without me.

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

John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
news:[email protected]:

> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:36:42 -0600, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following
>>in news:[email protected]:
>
>>And your evidence to the contrary? Where is YOUR evidence that this is
>>not the way it went down. Show me the articles that refute this. You
>>can't, because they don't exist.
>
> I have no obligation to prove a negative, and I'm not going to waste my
> time on unsubstantiated spin. You're the one touting it, so the onus is
> on you.

Then I have proven the point through the use of multiple media sources.
Verizon was the first choice. No need for you to argue otherwise now.

>
>>Pull your head out of the sand and join the real world.
>
> Take your own advice. If you really think Verizon is a good source,
> then you're more naive than I thought.

Actually, I am considering APple and AT&T to be even better sources in
their silence.

>
> Regardless, I'm not going to waste any more time on this silliness. You
> can have the last word, and rant on without me.
>

You know, that pouty and childish ending to your post makes you appear a
little less than intelligent.

Translation: I have none. But I know. And that's the way it's going to be.
Google Is not his friend in this case as Google says the same thing as well.
Verizon was asked 1st.

Keep on him. He will give up and he will say you can have the last word.
Trust me, I've seen it all to many times in the past. His back's in the
corner and he can't get out.



"The Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following
> in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:05:07 -0600, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the
>>>following in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> There was only one article, based on spin from Verizon, repeated
>>>> over and over by Verizon apologists.
>>>
>>>Really?
>>
>> Really.
>>
>>>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
>>>
>>>http://online.wsj.com/public/article...8001288511981-
> euxzmjNFZTZhA
>>>_ 2z8OBtD6GK900_20070224.html
>>>
>>>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...d=19&entry_id=
> 13
>>>019
>>>
>>>
> http://www.iphonematters.com/article...tly_pulls_a_ve
>>>rizo n_with_apple_over_the_iphone_392/
>>>
>>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01...d_down_iphone/
>>>
>>>Want me to keep going? Got anything to refute it besides your own
>>>uninformed opinion?
>>
>> Those are all the same single source.
>
> Actually, I count at least three different sources in the list below.
>
>> Key phrases there are:
>> * "According to Verizon"
>> * "Verizon Communications president and chief operating officer
>> Denny Strigl said"
>> * "Verizon vice president Jim Gerace (one of many veeps at the
>> company)
>> said"
>> * "We can only assume"
>> * "It seems"
>> * "Verizon Wireless apparently"
>> * "according to Jim Gerace, a Verizon Wireless vice president"
>> They actually support what I'm saying.
>> Read more carefully before posting.
>>
>
> And your evidence to the contrary? Where is YOUR evidence that this is
> not the way it went down. Show me the articles that refute this. You
> can't, because they don't exist.
>
> Pull your head out of the sand and join the real world.

OK, so I'm JN


John Navas wrote:
> 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.
> Miss America contest was won by Apple, and AT&T
>> If you've noticed, all commercials for it seemed to have been by Apple.
>
> Not terribly surprising.
> IBM/Microsoft decided not to get in on the commercials.


>> 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.
>Apple does quite a bit of promotion in stores and on TV, can yall read?

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.

"Kevin Weaver" <[email protected]> amazed us all with the
following in news:[email protected]:

> Translation: I have none. But I know. And that's the way it's going to
> be. Google Is not his friend in this case as Google says the same
> thing as well. Verizon was asked 1st.
>
> Keep on him. He will give up and he will say you can have the last
> word. Trust me, I've seen it all to many times in the past. His back's
> in the corner and he can't get out.
>
>
>

Yeah- I'm well aware of his tactics. He's already tried to give me the
brushoff, which means that I struck a nerve somewhere.

In message <[email protected]> John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

If you don't count TELUS and Bell, plus a handful of smaller carriers.

In alt.cellular.attws 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.
>
>

Apple is nothing if not about planned obsolecense and upgrades. With a
company like Verizon, users will have to go through the hassle of calling up
Verizon, buying a Verizon blessed [i]phone and then get it activated. With
GSM, Apple simply releases a new iPhonse [unlocked ... but that is in the
future] and a user is free to just take the SIM out of the old one and put it
in the new one.

That alone seems like a major reason to me.

Also, since Europe is a major market for Apple, they are predominantly GSM, so
it also make sense from that perspective.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

In the land of the dark the Ship of the Sun is driven by the Grateful Dead.
-- Egyptian Book of the Dead

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

> Apple is nothing if not about planned obsolecense and upgrades. With a
> company like Verizon, users will have to go through the hassle of calling up
> Verizon, buying a Verizon blessed [i]phone and then get it activated. With
> GSM, Apple simply releases a new iPhonse [unlocked ... but that is in the
> future] and a user is free to just take the SIM out of the old one and put it
> in the new one.

I've activated many phones on Verizon without ever calling them, or
having to open the phone. It takes just a few seconds on-line to
activate the phone.

Buying a new iPhone from a Verizon store would not be materially more
difficult than buying one from an Apple or AT&T store.

> That alone seems like a major reason to me.

If on-line activation versus swapping a SIM seems like a major reason,
then you haven't been paying attention, since Apple first approached
Verizon for the iPhone they obviously weren't too concerned about this
issue. The major reason they wanted Verizon was because Verizon has
significantly more retail subscribers (and continues to increase their
lead in retail customers versus AT&T); it had nothing to do with GSM
versus CDMA. It's all about subscriber growth and sales potential. They
did what any company would do--try to get their product into the channel
with the largest sales potential.

> Also, since Europe is a major market for Apple, they are predominantly GSM, so
> it also make sense from that perspective.

Perhaps, but obviously Apple knew they could easily do both a GSM and
CDMA version of the phone. Look at other countries, where Apple always
first approaches the carrier with the largest sales potential, and if
turned down they go down the line until they find a carrier that will
agree to their revenue sharing terms. Also, one of the reasons the
iPhone has done poorly in Europe is because of the lack of 3G, so it's
unlikely that they did much research into the European market.

In alt.cellular.attws SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
>> Apple is nothing if not about planned obsolecense and upgrades. With a
>> company like Verizon, users will have to go through the hassle of calling up
>> Verizon, buying a Verizon blessed [i]phone and then get it activated. With
>> GSM, Apple simply releases a new iPhonse [unlocked ... but that is in the
>> future] and a user is free to just take the SIM out of the old one and put it
>> in the new one.
>
> I've activated many phones on Verizon without ever calling them, or
> having to open the phone. It takes just a few seconds on-line to
> activate the phone.
>

Right ... but it has to be a Verizon approved phone.

> Buying a new iPhone from a Verizon store would not be materially more
> difficult than buying one from an Apple or AT&T store.
>

True ... but later, when it is not AT&T exclusive, you can buy one anywhere
and just put your SIM in it. Another major market for Apple is Europe, which
is mostly GSM, so that is another advantage to their choice of technology.


>> That alone seems like a major reason to me.
>
> If on-line activation versus swapping a SIM seems like a major reason,
> then you haven't been paying attention, since Apple first approached
> Verizon for the iPhone they obviously weren't too concerned about this
> issue. The major reason they wanted Verizon was because Verizon has
> significantly more retail subscribers (and continues to increase their
> lead in retail customers versus AT&T); it had nothing to do with GSM
> versus CDMA. It's all about subscriber growth and sales potential. They
> did what any company would do--try to get their product into the channel
> with the largest sales potential.
>

You missed my point. You can only activate Verizon approved phones on their
network [even via the online tool]. Verizon has promised to open this up, but
they also promised to go to pro-rated early termination fees and I haven't
seen that materialize ... so vapor is vapor until otherwise revealed.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

In the land of the dark the Ship of the Sun is driven by the Grateful Dead.
-- Egyptian Book of the Dead

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 06:42:24 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>If on-line activation versus swapping a SIM seems like a major reason,
>then you haven't been paying attention, since Apple first approached
>Verizon for the iPhone they obviously weren't too concerned about this
>issue. The major reason they wanted Verizon was because Verizon has
>significantly more retail subscribers (and continues to increase their
>lead in retail customers versus AT&T); it had nothing to do with GSM
>versus CDMA. It's all about subscriber growth and sales potential. They
>did what any company would do--try to get their product into the channel
>with the largest sales potential.

That's actually all about Verizon spin, trying to explain away how it
lost the iPhone beauty contest to AT&T. GSM was clearly a much better
fit for Apple, especially with CDMA2000 in serious decline.

>> Also, since Europe is a major market for Apple, they are predominantly GSM, so
>> it also make sense from that perspective.
>
>Perhaps, but obviously Apple knew they could easily do both a GSM and
>CDMA version of the phone.

Not so easy, actually, especially because of battery life issues.

>Look at other countries, where Apple always
>first approaches the carrier with the largest sales potential, and if
>turned down they go down the line until they find a carrier that will
>agree to their revenue sharing terms. Also, one of the reasons the
>iPhone has done poorly in Europe is because of the lack of 3G, so it's
>unlikely that they did much research into the European market.

You obviously don't know Apple very well.

--
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

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

> You missed my point. You can only activate Verizon approved phones on their
> network [even via the online tool]. Verizon has promised to open this up, but
> they also promised to go to pro-rated early termination fees and I haven't
> seen that materialize ... so vapor is vapor until otherwise revealed.

I didn't miss it. Technically you can only activate iPhones on AT&T.
Apple didn't care about the phone being able to be used on multiple
networks, in fact they made attempts to prevent this from occurring.

Perhaps one reason Apple wanted Verizon so badly was because preventing
the use of the phone on other CDMA networks would have been much easier.
Indeed, maybe the reason they wanted Verizon in the U.S. was because the
U.S. model phones could then not be used in Europe or much of Asia, on
GSM networks, with Apple losing their cut. Look at where most of the
unactivated iPhones ended up.

You're also mistaken about ETFs on Verizon. Pro-rated termination fees
are already in effect at Verizon (for more than a year in fact, since
November 2006), the ETF goes down $5/month, i.e. at 23 months you'd pay
$175-($5 x 23)=$60. AT&T and T-Mobile have announced pro-rated ETFs, but
haven't implemented them yet.

From: "http://www.verizonwireless.com/"

"AN EARLY TERMINATION FEE WILL APPLY IF YOU CHOOSE TO END YOUR SERVICE
BEFORE BECOMING A MONTH–TO–MONTH CUSTOMER, OR IF WE TERMINATE IT EARLY
FOR GOOD CAUSE. FOR SERVICE ACTIVATED PRIOR TO 11/16/06, THE EARLY
TERMINATION FEE IS $175 PER WIRELESS PHONE NUMBER. FOR SERVICE ACTIVATED
ON OR AFTER 11/16/06, OR FOR LINES OF SERVICE WITH MINIMUM TERMS
EXTENDED ON OR AFTER 11/16/06, THE EARLY TERMINATION FEE IS $175, WHICH
WILL BE REDUCED BY $5 FOR EACH FULL MONTH TOWARD YOUR MINIMUM TERM THAT
YOU COMPLETE."

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:39:02 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Perhaps one reason Apple wanted Verizon so badly was because preventing
>the use of the phone on other CDMA networks would have been much easier.

Apple didn't want Verizon "so badly" -- it selected AT&T Wireless.
There are few other CDMA2000 networks of any significance.

--
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

Carl wrote:

> 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.

It's not clear if Apple is precluded from making a CDMA model or just
precluded from a deal with any other U.S. carrier for five years. If
it's the latter, they could market a CDMA version in say Korea, and have
it make its way back to the U.S. without their explicit approval.

Apple desperately wanted Verizon for the iPhone because Verizon has the
largest retail subscriber base, and continues to increase its lead over
2nd place AT&T in new retail subscribers. The reason that sales have not
met expectations is because they had to go with AT&T. If you look at all
the independent surveys on network quality, you can understand why
subscribers aren't switching from Verizon to AT&T in droves just to get
an iPhone.

If they sold a Korean CDMA version for a higher price and didn't stop it
from being gray-marketed into the U.S., that could make up for the lack
of revenue sharing, and greatly increase the sales of the iPhone.

In any case, it's becoming moot as similar devices, but with more
capability, and more applications, are eclipsing the iPhone. The
Sony-Ericsson XPERIA™ X1 looks especially good.