Why iPhone for Cingular Only?

In article <[email protected]>,
"Kevin" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Moustaffa Moustamegwomfa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Why is the iphone going to be offered by Cingular only? I understand that
> > Verizon is the number-one cell phone service provider both for superb
> > coverage and high-speed data. Why would Steve Jobs choose Cingular? If I
> > were Steve Jobs, I would want to release my iphone an the best network and
> > according to all reviews, that is undeniably Verizon.
>
> If I were Steve Jobs, I would go with the company that offered me the most
> money. And he did.

Wake up.
Apple is doing well.

Jobs is smart. He would never jeopardize a long term project like this
simply to save a couple bucks on the front end.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

---

› See More: Why iPhone for Cingular Only?

Yazzan Gable wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Moustaffa Moustamegwomfa" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Why is the iphone going to be offered by Cingular only? I understand that
>> Verizon is the number-one cell phone service provider both for superb
>> coverage and high-speed data. Why would Steve Jobs choose Cingular? If I
>> were Steve Jobs, I would want to release my iphone an the best network and
>> according to all reviews, that is undeniably Verizon.
>
>
> Hmmm. Could it be that the iPhone is quad-band GSM and there are more
> GSM phones in the world than there are Verizon phones that run on their
> specific flavour of CDMA?

No. Apple knew that when it approached Verizon prior to approaching
Cingular.

> Also that Cingular/ATT would probably NOT cripple the phone's bluetooth
> abilities and NOT insist that the wi-fi be taken off...

LOL, yeah that's a real possibility.

One thing I don't like about the iPhone is that the SIM card is
non-removable. If you're traveling overseas you can't stick in a prepaid
SIM card, you have to roam internationally, at considerable cost.



[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
non-spam posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going
away, and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding
AT&T's Wireless Service.]

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yazzan Gable wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Moustaffa Moustamegwomfa" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Why is the iphone going to be offered by Cingular only? I understand
>>> that Verizon is the number-one cell phone service provider both for
>>> superb coverage and high-speed data. Why would Steve Jobs choose
>>> Cingular? If I were Steve Jobs, I would want to release my iphone an the
>>> best network and according to all reviews, that is undeniably Verizon.
Sprint has better data speeds, but yeah they have good coverage.

>> Hmmm. Could it be that the iPhone is quad-band GSM and there are more
>> GSM phones in the world than there are Verizon phones that run on their
> No. Apple knew that when it approached Verizon prior to approaching
> Cingular.
Yeah far more gsm in the world.

>> Also that Cingular/ATT would probably NOT cripple the phone's bluetooth
>> abilities and NOT insist that the wi-fi be taken off...

thats because you can use any unlocked gsm phones on AT&T (Cingular)'s
network as long as it supports
its frequencies.

> LOL, yeah that's a real possibility.
>
> One thing I don't like about the iPhone is that the SIM card is
> non-removable. If you're traveling overseas you can't stick in a prepaid
> SIM card, you have to roam internationally, at considerable cost.

It has a sim card tray. And I'm sure there will be hacks out rather quickly
that will unlock the iphone, and there's nothing Apple can do about it.
Usually but I'm sure not with the iphone, AT&T will provide unlock codes 90
days after service starts. There is no law that prevents you from unlocking
any
phone, its a DMCA exemption.

Unless you are dying for the iphone, and I admit its nice, I would wait abit
before getting one. My kids Samsung Sync's on AT&T do most of what the
iphone
does with out alot of the pizzazz and it is 3g hsdpa, and has stereo
bluetooth, but no wifi. And they were almost free.

Michael Paris wrote:

> does with out alot of the pizzazz and it is 3g hsdpa, and has stereo
> bluetooth, but no wifi. And they were almost free.

The next version of the iPhone will almost certainly have 3G. It was
rather amusing to read one reviewers comment about using the iPhone on
AT&T's EDGE network:

"David Pogue of the New York Times called AT&T's EDGE network
"excruciatingly slow." "You almost ache for a dial-up modem," he said."

Of course it's not AT&T's fault that Apple didn't put HSDPA into the
iPhone. I think one of the reasons that Apple approached Verizon first
was because the Verizon EV-DO network has far more coverage than the
AT&T HSDPA network. Apple may have been reluctant to include HSDPA on
the iPhone because of fears of complaints from users that they couldn't
get an HSDPA connection. Or it may have been a compromise to be able to
differentiate service plans, and offer lower cost plans for the iPhone
than are offered for the HSDPA network.

> was because the Verizon EV-DO network has far more coverage than the
> AT&T HSDPA network. Apple may have been reluctant to include HSDPA on the
> iPhone because of fears of complaints from users that they couldn't get an
> HSDPA connection. Or it may have been a compromise to be able to
> differentiate service plans, and offer lower cost plans for the iPhone
> than are offered for the HSDPA network.

I don't think thats the reason but, it could be, but to complain about
AT&T's slow network under edge is not their fault, its the fault of the
phone not supporting 3g. Maybe EVDO is faster then AT&T's , but not to the
point of making much of a difference. And if that is the sole criteria,
Sprints EVDO is faster yet, but again, for a phone, doubtful it would make a
big real world difference. Maybe if tethering.

I do agree, the next iphone will support 3g hsdpa or whatever is out at the
time.

Another critisim is lack of flash, java and aps. Well the first two
probably will be solved by the summers end, the last will take sometime, but
no different then when PalmOS or WM first came out, it will take developers
time.

This phone is a fashion statement as much as being what it is, and this is
nothing new, in phones, watches and other electronic items, I don't intend
on getting one at this time, I don't think those who want one out of the
gate are wrong either, good luck to them, and if you see me, let me play
with it. :-) Meanwhile I will be very happy with my 8525 and my carry light
Samsung SGH-A727 which I switch sims back and forth according to me needs at
the time.

Charles wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, SMS
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I think one of the reasons that Apple approached Verizon first
>
> You keep saying that but you don't know if Apple approached Verizon
> first.

"http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/30/verizon_turned_down_iphone/"
among many other reports.

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

> "http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/30/verizon_turned_down_iphone/"
> among many other reports.

The Register is not reliable, for example the article it states Rogers
has signed up in Canada, which is not confirmed. I think you are
confusing Verizon turning it down, with Verizon being offered it first.
It is more likely that it was offered to both Cingular and Verizon,
probably around the same time.

--
Charles

In article <280620072203091974%[email protected]>,
Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
> You keep saying that but you don't know if Apple approached Verizon
> first.

Yes we do:

<http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm>


--
--Tim Smith

In article <[email protected]>,
Tim Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <280620072203091974%[email protected]>,
> Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
> > You keep saying that but you don't know if Apple approached Verizon
> > first.
>
> Yes we do:
>
> <http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm>

That is not proof that they approached Verizon first. It is likely
they negotiated with both Cingular and Verizon, playing both against
each other.

--
Charles

On Jun 23, 8:21 pm, "Moustaffa Moustamegwomfa"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Why is the iphone going to be offered by Cingular only? I understand that
> Verizon is the number-one cell phone service provider both for superb
> coverage and high-speed data. Why would Steve Jobs choose Cingular? If I
> were Steve Jobs, I would want to release my iphone an the best network and
> according to all reviews, that is undeniably Verizon.

Apple originally offered it to Verizon but Apple wanted a large amount
of money per person who had the iPhone and Verizon didn't like the
requirements Apple put on the contract, so Apple moved on and Cingular
accepted.

Mitchell Regenbogen wrote:
> Charles <[email protected]> wrote in news:080720070800099983%
> [email protected]lid:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Tim Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <280620072203091974%[email protected]>,
>>> Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> You keep saying that but you don't know if Apple approached Verizon
>>>> first.
>>> Yes we do:
>>>
>>> <http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm>
>> That is not proof that they approached Verizon first. It is likely
>> they negotiated with both Cingular and Verizon, playing both against
>> each other.
>
> Definitely a possibility, if you live under a rock.

There is a lot more evidence that Apple approached Verizon first, and
actually rushed out the GSM design when it didn't work out with Verizon.
Someone in ba.internet was analyzing the FCC applications as well, which
showed the same thing, Cingular was essentially a last-minute switch for
Apple.

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 22:37:28 -0700, Tim Smith
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>In article <280620072203091974%[email protected]>,
> Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You keep saying that but you don't know if Apple approached Verizon
>> first.
>
>Yes we do:
>
><http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm>

That's just Verizon spin, not fact.

"Move along, folks, nothing new here."

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

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:15:24 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Mitchell Regenbogen wrote:
>> Charles <[email protected]> wrote in news:080720070800099983%
>> [email protected]lid:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Tim Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <280620072203091974%[email protected]>,
>>>> Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> You keep saying that but you don't know if Apple approached Verizon
>>>>> first.
>>>> Yes we do:
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm>
>>> That is not proof that they approached Verizon first. It is likely
>>> they negotiated with both Cingular and Verizon, playing both against
>>> each other.
>>
>> Definitely a possibility, if you live under a rock.
>
>There is a lot more evidence that Apple approached Verizon first, and
>actually rushed out the GSM design when it didn't work out with Verizon.
>Someone in ba.internet was analyzing the FCC applications as well, which
>showed the same thing, Cingular was essentially a last-minute switch for
>Apple.

Nope. Just speculation unsupported by any real evidence, as I pointed
out in my rebuttal.

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

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:15:24 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>Mitchell Regenbogen wrote:
>>> Charles <[email protected]> wrote in news:080720070800099983%
>>> [email protected]lid:
>>>
>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> Tim Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <280620072203091974%[email protected]>,
>>>>> Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> You keep saying that but you don't know if Apple approached Verizon
>>>>>> first.
>>>>> Yes we do:
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm>
>>>> That is not proof that they approached Verizon first. It is likely
>>>> they negotiated with both Cingular and Verizon, playing both against
>>>> each other.
>>>
>>> Definitely a possibility, if you live under a rock.
>>
>>There is a lot more evidence that Apple approached Verizon first, and
>>actually rushed out the GSM design when it didn't work out with Verizon.
>>Someone in ba.internet was analyzing the FCC applications as well, which
>>showed the same thing, Cingular was essentially a last-minute switch for
>>Apple.
>
> Nope. Just speculation unsupported by any real evidence, as I pointed
> out in my rebuttal.
>

Yeah -the only real evidence comes from interviews with Apple and Verizon
folks. What would they know about the situation?

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:28:02 -0000, earththing <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>On Jun 23, 8:21 pm, "Moustaffa Moustamegwomfa"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> Why is the iphone going to be offered by Cingular only? I understand that
>> Verizon is the number-one cell phone service provider both for superb
>> coverage and high-speed data. Why would Steve Jobs choose Cingular? If I
>> were Steve Jobs, I would want to release my iphone an the best network and
>> according to all reviews, that is undeniably Verizon.
>
>Apple originally offered it to Verizon but Apple wanted a large amount
>of money per person who had the iPhone and Verizon didn't like the
>requirements Apple put on the contract, so Apple moved on and Cingular
>accepted.

That's Verizon spin not fact. What undoubtedly actually happened is
that Apple held a beauty contest that AT&T/Cingular won and Verizon
lost, a big downer for Verizon.

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