Why did Apple choose GSM for the iPhone?

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.

---

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

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.

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.

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.

"Scott in SoCal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

Or dual (one phone that does both GSM and CDMA).

In article <[email protected]>, D. Stussy
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Or dual (one phone that does both GSM and CDMA).

Since both AT&T and Verizon are planning to use the LTE standard in the
future I doubt that Apple will ever make a CDMA phone.

--
Charles

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.

Avi Goldstein wrote:

> 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.


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.


Dave

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 01:55:38 +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.

--
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 Sun, 17 Feb 2008 01:55:38 +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.
>

1. Sprint was approached by Apple. They turned them down.

2. What you read in hundreds of articles (many of are linked ot in the
archives of this newsgroup) was not spin, but an accurate protrayal of the
facts. Those that call it spin are either in denial or uninformed.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:20:58 -0600, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 01:55:38 +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.
>
>1. Sprint was approached by Apple. They turned them down.

Proof? But of course you don't have any.

>2. What you read in hundreds of articles (many of are linked ot in the
>archives of this newsgroup) was not spin, but an accurate protrayal of the
>facts. Those that call it spin are either in denial or uninformed.

There was only one article, based on spin from Verizon, repeated over
and over by Verizon apologists.

--
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]:


>
> There was only one article, based on spin from Verizon, repeated over
> and over by Verizon apologists.
>

Really?

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm

http://online.wsj.com/public/article...euxzmjNFZTZhA_
2z8OBtD6GK900_20070224.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...entry_id=13019

http://www.iphonematters.com/article...pulls_a_verizo
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?

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...euxzmjNFZTZhA_
>2z8OBtD6GK900_20070224.html
>
>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...entry_id=13019
>
>http://www.iphonematters.com/article...pulls_a_verizo
>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. 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.

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