reply to discussion

Post a reply to the thread: Why did Apple choose GSM for the iPhone?

Your Message

If you are already a member Click here to log in
 
  • :)
  • :heart:
  • :(
  • ;)
  • :p
  • :cool:
  • :rolleyes:
  • :ah:
  • :evil:
  • :flamemad:
  • :sad:
  • :laugh:
  • :D
  • :smart:
  • :blush:

Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces)

You may choose an icon for your message from this list

Additional Options

  • Will turn www.example.com into [URL]http://www.example.com[/URL].

  • If selected, :) will not be replaced with smile

Subscription
Rate Thread

You may rate this thread from 1-star (Terrible) to 5-stars (Excellent) if you wish to do so.

Topic Review (Newest First)

  • 02-20-2008, 05:39 PM
    John Navas
    On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:10:10 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
    wrote in <[email protected]>:

    >Todd Allcock wrote:
    >
    >> Personally, I believe they approached Verizon first to "get it out of the
    >> way." Verizon'shistory of crippling handsets made them very unlikely to
    >> play well with the iPhone, and I suspect Apple didn't expect much from
    >> Verizon, but gave them a shot and realized quickly further talks were
    >> pointless.

    >
    >Almost certainly the reason they approached Verizon first was because
    >they knew two things:


    We have only the word of Verizon on that, which is meaningless.

    >1. Verizon has the most retail subscribers of any U.S. carrier, and
    >continues to add more retail subscribers than AT&T. This meant the
    >largest possible market in the U.S. for the iPhone.


    The difference compared to AT&T is again meaningless, and AT&T is
    actually ahead.

    >2. Very few Verizon subscribers would give up the Verizon network in
    >order to get an iPhone, while AT&T subscribers have less allegiance. The
    >churn numbers confirm this.


    The churn numbers actually say nothing of the sort -- they are low for
    both carriers.

    3. The worldwide market is GSM/UMTS, and CDMA2000 is a dead end, making
    AT&T a much more attractive part of a global strategy.

    4. Verizon modifies ("cripples" according to you) handsets, something
    that Apple won't tolerate.

    >I'm not sure what conclusions you think I'm drawing that are unsupported
    >by the citations I include.


    All of them.

    >> Yes, and the difference in customers between the top two carriers, either
    >> retail or total, is relatively negligible- within 10%.

    >
    >It's actually over 10%. At the end of 2007, AT&T wireless had 55 million
    >retail post paid customers, while Verizon had 61 million.


    Nope. You're cooking the books. (What a shock.)

    --
    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
  • 02-20-2008, 02:10 PM
    SMS
    Todd Allcock wrote:

    > Personally, I believe they approached Verizon first to "get it out of the
    > way." Verizon'shistory of crippling handsets made them very unlikely to
    > play well with the iPhone, and I suspect Apple didn't expect much from
    > Verizon, but gave them a shot and realized quickly further talks were
    > pointless.


    Almost certainly the reason they approached Verizon first was because
    they knew two things:

    1. Verizon has the most retail subscribers of any U.S. carrier, and
    continues to add more retail subscribers than AT&T. This meant the
    largest possible market in the U.S. for the iPhone.

    2. Very few Verizon subscribers would give up the Verizon network in
    order to get an iPhone, while AT&T subscribers have less allegiance. The
    churn numbers confirm this.

    I'm not sure what conclusions you think I'm drawing that are unsupported
    by the citations I include.

    > Yes, and the difference in customers between the top two carriers, either
    > retail or total, is relatively negligible- within 10%.


    It's actually over 10%. At the end of 2007, AT&T wireless had 55 million
    retail post paid customers, while Verizon had 61 million.

    > While true, and while I agree Verizon has a stronger network, it's not by
    > anywhere near the margin you suggest. If Verizon was as superior as you
    > believe, why haven't the 50+ million "retail" AT&T customers jumped ship
    > yet? All contracts run out eventually, so why does ANYONE re-up on AT&T's
    > "inferior" network.


    A few reasons right off the top of my head:

    1. A better selection of handsets
    2. More worldwide roaming
    3. Adequate service in the areas where they use their phones

    > The fact that T-Mo, the carrier with the weakest network, consistently
    > ranks at or near the top of customer satisfaction surveys points out that
    > even their network is satisfactory.


    No, what it proves is that there is more to customer satisfaction than
    the actual quality of the network.

    > Now if I want to close with an SMS-like conclusion from the above, I could
    > suggest that the Verizon customer service experience must be pretty
    > lackluster if their superior network doesn't give them a commanding lead
    > over T-Mo and their inferior network in satisfaction surveys like J.D.
    > Powers'!


    Actually, what you could conclude it that T-Mobile's customer service is
    outstanding, while Verizon's is lackluster.
  • 02-20-2008, 01:15 PM
    Todd Allcock
    At 20 Feb 2008 09:55:22 -0800 SMS wrote:

    > If you have any citations that dispute the citations which have been
    > posted here repeatedly, then come forward with them. Of course you
    > won't.


    I doubt many disagree with the facts you point out-just the over-the-top
    conclusions you draw from them.

    Yes, Apple probably approached Verizon first. Perhaps they approached both
    simultaneously to get "feelers" as to whether further pursuit was useful.

    Personally, I believe they approached Verizon first to "get it out of the
    way." Verizon'shistory of crippling handsets made them very unlikely to
    play well with the iPhone, and I suspect Apple didn't expect much from
    Verizon, but gave them a shot and realized quickly further talks were
    pointless.

    > The facts about retail subscribers are public documents,


    Yes, and the difference in customers between the top two carriers, either
    retail or total, is relatively negligible- within 10%. This really
    eliminates neither carrier as a desirable choice.

    > and the surveys on network quality are available from the publishers
    > and no one has disputed their accuracy based on anything other than
    > their own sour grapes statements.
    >


    While true, and while I agree Verizon has a stronger network, it's not by
    anywhere near the margin you suggest. If Verizon was as superior as you
    believe, why haven't the 50+ million "retail" AT&T customers jumped ship
    yet? All contracts run out eventually, so why does ANYONE re-up on AT&T's
    "inferior" network.

    The fact that T-Mo, the carrier with the weakest network, consistently
    ranks at or near the top of customer satisfaction surveys points out that
    even their network is satisfactory.

    Now if I want to close with an SMS-like conclusion from the above, I could
    suggest that the Verizon customer service experience must be pretty
    lackluster if their superior network doesn't give them a commanding lead
    over T-Mo and their inferior network in satisfaction surveys like J.D.
    Powers'!

    Or, I could give a Navas-like conclusion and simply type "Rubbish." ;-)

    Either way, you're blurring the distinction between "fact" and "unsupported
    conclusion drawn from fact."




  • 02-20-2008, 11:59 AM
    John Navas
    On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:55:22 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
    wrote in <[email protected]>:

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

    >>
    >> In guess you think if you keep repeating the above that will make it
    >> true. Your whole paragraph is a crock.

    >
    >If you have any citations that dispute the citations which have been
    >posted here repeatedly, then come forward with them. Of course you
    >won't.


    There are no *independent* citations of any kind.

    >The USA Today report about Apple going to Verizon first


    Was based entirely on claims by Verizon.

    >has never
    >been disputed by any of the interested parties.


    Meaningless. These companies don't comment on things like that.

    >The facts about retail
    >subscribers are public documents, and the surveys on network quality are
    >available from the publishers


    Misinterpreted by you in both cases.

    >and no one has disputed their accuracy
    >based on anything other than their own sour grapes statements.


    Simply not true.

    And no actual links to back up your claims, as usual.

    --
    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
  • 02-20-2008, 11:56 AM
    John Navas
    On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:41:07 -0500, Charles <[email protected]> wrote in
    <200220081241077002%[email protected]>:

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

    >
    >In guess you think if you keep repeating the above that will make it
    >true. Your whole paragraph is a crock.


    Yes and amen.

    --
    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
  • 02-20-2008, 11:55 AM
    SMS
    Charles wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>, SMS
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > In guess you think if you keep repeating the above that will make it
    > true. Your whole paragraph is a crock.


    If you have any citations that dispute the citations which have been
    posted here repeatedly, then come forward with them. Of course you
    won't. The USA Today report about Apple going to Verizon first has never
    been disputed by any of the interested parties. The facts about retail
    subscribers are public documents, and the surveys on network quality are
    available from the publishers and no one has disputed their accuracy
    based on anything other than their own sour grapes statements.
  • 02-20-2008, 11:41 AM
    Charles
    In article <[email protected]>, SMS
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > 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.


    In guess you think if you keep repeating the above that will make it
    true. Your whole paragraph is a crock.

    --
    Charles
  • 02-20-2008, 11:00 AM
    John Navas
    On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:26:20 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
    wrote in <[email protected]>:

    >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.


    Nonsense. AT&T won the Apple "beauty contest" for the iPhone. Verizon
    lost, and all the Verizon spin in the world won't change that simple
    fact. And sales of the iPhone have been doing very well indeed, easily
    the most successful smartphone launch in history.

    --
    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
  • 02-20-2008, 10:26 AM
    SMS
    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.
  • 02-20-2008, 09:42 AM
    John Navas
    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
  • 02-20-2008, 09:39 AM
    SMS
    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."
  • 02-20-2008, 09:09 AM
    John Navas
    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
  • 02-20-2008, 09:00 AM
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    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
  • 02-20-2008, 08:42 AM
    SMS
    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.
  • 02-20-2008, 07:15 AM
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    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
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •