how-to block ads
|
|
view: topics flat text |
|
Comments on news posted 2010-02-05 09:57:25: Apple recently went to bat for AT&T, Apple Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook defending AT&T repeatedly against complaints of poor 3G network performance and in the process ignoring a huge chunk of the year 2009. ..
|
 otakuon
join:2005-04-06
Loma Linda, CA | Fine so far I am not a fan of exclusivity deals and feel that phones should be sold directly from the manufactures and that the end user should be allowed to use it on any network that they want. Of course, in the US, this is a pipe-dream (especially since we have competing standards and little regulation). That being said, as an owner of an iPhone and a former Verizon sub, I haven't notice any difference in service quality between the two in my area of use. Also, I do not know of anyone personally who has got an iPhone and then subsequently dropped it and gone to Verizon. I know ALOT of people who say that if the iPhone was available on Verizon they would buy it in a heart beat. Either way, I have been satisfied with the quality of service so far from AT&T...now the price, that could be improved (although, if the iPhone was on Verizon, it would probalby cost more since Verizon feels than can charge a premium becuase of their "Network". | |
| AVonGaussPremium,MVM
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL | Translation... Analysts still have absolutely no idea what Apple is doing in regards to the US carrier relationships. There is absolutely no motivation for Apple to renew any exclusivity agreement, what's AT&T going to do, drop the iPhone? That doesn't necessarily mean Apple is going to build a CDMA version or use an alternate chipset that would support the T-Mobile band - they could, but its two different topics. | |
| | | Why Change? I see no reason for Apple to switch horses. They are not losing any significant sales due to AT&T's weaknesses. The majority of the folks who buy those toys don't care about the network, or even realize it's bad. The formula for this decision is simple. Estimated additional revenue from a new version for other carriers LESS the cost to develop and support a new version. I suspect the result of this formula is "not much". Moreover, more sales aren't always better, or desirable. Pretty obvious to me that Apple understands this. Ubiquity is not what they are looking for. | |
| | | bad idea Very bad idea to stick with ATT. All this will do is allow Google to get note market share. Very bad idea Apple | |
|
1 edit | CDMA is dead If they want to gain more market share, all they have to do make an iPhone for T-Mo. It will not be that hard to do and it will be cheaper than creating a CDMA phone. CDMA is dead anyway and Apple should just wait until LTE comes out. | |
| Reviews:
 ·CenturyLink
 ·Verizon Wireless..
 ·Mediacom
| This is a no-brainer, guys... Verizon will NOT get iPhone because their CDMA doesn't support simultaneous voice/data (something the iPhone was made for and a fantastic 'feature' of AT&T 3G)...
And with Apple's further embrace of AT&T for the iPad's unlimited 3G access, I think it is pretty clear the marriage stands. And from a business standpoint, it has been fantastic for both companies. Seen AT&T's profit last quarter? | |
| |
1 edit | Re: This is a no-brainer, guys... said by pabster:Verizon will NOT get iPhone because their CDMA doesn't support simultaneous voice/data (something the iPhone was made for and a fantastic 'feature' of AT&T 3G)... And with Apple's further embrace of AT&T for the iPad's unlimited 3G access, I think it is pretty clear the marriage stands. And from a business standpoint, it has been fantastic for both companies. Seen AT&T's profit last quarter? Yup. Read it and weep bitches. iPhone is going no where and if it does go somewhere anytime soon, it'll probably be T-Mo. Big Red doesn't matter to Jobs. He's making a fortune already and he doesn't want an arrogant company like Verizon telling him what and what not to put on his products.
Verizon was stubborn and wanted too much control when Apple first approached them so they said, F.U. Big Red, you aint the only player in town! The rest is history my friends.
Verizon has learned it's lesson apparently as they are no longer the socialist communists they used to be with the additions of the new Android handsets but too little too late. No iPhone for them | |
| | | | | Reviews:
·CenturyLink
·Verizon Wireless..
·Mediacom
1 edit | Re: This is a no-brainer, guys... As far as I'm aware, none of the CDMA carriers have deployed SVDO. It has been studied, of course, but from what I gather it is a pipe dream for the time being.
If I'm wrong, please pontificate...
And on the EDGE subject, you're off base. We're discussing 3G wireless here, EVDO versus UMTS, with the latter providing simultaneous voice and data from the get go. | |
| | | | | | Re: This is a no-brainer, guys... said by pabster:As far as I'm aware, none of the CDMA carriers have deployed SVDO. It has been studied, of course, but from what I gather it is a pipe dream for the time being. If I'm wrong, please pontificate... The press release from the CDG: »www.cdg.org/news/press/2009/Aug17_09.asp
A complementary device enhancement known as simultaneous 1X Voice and EV-DO Data (SVDO) will also become available during the same timeframe and will enable CDMA2000 devices to access EV-DO packet data services while in an active 1X circuit-switch voice call. For example, users will be able to send emails or access the Web while on voice calls; phones with GPS can update maps or download real-time traffic information while on voice calls, etc. This device enhancement, which enables these concurrent voice and data services, is independent of the air link standard and infrastructure.
It seems like network operators such as Sprint and Verizon Wireless have to do precious little, if anything, to their networks. The ball is in the court of the handset manufacturers if they choose to incorporate this updated specification into their future offerings. As far as I can tell, Apple would be free to do so in a hypothetical iPhone with CDMA included. | |
| | | | | Reviews:
·CenturyLink
·Verizon Wireless..
·Mediacom
| Re: This is a no-brainer, guys... I'm aware DarnellP of that press release, but like I said I am not aware of any of the CDMA carriers actually deploying SVDO. It isn't simply a matter of the handset supporting the standard, there is some work to be done at each base station as well. Seems unlikely they'll bother with LTE and various other 4G plans well underway. | |
| | | | | |
3 edits | Re: This is a no-brainer, guys... said by pabster:I'm aware DarnellP of that press release, but like I said I am not aware of any of the CDMA carriers actually deploying SVDO. It isn't simply a matter of the handset supporting the standard, there is some work to be done at each base station as well. Might I ask what your source for that is? What you state is completely contradictory to what the CDG states in the portion that I've underlined above: This device enhancement, which enables these concurrent voice and data services, is independent of the air link standard and infrastructure.
The language doesn't get much plainer than that.
From Qualcomm: The SVDO feature will be supported in new devices, and will work with 1X or 1X Advanced with EV-DO Rev. A or Rev. B. Qualcomm is planning to support the SVDO feature in all of its new EV-DO MSM chipsets.
»www.qualcomm.com/common/document···1109.pdf
SVDO is a device enhancement NOT a network enhancement. Now if you have knowledge of the specification that neither the CDG nor Qualcomm apparently do, fair enough. However, do please share where that knowledge comes from. | |
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·CenturyLink
·Verizon Wireless..
·Mediacom
1 edit | Re: This is a no-brainer, guys... »www.docstoc.com/docs/12656761/CD···Capacity
Everything I've seen (including the Qualcomm document linked above) states that a channel card upgrade is required for SVDO. If it were as simple as deploying new handsets, we'd already see SVDO everywhere.
A rudimentary google search finds plenty of documents and notes which state the same.
Additionally, SVDO is part of "1X Advanced" which supposedly will be commercial sometime in the "second half of 2010"... | |
| | | | | | | |
1 edit | Re: This is a no-brainer, guys... umm ok...all this is, is the same Qualcomm document that I'd already linked just on a different site. 
Everything I've seen (including the Qualcomm document linked above) states that a channel card upgrade is required for SVDO. If it were as simple as deploying new handsets, we'd already see SVDO everywhere. Except that Qualcomm hasn't yet released the chipsets for handsets to support the SVDO DEVICE ENHANCEMENT. FWIW I read the document linked above (again, as I'd already read it before) from top to bottom and nowhere did I see where it stated that SVDO required a channel card upgrade. 1X Advanced, yes. SVDO, no.
A rudimentary google search finds plenty of documents and notes which state the same. Highly doubtful. Please link any documents (not ignorant blog sites or the like) that specifically state that SVDO requires a channel card card upgrade.
Additionally, SVDO is part of "1X Advanced" which supposedly will be commercial sometime in the "second half of 2010"...
Oy vey....
Again from Qualcomm: The SVDO feature will be supported in new devices, and will work with 1X or 1X Advanced...
I trust that you can understand the significance of the word "OR". SVDO can work with 1X Advanced, but it does not require it. It can work with existing 1X networks. | |
| | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·CenturyLink
·Verizon Wireless..
·Mediacom
| Re: This is a no-brainer, guys... DarnellP, please read the following blocks of text *very* carefully, noting in particular the *context* of the latter.
--snip--
1X Advanced builds on the CDMA2000 1X technology platform, which has been providing superior voice quality and capacity for more than ten years. Operators can now transition to 1X Advanced gradually and economically, while sustaining backward compatibility. The spectral efficiency of the 3GPP2 standard has been recently enhanced with advanced voice codecs like Enhanced Variable Rate Codec-B (EVRC-B) and the use of quasi-linear interference cancellation (QLIC) techniques, which are already providing up to 50 percent higher voice capacity in today’s networks. The next step would be to move to 1X Advanced, which is a simple channel card upgrade (expected to be commercial in the second half of 2010) with new devices supporting mobile receive diversity, enabling them to more than double voice capacity immediately after the channel upgrade.
A complementary device enhancement known as simultaneous 1X Voice and EV-DO Data (SVDO) will also become available during the same timeframe and will enable CDMA2000 devices to access EV-DO packet data services while in an active 1X circuit-switch voice call. For example, users will be able to send emails or access the Web while on voice calls; phones with GPS can update maps or download real-time traffic information while on voice calls, etc. This device enhancement, which enables these concurrent voice and data services, is independent of the air link standard and infrastructure.
--snip--
The "complementary" upgrade is complementary to the launch of the 1X Advanced upgrade which *requires* a channel card upgrade. Surely you can follow the arrows through the paragraphs to realize this? | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: This is a no-brainer, guys... SMH...
Very simply, The SVDO feature will be supported in new devices, and will work with 1X or 1X Advanced...
SVDO is supported in new devices, NOT new network infrastructure. 1X Advanced is what requires new channel cards. Thus, if it *requires* 1X Advanced, as you believe, then how is it that it can work with existing 1X networks?
At any rate, this has become pointless. You're going to believe what you want to regardless. *If* and when the manufacturers start putting the particular Qualcomm chipsets with the SVDO capability into handsets, we will see which of us had a better grasp of the information that was presented.... | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·T-Mobile US
·AT&T Wireless Br..
 ·ViaTalk
·Verizon Broadban..
| Re: This is a no-brainer, guys... said by DarnellP:SMH... Very simply, The SVDO feature will be supported in new devices, and will work with 1X or 1X Advanced...SVDO is supported in new devices, NOT new network infrastructure. 1X Advanced is what requires new channel cards. Thus, if it *requires* 1X Advanced, as you believe, then how is it that it can work with existing 1X networks? At any rate, this has become pointless. You're going to believe what you want to regardless. *If* and when the manufacturers start putting the particular Qualcomm chipsets with the SVDO capability into handsets, we will see which of us had a better grasp of the information that was presented.... Verizon has deployed 1X advanced in some market's along with the vocoder EVRC-B.
--
I get 29 MPG in my Toyota Highlander Hybrid! | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: This is a no-brainer, guys... said by iLive4Fusion:Verizon has deployed 1X advanced in some market's along with the vocoder EVRC-B. EVRC-B, yes. 1X Advanced, highly improbable, since as pabster has pointed out, it's not expected to even be available commercially until the 2nd half of this year. | |
|
 joakoPremium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
kudos:5
·Comcast
| UMTS I think they are locked into UMTS basically. The CDMA market is basically US. R&D will not pay off to make a CDMA version of the iPhone.
If people are complaining about AT&T's top-notch network (works just fine with non-iPhone devices) can you imagine what they would be saying about T-Mobiles spotty network??
Pure and simple AT&T is the best network they can get the iPhone to run on. Besides, if they designed it for CDMA networks it would probably have the reception issues the GSM/UMTS iPhone has.
--
PRescott7-2097 | |
| | | | Re: UMTS said by joako:R&D will not pay off to make a CDMA version of the iPhone. Source please. | |
| | | | CDMA said by joako: ...."The CDMA market is basically US. R&D will not pay off to make a CDMA version of the iPhone."..... CDMA is in 116 countries with 516,715,000 Subscribers as of 3Q 2009. That is more than "basically US".
I think they are waiting for Big V and Metro PCS to add LTE and T-Mobile to cover more people. That will be about two years from now.
Also I think that AT&T and Apple did extend the contract for one more year. My reason is that Apple said if you give the IPAD unlimited data for $30 a month it will buy you one more year. You know AT&T wants to charge way more than $30 a mouth with the stain it going to add to there network.
WIKI statement
The CDMA Development Group states that, as of November 2009, there are 308 operators in 116 countries offering CDMA2000 1X and 1xEV-DO service.
»www.cdg.org/technology/cdma_tech···CDMA2000 | |
|
| | I honestly..... I honestly love my iPhone and the cell service is not 100% perfect but i never have any issues most of the time.
- A
--
LETS GO METS! | |
| | | | Re: I honestly..... Same here. I have never had an issue with AT&T's service. I have been with them for almost 2 years, using it in both cities and urban areas.
I switched from T-Mo/Suncom, and I had no issues with them, as well. They just didn't have the Iphone that I wanted.
As far as Verizon, my brother has them, and can't even get reception in his own house, and he lives in a fairly large city. He has had issues with dropped calls, and areas of no reception, in places where my Iphone works flawlessly. Same when I had T-Mo.
If Apple jumps ship to Verizon, I jump ship back to T-Mo., unless AT&T has a better smart phone available. | |
| | | | | Re: I honestly..... said by wolfsmane:Same here. I have never had an issue with AT&T's service. I have been with them for almost 2 years, using it in both cities and urban areas. I switched from T-Mo/Suncom, and I had no issues with them, as well. They just didn't have the Iphone that I wanted. As far as Verizon, my brother has them, and can't even get reception in his own house, and he lives in a fairly large city. He has had issues with dropped calls, and areas of no reception, in places where my Iphone works flawlessly. Same when I had T-Mo. If Apple jumps ship to Verizon, I jump ship back to T-Mo., unless AT&T has a better smart phone available. So you assume that your iPhone which you love will all of a sudden not work because Apple partners with verizon as well as ATT?? Or is this a political statement saying that even though your iphone will still work fine on ATT's network, your protesting that they released on verizon and will move to T-Mobile?? Which one is it??
Every carrier has dead zones or weak zones in area's... every one does... my buddy loves his iPhone but found out that he can't get 3G at his house or within 20 miles of his house... the cruddy thing is he had a Sprint data card that was grandfathered in and had unlimited (no 5G cap).... he thought he was going to be able to get he same with his iPhone...
Back to Sprint he went, was able to get his stuff back the way it was and got an iPod Touch as most of the stuff that he uses where he uses it, is a better fit anyways.
Since I am one of those old customers from the sprint unlimited days, I have a mi-fi with an iPod Touch and get nearly all the cool apps you do and don't have to worry about the short comings of ATT's network... | |
|
| |
|
