 CylonRedPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County | reply to Pirate515
Re: Suprised! AT&T was the only one who would give up their ability to decide what would be on the phone and instead give that power to Apple. They were the only ones willing to give that up so there is less luck to do with it. |
|
| said by CylonRed:AT&T was the only one who would give up their ability to decide what would be on the phone and instead give that power to Apple. They were the only ones willing to give that up so there is less luck to do with it. I think apple is the only company they would do that for. I read about ATT's endeavors with the RAZR2. Apparently they cannot add online media functions, and with a ton more restrictions on it.
Lemme find the link !
»www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2170266,00.asp |
|
|
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to CylonRed
Well, lets do the general 'why'
1. Verizon wouldn't give up control (Verizon likes their restricted UI). Apple would probably do well with their locking down of the device though. Apple in the long run wouldn't do as well, as iPhone CDMA restricts sales/usability to US vs. globally (GSM).
2. T-Mobile would probably do well, as they are GSM/EDGE, however have only 1/2 the subs of AT&T or Verizon. Apple wants lots of sales (obviously).
3. Sprint - CDMA - would be good for data, however, Sprint doesn't have a large native network. Sprint /EVDO would do very well, however Sprint is in too much state of flux, and high churn in general. (CDMA, iDEN, WiMAX, etc) Apple would want more subs, and more 'global' presence. Won't happen with Sprint.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
CylonRedPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County | As far as I know - #1 applies to every cell carrier in the US (other than AT&T now but just for the iPhone). AT&T had the pockets and agreed not to lock up the phone while none of the others had the pockets or wanted to give up the control.
In the US it is SOP to have the phone company decide what the phone can do and in Europe - it is usually the other way around... |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | reply to en102
Sprint locks down their phone's more than ANYONE. You can't even buy a 3rd party phone to use in their network if it doesn't explicitly say SPRINT on it. |
|
 Bumpin1ohmBumpin1ohmPremium
join:2002-07-15
Aurora, CO | same with verizon, qwest, helio, alltel, and all major nationwide cdma carriers. u have the exception of companies like cricket that dont care, but they are the exception not the rule.
plus it keeps down customer service calls. "why wont my picture messaging/internet/email/other enhanced services work?" answer: BECAUSE YOUR TRYING TO BE CHEAP. sure you can take a samsung u740 and make it function on cricket, but not with picture messaging and wap (yet...)
when you restrict your own devices to access the network it keeps more meaningless customer service calls off the line, open for real problems.
--
Loud and Clear |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Actually Verizon lets you use non-Verizon unlocked phones on their network. They just have to be CDMA phones. Sprint keeps a list of (lets call them serial numbers) of all phones sold with sprint logo's, and only those will work on their network.
They don't care about customer service. They want to be able to overcharge you for obsolete phones in their inventories. There is little difference in customer service satisfaction between GSM and CDMA carriers. |
|
