 VansHSI
join:2005-01-29
America | Can't disagree I think some exclusivity should be allowed. The question is how long? 6 months? 12 months?
Definitely not the 3 year business of the iphone... | |
|
 | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Can't disagree The only other US carrier of any size that could deploy the iPhone is T-Mobile, and it doesn't support T-Mobiles AWS band for 3G.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| | |
| | | 
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
 ·Optimum Online
| Re: Can't disagree said by Gbcue  :said by en102 :The only other US carrier of any size that could deploy the iPhone is T-Mobile, and it doesn't support T-Mobiles AWS band for 3G. It would be interesting if all that was needed to change was a different radio that Apple could implement easily. From pictures of a stripped down iPhone, it would appear to be possible. The wireless interface board appears to be separate from the applications circuit board. I would imagine that all that is needed is a wireless board for the T-Mobile AWS frequencies and you would be good to go. I have no doubt it would even be possible to put in a CDMA based board if one existed. The SIM slot would have to be plugged up but otherwise I would think it would work.
Even my ancient Treo 600 has a wireless interface board that is separate from the main board.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
| | | | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Re: Can't disagree This does mean that there'd have to be two different iPhones. I think they'd just come out with a new one that supported both. Of course, the exclusivity agreement means they don't have to think about it for now. | |
|
| | | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Re: Can't disagree Just need to make a world phone. GSM and CDMA....Just like the Storm. Supports both GSM via SIM and CDMA. | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | 
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| Re: Can't disagree said by Gbcue :said by hottboiinnc :Just need to make a world phone. GSM and CDMA....Just like the Storm. Supports both GSM via SIM and CDMA. You don't need CDMA to make it a "world phone". You do for the US market. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Re: Can't disagree Not when you have 2 major carriers that still relay on CDMA. Why do you think the BB Storm has a SIM Card slot? So you can take it overseas and use it if you want on their networks and then come back here and use the VZW CDMA network.
Also the last time I checked VZW and Sprint used CDMA NOT GSM. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | 
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
| This is patently untrue, there are FCC approved versions of the iPhone for CDMA/LTE/GSM. While Apple may not be producing more than a few test samples they do exist in the US and are being tested on various carriers. Just like the Razr and other popular phones that came out as GSM first, they each had a CDMA variant that was quickly produced and sold once the exclusivity embargo was lifted.
Trust me nobody wants to see a GSM iPhone on T-Mobile. Perhaps once they deploy their 3G non edge network to any significance, but until then it's not going to be a step forward. Verizon Wireless is the only carrier that could make a significant impact in sales that Apple wants to see.
Plus a second GSM carrier only causes people to switch carriers, anyone wishing to go the CDMA route has to buy a new phone which would bring more sales to Apple. They're not stupid. They'll go with VZW, and come up with some excuse why the GSM phones are not being sold for other carriers to drive up sales for a bit, then once they sag, they'll lift that embargo.
--
Play a Death Knight?
www.theebonhold.com | |
|
| | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Re: Can't disagree being tested on various carriers? proof as they always say on here? They may have approved a GSM and CDMA phone but LTE? Nothing has been said of that one even being approved by the FCC because it would have been on the front page here along with who was testing what.
Also 3G works great where its available. Not in your city? Too bad. | |
|
| fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| I think exclusive deals should be allowed, period in the context you are speaking of.
Where does the government get off telling someone like apple that they HAVE to produce a phone for CDMA networks when they're only making it for GSM?
In the case of the iPhone, if they make it for GSM only, that's their choice. Where I distinguish my feelings over yours is that if it were CDMA, for example, then I should be able to take the phone I purchase to another CDMA carrier. That, however, doesn't affect exclusive agreements as to who they sell the phone through. Once I buy the phone and either settle my contract term OR pay the break out fee, the phone is mine - that's the deal.
However, still, there is NOTHING that will make me change my mind that would make me side on the fact that the government should force any maker to make a model of phone compatible on ALL carriers.. that's going way out of line.
If apple wants to only make a phone that works on ATT - then that should be their right to do so.. what would you like, you want tax subsidies given to apple to offset the extra cost of producing all those different variations of phones?
There is something about having phone models available to certain carriers - it creates competition. The iPhone is one of a rare case in phones.. it's one phone for one carrier. The crackberry has the curve available for all carriers - they wanted it to be that way and they were smart.. they're taking more market and growing faster than apple's iPhone.. apple has the right to limit their growth if they want to be stupid. It's anti-american to force a business into a business model that doesn't support their own desires.
Everyone has the ability to get an iPhone - just have to get the service it's made for. I'd like my Chevy Impala LTZ to be made to run on diesel and not unleaded... is it fair that I can't get it in a diesel model? Should the govt' make them produce it in a diesel version? .. same thing. Currently if I want that car, I can only put unleaded gas in it. You want the iPhone, go to ATT - you have NO rights guaranteed you to have any phone you want made for every network on the planet..
This argument is absurd..
So tell me, too.. when is NFL direct Ticket going to be on Comcast, Cox, Time Warner, Charter, Dish Network, etc? DTV paid a lot of money to have that right to broadcast the Sunday ticket - it's what gives them the competitive edge and I support that. | |
|
| | BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Can't disagree I think your misunderstanding the whole argument , they are merely saying if the phone is produced in gsm , then it should be unlocked by default and allowed to be used on other gsm providers , they are not saying it should be made to suit every carrier by force.
I agree with them , any cdma phone should work on any cdma carrier , and the same with gsm , exclusivity deals should still be allowed. But if the user is willing to pay full cost for the phone it's their choice what provider they use it on.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Can't disagree said by BosstonesOwn :I agree with them , any cdma phone should work on any cdma carrier , and the same with gsm , exclusivity deals should still be allowed. But if the user is willing to pay full cost for the phone it's their choice what provider they use it on. I agree with this, and did in my statement above.
I believe that once you have satisfied, and if in a contract, are in good standing, your phone should be unlocked and you're free to go where you can get someone to activate it. But, as long as a user agrees to a deal for a reduced price, I believe they must fulfill their obligation to the terms of the agreement before they can simply take it and run. | |
|
| |
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| So, you support exclusivity agreements for GSM only? How can you say Apple should be allowed to make a GSM exclusive phone, but CDMA carriers can't also keep that exclusivity by locking the phone to their network? I don't see the difference there.
If you were talking about a boatload of work to make a phone GSM or CDMA, then I might be inclined to agree. However, the expense to make a phone GSM or CDMA isn't that great.
I honestly feel arguments like this (thank god) will be moot once the LTE migration is finished. | |
|
| | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Re: Can't disagree Easy because CDMA phones can work on ANY CDMA Network (ie: VZW, Sprint, Cricket/Revol/MetroPCS) although CDMA carriers do NOT allow you to bring a phone to them. Even though ANY CDMA phone WILL work. But these carriers do not want this to happen.
iPhone is different due to its GSM, and if you jail break it, it will work on T-Mobile or any other GSM carrier. | |
|
| | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
| I agree with parts of what you're saying. The government cannot and should not mandate what development and company must actively do, or mandate certain features be included. That's one reason I think the V-chip rule is bad, requiring certain programming, etc. They can't tell Apple to make a phone that supports anyone with a cell tower.
I think the government function is to say what companies must NOT do, like "you can't broadcast in analog anymore", "you can't cause interference", "you can't override statutory rights in a contract", "you can't own more than 35% of the cable television market". If they want to say "you can't make an exclusivity agreement", I'm all for it. That doesn't mean Apple has to sell to anyone, just that AT&T can't stop them.
Also, I think these monopoly power kind of issues belong to the FTC, not the FCC. Exclusivity agreements are about "restraint of trade", not spectrum or interoperability.
I'll make an exception on "prohibit but don't require" for things like safety concerns in planes, trains, and automobiles, and auditing requirements for financial institutions. Saying "If you make a car, it has to have a seatbelt and airbag" or "If you take people's money for savings and investments, you must do these things" is necessary. Ultimately the limit of our government comes from the Constitution plus politicians we elect, in theory that lets common sense override rigid ideology. | |
|
|
| 
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Sprint Jealous Much more like Sprint hypocrite much. The reason why I can't watch NFL games on my Verizon phone is because Sprint made an exclusive deal with the NFL. | |
|
| | |
| | |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: Sprint Jealous Much
Super Bowl 37 |
said by spewak :said by BF69 :more like Sprint hypocrite much. The reason why I can't watch NFL games on my Verizon phone is because Sprint made an exclusive deal with the NFL. Wait a minute BF69..... TOUCHDOWN, RAIDERS!!!! Please excuse, I was watching the NFL on my Palm Pre.  Ah memories. Oh I'm also enjoying the better call quality of my Verizon service. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | No BF69 isn't pissy about the NFL being on Sprint. He's pissy because he can't get anything but VZW at his house. Haven't you read his posts? | |
|
| |
WhatNow
Premium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC
| Why share Why does a business need to share every success. If it was your business and you had an exclusive deal on a successful product would you like it if you were forced to share with all your competitors. The successes pay for the break even and failures.
If everybody had the iPhone would the Pre be successful. We are becoming a society of I want and I will force someone to give it to me cheap.
You can not have everything you want so get over it.
By the way I want a Billion dollars because all those rich people have it. | |
|
| 
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Why share said by WhatNow :If everybody had the iPhone would the Pre be successful. The Pre was successful?  | |
|
| | |
| | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | 
sprintsucks
@optonline.net
| Re: Why share Doesn't matter. It still won't help Sprint in the long run. They're still bleeding customers. Most who bought the Pre were due for an upgrade anyway
said by pandora :» money.cnn.com/2009/09/17/technol···09091717Palm Inc.'s smartphone sales rose 134% to 823,000 units during the latest quarter on the back of the new Pre, but the company still reported its ninth consecutive quarterly loss and sales fell 81%. The company also announced that it will offer approximately 16 million shares of common stock for "working capital and general corporate purposes." Shares of Palm (PALM) fell slightly after rising by as much as 9% after hours. The much-hyped Pre smartphone helped boost Palm's smartphone shipments from 351,000 in the prior quarter. The company did not separate Pre sales from other Palm phones, but experts forecasted Pre shipments of about 520,000, according to Matthew Thornton, analyst at Avian Securities. | |
|
| | | | | | JasonBourne
join:2000-05-22
Kansas City, MO
| Re: Why share said by sprintsucks :
Doesn't matter. It still won't help Sprint in the long run. They're still bleeding customers. Most who bought the Pre were due for an upgrade anyway If most "were due for an upgrade" chose to get the Pre then they must be happy with their service, as they didn't move away to another provider and more than likely choose to accept the $150 rebate locking them into a two year contract.
Your experience with Sprint, does not equal his, or anyone else's experience. | |
|
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by WhatNow :Why does a business need to share every success. If it was your business and you had an exclusive deal on a successful product would you like it if you were forced to share with all your competitors. The successes pay for the break even and failures. If everybody had the iPhone would the Pre be successful. We are becoming a society of I want and I will force someone to give it to me cheap. You can not have everything you want so get over it. By the way I want a Billion dollars because all those rich people have it. I think as a busines I would want to make my customers happy. I'm not sure how restricting choice does that. | |
|
| djeremy
join:2004-07-12
San Francisco, CA
| I just don't understand why manufacturers lock themselves into these deals to begin with. If Apple sold the iPhone on all carriers, they'd probably have several million more customers.
I have an unlocked Android on T-Mobile right now, but I'd probably have an iPhone if it wasn't exclusively on America's worst network. | |
|
| |
See 6 replies to this post |
|
| sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH | Lolwthbbq???~!!!
Phone manufacturers don't compete with other wireless carriers. They compete with other phone manufacturers.
If the Pre isn't good enough on its own to compete with the iPhone, then IT SHOULD FAIL. Duuuuuuuhhhhh! | |
|
| Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Exclusive deals serve 3 purposes regardless of the industry they are in.
1.) Make your product / service attractive.
2.) Raise the price of the product and/or service.
3.) Attempt to "lock" the customer in for a longer period of time
I would agree with above statement in that a business should not be forced to make their product to accommodate all systems. However, it is my opinion, that if their product supports a system by default then it should be available on all carriers of that system. | |
|
spike010101
Premium
join:2003-11-28
Lacey, WA
·Comcast
| Don't forget The apple AT&T agreement is a minimum of 3 years but a max of 5 so even though people may think it will end next year it most likely will go on until the 5 years is up. And by that time the iPhone will be on the same track as the iPod. It will be falling in sails because the "phone" will just be a side feature of the next technology. Which apple will take part in. .
Just remeber only a few years ago we were still using bulky motorola phones just imagine 5 years from now. | |
|
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: Don't forget said by spike010101 :Just remeber only a few years ago we were still using bulky motorola phones just imagine 5 years from now. And real buttons were easier to use (try using an iphone in your pocket), and no wasting time on graphic fades. | |
|
w0g
o.O
join:2001-08-30
Portland, OR
clubs: | ! Why aren't the phones just sold completely separately from the cellphone contacts, open, and compatible with all networks? That makes a lot more sense to me and increases choice for the consumer. | |
|
|
See 11 replies to this post |
|
rdmiller
join:2005-09-23
Richmond, VA | Where is Kevin Martin when you need him? It's harder to follow the actions of the FCC when the chairman isn't a wild-eyed ideologue. This means paying attention to the debate and actualling listening when votes occur. Bummer. | |
|
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
1 edit | Will Sprint give up its exclusive on the Kindle, then? As many frustrated users know, electronic "books" are delivered to the Amazon Kindle exclusively by Sprint. I, in fact, gave a Kindle that I was given as a gift by a relative to another family member because I could not use it effectively in my area, where Sprint does not have coverage.
Fair's fair, Sprint. If AT&T can't have an exclusive on the iPhone, why should you be allowed to have an exclusive on the Kindle? | |
|
|
|
|
Sprint CEO: Exclusive Phone Deals Need Limits
·
·
·
Re: Why share
Re: Why share