dtsm

Slightly off topic, but with Vz's service comes a huge cost:http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/...le+Feedfetcher

You forgot one key point: apple went to Vz first with their iPhone and was turned down. AT&T was second on apple's list - they took the risk when Vz would not.....

pittpanther

Well, no offense, but it seems to me there is a very large incentive TO develop both a GSM and CDMA iPhone. The possibility of more than doubling your available market.

But regardless, even thought Apple decided to only focus on GSM, that still doesn't explain why I can't buy an iPhone from the T-Mobile store/website. Why the exclusivity? How does this help Apple? Even if T-Mobile said "No" initially, the iPhone has been a success for at least 3 years now. I'm pretty sure T-Mobile would say "Yes" now.

pittpanther

Verizon might be expensive, but that is not the point of this topic - network quality is.

Well this implies that Apple indeed has the capability of building either a GSM or a CDMA phone. I understand that initially Verizon said "No" and AT&T said "Yes." But here we are now, years later. I'm pretty sure that EVERYBODY would say "Yes" now, especially the second-tier players. Why can't I buy an iPhone with T-Mobile, or Sprint?

tdml68

I am pointing out the fact that besides the interface the call quality of ATT is poor. I expect equipment to work. It is not as though we are talking about a brand new technology; just a different user interface.

I am sure the people that rated ATT poorly are not all iPhone users. That tells me the issue is not with iPhone but ATT's network service and reliability.

Let's take the emotions out of this discussion and be logical about it. I am not a "fanboy" of either company. I just want it to work. Simple as that.

jackal

Doubling in the U.S., maybe. Compared to the number of mobiles around the world and the market size worldwide, not even close.

I don't know what the latest figures are, but in 2007, there were 2.5 billion GSM subscribers worldwide. I'm sure it's higher now. Comparatively, there are 89 million Verizon subscribers now (and I'm sure that was a lower number in 2007). Disregarding the dates and growth rates, if Apple made a CDMA iPhone for Verizon, they'd be increasing their potential market by 3.5%.

Now, would that 3.5% return a profit on that investment? Maybe. Should Apple do it? Maybe. I'm just clarifying your statement that a CDMA version would represent a doubling of the potential market of the iPhone.

magiciansampras

Does downgrading from 3G to 2G materially affect download speeds and streaming audio? I like to listen to radio stations on my blackberry while I run. Thanks.

Internaut

Depends..... If we're talking GPRS then yes, it's not really up to streaming audio. If we're talking EDGE then you may be able to do this depending on coverage. 3G to EDGE: For web browsing you might not notice too much difference. 3.5G (HSDPA) to EDGE: You're looking at a substantial difference.

OT: I'm surprised AT&T still have their exclusive on the iPhone. In the UK we will soon have three networks supplying the device and all three are pretty good (in spite of the kicking O2 gets from time to time). I've recently upgraded to iPhone on Orange.

ADGrant

The first thing to remember is that there are two AT&T networks, a conventional GSM network and the new 3G network. Most iPhone users are probably using the 3G network.

The second thing is aside from the iPhone, the biggest selling smartphones are probably Blackberries, most of which are 2G.

Its hard then to separate the iPhone from the AT&T network but I have to admit that when I use my AT&T phone to call an iPhone, the audio quality is not too good. I haven't noticed any audio issues with my 3G Blackberry.

Finally, I am currently in UK using a 2G PalmOS Centro on a Vodaphone. The reception and sound quality is worse than I have experienced with AT&T using the same phone.

WIRunner

http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/22/n...-a-lot-of-eve/
All of the Blackberries sold on the CDMA carriers from the past 3-4 years have been 3G Blackberries. It is easier to find 3G on CDMA than it is on a GSM carrier. With AT&T just crawling along with upgrading to 3G Verizon stands a decent chance to have its entire network upgraded to LTE before AT&T is able to be at HSPDA.

jackal

This is all theoretical. Theoretically, EDGE's 384kbps should be able to handle streaming radio. Theoretically, EDGE's 384kbps should allow reasonably fast web surfing of relatively simple web pages. Theoretically.

Realistically, EDGE is barely usable for streaming audio encoded at 128kbps (and definitely not anything higher). You may hold onto a stream for awhile, but unless you stay still and don't disrupt your signal, you may find your stream dropping or re-buffering occasionally, though it depends by area. Realistically, web browsing is terribly painful over EDGE, not only because the speed is abysmal (FAR below the 384kbps theoretical maximum of EDGE) but also because of the doubled latency (~300ms over 3G to anywhere from 600ms to 900ms over EDGE).

GPRS is even worse (top of 64kbps but usually more like 45kbps with over 1s latency), but fortunately you don't see that very often--GPRS to EDGE was a relatively easy upgrade (compared to EDGE->HSPA), so most cell sites with GPRS have been upgraded to EDGE.

pittpanther

Forget the Droid, I'm waiting for a Verizon iPhone - next year!

Best network, and best phone, finally!

LessO2

Not sure I would take that as the gospel. Verizon has seen what the iPhone has done to its network, and they would be fools to simply bring that kind of load on without doing some research first.

Paint Horse

Don't wait. Do what I did. I have a Droid on a one year contract. The phone is great so far.

CApreppie

I went from Las Vegas to Bakersfield by car and ATT had Edge all along Interstate 15. It is pretty pathetic, ATT can't even get 3G on a major freeway between LV and LA.

biztripster

Well, here's my five cents.

Quick background: I have been in/out of the mobile phone industry for the past few years and have had service contracts with all the big three.

As far as nationwide CALL coverage (baring small cowpoke towns):

#1 - Verizon
#2 - AT&T
#3 - Sprint

As far as nationwide INTERNET 3G coverage:

#1 - Verizon
#2 - AT&T
#3 - Sprint

Note: the reason AT&T experiences problems in NYC, SF, and Chicago is because of bandwidth issues due to some many folks owning an iPhone. They expect to have this fully ironed out by late 2010. By that time, and also early 2011 AT&T and Sprint will have released their LTE/WiMax/4G/What-have-you coverage and all of them will be pretty good.

As far as TYPE OF PHONE:

#1 - AT&T offers the most flexibility
#2 - Verizon
#3 - Sprint

AT&T uses SIM cards and thus you can buy any "unlocked" phone and use it on their network. It's a bit more difficult with Verizon and Sprint since they do not use SIM cards.

So...in my opinion, regardless of the iPhone, if you're a current AT&T subscriber stick with AT&T as they are working very hard to expand their network bandwidth. If you are wanting to switch from Sprint / Verizon, I'd wait a year. But, no matter who you use, all of the big three (and T-mobile) will get much improvement in call coverage, broadband speeds, and phone/hardware choices over the next 12 to 18 months.