In article <477534cf$0$84210$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> While their business practices may suck, and I've criticized them
> repeatedly for some of the crap they pull, you of course understand how
> they've now managed to pass AT&T in retail subscribers.
No way I'll stand up for AT&T. I use TMO. Although this area is heavily
Verizon, I've had no problems with coverage.
But I'm guessing that the reason Apple didn't go with Verizon is
because Verizon wanted to cripple the iPhone like they do the rest of
their phones and Apple wouldn't let them.
I'm hoping to see a non-carrier specific version of the iPhone at
MacWorld in a couple weeks so I can dump my RAZR when my contract is up
later this year.
> But I'm guessing that the reason Apple didn't go with Verizon is
> because Verizon wanted to cripple the iPhone like they do the rest of
> their phones and Apple wouldn't let them.
I doubt it. Apple did the kind of things that Verizon does. I.e. if you
want to use an iTunes song as a ring tone you have to pay twice, once
for the song and once to use it as a ringtone. People complain about
Verizon disabling ringtone creation in Motorola Phone Tools, with good
reason, what Verizon did was a despicable act because they thought it
would cut into ringtone sales. But when Jobs announced the ability to
pay a second time for iTunes songs to be used as ringtones, he got
thunderous applause.
Verizon would not pay Apple a monthly fee per handset. They were willing
to give up the customers that chose AT&T solely for the iPhone
availability. I think it was a dumb decision by Verizon, but then I
don't have access to all the studies led to their decision.
> I'm hoping to see a non-carrier specific version of the iPhone at
> MacWorld in a couple weeks so I can dump my RAZR when my contract is up
> later this year.
You reaize that AT&T has a multi-year exclusivity contract for the iPhone,
right? (The pundits are claiming five years, though AT&T and Apple are,
AFAIK, publicily silent about the terms.)
You're better off just buying an unlocked one if you really want an iPhone.
In article <gOCdj.47559$aR6.17275@fe103.usenetserver.com>, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> You reaize that AT&T has a multi-year exclusivity contract for the iPhone,
> right? (The pundits are claiming five years, though AT&T and Apple are,
> AFAIK, publicily silent about the terms.)
I know that. But they can come out with a different model that's not
locked to a crappy carriet.
> You're better off just buying an unlocked one if you really want an iPhone.
I've considered that option too...or just buying one and unlocking it
myself.
> > You reaize that AT&T has a multi-year exclusivity contract for
> > the iPhone, right? (The pundits are claiming five years, though
> > AT&T and Apple are, AFAIK, publicily silent about the terms.)
>
> I know that. But they can come out with a different model that's not
> locked to a crappy carriet.
Somehow I think AT&T's lawyers just might have considered that possibility
during the negotiations!
You won't be seeing a competing unlocked mobile phone from Apple in the US.
Buying an overseas grey market unlocked iPhone (from a country that
requires unocked phones) is a possibility, however simply unlocking an AT&T
locked model would be cheaper.
Everyone knew the iPhone was a success, but wow!
Linear Mode
