SuperSite Blog

This is exactly what I was wondering.  I once saw a statement that Edge was ubiquitous, which was another reason why Apple choose Edge. That meant to me that 3G was not. And rolling out 3G throughout the country seems like it would take a long time for ATT. What do ya do, buy it and wait for fast service? I waited for coverage in Ocean County NJ years ago by my previous wireless carrier, but it took over 6 years, so I switched. I am sure that it won't be 6 years for 3G, but how long will it take to get to my local area [not Ocean County. It's just were I worked occasionally and got skunked when I was paged in an area without wireless service in the middle of nowhere on a 20 mile long road.]

So HSDPA is not the be-all-and-end-all of 3G for North America after all???  ;)

Just to compare, what does an EVDO map of the US look like by comparison?

Same problem here in the UK - O2 is not the best network here - they aren't the worst, but 3G access for them is still limited to the major towns and cities.

That I happen to live in a city that has access is just down to chance, but I do have to wonder if I'll be all out of signal when I want to use my iPhone on public transport.  Maybe the change to a plastic-back will help?!

Paul, you should post this just to compare:

vzwmap.verizonwireless.com/.../broadband.jpg

The EVDO map looks better for the US.  Check the Verizon map here:

www.verizonwireless.com/.../CoverageLocatorController

Select Broadband & VCAST and click Refresh Map.  Areas in blue are good.

Pingback from  Vermyndax’s Lair  » Blog Archive   » iPhone to be allowed on other carriers?

Paul's analysis, as usual, completely fails to take important factors into account.  He pretends certain things don't exist, like:

- the cellular market in the U.S. is pretty much boiling down to AT&T and Verizon.  Sprint is on the ropes - it lost something like 20+ billion recently.   And Sprint's customer service is horrible.  T-Mobile has even worse coverage than AT&T.

- Verizon (the only real alternative) would never have agreed to Apple having near total control over the iPhone and its software.  Verizon is notorious for placing all kinds of restrictions and limitations on devices, so they can peddle their crappy, monthly-fee based alternatives.  Sure, Verizon now claims they are "open", but talk is cheap.  The "talk" also came AFTER the iPhone was released and Android announced.

- Apple had to give AT&T an exclusive in order to have sufficient Apple control over the device.  This is so obvious and it's been stated by many people.  Paul is not dumb - he knows full well about this.  He just blindly ignores it, and advances his incomplete, poor analysis - pretending that Apple gave AT&T an exclusive out of  --  I don't know -- the goodness of its heart.

- Another factor - Verizon and Sprint are not GSM.  That's not an insurmountable hurdle, but the fact is that AT&T has the best network in the U.S. that is compatible with most of the rest of the world.

The real problem is the U.S. cellular market - not Apple's choice here.  Apple made the best choice with AT&T - it's a near miracle they were even able to bring such a great phone - relatively unaffected by carrier meddling - to the U.S. market.

I'd love to have a choice of carriers, but the bottom line is this.

Verizon is not the be all, end all that everyone likes to make them out to be. Like any company Verizon has some good points and many bad.

In short all of the Cell Carriers in the US are all pretty darn scummy. I'd rather have them out of my my way, provide the bandwidth and then shut the hell up with your "value added services". V-Cast anyone? Exploding ringtones? Locked out Bluetooth? What a joke. Locking out features in a phone because they want to "nickel and dime " you to death to use their network, etc... No one is saying their coverage is not impressive, doesn't make their failings any more palatable. Yes I understand they are changing their tune now. I wonder why that could be?

On top of all this in our typical American mindset, we think we are on the cutting edge of cell tech; got news for ya: Europe is at least 1-5 years ahead of us in terms of cell network technology (if not more)  Japan? their networks make ours look like the joke that they are.

3G is a great step forward, but for where I'm at I'm under wireless most of the time anyways.

Next: Perhaps this isn't about the US at all. Its estimated that somewhere around 80% of the world is GSM.... Verizon is CDMA... Perhaps Apple is looking at the ability to sell to a vastly larger audience then just the US? Everyone who wants a phone pretty much has one in this day and age in the US.  Its not like any carrier is going to find 10 million new subscribers that no one else found before hiding under some rock. And while 3G means something here, and while everyone thinks Verizon walks on water... the rest of the world might not care for the foreseeable future about the capabilities of a network in terms of speed when  basic signal strength is prime concern. like cesjr  pointed out the world has already chosen... not a insurmountable, but a factor none the less.

If that is indeed Apple's plan it will be fun to watch the "mental gymnastics" that Paul will go through in order to explain it  away. After all I find it curious that for PCs Paul is all about the "world-wide market share" and US doesn't matter. Here the converse seems to be Paul's stance. Why do I say converse, because AT&T has more subscribers, AT&T wins,  everyone else stop playing now... Will this play out in the future in cell phones?

Paul seems to always endorse whatever is most popular- If that is the case then it might be time to reassess the olde position on game consoles, and cell carrier (if we are simply basing it on market share). Because if that is the criteria the Wii and AT&T are  #1 simply because they have the  biggest market share.

In closing, I'd love to have coverage as fast as possible, no matter where I am on my phone. Reality on this little rock we call Earth is that until Cell providers are shoved to the side and just provide the network it ain't gonna happen.

Apple has shown the way, which Paul being Paul we know what exactly he is waiting for:  Someone ("cough", "cough" Microsoft, "cough", "cough" "Anyone but  Apple" "cough") to come along and provide him the "iPhone Killer"  or iPhone experience itself he wants, sans the Apple logo.

Dude1313.... I seem to endorse whatever is most popular? LOL. No. I endorse whatever I feel is the best solution. Some of them are popular, some aren't. I'd point you to the obvious example of Windows Vista, which has a decidedly negative cast around. I'm apparently the lone voice in the wilderness on that one. And I don't care for the Wii at all. Never will.

That bit of baloney out of the way, I'm more concerned with your equally unfair characterization of my relationship with Apple products. I use the iPhone, despite the crappiness of AT&T. I have several iPhones, which I use over the Zune, and happily. I have an Apple TV. I use a Macbook every single day. I'm not anti-Apple. In fact, most of my Apple product reviews are 4/5 and 5/5 stars. What you're saying is provably false. What I *don't* like about Apple are the tunnel-visioned Apple fanatics, what I cal the iCabal: these people can't stand *any* criticism of Apple, even when its deserved. I refuse to be that partisan, sorry. I call it like I see it.

Case in point: Regarding carriers, Verizon's data network is demonstrably broader (and thus "better") than AT&T's. As is their voice network. I should know, I've used both, side to side, all around the country.  (Have you?) No company/service is perfect obviously. But if Verizon became an option, I'd pay to opt out of AT&T in a heartbeat. I suspect I'm not alone on that one. In fact, I'm sure of it.

It's reasonable to want to use the best products and services. I know, what a crazy attitude.

iCabal:

1. Any person that can't stand *any* criticism of Apple, even when its deserved.

2. Anyone with a .Mac account (as stated in your WWDC 2008 recap) e.g. Paul Thurrott

3. Anyone that attends an Apple developer event like WWDC (as stated in your MobileMe preview)

Paul, you *refuse* to be partisan enough to be a member of the iCabal (definition 1), but you are in the iCabal because you have a .Mac account. Nice

"What I *don't* like about Apple are the tunnel-visioned Apple fanatics, what I cal the iCabal: these people can't stand *any* criticism of Apple, even when its deserved."

this is a RIDICULOUS position - the people Paul labels members of the iCabal DO CRITICIZE APPLE.  go to any apple forum and you'll find PLENTY of diehard apple fans that criticize apple.  Same for members of the so-called iCabal press like David Pogue - he's criticized apple.  So has Mossberg.  And on and on.

Paul makes valid and invalid criticisms of apple.  Apple fans criticize him for what they feel are invalid criticisms - that's all.  The idea that there are any significant body of Apple fans can't stand ANY criticism of apple is SILLY.

While I don't think T-Mobile's network is that great, you're absolutely right about AT&T's network being pretty cruddy.  Verizon is far, FAR superior out here in Northern California.  It is also well known that Apple actually approached Verizon first about the iPhone and Verizon wasn't interested.  My wife likes the iPhone, but won't switch from Verizon (it works!) to AT&T (can at the end of a string!) to get one.

That being said, rural coverage isn't a major issue for most people in the US.  According to Wikipedia, 80% of the US population lives in cities or suburbs.  en.wikipedia.org/.../Demographics_of_the_United_States.  (Yeah, yeah Wikipedia sucks etc., etc.)  In fact, the total population of the three states you mentioned, Nebraska, Montana and Wyoming, is about 3.25 million, which is substantially less than the 4.5 million people who live in the Boston metro area alone.  

That doesn't make AT&T's coverage any better, and Verizon is clearly the superior network.  It also doesn't help if you actually *live* in one of those states.  I guess what I'm saying is that AT&T's semi-cruddy network does actually cover a substantial majority of the US population.

In the area I live in, AT&T is the best choice.  Verizon is even more expensive than AT&T and they lock their phones down (I like to install apps, music, etc.).  I wouldn't even consider Verizon at all.

I've had Sprint and my daughter was with T-Mobile for a while.  Both awful.  Truth is, I actually like AT&T.  I've never had a big problem and tech support has been good.

I must be bad in other parts of the country, just nowhere I go to regularly.  BTW, I'm in the Washington DC area.

-darrel

Bottom line  - and apparently Paul feels the same way -- I'd rather have the better device than the better network.  Unfortunately in this country - you can't have both.  There's nothing Apple could have done differently, really.  Like someone pointed out -  Verizon turned down the iPhone (big surprise).

Despite how Nazi-like Verizon wireless is, I love Verizon FIOS.  They're really pretty open-minded (they support Tivos with cablecard for example) and so far we haven't heard anything from them about throttling network performance (to stop people from downloading movies from iTunes, Amazon, Netflix, etc).

Paul, I would call you a consumer advocate. Also, like me, you want your stuff to 'just work', as advertised. When it doesn't, I get mad and shout at it. The rest of the world blogs. Either way, thanks for your help. I know half of our 28 doctors that are glad that they got the word from me to go ahead and buy a new computer with Vista, as we can get it to work with our 'cloud', and it's because I got the info/confidence right here. The remaining doctors will upgrade with confidence when they need a new computer. Some use Macs, but all need Windows installed on it if they do. I'm glad I read your stuff, and I bet they are too. Also, I mostly got the iPhone hype out of my system because I let it out here too. Now I can  [try to] make a rational decision of what I will get in the next 2 months.

Thanks again,

Doc

I would have the iPhone 3G in a second (I'd have one of the current ones right now in fact) if it were on Verizon.  Verizon is NOT the end all be all, but they are the superior service in the states for sure.  I hear nothing but horror stories about the voice quality on AT&T and I know that the Verizon data network is leaps ahead of AT&T.  I also use a BBerry for work which is on AT&T and while it works pretty well for me I only use it for enterprise email... cell phone isn't even activated and I barely use it to browse the web because its so slow.  It's clear why Apple chose AT&T (they were the only one willing to concede to Apple's demands - Verizon would NEVER have shared in the service contract with Apple - although I realize that's gone now...)... but it's not so clear why Apple wouldn't create a different phone to work on Verizon's network.  They're going to need to do that if they want to sell and be a major competitor.  Otherwise the clones will catch up (HTC is making huge steps here... some of their newer phones looks sweet).

The other interesting thing... and it's certainly a Catch22... is that Verizon locks down their network - certainly one of my biggest complaints.  BUT the reason their network is superior is because ... they lock down their network.  I'm not sure AT&T is going to catch up.  The hardware will.

Pingback from  New iPhone and MobileMe previews « Fran??ois Schiettecatte’s Blog

Vis-a-vis the iCabal, I think Paul nailed this one perfectly, and while the same iCabal will liken him to being a part of the iCabal when it suits their purposes (murdocdv I'm looking at your), the same iCabal will bash him.  Paul certainly can't win, and this constant blathering just proves Paul's points about the thin skins of Apple fans.

Quoting myself in the boring WWDC post, I said:

community.winsupersite.com/.../69877.aspx

"I really don't think anyone should have much of a problem with the term iCabal.  In many ways it is better than iPeople, and certainly better than sheep.  But let's look at some of the "textbook" definitions of cabal and see if it aligns with Apple, Steve, and the fans of the company.

"a clique, as in artistic, literary, or theatrical circles."

Yes, Apple does have it's fans in this area, and they tend to be quite cohesive and adamant about their love of Apple products.

"A number of persons united in some close design, usually to promote their private views and interests in church or state by intrigue; a secret association composed of a few designing persons"

WWDC, Steve Jobs being one of the designing persons, and whomever else got put on the iPhone patent.  And Steve is quite well known for his intrigue in these matters.

"One of the divisions or parties of charioteers (distinguished by their colors)"

Lime green shirts, mock turtleneck, etc.

"A party, in political society, combined or acting in union, in opposition to the government, or state"

Superbowl ad.  Hey, they even made the commercial seem like it was them breaking up a government like entity.

In the end, "thinking different""

Anyway, this point will become more and more moot as LTE gets deployed, as well as hardware agnostic cell radios.

Chatter aside, this [3G coverage] is good to know. Every time that I shopped for a wireless carrier, I checked area coverage. EVERY TIME. No coverage means no service, so no 3G, you probably get EDGE. CNET has a story that since revenue sharing with ATT is gone, Apple may be free to sell the iPhone on other carriers. As pointed out, the iPhone may not be compatible in it's present form [GSM]. So who knows. Here's the link:

news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-9964695-17.html

@dstrack - ...it's certainly a Catch22... is that Verizon locks down their network - certainly one of my biggest complaints.  BUT the reason their network is superior is because ... they lock down their network."

I think that Apple calls that "providing a superior user experience" when it comes to the Mac hardware only rule for OS X.

--tayme

"BUT the reason their network is superior is because ... they lock down their network."

Really? - I thought Paul (and others' point) was that Verizon had better 3g coverage, i.e., more towers with 3G and more areas covered, than AT&T.  That has nothing to do with Verizon's Nazi-like restrictions and limitations on devices put on its network.

Sorry, but "cabal" does have a negative connotation - it's defined as

"the artifices and intrigues of a group of persons secretly united in a plot (as to overturn a government); also : a group engaged in such artifices and intrigues"

www.merriam-webster.com/.../cabal

@cesjr - "That has nothing to do with Verizon's Nazi-like restrictions and limitations on devices put on its network."

So, is Apple Nazi-like with its "superior user experience" as well?

I am not flame baiting here...I am curious why one company can be considered Nazi-like and the other God-like when implementing the same basic rules. I think that is what Paul calls the iCabal double standard.

--tayme

tayme -

the obvious difference is that Verizon's lock-downs on the device actually degrade the experience, while apple's control is exercised to improve the experience.

Kinda like a gun can be used to shoot an innocent bystander or save an innocent bystander from an armed assailant.  Same means, different ends.

Oh, and in case you are wondering...

developer.apple.com/.../chapter_4_section_1.html

--tayme

Furthermore, for Paul to call anyone out on a "double standard" is about the biggest howler I've heard all day.  Paul has the biggest double standard ever when it comes to Apple and MS.    Which is totally understandable given that his income derives almost entirely from windows or MS-based products

@cesjr - "the obvious difference is that Verizon's lock-downs on the device actually degrade the experience , while apple's control is exercised to improve the experience."

That is your opinion...not fact. Each person could have a different opinion on that...For instance, I could say that I would enjoy OS X more if I could build my own hardware to install it on.

I can find opinions both way with a simple web search...your choice, Google, Yahoo, WebCrawler...but that is all they are; opinions.

--tayme

"That is your opinion...not fact."

You really want to argue that Verizon's lock-down of devices -- so that the can pitch all kinds of crap Verizon fee-based alternatives -- is a "good" thing?  It's clear and obvious is done for Verizon's benefit alone.  Sorry, but you can't find anyone outside of the cell carriers that think their "control" is done for anyone's interest put their own.  It's not opinion, it's fact.  Even Paul agrees on this one.

As for apple, you can disagree with Apple's approach - or not like its downsides -- but it's done with the user experience in mind.  That link you provide proves exactly what I'm saying.  Sure, some people will disagree - but then again some people think evolution is opinion.  The mere existence of some people who can't see reality for what it is, does not change the facts.  It's beyond obvious that apple exhibits control to improve the experience - they might not always succeed and they might sometimes be wrong (i.e, less controls would be adequate), but the goal is right.  Verizon's goal is completely, unalterably wrong -

"Verizon's goal is completely, unalterably wrong"

Now THAT is entirely your opinion.  And Verizon would call you wrong for saying that too.

@cesjr - "...so that the can pitch all kinds of crap Verizon fee-based alternatives..."

You mean like this:

www.mobiletechnews.com/.../110707.html

The point I am trying to make is that it is all up to each person. If Verizon is so bad, why are they successful and how do you brush off things like the above? Apple is not all about the user. They care about making money...as they should. If you do not realize that, then you are definately a card carrying member of the iCabal.

They tried to license their OS to clone hardware vendors once and started losing the company financially because the clone makers could build a better machine that would run the OS better than the Mac. Steve Jobs came back to the company and put a quick stop to that licensing program. Here's a video of Steve admitting that at an old MacWorld -

www.youtube.com/watch

--tayme

"No company/service is perfect obviously. But if Verizon became an option, I'd pay to opt out of AT&T in a heartbeat. I suspect I'm not alone on that one. In fact, I'm sure of it."

In fact, I did exactly that (having used one or both of the major carriers over the years), and I've lived to regret it. Verizon may have the best network, but their customer service sucks a$$. There's no nice way to put it.

Still, I'd like to see a lot more options for portability. The U.S. Carriers are all horrible to one degree or another.

"Apple is not all about the user. They care about making money...as they should.."

Of course apple wants to and needs to make money - but they think (correctly) that they are doing that by making products that provide a best in class user experience.  Verizon's goal is to get you on their network - and then lock down the device and force you to buy and use their crap software and services.  This has been the whole problem with cell phones in the US - carriers restricting what's on the phone in terms of software and services.  Again, Paul has stated this as well.  Most people wouldn't dispute this - do you?

Oh and by the way, the games offered on the Verizon phones are a joke - just like the games on cell phones in general.  Seriously, I saw someone playing breakout on a blackberry today on the metro - wow, gaming as advanced as an Atari 2600.  

Yet another example of how the cell carriers have held back cell phones - with Verizon as the prime culprit.  They've given us crap for years - and only apple broke the logjam.   WITH AT&T.  Verizon - not so much.  They would have preferred their Soviet style system to have gone on forever.

@cesjr - its obvious that we don't agree. Thats ok...but, can you enlighten me on how you know that Apple "think<s> (correctly) that they are doing that by making products that provide a best in class user experience" and  "Verizon's goal is to get you on their network - and then lock down the device and force you to buy and use their crap software and services" Just curious how you are privy to such insight??? Friends with the CEOs or what? THAT IS MY POINT...IT IS YOUR OPINION!!! NOT FACT!!!

--tayme

let's see - who has a reputation for making easy to use, loved software?  Apple or Verizon Wireless?  hmmm, that's a hard one.

Pingback from  In defense of ATT&#8217;s 3G network for the iPhone. | Elvis in Vegas

@cesjr - "let's see - who has a reputation for making easy to use, loved software?  Apple or Verizon Wireless?  hmmm, that's a hard one."

Exactly what does that have to do with how you know what is in the mind of Apple's or Verizon's management?

By the way, my Verizon phone works great. I use it to make and recieve calls all the time. That is what it was made to do. Not only that, I even send and recieve the occasional text message...and I am happy with the service that I recieve from both Verizon and the retailer tht I use when I do need support or an upgrade.

I can also say the same sorts of things about my old G5 iMac, my old XP laptop, my new Vista machine(especially Media Center), my Zune, my 360, my Wii, and many other tech gadgets that I own and/or use. I will probably buy a Macbook soon(but definately not an Air)...and I would like to try out an iPhone, but not until they are on Verizon's network(that is how satisfied a customer I am).

Those are my opinions...and it is obvious what yours are, my fine iCabal member. I'm ok with that. Just don't claim that your opinion is the only CORRECT one and that you KNOW what is best for everybody.

--tayme

First off, Paul is dead right that AT&T is a roadblock to the iPhone's eventual dominance.  Service quality aside, since it varies for everyone in every area, There's simply no way for the iPhone to achieve the level of success of multi-carrier phones given that it's addressable market is smaller.  Period.  It's still a success and will be that much larger now that it's perceived price is lower (though it's long-term price is now higher).

It must be pointed out now, that at the time of the initial iPhone release many mac-defenders added up the numbers with the iPhone's $20 data plan and demonstrated the the iPhone at $600 was the same price as subsidized smartphones.  The Apple-bashers back then (Steve Ballmer included here) were yelling about "the most expensive phone ever" and ignoring the full contract expense.  Now, the tables are turned, the iPhone is priced like other phones and the Apple-bashers are doing the long-term math and ignoring the initial cost.

Apple-Bashers read from the same playbook too.  It's not just mac zealots that play that game.

Regarding Paul in general and the "iCabal" in particular...

I think honestly that Paul is a fair commenter with a snarky tone that he usually applies equally to Apple and Microsoft.  His podcast is excellent and he more often than not praises Apple there (and often here) in comparison to Microsoft.  He's not a partisan hack as many mac users claim.  Rob Enderle is a partisan hack... or just plain ignorant... but not Paul.

Where Paul irks me as a avid mac fan and former MS defender is when his tone leans on cliches about Apple and mac users (especially old and outdated ones).  When he generalizes.  When he calls Apple out of "lying" and exaggerating in terms that suggest they are worse than other companies like Microsoft in this area.  Most of all, when he takes jabs at the Mac community and seems to bait them/us.  "iCabal" feels like this.

"Cabal" main definition and connotation is that of a conspiratorial secret group.  It's a very negative term with very specific implications.  Are there journalists that cut Apple slack, sure I guess.  Does someone like Walt Mossberg outsize the importance of Apple when he presses Balmer and Gates about the competition Windows faces with the mac... sure.  Does David Pouge think Apple products are better than Microsoft ones?  Clearly.  Are they members of a Cabal?  Absolutely not.

What is funny here is that Paul recently articulated in his podcast why Apple is so interesting and why it deserves all the attention it gets.  Apple is innovative.  Microsoft is iterative.  Apple challenges the status quo and makes gorgeous, well crafted products.  Microsoft consumer products are largely junk.  All of this a paraphrasing of Paul (an opinions I share with him).  So, yes, the press follows Apple even though they only have 3% global marketshare.  They do this because Apple is interesting... not because they're in a Cabal.  

But make no mistake, Paul isn't a hack.  He isn't a pure partisan.  He isn't an Apple-basher.  

Waethorn is. ;)

@jp - I read Paul's iCabal comments and laugh...it is meant as a joke-nothing more. On the other hand, read cesjr's comments in this thread...he is defending Apple by calling another company that is not even a competitor of of theirs by a much more offensive name than Cabal...that being Nazi and comparing them to the Soviet Union. Right or wrong, that is the type of person that gives the Apple extreme fanbase the image that it has; wouldn't you agree? Hey, I laugh at the Mac vs PC commercials...if I am watching something on TiVo and a new one speeds by when I am FFing through the commercials, I go back and watch it...my wife hates that!

--tayme

@tayme,

While the use of "nazi" is never a good sign in a web forum, this wasn't the worst use I've seen.  Still, I can't condone that.  It's just in poor taste.

As for mac zealots giving mac users a bad name... this is nothing but geek stuff.  Most people don't know or care about that.  The average american doesn't spend a second thinking about "mac users".  And i've come across enough vile hate from windows partisans to cancel any mac zealotry out.  At least mac zealots aren't dumping on a minority platform while trumpeting a monopoly like this MicroShills do.

Regardless, this is all just silly geek fun.  I don't think that Paul's use of iCabal is exactly a joke.  It's an insult at a group of people Paul thinks are Apple shills.  The problem is that he's used it pretty scattershot (such as saying that anyone with a .mac account is in the iCabal).

"your opinion is the only CORRECT one and that you KNOW what is best for everybody."

Actually it's Paul's "opinion" (and that of most people that have thought about it) that cell phone carriers have not had the end user experience in mind when they do things like, for example, Verizon removing the ability to sync photos over a USB cable so you have to pay to sync them over their network.  Who exactly has the opposite opinion here, that such restrictions are done with the end user in mind (and not Verizon's pocketbook)?  I keep asking you if you think this is so - and you evade the question.

@cesjr - I think that I answered when I said  "By the way, my Verizon phone works great. I use it to make and recieve calls all the time. That is what it was made to do. Not only that, I even send and recieve the occasional text message...and I am happy with the service that I recieve from both Verizon and the retailer tht I use when I do need support or an upgrade." I also ended up that statement by stating that it was my opinion. I don't need a phone to do all of those things...I may very well buy an iPhone, but not because I need the features or don't like Verizon...but because I am a tech gadget enthusiast.

On, the other hand, you continue to think that your opinion is the only correct opinion and that is part of what I am taking issue with. You also seem to think that Apple is above other companies and are purely looking out for the consumer. You have yet to respond to my question - "can you enlighten me on how you know that Apple "think<s> (correctly) that they are doing that by making products that provide a best in class user experience" and  "Verizon's goal is to get you on their network - and then lock down the device and force you to buy and use their crap software and services" Just curious how you are privy to such insight??? Friends with the CEOs or what?" Again...it is all conjecture on your part...that along with a bit of Apple's reality distortion field.

--tayme

The link of "a list of places that get 3G coverage" is helpful. I used the link at the site to check the map and found that my area indeed does get 3G voice and data, but is not listed in the text page. It looks as if 3G is in a lot of New Jersey, which works for me. The rest of you may be screwed, but input your zip code on the map [after selecting a city from the state and city list] and check both voice and data, then compare it to the list. My old home town did not make it, but the population is rather small. It just out of 3G reach above Pittsburgh.

"you continue to think that your opinion is the only correct opinion "

As I pointed out multiple times, it's Paul's "opinion" too that the cell carriers are responsible for the poor state of the mobile phone experience and that apple (with AT&T's acquiesence) have started to change the game.  And many other people.  So it's simply FALSE that it's only my opinion.  

Thus, on the very issue we are talking about - Apple did something that improved the user experience, while Verizon was unwilling to allow Apple to do what AT&T allowed apple to do (make a phone with the end user in mind).  These are simple facts - and your reliance on the "it's only an opinion" is just a dodge to avoid debating the issue.

As for how I am "privy" to such insight - these are obvious facts that anyone can observe.  Apple made a phone unencumbered by cell carrier restrictions.  That's why it's so great (notwithstanding faults of course).  They aren't the only ones trying to do that - the Android for example is doing the same.

The product speaks for itself - Apple made what is universally regarded as the  phone with the best user experience.  Yes, it exercised some restrictions - but look at the result.

Now look at the product of Verizon's restrictions - terrible UI, a bunch of overpriced crap (like monthly fee GSP/driving directions), games about as advanced as an Atari 2600, no ability to update the phone (which PAUL himself has identified as a carrier-based (ie. VERIZON) restriction that has been highly damaging.

So we plainly have one company that, yes with some restrictions, produced a fantastic product.  And then we have Verizon - a big part of the problem.

Again, everything I am saying Paul has said himself.  Why don't you address that?  You keep avoiding it.

To play devil's advocate here for just a bit, the whole internet and wireless infrastructure construction issue is not trivial.  It costs billions and billions of dollars for these companies to lay the cable and build things out.  If they aren't able to monetize that work, they simply aren't going to do it.  And that means no improvement in broadband penetration or wireless coverage.

So when you complain about the cost of service and then in the same breath complain about the lack of coverage, you're arguing against yourself.

Now... all that said, these damn companies have gotten massive government subsidies (also known a slavery-inducing federal crack).  Then they get to have their competitive position buttressed by the regulations that they lobby to enact that raise the barriers to entry in the market.  I believe the telcos are the single biggest lobbying group.

So I'm no fan of the telcos.  But this silly culture of "free free free" that's developed isn't even remotely connected to how investment gets incentivized.  Especially investment that involves digging up the country to lay cable.

cesjr, I think tyame's beef is not that he thinks that Verizon is beyond reproach.  That's not it at all, and saying otherwise would be pure PR speak.  Likewise, saying that Apple is beyond reproach that somehow they want to "help" people and are not in it for the money is also pure PR speak and reads like a mission statement.  To think that Steve doesn't want to make money first and design products second belies how Apple, and quite frankly, any company works.

They aren't in the non-profit business.  Even with Steve's $1 salary, he was still one of the highest paid CEO's.  Driving a Mercedes SL and living in Cupertino is not cheap.  Surely he's in it for the money.  Clearly he is a workaholic, and if he didn't have any monetary incentives, I doubt he would be looking as deathly as he looked at the keynote.

If he wanted to "help" people, wouldn't he be able to lower prices?  Not shut down enthusiast sites like ThinkSecret?  Let other companies in to the iPod/iTunes ecosystem?  Give huge amounts of money to charity, say through a foundation created in your name ;)?

@cesjr - "So it's simply FALSE that it's only my opinion"

Read closely...I said that you think that your opinion is the ONLY CORRECT OPINION...not that it is ONLY YOUR OPINION...

--tayme

it's not about whether Apple wants to make a profit or "help" people.  It's about how they go about making a profit.  Apple's approach is to make a great product and then hopefully the money will come.  I'm sorry if that makes it sound like I put Apple above Verizon, but I'm just calling it as I see it.  

Also, most of what I'm saying is not even seriously disputed, certainly not by Paul.  Most people will readily admit that apple makes great (not perfect) products.  Few people would say that about Verizon's phones and choices made regarding what phones are allowed to do.  Verizon has been castigated by MANY - not just me as tayme asserts - for unduly restricting phones to the detriment of the user experience.

"Read closely...I said that you think that your opinion is the ONLY CORRECT OPINION...not that it is ONLY YOUR OPINION.."

Fair enough - but I think what I'm asserting goes beyond opinion.  I mean it's pretty universally believed - apple made a phone with the best UI ever.  Yes, they heavily restricted things.  You can't install any OS you want on the iPhone.  They are going to restrict 3d party apps to a large degree.  But look at the result - it's not really opinion.  It's a fact - it's the best UI on a phone.  Hands down.

Now we turn to Verizon.  Here's one you keep dodging and weaving about - is it really "opinion" that Verizon (and other cell carrier's) software restrictions have been a good thing for the user experience?  Is that your opinion?  Is it anyone's opinion? -  besides executives at Verizon, etc.?  If nobody (or practically nobody holds the opposing view), it's not opinion anymore, it's a fact.

@cesjr - "is it really "opinion" that Verizon (and other cell carrier's) software restrictions have been a good thing for the user experience?"

Yes...depending on the user. Ther are many cell phone users that could give a Rat's A$$ about anything but making and recieving calls and the occasional text message. My mother and mother in law are good examples of that...they had problems finding a phone that was simple enough to meet their needs. Remember...all of us here are pretty much geeks...the vast majority of regular, every day cell phone users barely know how to send a text message, let alone use turn by turn navigation systems or syncing their contacts with Outlook or any other address book.

"If nobody (or practically nobody holds the opposing view), it's not opinion anymore, it's a fact." - I disagree with you here...if that were true, then your statement above "but then again some people think evolution is opinion." is backwards...because there are way more people that believe that some sort of higher power exists than not...using your theory that makes Creationism, or Intelligent Design, or whatever you want to call it a fact...not an opinion. For the record, I am a Christian...so I disagree with the evolution theory...

--tayme

"Ther are many cell phone users that could give a Rat's A$$ about anything but making and recieving calls and the occasional text message."

That just means they don't have an opinion.  They don't care.  It doesn't matter to them.  They haven't thought about it, likely.  

Does anyone that cares about this issue - including yourself apparently -- think that Verizon has had the end user in mind when it, for example, disabled bluetooth on many of its phones so you couldn't sync photos and addresses?  Do you think that?  Does anyone think that?

"If nobody (or practically nobody holds the opposing view), it's not opinion anymore, it's a fact." - I disagree with you here...if that were true, then your statement above "but then again some people think evolution is opinion." is backwards."

There's a logical glitch in your thinking.  If A, then B, does not necessarily mean -- if not B, then not A.  That's not always the case.

There are a number of situations where we move out of opinion and into fact.  Not just one.   One situation is where two factors exist (1) there is clear factual evidence of one view (ie, compare the iPhone UI to Verizon's dictated UI and you see one is obviously better than the other (for people that care about the feature set in question), or compare the ability of the iPhone to be updated versus no ability to update Verizon's phones, so you are forced to buy a new one and sign up - clearly Verizon's approach is inferior for the end user that cares about having a phone that's improved).  Second factor - nobody (or practically nobody) takes the opposite position.  

That's the case with Verizon's Nazi-like lockdown of devices - nobody (or practically nobody) thinks that its done with the end user experience in mind.  You apparently don't think so either, since I've given you about 10 opportunities to adopt that view but you haven't.

HOwever, that situation (there is clear evidence supporting one view and nobody or practically nobody holds the opposing view) is not the only situation where something is a fact, not opinion.  For example, lots of kids believe in Santa Claus.  Millions of them.  However, it's a fact that Santa Claus does not exist.  There are many examples of lots of people believing things that are demonstrably wrong.

"If nobody (or practically nobody holds the opposing view), it's not opinion anymore, it's a fact."

That's a pretty odd definition of what a fact is.  For example:

Fact:  Verizon is the #1 cell carrier in the US by subscribers (at least they will be after the Alltel acquisition).  There is a metric, and the metric is simple math.

Opinion:  Apple made a superior phone UI.  It's opinion even if everyone agrees with you.  There are limited metrics as to what defines a superior UI.  And since the iPhone lacks a physical keyboard, MANY would disagree that the iPhone is superior.  Of course that is just their opinion for feeling that way, even though they may feel that it is a fact.

"Apple made a phone unencumbered by cell carrier restrictions. "

Not really.  They actually made a phone that has one big ol' cell carrier restriction, and that is AT&T.  And for all of the consternation about how great Apple was in going against the grain, they have now gone to a traditional cell carrier relationship model.

@ Dipsh t Admin:

Here's what you said: "while the same iCabal will liken him to being a part of the iCabal when it suits their purposes (murdocdv I'm looking at your)"

It's not my purpose to include Paul in the iCabal, he's just letting the term fly anywhere and everywhere. He even, perhaps accidentally, included himself in the iCabal, that was my point.

Read johnpapola post after your's that contains that quote. The inclusion of iCabal in Pauls various posts and articles just started as a non-sequitur, without any explanation. My problem with Paul inventing a term like iCabal is that it's just as childish and silly when Linux partisans use M$ or Paul gets called a Microshill.

Whether you use Linux, MIcrosoft, Apple, Google, or anything else, outlandish generalizations like iCabal (sorry, there is no secret society of people acting together on Apple's behalf against Paul) only serve to divide those groups into more polarized camps, and sorry, but that's not what I am looking for, and I don't think it helps make your points better than reason.

@cesjr - I stick to my opinion that the basic cell phone users do, indeed have an opinion...They want a simple to use cell phone that makes and recieves calls and can send an occasional text message. That is their opinion...and I think that they would thank the service providers for providing such phones for their use. For you to brush them off as not having an opinion is conceited at the very least...another example of you feeling that you are better than those that disagree. That is more Nazi like than Verizon locking down the equipment on their network.

As far as my opinion...I feel that Verizon has provided equipment that meets my NEEDS...Do I want to mess with an iPhone or Android powered phone...of course!!! Do in need to, absolutely not. My expected user experience has been met because I chose that type of phone. No company can meet the expectation of every user, though...just as Apple fails to do by not allowing me to build a machine to run their OS on. That would better meet my user experience expectation, but not everyone's.

Your theory about opinion becoming fact is incorrect in my opinion. And that is OK...I am through with this debate...have a great weekend!!!

--tayme

"They want a simple to use cell phone that makes and recieves calls and can send an occasional text message. That is their opinion..  For you to brush them off as not having an opinion is conceited at the very least...another example of you feeling that you are better than those that disagree."

They do have an opinion - about what kind of phone they want.  (a very limited function one).  That's fine.

But they don't (very likely) have an opinion about what smartphone has the best UI.  They don't even own a smartphone - so how would they know?  In other words, they don't have an opinion on what we are talking about.

Dipt *** Admin -

there are metrics showing the iPHone UI is superior - web browsing usage, customer satisfaction ratings, etc.

Also, I've been saying Apple was able to bring a relatively unencumbered phone to the market.  They have had to give in to AT&T on some things.  They've just gotten a LOT more freedom.  Again, Paul says this too.  It's not just me.

Regarding Verizon's superior network (compared to AT&T) - it's very likely that this superior network is why Verizon has felt it has the power to restrict/curtail/remove features from its phones.  It's not the underdog, that's for sure.

AT&T does not have the better network.  They needed something that was "better" than what Verizon had.  Since they couldn't offer a better network (at least not at the time, now or in the immediate future), they could offer a better smartphone with the iPhone.  That required giving in to STeve's demand for near total control of the phone.

Verizon really had no incentive to do this.

@cesjr - One last comment from me...you just changes your entire story by saying-

"They do have an opinion - about what kind of phone they want.  (a very limited function one).  That's fine."

You had said that they have no opinion.

and

"But they don't (very likely) have an opinion about what smartphone has the best UI."

We were talking about phones in general, not specifically smartphones up to that point.

--tayme

"We were talking about phones in general, not specifically smartphones up to that point."

We were talking about a number of things, including whether the iPhone had a better user experience than Verizon's locked-down offerings.

When comparing things, you are obviously comparing things that are alike.  What sense would it make to say that one white wine is better than some other red wine?  You would need to compare two whites or two reds, really two of the same grape variety, to say which was better.

You're taking about a completely different product - a phone that's just a phone.  What sense does it make to compare the iPhone to that?  That's not a product category apple is even in.  It's a fine product to buy.  It's just a completely different product than the iPhone or its competition.

Also, Verizon's tendency to "lockdown" is not even relevant if the mobile phone is just a basic phone (with MMS and a contact list maybe).  The phone has almost no features or ability to do anything beyond make a call.  So who cares if its locked down or not.

Your pointing to a category of product that is not even relevant to the debate here - wh