My guess as to why no Sprint Android phone

On Dec 13, 10:31 pm, Todd Allcock <eleccon... RemoveThis @AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> At 13 Dec 2008 17:48:36 -0800 Der Tschonnie wrote:
>
<snip>

>> will excite Americans enough to get customers to switch back.
>
> I'm curious- what do you find so compelling about Andriod that you think
> it'll "excite Americans."  I don't see it personally.  It certainly has a
> little "geek appeal" but I don't see the mass appeal.

I think the mapping, GPS, "street view", transit, etc., on top of
calendar and mail, most of which I admit can work on other phones, are
the features that will push people to buy Android phones. I wish I
had an iPhone, because that would solve all of my problems, but I
can't pop a CDMA card into the GSM slot so I could keep my great plan
and have a great phone. It doesn't work that way.

Every player in the mobile biz is going to have a hand in the Handset
Alliance. An OS is an OS once it's burned into ROM, so the technology
involved in talking to cell towers (GSM, CDMA, iDEN) doesn't make much
difference.

Here's a question I can't answer for myself - what OS predominates in
phones sold by SK Telecom or the big Japanese players? Are they all
proprietary by manufacturer or Symbian or something else? I'm sure
they're not PalmOS or Mac OSX. Google is good at regionalizing its
offerings, so I hope they'll do the same for Android.

>
> > It also may make the South Koreans look a little more closely at the
> > company.  I don't want to see a duopoly in the US, although if AT&T
> > were to buy Sprint and Verizon were to buy T-Mobile, they could both
> > make dual-mode (CDMA/GSM) handsets and maintain some degree of
> > competition.
>
> Except that Verizon doesn't need T-Mo's network, assets, or customers, nor
> do they need the headache of adding GSM to their plate.

You're right about VZW and AT&T not needing the headaches brought on
by acquiring smaller players, but it makes roaming much more
attractive, especially if a) you have a customer base which travels
internationally or b) you have some weak spots which don't pay to
cover with your own tower. So single-number, dual-mode phones alone
would be a tidier solution.

At 14 Dec 2008 16:29:42 -0800 Der Tschonnie wrote:

> > I'm curious- what do you find so compelling about Andriod that you think
> > it'll "excite Americans."  I don't see it personally.  It certainly has
a
> > little "geek appeal" but I don't see the mass appeal.
>
> I think the mapping, GPS, "street view", transit, etc., on top of
> calendar and mail, most of which I admit can work on other phones, are
> the features that will push people to buy Android phones.

But you just said yourself- all that stuff (and more) is available on other
phones.

Personally, I doubt most people acftually care what OS is on their phone if
it's got the features they want and it easy enough to use.

The success of the iPhone has nothing to do with the fact that it has a
mobile version of "OS X" under the hood. If T-Mo's G1 was running Symbian
or Windows Mobile instead of Android, but had the same apps and features
"on top", would it be any less of a desirable phone?

> I wish I
> had an iPhone, because that would solve all of my problems, but I
> can't pop a CDMA card into the GSM slot so I could keep my great plan
> and have a great phone. It doesn't work that way.


Ah, so you're really looking for a iPhoney, rather than an Android phone.


> Every player in the mobile biz is going to have a hand in the Handset
> Alliance. An OS is an OS once it's burned into ROM, so the technology
> involved in talking to cell towers (GSM, CDMA, iDEN) doesn't make much
> difference.


True- there's nothing stopping Sprint from offering an Android phone,
except they don't think they need one- between their Blackberries and WinMo
phones, they have the enterprise covered, and for consumers they have the
Instinct. (I'm not making a value judgement about the Instinct's
capabilities, just suggesting Sprint feels they've covered the iPhone's
niche, just as they felt the Katana filled the RAZR's niche years ago back
when the RAZR was exclusive.


> Here's a question I can't answer for myself - what OS predominates in
> phones sold by SK Telecom or the big Japanese players? Are they all
> proprietary by manufacturer or Symbian or something else? I'm sure
> they're not PalmOS or Mac OSX. Google is good at regionalizing its
> offerings, so I hope they'll do the same for Android.


From what I've read, mostly a mix of Symbian, Linux and proprietary OSes in
Japan, and South Korea has a government-mandated smartphone platform called
WIPI, ostensibly to assure interoperability, but may have been
protectionism to make foreign penetration difficult. Either way, it's
being phased out to allow competing platforms like RIM, WinMo and, of course,
the iPhone.



> You're right about VZW and AT&T not needing the headaches brought on
> by acquiring smaller players,

I never said acquiring smaller carriers was the headache- I suggested
acquiring one that used a different technology was.


> but it makes roaming much more
> attractive, especially if a) you have a customer base which travels
> internationally or b) you have some weak spots which don't pay to
> cover with your own tower. So single-number, dual-mode phones alone
> would be a tidier solution.

But Verizon and Sprint already offer CDMA/GSM phones, without the headache
of operating their own secondary (or in Sprint's case tertiary) non-CDMA
network for international travelers, and with up to seven carriers per
market, roaming partners using either technology are generally available.

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec.TakeThisOut@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
news:I621l.414$mY6.141@newsfe10.iad...
>
> Except that Verizon doesn't need T-Mo's network, assets, or customers, nor
> do they need the headache of adding GSM to their plate.

I've been under the impression that Verizon has already added "GSM to their
plate."

Take a look at the specs on their BlackBerry Storm 9530 at:
http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=1864

You will see the phone supports both GSM and CDMA.

I know someone with the BlackBerry Storm and with all the trouble he has had
with the screen I'm surprised he hasn't returned it yet.

At 21 Dec 2008 08:20:37 -0600 Roger 2008 wrote:

> > Except that Verizon doesn't need T-Mo's network, assets, or customers,
nor
> > do they need the headache of adding GSM to their plate.
>
> I've been under the impression that Verizon has already added "GSM to
their
> plate."


The GSM radio on the Blackberry supports roaming on international GSM
networks.

I was referring to the headache of operating a secondary GSM network here
in the States. You can ask Sprint-Nextel how much fun running two
incompatible networks is!

> Take a look at the specs on their BlackBerry Storm 9530 at:
> http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=1864
>
> You will see the phone supports both GSM and CDMA.
>

Ther are plenty of dual CDMA/GSM phones used by Sprint and Verizon for
internationally-traveling customers.

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec.DeleteThis@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>> I've been under the impression that Verizon has already added "GSM to
>> their plate."

> I was referring to the headache of operating a secondary GSM network
> here
> in the States. You can ask Sprint-Nextel how much fun running two
> incompatible networks is!

Well remember that Verizon is moving from CDMA/EVDO to LTE. That's a
total technology shift, since LTE is the upgrade path for GSM. AT&T is
moving to LTE, T-mobile is moving to LTE, so it's not *inconceivable*
that Verizon could buy T-mobile. Does it make business sense for
Verizon to buy T-mobile? I haven't the foggiest.

It's beginning to look like everybody is moving to LTE except Sprint,
which is on EVDO/iDEN/WiMax and seems somewhat unsure of its future
direction.


--
JC