The next phone

It's looking more and more like Apple is going to announce a 3G iPhone at its Worldwide Developer's Conference on June 9th, with units probably shipping in July. That will probably be the point at which I buy one, since my current contract expires in August, and I really need a phone that does double duty as a PDA. Given that the Atlantic is a mac shop, the iPhone is the obvious choice.

Also, to be perfectly honest, it's pretty.

But at first, the "3G" looks like it won't be anything to write home about. AT&T's EDGE network is already inferior to Verizon's EVDO, and it's pretty much got its hands full handling the data requirements of the previous versions of the iPhone. Those of us committing to one of the new models will be taking quite a leap of faith on AT&T's rollout.

Meanwhile, Sprint bleeds customers and revenue. Verizon has the better netwrok; AT&T has the iPhone. Sprint has . . . Nextel, which hasn't caught on outside industries like construction, and is further threatened by broadcast technologies like Twitter. America may end up with a wireless duopoly unless something changes, fast.

Comments

Also, to be perfectly honest, it's pretty.

You report, we deride.

Posted by MarkG | May 15, 2008 11:48 AM

Meanwhile, Sprint bleeds customers and revenue. Verizon has the better netwrok; AT&T has the iPhone. Sprint has . . . Nextel, which hasn't caught on outside industries like construction, and is further threatened by broadcast technologies like Twitter. America may end up with a wireless duopoly unless something changes, fast.

What about T-Mobile?

I wonder if Verizon Wireless has become the phone of choice among nerds, because the company uses a nerd as its advertising symbol?

Posted by Peter | May 15, 2008 11:54 AM

I'm not an Apple hater or anything-- but if you're gonna be tethered to Cingular/AT&T anyway, you should look into the new BlackBerry Bold, at least to comparison shop.

Posted by Freddie | May 15, 2008 11:56 AM

Ask Obama how he likes his.

Posted by minderbender | May 15, 2008 11:59 AM

Freddie,

You may have missed this:

Given that the Atlantic is a mac shop, the iPhone is the obvious choice.

Not worrying about how it would work with a Mac is a big part of why I got my iPhone. When I bought it, most of the cool factor stuff was way down the list vs. syncing easily with my address book on my Mac. Sure, it can be done with other phones, but it's just another thing to deal with/figure out. I'm lazy and I hate shopping.

My wife didn't want an iPhone. She wanted a simple, no-frills phone... the kind that are hard to find these days. Now that we have them, I realize that the user interface on the iPhone as a phone is much closer to what she wants than what I wound up getting her a Nokia flip phone. Specifically, on the iPhone, switching between ring and vibrate is a switch on the outside with a red dot on it. On the Nokia, she has to navigate menus. Moreover, the Nokia is loaded with crap like a nonreprogrammable button that tries to get you to use ATT's push to talk service. The software on the Nokia is full of things promoting ATTs ringtones, wallpapers, etc.

Maybe Blackberries are cleaner. I hope so.

Posted by Jim Hu | May 15, 2008 12:10 PM

That's the whole point, right? The new 3G iPhone will work on the UMTS network, which is gads more efficient. The only issue I hear now is availability of UMTS on their network - which shouldn't be a problem in the eastern megalopolis.

Or will it ...? Like you, I'll find out as soon as I can.

Posted by Yardley Lew | May 15, 2008 12:27 PM

Megan,

ATT comes out on top in 3G performance in tests by Computerworld.

Check it out:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/15/atandts-3g-comes-out-on-top-in-speed-tests-will-only-get-faster/

Posted by Colin Fraizer | May 15, 2008 12:31 PM

I thought phones don't come available for 6 months after the makers (publicly) file with the FCC? That would mean we're some time away from 3G iPhones hitting the market.

Posted by Matt B | May 15, 2008 12:34 PM

Matt B,

Since it seems all the old style iPhones are already sold out:

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/03/iphone-sold-out.html

It would seem that the new ones should be in stores very soon.

Posted by jmo | May 15, 2008 12:39 PM

I carry a Verizon phone and a Cingular/ATT/Cingular/ATT phone in the Bay Area (one's from work, the other is personal). I have consistently better coverage with AT&T, and find that I get coverage from AT&T in places where Verizon and Sprint are hopeless.

Posted by Anthony | May 15, 2008 1:08 PM

"But at first, the "3G" looks like it won't be anything to write home about. AT&T's EDGE network is already inferior to Verizon's EVDO, and it's pretty much got its hands full handling the data requirements of the previous versions of the iPhone. Those of us committing to one of the new models will be taking quite a leap of faith on AT&T's rollout."

I have had a 3G phone (AT&T Tilt) since January and I know that they have had 3G phones available since at least a year prior to that (since they were available when at was looking at phones then as well). So there shouldn't be much need for a leap of faith since there have been plenty of people using AT&Ts 3G network for quite some time prior to the iPhone being able to access it. Although it certainly doesn't push mobile browsing up to the same realm as doing it on a broadband connected PC it was a definite improvement over EDGE.

Posted by Allen | May 15, 2008 1:24 PM

AT&T's 3G has been around for at least a year; I know someone who's had a Razr V3xx for about that long. I have had a 3G phone since September and in a good location here in Dallas I can get 1Mbps download speed.

Posted by Rick C | May 15, 2008 3:16 PM

A near-duopoly is almost inevitable, because there are only two actual wireless networks: CDMA and TDMA (GSM). The base costs of maintaining these networks are not likely to change, and consequently the costs of buying and/or leasing into these networks are not likely to change. The economies of scale will pretty much favor what the market is becoming now -- a duopoly with a smattering of small-scale specialty/co-op providers -- unless some major shake-up occurs.

Posted by aMouseforallSeasons | May 15, 2008 3:50 PM

Megan,

What's wrong with duopoly, pray tell? Bertrand, Stackleberg, and Cournot all show that we reap most of the benefits of competition even with only two firms in play. As other commenters point out, the firms accrue the benefits of larger economies of scale and we win with competitive pressure kept alive.

Of course, you were making a positive instead of a normative statement, but I wouldn't shed many tears if we end up with Verizon and AT&T as the only real networks. Duopoly is a fine situation to be in for consumers, for the most part.

Posted by MrProliferation | May 15, 2008 4:36 PM

I saw that computerworld article. Given that the measured results for Verizon were well under their advertised; I gotta wonder how they generated it.

Posted by Ian Argent | May 19, 2008 6:06 PM