We hate to point out the obvious, but it really seems that the marketing gurus at AT&T have this all wrong. Look guys -- no one's debating that AT&T's 3G isn't the fastest where available. We even saw as much ourselves. But Verizon's recent slew of ads have been calling out the size of your 3G network, which you absolutely can't argue is incredibly small when placed next to red-tinted competition. That said, AT&T is still fighting a battle to which no one has challenged it by employing the admittedly quirky Luke Wilson to show off just how much faster his favorite network can download a JPEG of himself compared to VZW. We've got to say that the results are fairly hilarious, but frankly, we would've rather seen that huge ad buy go towards a few more 3G towers here in the US of A. Vid's after the break, per usual.
Is it just me or doesn't the at&t-one seem to be faster? It seems to me going just as fast but just started earlier. Mediocre ad concept, done wrong as well?
@x Prime x I think what he was trying to say is they are both downloading at the same speed in the ad. The just ad starts with the ATT further along. So really the ATT guy just started earlier but didn't go any faster.
@(Unverified) sorry but "3G not available in all areas," which means that this commercial was shot while standing on AT&T's tower, if it weren't, the lack of coverage would have come out more than headless anywhere else.
@(Unverified) Wow, good one ATT. Basically saying no more than, 'of the scant areas of 3G we do have, we're about 10% faster.'
I really dislike ads that try and paint a picture of why they think they're better, when the competition simply states the black&white facts. It looks desperate.
@(Unverified) Just when you thought AT&T already had a peace 'treaty' with Verizon then this lame-old Luke Wilson Ads pops-out, which is no different with the other ads he done before... Loser indeed
This law suit was a waste of legal resources and it made AT&T look like a bunch of whiners. Its about time they realize that their hold on to their iBUbble will soon pop.. and Alas, 2 years from now people will react... :
"AT&T what? ah yes, they are the douche company who was trashed by verizon 2 years ago.. Where are they now again? ahh in the junk-yard collecting iphone scraps"
AT&T is just picking their battles. They know what to compare.Speed is something that doesnt matter when your coverage is so small. But it is getting obvious their afraid to even talk about 3G size.
@neeko18: they are fighting with the only truth they have. that the speed of their network is faster. just as Verizon used the truth that they have more areas of 3g (under their definition of the term which isn't exactly the same thing as ATT's but no one said it had to be the complete truth)
but in both cases there are faults to the arguments. coverage area is all fine and dandy but if the connection is slow as heck it's not much good.
speed is all fine and dandy but when you have to share that speed (or rather speed potential) with hundreds of folks, you don't get that much in actual results
Verizon is just picking their battles. They know what to compare.3G Coverage is something that doesnt matter when your speed is so small. But it is getting obvious their afraid to even talk about 3G speed.
@(Unverified) i would bet most people would rather have a large steady #G network as a carrier then AT&Ts spotty network..
And your assuming VZ is really that much slower..Yeah AT&T has a faster network right now..But where is that speed? Whose really using it? theres a lot more people using VZ large 3G network then the few that are getting that top notch AT&T speed.
Where I live we only have Comcast which is very slow compared to Verizon's FIOS, that a nearby city been enjoying for quite some time. Now the choice boils down to internets or no internets, speed doesn't matter when you have no coverage.
If speed is something that doesn't matter if you have more coverage. Then wouldn't AT&T still win since they do have the largest coverage when you include 2G(edge)?
And I'm sorry but I rather have fast speed when I'm in town(STL,mo) then when I'm in the country maybe once a year. And at least in St. Louis Verizon blows my friends who have it never get service or barely do when inside and I always have Full bars...
@neeko18 Actually I get 21 mbps on my T-Mo 3G in Charlotte that's one strike for AT&Terrible. My brother tried to make a phone next to an AT&T tower with his iPhone and couldn't even use a half of an F let alone 3G. These commercials suck AT&T. Spend the money on making your service better not at failing even more.
And it isn't as though Verizon started the attack ads or anything...
Sorry, I'm not a huge GSM fan. Data or voice, GSM isn't that good around here (subburbs outside of Green Bay, WI) because it simply isn't as focused on as CDMA in America in general, but Verizon's commercials of comparing data coverage and implying it's voice AND data coverage is pretty BS. I say AT&T fights it with all they've got - they have plenty of iPhone revenue to piss away on these commercials, as opposed to upgrading their equipment as the OP suggests. :)
For sure you get 21mbit theoretical but what device are you getting that on, a 3G base station or card for laptop cause I don't know of an phones that yet support 21mbit
I wish companies would stop taking shots at each other and fix their weak areas instead. You wanna prove your network is the best - why not try making it the best?
@3DSteve God...that is such a European thing to say. Why don't you join us on this side of the pond where corporations prove their worth with advertisements that sway the easily moved public opinion. Socialist.
@3DSteve I agree. You know what I would love to see? A bunch of friends sitting around a tv. The Verizon commercial comes on. Someone says "Hey, have you seen these new Verizon commercials?", everyone watches and laughs. At the end of the commercial, same person says "Hey, food's in the kitchen" or something like that. Everyone at the party gets up to go and they all grab their iPhones... accept the person who was commenting on how funny the verizon ads were...
@3DSteve These are not mutually exclusive things. AT&T and Verizon can run ads taking shots at each other AND upgrade their networks. In fact, CapEx spending on network infrastructure comes out of a vastly different bucket than ad buys.
In conference calls w/investors AT&T has admitted they know where their network needs work -- NYC, LA, SFO in particular -- and are working on infrastructure improvements.
@NikAmi Yeah European shoppers are super informed. :rolleyes:
@3DSteve Consumers in general are too stupid to know anything beyond what companies put out in advertisement. The internet is such a storehouse of information but few people go on for reviews of all the latest competing devices. It's easier just to say "give me an iPod" or "give me an iPhone". And then they'll use the stock earbuds because they don't know any better.
Until companies STOP making ridiculous amounts of money through advertising their product instead of just improving it, this trend won't change.
It's lots cheaper to advertise that you have the "best" network, than actually spending the money and really making it the best - highest coverage and/or fastest.
Advertising will always rule the world if people are willing to fall for it.
lol at least we don't put up with crappy networks you seem so accustomed with....
whoever said the european comment was spot on, the more these guys spend on advertising the more you all miss out on any improvements. in the uk all networks pretty much have the same coverage its not even an issue
@PATRICKmcnicholl I'm not so sure it's Apple that is preventing iPhone on other networks. There's a theory (presented in the latest GDGT podcast) that nobody except AT&T agreed to Apple's demands regarding iPhone.
@PATRICKmcnicholl If the iPhone comes to Verizon, the rest of the world gets stiffed. If that happens, I personally am gone and with me around 20 million other iPhone users outside the Noth American continent. That would mean a HUGE setback for Apple and I know that the whole world won't set up a CDMA network just because Apple decided that the next gen iPhone runs just on CDMA.
@(Unverified) What, do you think Apple is incapable of having CDMA and GSM versions of the iPhone? Other manufacturers have different versions like that all of the time (i.e. GSM and CDMA Heros, Pres) so it wouldn't be that hard for Apple to have two different versions.
@(Unverified) All they would have to do is make a dual-mode iPhone. Major smartphone companies like RIM and HTC have been doing this for awhile. That way you can have a domestic CDMA phone, roam internationally on GSM, and have 3G speeds everywhere. I imagine it's not that difficult to incorporate and the SIM slot on my Imagio takes up almost no space at all. I'm sure Apple, with all the thought they put into design, could figure something out and still keep the next generation slim.
iphone wont go to verizon or sprint for one simple fact. data during a call. it's pretty stupid imho that they both operate that way. i use data and voice at the same time very frequently and i know most of my nyc iphone co-horts do as well.
i'm gonna bet the iphone hits tmobile in a couple of years when they get their shit together with the whole 3g coverage thing.
The problem was that Verizon wouldn't give in to the demands Apple wanted. Its been years since this phone came out but people forget the huge changes AT&T had to make. Remember visual voice mail before the iphone? It wasn't around.
Also Apple refused to let anyone re-brand the phone or do anything to it. Verizon demands phones run their software, which if you use a blackberry, you can see their limitations make phones suck.
Apple wouldn't cave on anything and actually made demands with AT&T and Verizon. AT&T was the only one to give in.
I also don't think Apple will go to a CDMA provider until they figure out how to get Voice and Data at the same time. They've advertised this phone too much as a device that can do both at the same time. I don't see them backtracking just to get on a network. Verizon is going to need to make major changes before they go.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
posted Dec 6th 2009 8:56AM
Is it just me or doesn't the at&t-one seem to be faster? It seems to me going just as fast but just started earlier. Mediocre ad concept, done wrong as well?
@(Unverified) It's meant to be faster in the advert because they are advertising how at&t is faster.
@x Prime x I think what he was trying to say is they are both downloading at the same speed in the ad. The just ad starts with the ATT further along. So really the ATT guy just started earlier but didn't go any faster.
@keith524 Yeah that's it, thanks :)
@(Unverified) You're right. The speed is the same on both but Luke just stopped the Verizon one.
Ha! Dumb try AT&T.
@(Unverified)
Same masking at the same speed sloppily copied over
@(Unverified) sorry but "3G not available in all areas," which means that this commercial was shot while standing on AT&T's tower, if it weren't, the lack of coverage would have come out more than headless anywhere else.
@(Unverified) Wow, good one ATT. Basically saying no more than, 'of the scant areas of 3G we do have, we're about 10% faster.'
I really dislike ads that try and paint a picture of why they think they're better, when the competition simply states the black&white facts. It looks desperate.
@(Unverified) Sprint should sue both of them seeing as there are endless reports of them having the fastest 3G Network.
@(Unverified)
I love how this new war is about 3G... which is high speed mobile data.
But AT&T still has dropped calls. Most people's complaints are about dropped calls. It's almost 2010, right? Shouldn't they figure out voice first?
I realize data is becoming increasingly important... but some people still make phone calls on their cell phones.
@(Unverified) isn't 4G already operating???
@(Unverified) Yes Sprint has 4g in many Metropolis areas and a decent amount of outskirts. Just no phone to take advantage of it.
"3G not available in all areas"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHV-6lU8lM8&feature=player_embedded#at=28
@(Unverified) Just when you thought AT&T already had a peace 'treaty' with Verizon then this lame-old Luke Wilson Ads pops-out, which is no different with the other ads he done before... Loser indeed
This law suit was a waste of legal resources and it made AT&T look like a bunch of whiners. Its about time they realize that their hold on to their iBUbble will soon pop.. and Alas, 2 years from now people will react... :
"AT&T what? ah yes, they are the douche company who was trashed by verizon 2 years ago.. Where are they now again? ahh in the junk-yard collecting iphone scraps"
And the truth really hurts said by Verizon to AT&T: http://bit.ly/Verizon-is-just-telling-the-truth-and-the-truth-hurts
'So there was no peace-treaty, was there?'
Funny how AT&T got the most third rate actor out there to be their sponsor...
AT&T is just picking their battles. They know what to compare.Speed is something that doesnt matter when your coverage is so small. But it is getting obvious their afraid to even talk about 3G size.
@neeko18
3G penis sizes:
AT&T: 8======>
Verizon: 8===================>
More inches in certain places...
@neeko18 You could just as well say that coverage doesn't matter if your speed is too slow.
@neeko18: they are fighting with the only truth they have. that the speed of their network is faster. just as Verizon used the truth that they have more areas of 3g (under their definition of the term which isn't exactly the same thing as ATT's but no one said it had to be the complete truth)
but in both cases there are faults to the arguments. coverage area is all fine and dandy but if the connection is slow as heck it's not much good.
speed is all fine and dandy but when you have to share that speed (or rather speed potential) with hundreds of folks, you don't get that much in actual results
@neeko18
Verizon is just picking their battles. They know what to compare.3G Coverage is something that doesnt matter when your speed is so small. But it is getting obvious their afraid to even talk about 3G speed.
@Pies Wait... Do you mean like EDGE?
@(Unverified) i would bet most people would rather have a large steady #G network as a carrier then AT&Ts spotty network..
And your assuming VZ is really that much slower..Yeah AT&T has a faster network right now..But where is that speed? Whose really using it? theres a lot more people using VZ large 3G network then the few that are getting that top notch AT&T speed.
@Pies
Where I live we only have Comcast which is very slow compared to Verizon's FIOS, that a nearby city been enjoying for quite some time. Now the choice boils down to internets or no internets, speed doesn't matter when you have no coverage.
@NikAmi
So ATT just has more girth, basically.
@neeko18
If speed is something that doesn't matter if you have more coverage.
Then wouldn't AT&T still win since they do have the largest coverage when you include 2G(edge)?
And I'm sorry but I rather have fast speed when I'm in town(STL,mo) then when I'm in the country maybe once a year. And at least in St. Louis Verizon blows my friends who have it never get service or barely do when inside and I always have Full bars...
@neeko18
Actually I get 21 mbps on my T-Mo 3G in Charlotte that's one strike for AT&Terrible. My brother tried to make a phone next to an AT&T tower with his iPhone and couldn't even use a half of an F let alone 3G. These commercials suck AT&T. Spend the money on making your service better not at failing even more.
@neeko18
And it isn't as though Verizon started the attack ads or anything...
Sorry, I'm not a huge GSM fan. Data or voice, GSM isn't that good around here (subburbs outside of Green Bay, WI) because it simply isn't as focused on as CDMA in America in general, but Verizon's commercials of comparing data coverage and implying it's voice AND data coverage is pretty BS. I say AT&T fights it with all they've got - they have plenty of iPhone revenue to piss away on these commercials, as opposed to upgrading their equipment as the OP suggests. :)
By the way, my girlfriend and I both have VZW. :P
For sure you get 21mbit theoretical but what device are you getting that on, a 3G base station or card for laptop cause I don't know of an phones that yet support 21mbit
@Malkmus yes but not big enough to reach the light at the end of the tunnel
its 8==========o
I wish companies would stop taking shots at each other and fix their weak areas instead. You wanna prove your network is the best - why not try making it the best?
@3DSteve
God...that is such a European thing to say. Why don't you join us on this side of the pond where corporations prove their worth with advertisements that sway the easily moved public opinion. Socialist.
@3DSteve
I agree. You know what I would love to see? A bunch of friends sitting around a tv. The Verizon commercial comes on. Someone says "Hey, have you seen these new Verizon commercials?", everyone watches and laughs. At the end of the commercial, same person says "Hey, food's in the kitchen" or something like that. Everyone at the party gets up to go and they all grab their iPhones... accept the person who was commenting on how funny the verizon ads were...
Now THAT would be a slap in the face ad!
@3DSteve These are not mutually exclusive things. AT&T and Verizon can run ads taking shots at each other AND upgrade their networks. In fact, CapEx spending on network infrastructure comes out of a vastly different bucket than ad buys.
In conference calls w/investors AT&T has admitted they know where their network needs work -- NYC, LA, SFO in particular -- and are working on infrastructure improvements.
Thank god you aren't in marketing.
@NikAmi
Yeah European shoppers are super informed. :rolleyes:
@3DSteve
Consumers in general are too stupid to know anything beyond what companies put out in advertisement. The internet is such a storehouse of information but few people go on for reviews of all the latest competing devices. It's easier just to say "give me an iPod" or "give me an iPhone". And then they'll use the stock earbuds because they don't know any better.
Until companies STOP making ridiculous amounts of money through advertising their product instead of just improving it, this trend won't change.
@3DSteve
It's lots cheaper to advertise that you have the "best" network, than actually spending the money and really making it the best - highest coverage and/or fastest.
Advertising will always rule the world if people are willing to fall for it.
@NikAmi If your post is in jest. Good sarcasm.
If not? god your nuts...
@Flowah
lol at least we don't put up with crappy networks you seem so accustomed with....
whoever said the european comment was spot on, the more these guys spend on advertising the more you all miss out on any improvements. in the uk all networks pretty much have the same coverage its not even an issue
@NikAmi I'm not European, but thankfully from a country where advertising is more creative than "We rule, you suck"
Apple, why don't you just bring the iPhone to Verizon? That would give AT&T a good, much needed slap in the face
@PATRICKmcnicholl I'm not so sure it's Apple that is preventing iPhone on other networks. There's a theory (presented in the latest GDGT podcast) that nobody except AT&T agreed to Apple's demands regarding iPhone.
@PATRICKmcnicholl Because AT&T is a cash cow for Apple.
@PATRICKmcnicholl If the iPhone comes to Verizon, the rest of the world gets stiffed. If that happens, I personally am gone and with me around 20 million other iPhone users outside the Noth American continent. That would mean a HUGE setback for Apple and I know that the whole world won't set up a CDMA network just because Apple decided that the next gen iPhone runs just on CDMA.
@(Unverified)
What, do you think Apple is incapable of having CDMA and GSM versions of the iPhone? Other manufacturers have different versions like that all of the time (i.e. GSM and CDMA Heros, Pres) so it wouldn't be that hard for Apple to have two different versions.
@(Unverified)
All they would have to do is make a dual-mode iPhone. Major smartphone companies like RIM and HTC have been doing this for awhile. That way you can have a domestic CDMA phone, roam internationally on GSM, and have 3G speeds everywhere. I imagine it's not that difficult to incorporate and the SIM slot on my Imagio takes up almost no space at all. I'm sure Apple, with all the thought they put into design, could figure something out and still keep the next generation slim.
@Steve B But when was the last Apple made variations of the same product.
@ran the last time they released new ipods, desktops, laptops, EVERYTHING.
@PATRICKmcnicholl
iphone wont go to verizon or sprint for one simple fact. data during a call. it's pretty stupid imho that they both operate that way. i use data and voice at the same time very frequently and i know most of my nyc iphone co-horts do as well.
i'm gonna bet the iphone hits tmobile in a couple of years when they get their shit together with the whole 3g coverage thing.
@Mr Morgan
The problem was that Verizon wouldn't give in to the demands Apple wanted. Its been years since this phone came out but people forget the huge changes AT&T had to make. Remember visual voice mail before the iphone? It wasn't around.
Also Apple refused to let anyone re-brand the phone or do anything to it. Verizon demands phones run their software, which if you use a blackberry, you can see their limitations make phones suck.
Apple wouldn't cave on anything and actually made demands with AT&T and Verizon. AT&T was the only one to give in.
I also don't think Apple will go to a CDMA provider until they figure out how to get Voice and Data at the same time. They've advertised this phone too much as a device that can do both at the same time. I don't see them backtracking just to get on a network.
Verizon is going to need to make major changes before they go.