@admlshake At first I thought that made sense, and was righting up my logic, but then I thought how little of a market you are opening yourself upto, I just don't see that many Verizon customers waiting for the iPad. Figure if they wanted it, they may have already settled for the wi-fi or, less likely, the Evil Empire.
You could easily make that argument for the iphone though. Why should apple port it to Verizon, sprint, T-mobile, and so on if everyone who is going to get one already got it from AT&T...
@admlshake no, I think that's totally different. Firstly, again, we are talking about a device that for all intensive purposes doesn't need a data connection (wifi will suffice). Secondly, it depends on where you live. Thirdly, we are in a day and age where we feel a phone is a required device, so having the iPhone on your carrier of choice (due to: pricing/signal/customerservice/etc.) can mean millions of consumers added to your sales figures. Fourthly, again, many Verizon customers who wanted the iPad may already have this (unlike the iPhone) on either 3G, but more likely wifi. Fifthly, going forward we are going to see a lot of hotspot devices for a similar pricing scheme as the iPads data price, therefore why would you want to spend an extra $130 for a data chip and then pay a monthly service fee for one device when you can pay the same fee for hotspot for all your connection needs (I'll answer this, but I think it's only a partial answer. The reason would be battery life...moving on) Lastly, if you feel you do need one, perhaps you always feel the need to be connected, so *perhaps* you already have a portable device to provide hotspots and data connections to all your devices. (again, possibly some costs/battery life concerns here)
My point is, that all of these, in some way largely decrease the usefulness of a Verizon port (which they might not contractually be allowed to do, I doubt it, but possible) of the iPad. So, the iPad is projected to sell 6-10M devices worldwide, 2M already sold, so bump that to the higher end and we are talking a small fraction would probably be queuing up for a Verizon CDMA version versus the costs/benefits/apple-style...just my 3 cents.
Now, a Verizon/Sprint/T-mo/ version...slightly more likely, but still I'm skeptical.
Following the commercial success (and technical disappointment) of the original Wildfire -- which featured a miserly 528MHz CPU and QVGA display -- HTC has returned with the Wildfire S.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
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.
Ipad on Verizons network(as a foot in the door for the iphone)...I'm calling it now.
@admlshake At first I thought that made sense, and was righting up my logic, but then I thought how little of a market you are opening yourself upto, I just don't see that many Verizon customers waiting for the iPad. Figure if they wanted it, they may have already settled for the wi-fi or, less likely, the Evil Empire.
@juanvaldez
You could easily make that argument for the iphone though. Why should apple port it to Verizon, sprint, T-mobile, and so on if everyone who is going to get one already got it from AT&T...
@admlshake no, I think that's totally different. Firstly, again, we are talking about a device that for all intensive purposes doesn't need a data connection (wifi will suffice). Secondly, it depends on where you live. Thirdly, we are in a day and age where we feel a phone is a required device, so having the iPhone on your carrier of choice (due to: pricing/signal/customerservice/etc.) can mean millions of consumers added to your sales figures. Fourthly, again, many Verizon customers who wanted the iPad may already have this (unlike the iPhone) on either 3G, but more likely wifi. Fifthly, going forward we are going to see a lot of hotspot devices for a similar pricing scheme as the iPads data price, therefore why would you want to spend an extra $130 for a data chip and then pay a monthly service fee for one device when you can pay the same fee for hotspot for all your connection needs (I'll answer this, but I think it's only a partial answer. The reason would be battery life...moving on) Lastly, if you feel you do need one, perhaps you always feel the need to be connected, so *perhaps* you already have a portable device to provide hotspots and data connections to all your devices. (again, possibly some costs/battery life concerns here)
My point is, that all of these, in some way largely decrease the usefulness of a Verizon port (which they might not contractually be allowed to do, I doubt it, but possible) of the iPad. So, the iPad is projected to sell 6-10M devices worldwide, 2M already sold, so bump that to the higher end and we are talking a small fraction would probably be queuing up for a Verizon CDMA version versus the costs/benefits/apple-style...just my 3 cents.
Now, a Verizon/Sprint/T-mo/ version...slightly more likely, but still I'm skeptical.