- 11-04-2012, 09:28 PM #54
- 11-05-2012, 03:06 PM #57
It's about the current encryption allowing CDMA carriers to have the same thing GSM carriers have for years, and how many think SVDO is a myth for CDMA!
Also, if you mean Verizon and Sprint account for nearly 95% of the postpaid CDMA market, you are failing to acknowledge US Cellular, C Spire, nTelos, and Credo For about 25% of the post paid CDMA subscriptions, while CDMA carries about 65-75% of the prepaid side of things, where most of the numbers go to Virgin Mobile, Boost, MetroPCS, and The CDMA services of Straight Talk, and I am not forgetting smaller carriers that add to the numbers.
Combine them in total for lines, and CDMA has about 2/3 of the cell phone market in the US (including Puerto Rico and USVI), which makes it two times bigger than GSM based lines. This might not be the norm internationally, but this has been the norm for many years in the US Market, whether WP supporters in the USA who act as CDMA (more like Sprint) haters like the facts or not.
Call me a CDMA fanboy if you wish, but I speak with facts, not with unresearched rants, and sooner or later more people will point at the lack of real support for CDMA as the main reason Windows Phone has been a major FLOP in sales in their home market, The United States of America.
- 11-05-2012, 03:20 PM #58
So the fact that Sprint came out late with a WP compared to the others. Did nothing to support it despite the reviews it got from it's users. And removed it completely in store and online, has nothing to do with some of the feelings towards Sprint?
And before you call me a hater. I've been with Sprint 14 years. If they gave me options, I would be glad to stay. But since they aren't even a blip on the WP radar right now, I'm leaving.
- 11-05-2012, 03:45 PM #59
What's all this blather about "lack of support for CDMA?"
Both Sprint and Verizon got launch-day WP devices (the Arrive and Trophy, respectively).
The problem wasn't that WP devices didn't get "real support" on CDMA -- it's that the CDMA carriers didn't deliver a decent customer experience. $299 on contract for the Arrive, followed up by a mailer encouraging you to trade it in for another phone six months after the "launch" isn't good support.
If you went into a Verizon store looking for a Trophy, chances were that it wasn't even shown in the store, and they didn't have them in stock -- they'd have to mail-order it for you.
Sprint was offered Nokia and Samsung WP devices as well, and turned them down flat.
- 11-05-2012, 04:09 PM #60
- 11-05-2012, 04:58 PM #61
Stmav, high reviews are NEVER the determining factor for the success or failure of a device. That belong to something call SALES, which is something no Windows Phone device has had good numbers on for any carrier. And for those who say the Lumia 900 is the most succesful WP7 device, it is, but to have it on one carrier for about a year, and only sell 600,000 units out of probably 2 million units ordered is considered a major failure for AT&T, and it makes me wonder why Microsoft did not ask Nokia to have that same device offered to other carriers, and the same can be said for the 920, and all those WP7 devices which never saw CDMA variants.
So, are you guys going to keep blaming Sprint for the lack of CDMA variants for any devices released after the HTC trophy and the arrive, and why Samsung and Nokia were not allowed or should I say encouraged to offer CDMA variants? It comes down to sales figures, and not because of Sprint.
I wonder how many of you Sprint haters would react if Sprint actually announce several WP8 devices? I bet some of you would not like any of them, even if it was a high end device like the Nokia Lumia 920, or perhaps the rumored Surface device. Sprint could announce a dozen WP8 devices in 2013, and all of them would be hated, even the high end devices because "they are being offered on Sprint."
- 11-05-2012, 09:10 PM #62
- 11-06-2012, 12:10 AM #63
OK. How about if I mention the rootmetric results for the city I live in. Where Sprint is fully deployed and a major city. Yet in combined scores Sprint comes in 5th. Behind T-Mobile and metropcs. So how is it hating when they just aren't delivering in any aspect?
- 11-06-2012, 05:42 AM #64
What city is that stmav?
And mlm1950, no, I will not give it a rest, nor anyone who is siding with me on how unfair members are being to CDMA carriers, especially with the ongoing bashing of Sprint just because they were the first one to state how bad sales figures were for ALL WP7 devices, regardless of carrier and devices, as well as the lack of interest from Microsoft when it comes to show direct support for those two CDMA devices and not giving a bit of Marketing support to Sprint, Verizon, and US Cellular which surely was given to AT&T and T-Mobile.
Is that something so obvious that you cannot understand because you just simply think CDMA should be dead, even though now CDMA now has the ability GSM had enjoyed for years by the means of talk and web at the same time? SVDO is a scary monster for GSM carriers.
- 11-06-2012, 07:48 AM #65
Is it hating to point out the obvious which is Sprint has only had one phone the arrive which was and is basically an HTC tilt2 device with WP7 and while it had great customer satisfaction was treated by Sprint like the orphan stepchild and they are not yet on the WP8 bandwagon. IMHO the answer is no, its just the facts Jack!
- 11-06-2012, 08:28 AM #66
People here just want WP8 phones, be them GSM or CDMA, and whether they are on AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon, or any of the other smaller carriers and MVNOs.
Any perceived disdain for Sprint is based solely on the fact that they have not announced any plans to carry any WP8 phones, and since Nokia, HTC, and Samsung are making CDMA versions of WP8 phones, the reason Sprint is not carrying any is their decision alone.
- 11-06-2012, 09:30 AM #67
And then explain why members on this site have ONLY picked on Sprint, knowing other postpaid carriers and no prepaid carriers outside of T-Mobile have announced WP8 devices. Sounds to me more like nit-picking because some of these people are still hurt on the WebOS debacle which was not Sprint's fault, but is far easier to blame Sprint than blame the actual heart of the problem, in this case being Microsoft!
You can try to convince any of the Sprint supporters why Sprint is at fault that only three carriers in the US decided to carry WP8 devices at launch, and why almost the entire CDMA community are letting Microsoft know they will not be forced to carry undercoded and underencrypted CDMA devices as Verizon is offering (and they are not too happy to carry 256bit encrypted devices when all the devices they started carrying this year have 512bit encryption).
You can go on circles on this issue no WP fansite is willing to write an unbiased report on it, but sure have plenty of time to use half quotes to bash Sprint, and make JUVENILLE bashing reports with immature images about the Ting and Sprint article. I hope this site somedays decides to write a positive article involving Sprint when they announce WP8 devices, but I am afraid that's too much to ask knowing for a fact if they announce a dozen devices, they will be bashed even if they are high end devices because "those are carried by Sprint, and wpcentral hates Sprint ad much as we hate reports from phonescoop."
- 11-06-2012, 09:33 AM #68
Bring better arguments because all the recycled scripted excuses to bash Sprint only, knowing almost the entire CDMA carrier community feels the same way when it comes to Windows Phone (undercoded, underencrypted, and failure in sales whether the devices are on CDMA, or GSM). Facts don't lie.
- 11-06-2012, 09:42 AM #69
- 11-06-2012, 09:53 AM #70
The fact that Microsoft is attempting to unify their ecosystem across all devices should ultimately help future sales of Windows phones.
Only time will tell. Hopefully Sprint jumps on the bandwagon like everyone else.
- 11-06-2012, 01:25 PM #72
Well brmiller, what seems to be the main reason why Microsoft's Windows Phone devices are scarce on CDMA networks if it's not coding and encrypting to proper Qualcomm standards as of 2012? I have been asking for over a year, and it seems that the reasons are either mysterious or simply not worth reporting because by doing so would make the bashing of Sprint or any CDMA carrier not having any WP devices useless.
- 11-06-2012, 01:49 PM #73
Right now, that appears to be changing with Verizon. With Sprint, their support of Windows Phone -- despite having a wonderful Qualcomm-certified Windows Phone device -- was ABYSMAL.
In addition, the CDMA carriers were the heaviest users of the Carrier IQ spyware, which Windows Phone did not allow. That no doubt slowed efforts by CDMA carriers to "monetize" private user data and correspondence by selling it to the highest bidder (right up until the CIQ thing was uncovered to great controversy).
- 11-06-2012, 02:49 PM #74
Sprint dropped Carrier IQ, and once again you mention Verizon and the three 256bit encryption devices. None of the three are making Verizon say, "they will sell like hotcakes even when not coded nor encrypted properly". And if you though the sales for the Arrive were atrocious for Sprint, the sales for the Trophy were even worse.
What other jibberish you want to say to justify a bashing on Sprint only, and not the rest of the CDMA carrier community. You can avoid the question for so long, although I know all the REAL reasons why.