The Verizon Debacle

Mr. MacPhisto

New member
Aug 7, 2012
403
1
0
Visit site
So you're saying that you think that the 950 will be GSM & CDMA and able to operate on both AT&T and Verizon? That's rather unprecedented. And given the lack of support for Windows Phone by Verizon, Microsoft's history of being unable to push updates to their phones on Verizon's network, and the bitter rivalry between Verizon & AT&T, it's pretty hard to believe.

I'm totally willing to hear you out because I think you're a great source on things. But pardon me if this all seems super farfetched. What's the saying? If it seems like it's too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true.

Look at the Moto X Pure Edition just announced today that will go onsale in Fall 2015. Supports all those bands, GSM, CDMA, and all LTE bands. Motorola stated that the one phone would work on any carrier on the planet. $399 unlocked. Snapdragon 808 with 3GB of memory, much like the Lumia 950.

If Moto can do it, why can't Microsoft?

Secondly, unlocked phones do not need carrier approval for updates. Microsoft can push updates directly to the phones when they are unlocked, regardless of the network they're on. The carrier holds no rights to the phone or its content then.

Even if you wanted to go Android, you could buy the Moto X Pure Edition unlocked and get updates direct from Moto. Motorola could even decide to sell a Windows version of the Moto X just like that - unlocked. Frankly I would love to see Motorola and Microsoft set major trends with universal phones that can go on anything - truly global. And I think BOTH will get a lot of attention for doing it. And if both hit these price points ($399 for a 5.7" QHD Snapdragon 808 phone - Microsoft could do that; the 950 is smaller, but selling the 950 for $349 and the 950XL for $449 unlocked would make major waves along with Moto).

Seriously, Take a look. Lifted right off of Motorola's website right now:

[h=5]Networks[/h] LTE cat. 6 (up to 300 Mbps)
WCDMA
CDMA
EV-DO
TD-SCDMA
GSM/EDGE

[h=5]Bands[/h] GSM/GPRS/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz)
UMTS/HSPA+ (850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz)
CDMA (800, 850, 1900 MHz)
4G LTE (B1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 25, 26, 38, 41)

One phone. Pretty much everyone is covered. After what I've heard, I can almost guarantee Microsoft will do this. They may do it for ALL their phones going forward. Would make it really easy to cut down to 6 total handsets a year.
 

tgp

New member
Dec 1, 2012
4,519
0
0
Visit site
Look at the Moto X Pure Edition just announced today that will go onsale in Fall 2015. Supports all those bands, GSM, CDMA, and all LTE bands. Motorola stated that the one phone would work on any carrier on the planet.

The Nexus 6 also works on all carriers, as well as the factory unlocked iPhone 6 and 6+.
 

hopmedic

Active member
Apr 27, 2011
5,231
0
36
Visit site
Look at the Moto X Pure Edition just announced today that will go onsale in Fall 2015. Supports all those bands, GSM, CDMA, and all LTE bands. Motorola stated that the one phone would work on any carrier on the planet. $399 unlocked. Snapdragon 808 with 3GB of memory, much like the Lumia 950.

If Moto can do it, why can't Microsoft?

Secondly, unlocked phones do not need carrier approval for updates. Microsoft can push updates directly to the phones when they are unlocked, regardless of the network they're on. The carrier holds no rights to the phone or its content then.

Even if you wanted to go Android, you could buy the Moto X Pure Edition unlocked and get updates direct from Moto. Motorola could even decide to sell a Windows version of the Moto X just like that - unlocked. Frankly I would love to see Motorola and Microsoft set major trends with universal phones that can go on anything - truly global. And I think BOTH will get a lot of attention for doing it. And if both hit these price points ($399 for a 5.7" QHD Snapdragon 808 phone - Microsoft could do that; the 950 is smaller, but selling the 950 for $349 and the 950XL for $449 unlocked would make major waves along with Moto).

Seriously, Take a look. Lifted right off of Motorola's website right now:

[h=5]Networks[/h] LTE cat. 6 (up to 300 Mbps)
WCDMA
CDMA
EV-DO
TD-SCDMA
GSM/EDGE

[h=5]Bands[/h] GSM/GPRS/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz)
UMTS/HSPA+ (850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz)
CDMA (800, 850, 1900 MHz)
4G LTE (B1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 25, 26, 38, 41)

One phone. Pretty much everyone is covered. After what I've heard, I can almost guarantee Microsoft will do this. They may do it for ALL their phones going forward. Would make it really easy to cut down to 6 total handsets a year.

Oh. My. Goodness, you have me excited! Thanks!
 

anon(7901790)

New member
Aug 5, 2013
2,108
0
0
Visit site
Lumia may do okay elsewhere, but let's not get too crazy on the "everybody knows Lumia" bit. At 2.7% marketshare, few people really know Lumia. Most current active Windows users on Verizon don't use Lumias. Like I said, the 735 is off to a nice start. The LG Lancet also has sold better than anticipated. But Verizon prefers having their own strategy.

Few people here in the US know Lumia; which is true. Outside the US is a different matter. Nokia's Lumia and Asha lines of phones were pretty popular in Europe, Asia, and South America.
 

Laura Knotek

Retired Moderator
Mar 31, 2012
29,394
20
38
Visit site
These are some old articles I found, but they provide more history lessons regarding Nokia and its issues in the US market, particularly with CDMA carriers.

From this article:
What's more, Colin Giles, senior vice president and head of global sales for Nokia, said during a conference call with reporters Tuesday that the company has no plans to introduce CDMA versions of its phones, leaving out more than half of all U.S. wireless subscribers from its potential customer base. CDMA is a network technology that is used by Verizon Wireless, the largest U.S. wireless operator, and Sprint Nextel, the third largest wireless carrier in the U.S.

From this article:
2. It continued to ignore the U.S. market: Nokia's inability to make custom phones for the U.S. market didn't win itself many allies among the local carriers, further accelerating its market share declines here. Nokia's "my way or the highway" approach with its handsets didn't sit well with the carriers, who were entertaining more nimble players like Motorola.

In addition, Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics were more than happy to bend over backwards to accommodate the carriers, and it's no surprise their influence in the industry grew over the last decade.


Nokia instead receded into a niche brand with a few loyal fans. The company set up its own shops in major cities such as New York, selling its phones directly to consumers without a contract, which meant a high non-subsidized price that only a small set of hardcore devotees were willing to pay.


More importantly, Nokia's minimal presence in the U.S. meant it wasn't tapped into the market when it shifted to the modern smartphone.
 

Laura Knotek

Retired Moderator
Mar 31, 2012
29,394
20
38
Visit site
Nokia shot themselves in the foot much like Blackberry and Palm did. Not being flexible enough to realize a shift in direction of the market.
The difference is that both BlackBerry and Palm had huge market share in the US at the time Nokia chose to ignore the US market. Both BlackBerry and Palm also made specific devices for each US carrier. For example, BlackBerry made the 83xx Curve line in multiple configurations for US carriers: AT&T got the 8310, T-Mobile got the 8320, Verizon/Sprint got the 8330.
 

Mr. MacPhisto

New member
Aug 7, 2012
403
1
0
Visit site
The difference is that both BlackBerry and Palm had huge market share in the US at the time Nokia chose to ignore the US market. Both BlackBerry and Palm also made specific devices for each US carrier. For example, BlackBerry made the 83xx Curve line in multiple configurations for US carriers: AT&T got the 8310, T-Mobile got the 8320, Verizon/Sprint got the 8330.

Nokia's frayed US relationship hurt them badly with Verizon and Sprint. It should be noted that even Blackberry got fast launched on Verizon. The HTC One M8 had fairly quick turnaround. The Lumia line up, outside of the 822, did not. But the 822 was customized to Verizon's specs. After that, Nokia was not so willing to assent to Verizon's requests. It's also worthwhile noting that at least Verizon considering Microsoft making Nokia their premiere partner to be a bit of a slap in the face. So much of what we see on that end stems from the decade long issues with Nokia and MS' decision to be involved with them. I understand why MS did get involved with them, but it will take time to repair relationships.

Verizon knew Windows 10 was coming and could've just cancelled the 735. They didn't. My local store has several 735s on prominent display with a LCD playing a video about it while promoting it as "Windows 10 ready". We'll see what the future looks like.

Personally, I'd prefer to just make all phones universal and unlocked. Ditch the contracts, Verizon EDGE, etc. The big loser if this happens in the US will be Apple. They won't keel over or anything, but they have a lot of customers that would not get an iPhone if they had to pay $600+ out of pocket. If a phone like the Moto X is only $400 for 5.7" then the value proposition on an iPhone 6Plus is terrible. Fans would still buy them and Apple would still make plenty of money, but I'd guess their marketshare in the US would gradually contract down to 20% or so.
 

anon(7901790)

New member
Aug 5, 2013
2,108
0
0
Visit site
You are absolutely correct, we need to transition to a totally unlocked system and let us consumers figure what is best for us. Much like what most of the world does.

Unfortunately, the contract based system isn't going away for a while. We are moving away from it slowly though. The system is based on the old way of doing cable and satellite TV subscriptions and even old landline subscriptions. Its a system that US telecom companies are familiar and comfortable with. The problem is that the leaders of the US telecom companies need to change they way they look at wireless communications for that to happen. In other words we need more Nadellas and Legeres to start getting into upper ranks of Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint. That's going to take a while.
 

GreenScrew

New member
Apr 13, 2012
284
0
0
Visit site
I don't imagine anyone in this thread will disagree with a preference for not having subsidized hardware. I'm not really sure who wins in this scenario, but I know that having 2 lines available for renewal and being stuck with my carrier for coverage reasons, I'm losing out. I should really get a new iPhone and resell it in order to maximize the value of the system. A more ideal scenario would be to lower rates commensurate with the subsidy value. Or, just as well, what harm is there in providing a "customer loyalty" account credit equivalent to the subsidy value for someone extending their contract 2 years?
 

Tim Stone

New member
Jul 29, 2014
132
0
0
Visit site
I'm with Verizon ... I added a 3rd line and had my own phone available. So they discounted it from $40 /mo to $25. It happens to be an Icon so not a bad situation. I also got other credits and "bonuses". You will never get it in the store, but if you call, the operators are really pleasant and want to help out. If not, simply ask for the retention department.

There are perks, you just need to ask for them. Remember to go direct to the phone support staff ...
 

MarkusDindu

New member
Feb 11, 2015
56
0
0
Visit site
I've had discussions with execs at both Microsoft and Verizon. This is a personal decision by the leadership of Verizon, and essentially they refuse to even allow their staff free training on the Windows Phones. Even if a WinPhone is the best solution for a customer, Verizon staff will attempt to steer the clients to Android phones for the higher commissions.

So Microsoft and Verizon execs have for some reason let you in on how their deals work...yeah right. And your "higher commissions for Android phones" statement is BS, Verizon sales associates do not get paid for individual phone sales.

Verizon employees absolutely do not care which phone you buy, selling one over the other does not bring them more money. If employees have any reason at all not to recommend a Windows Phone, it is mostly because Windows Phones get returned far too often. It is a pain in the rear unboxing a device and setting it up, only to have the customer return days later wanting a different phone.

Some of the stuff I read here is laughable, and it always amazes me that people take it all in as if it's actually the truth, only because it's exactly what they want to hear. No one on this forum wants to believe that Windows Phone sells poorly because consumers simply don't want them. They'd much rather believe that Windows Phones don't sell because there's a conspiracy at the carriers to hold them back. Whatever explanation makes a person feel better is what they'll except as the truth.
 

Tim Stone

New member
Jul 29, 2014
132
0
0
Visit site
Sorry, Markus, but the only assumptions here are yours, and they are incorrect.

I actually invested a lot of time talking with senior staff at both companies hoping that Verizon would do more to sell Windows Phones. That also included discussions with local store sales and management. I never make stuff up, nor do I work on assumptions. This would be an extremely long post if I were to provide you with the details, but of course you have made up your mind.

Some of us actually get involved directly with companies to proactively support them and our clients. Posts on forums are simply a reflection of what we experience. I'm much to old to engage in fantasy or speculation, and my clients count on me to be accurate. I've invested the time, so I will stand by my statements and not belabor the point.
 
Last edited:

tgp

New member
Dec 1, 2012
4,519
0
0
Visit site
I've had discussions with execs at both Microsoft and Verizon. This is a personal decision by the leadership of Verizon, and essentially they refuse to even allow their staff free training on the Windows Phones. Even if a WinPhone is the best solution for a customer, Verizon staff will attempt to steer the clients to Android phones for the higher commissions. I've gotten this from staff at all levels. Fortunately phone staff doesn't do this, and some have actually seen the benefits of Win Phones. Change the CEO at Verizon and you'll likely see a new attitude.

Now, for the bottom line. Microsoft will make the phones that work on Verizon, but the stores will make little, if any, effort to sell them. NEWS FLASH ! You do NOT need to buy your phone from Verizon directly. I'd never buy another phone of any type from their corporate stores. I might order one online, or by phone call, and have it here in a day, but more likely I would go to the Microsoft Store to buy one. The deals are the same, the staff is supportive, and the phones will be great.

In the end, none of the carriers care about quality. In fact, they would be happy to sell you a phone you don't like just to get you back in to buy another one. In the end, get the carrier with the best coverage in your area, then check the variety of resources for the best phone you want. Look at the stores, both online and brick/mortar, and you will be able to find a solution you like.

Sorry, Markus, but the only assumptions here are yours, and they are incorrect.

I actually invested a lot of time talking with senior staff at both companies hoping that Verizon would do more to sell Windows Phones. That also included discussions with local store sales and management. I never make stuff up, nor do I work on assumptions. This would be an extremely long post if I were to provide you with the details, but of course you have made up your mind.

Some of us actually get involved directly with companies to proactively support them and our clients. Posts on forums are simply a reflection of what we experience. I'm much to old to engage in fantasy or speculation, and my clients count on me to be accurate. I've invested the time, so I will stand by my statements and not belabor the point.

Do you feel that there is some kind of conspiracy against Microsoft at Verizon? I would think that the actual OS on the phone means little to the carrier. Any retailer worth carrying the title wishes to sell what its customers want. Verizon is probably no different. They also sell what brings them the highest profit, which is affected by profit margin, as well as carrying what will sell.
 

Tim Stone

New member
Jul 29, 2014
132
0
0
Visit site
tgp, I never used the word "conspiracy". There is an attitude in Verizon corporate against Microsoft. It's that simple, and is not speculative.

The vast majority of people walk into a phone store and ask for recommendations. I've observed staff direct people to phones that did not meet, at all, the needs as expressed by the client. I've seen people afterwards struggle to make phones work for them while they wait for two years to have the next upgrade.

When I show people a Windows phone, they are amazed at how easy it is to use. When they see the photos, they are totally impressed. I happen to also have an iPhone 6+ ( needed for job related apps ). The Lumia Icon always wins with photo quality. The integration of features in the Lumia really impresses people, as does the voice quality. After I show the phone, people often ask "Why didn't they show me this one at the store?" Ask the sales person and he will say "I never demo those phones. I don't really know much about them." In fact, a couple told me they had never sold one, and the others had only done so when someone asked for it specifically.

People are loyal to Windows Phones because they are well built, and have some excellent features. Sales are dependent on retail staff, and if they don't make people aware of a product, they won't consider it. If I ran a Verizon store, and if they reinstated the Icon, plus had demo models of the M8 Windows version, and the new low end, I'd guarantee sales would outpace the other stores because every sales person would be solidly trained to work with clients to find the best solution for their needs, which would include an acquaintance with Windows Phones and iPhones, not just Android.

It's not conspiracy, but it is attitude.
 

anon(7901790)

New member
Aug 5, 2013
2,108
0
0
Visit site
tgp, I never used the word "conspiracy". There is an attitude in Verizon corporate against Microsoft. It's that simple, and is not speculative.

The vast majority of people walk into a phone store and ask for recommendations. I've observed staff direct people to phones that did not meet, at all, the needs as expressed by the client. I've seen people afterwards struggle to make phones work for them while they wait for two years to have the next upgrade.

When I show people a Windows phone, they are amazed at how easy it is to use. When they see the photos, they are totally impressed. I happen to also have an iPhone 6+ ( needed for job related apps ). The Lumia Icon always wins with photo quality. The integration of features in the Lumia really impresses people, as does the voice quality. After I show the phone, people often ask "Why didn't they show me this one at the store?" Ask the sales person and he will say "I never demo those phones. I don't really know much about them." In fact, a couple told me they had never sold one, and the others had only done so when someone asked for it specifically.

People are loyal to Windows Phones because they are well built, and have some excellent features. Sales are dependent on retail staff, and if they don't make people aware of a product, they won't consider it. If I ran a Verizon store, and if they reinstated the Icon, plus had demo models of the M8 Windows version, and the new low end, I'd guarantee sales would outpace the other stores because every sales person would be solidly trained to work with clients to find the best solution for their needs, which would include an acquaintance with Windows Phones and iPhones, not just Android.

It's not conspiracy, but it is attitude.

This "attitude" you observe does not seem to be at the executive level. It's at the local store and possibly middle management level. At least based on what you just wrote. Are the execs aware that there is a seeming bias against Microsoft at the local level? If so, then they have to weigh how badly does it hurt Verizon's bottom line? Verizon doesn't make a whole lot of money on the phones themselves. The whole point is to sell a service, the device is just the means to access that service. A person who chooses a Galaxy S6 over a HTC M9 regardless of OS is still paying for Verizon's service. Which to tell you the truth is very good. My experience with Verizon has been overall good. Sure there are Verizon sales reps who are steering people towards either iPhones or Android, but it has less to do with decrees from executive level and more to do about personal preference.

Here in the US people love and want Android and iPhone devices. Even though Windows is the superior OS in almost every respect, but the truth is that Verizon will sell what the consumer wants. If Windows 10 Mobile increases demand for Windows devices, then Verizon will start selling more to meet that demand. It's how a market based approach works. If demand goes up in a certain market, businesses will try to meet that demand.

TGP is correct. Other than security issues and how the phone performs on the network, the OS is irrelevant. At least at the macro level. The execs are not in the stores selling phones, they are running a business, so their view is going to be different than a network operator, sales rep, or a store manager. Are there sales reps that steer people away from Windows? Yes. There are also sales reps who steer people away from Android or iPhone too. That is a LOCAL problem and not an executive problem; and the execs are NOT going to micromanage the individual stores. They have a HUGE business to run with THOUSANDS of employees.

Verizon didn't become the largest US carrier because it "dissed" Windows; it became the largest US carrier by providing a really good service to its customers and selling the devices that consumers wanted.

So there is no bad blood between Microsoft and Verizon, nor is there a bad attitude. It's just business and nothing more.
 

Tim Stone

New member
Jul 29, 2014
132
0
0
Visit site
OK ... no sense in me making further comments ... seriously you will believe what you want.

HOWEVER, I can assure you that my discussions were not based on observations and comments from sales staff at a local store. They were with members of the executive branch of both companies who were very familiar with the situation.

Verizon has the best coverage and many of us stay with them solely because of that. My use of that carrier actual predates Verizon taking over the system from Airtouch which took it over from PacTel Cellular. That's over 20 years ( dating back to the Panasonic back pack phones ). That loyalty to the brand does open up some conversations .... even behind the block walls.

So .. believe as you want ... and I won't continue the discussion.
 

etphoto

New member
Aug 15, 2007
1,524
0
0
Visit site
I can only go by personal experience and many discussions in this forum have similar stories. Do I think exec at Verizon dislike WP, probably not. Yet, I do know that when I went in to buy my M8 the sales guy tried talking me out of it and getting the Android one instead.
 

anon(7901790)

New member
Aug 5, 2013
2,108
0
0
Visit site
Here is something else that needs to be considered. Microsoft is competing on a GLOBAL scale, Verizon is NOT. Like I said previously, Verizon is one of many carriers world wide. It is just one fish in a REALLY big ocean. If Verizon doesn't sell Lumias, but DOES sell non-Lumia Windows devices, then how does it hurt Microsoft? How does it hurt Verizon? To answer both questions, it doesn't.

So if Microsoft offers a Lumia that will work on Verizon's network...great! If Verizon offer's non-Lumia Windows Phones... great! If both happen... even better! In any case, we still benefit by having a device running a superior OS on a very reliable network.

Ultimately, it boils down to this. Verizon is going to do what is best for Verizon and its customer base. Microsoft is going to do what is best for Microsoft and ITS customer base. Both are trying to get and keep loyal customers. It's that simple.

As far as Verizon sales reps steering people away from Windows devices. Well keep this in mind. It is OUR responsibility as consumers to do our homework... NOT the sales rep's responsibility. If a customer walks out of a Verizon store with a device that he or she didn't want, or doesn't fit his or her needs, it's that person's fault, NOT the sales rep's fault.

Finally, I was talking to a Verizon sales rep here, and he made a very good point. He said that a lot of times people are not necessarily buying a phone because of the OS. He said that it's more of a brand loyalty. People who buy Samsung devices will most likely upgrade to another Samsung, and people who buy a HTC phone will likely stick with HTC. As humans we ARE creatures of habit after all. So, if Microsoft can get Windows on HTC, Samsung, and LG devices, then it can definitely benefit from that brand loyalty.

And THAT is what Nadella's strategy is really all about... to get Windows and Microsoft services on as many devices as possible. Whether it is a Microsoft device or not is largely irrelevant.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
322,901
Messages
2,242,866
Members
428,004
Latest member
hetb