[ajst222]

After reading Daniel's article revealing the 950 and 950XL, how on earth is nobody focused on the fact that:

-Microsoft is reportedly cutting ties with Verizon

And

-AT&T may not carry the 950XL (not to mention we have no clue if TMO and Sprint are on board)

Both of those moves would make sure that Windows 10 Mobile would hit the ground already dead. Not having a flagship (or anything) on Verizon...the US's largest carrier. That's a death sentence. Having the best phones across all major carriers in the US is crucial. That's why they have "failed" here. Look how where all the AT&T exclusives (specifically the 1020 and 1520) took WP...nowhere. We couldn't get them on Verizon even if we wanted to because of the whole CDMA thing. Not saying this just as a p!ssed off Verizon customer, but focused on the W10 situation as a whole. I can't bring it all to words right now as that's just so moronic...how can you NOT release phones on Verizon???!!!!

And as far as AT&T not carrying the 950XL...that's also inexcusable. Maybe it'll be on TMO, cool, but that doesn't help the folks on AT&T much (the other MEGA carrier, let's not forget). Maybe folks could get an unlocked version, but not having a variant on AT&T is just stupid. The average consumer wouldn't buy unlocked. Not only are they probably not aware, but they want that subsidy of some kind whether it's a standard two year, or Next.

Maybe HTC, Samsung, or LG could pick up the slack somewhere, like releasing SOMETHING on Verizon. However, as part of a consistent message, Microsoft simply needs to have their devices available across the board...not scattered here and there.

Just to get some responses out of the way from replies. No, I don't want to "just switch carriers". And by saying that, you'd be missing the point. No, I'm not trying to be a troll because these are serious concerns. And yes, I realize this is just a US problem that doesn't affect the rest of the world, but the US market is a major key to success, and Verizon, I think is the gateway to the US market.

Thanks for reading my vents and concerns, and I honestly hope others feel the same way.

[tsnatcher]

Right there with you, I think you covered it!

[juanitoriv]

Word Aj!!

[tale 85]

Oh yeah. This needs to be a priority. From what I've read the solution is an unlocked phone with the appropriate band coverage. Remember Microsoft is expanding it's retail network. Lets hope they use that to their advantage. And I'm sure Tmo will step up just to **** off Verizon.

[ajst222]

Oh yeah. This needs to be a priority. From what I've read the solution is an unlocked phone with the appropriate band coverage. Remember Microsoft is expanding it's retail network. Lets hope they use that to their advantage. And I'm sure Tmo will step up just to **** off Verizon.

I'm sure TMO will too. However, as for myself (who actually would be willing to switch carriers, not considering all the average consumers who would not), I'm "stuck" on Verizon. Not saying that in a bad way since I like Big Red, but it's the best carrier in my area.

As far as unlocked devices, that would be totally awesome. As I understand, that way of buying phones is more popular overseas. However, here in the US, as I said, people go through their carriers, and don't even think of going elsewhere. Not to mention they wouldn't want to pay all that money for an unlocked phone

[Nogitsune Micah]

So you want Microsoft to waste time and money on CDMA phones for Verizon and wind up with getting screwed like icon owners did? You saw how horrible those poor guys and girls were treated.

The worst thing is not the fact of a lack of phones. Its a Partner' who does more harm than good. Just imagine what would have happened if Verizon actually not only properly supported the icon but updated faster than they did.

Selling a windows phone on all carriers is perfection but if all 4 are not on board to help you the. Drop them and strengthen yourself on carriers who are good partners.

[tgp]

Selling a windows phone on all carriers is perfection but if all 4 are not on board to help you the. Drop them and strengthen yourself on carriers who are good partners.

None of the carriers are good partners. Microsoft should produce a phone that works on all 5 (counting US Cellular) major US carriers out of the box, and leave the carriers completely out of it. And to make it work, it will need to have CDMA capabilities as well. A GSM phone will only work on AT&T and T-Mobile, leaving 3 of the carriers out of it. Verizon being the largest is the most important.

[Nogitsune Micah]

None of the carriers are good partners. Microsoft should produce a phone that works on all 5 (counting US Cellular) major US carriers out of the box, and leave the carriers completely out of it. And to make it work, it will need to have CDMA capabilities as well. A GSM phone will only work on AT&T and T-Mobile, leaving 3 of the carriers out of it. Verizon being the largest is the most important.

Att is certainly the best. They usually update all their phones and almost always get every model aside from the icon.

Ideally your idea sounds great but realize not every consumer can go out and pay $600-700 for phones nor will they. So releasing them themselves is not ideal by any means.

What I would love to see is Microsoft implement some sort of thing like next or edge or Jump where customers could do the same thing but through Microsoft. But that would then require a change in the American wireless industry.


sent from my iPhone...asking myself why I own one

[theefman]

None of the carriers are good partners. Microsoft should produce a phone that works on all 5 (counting US Cellular) major US carriers out of the box, and leave the carriers completely out of it. And to make it work, it will need to have CDMA capabilities as well. A GSM phone will only work on AT&T and T-Mobile, leaving 3 of the carriers out of it. Verizon being the largest is the most important.

Will Verizon (or Sprint) activate a phone on their network they don't supply? If they wont then its a pointless exercise to produce a CDMA compatible phone. This is why GSM rules, your phone on your choice of carrier.

At the end of the day, Microsoft has evaluated the relationship they have with Verizon and deemed it detrimental so even though they'll lose a few users they decided terminating it is the best way to go. From the evidence over the years of how badly Verizon has treated WP can't say I blame them.

[Casey8]

Check out this uservoice page that was created and feel free to voice your opinion

[Casey8]

Go to WP uservoice and search cityman. It'll come up and is short and sweet. Cityman and talkman kn verizon

[tgp]

Ideally your idea sounds great but realize not every consumer can go out and pay $600-700 for phones nor will they. So releasing them themselves is not ideal by any means.

Yes that's correct. And that's why I do not think that Microsoft will get anywhere without the carriers. That is, unless they do something like your suggestion to...

What I would love to see is Microsoft implement some sort of thing like next or edge or Jump where customers could do the same thing but through Microsoft. But that would then require a change in the American wireless industry.

Without the backing of the carriers, I think something like this is Microsoft's only option. They might need to do the financing themselves (Google and Motorola are both doing this). It's not hard to sell $100 phones outright, but they want to sell flagships. They won't be such an easy sell off contract.

Will Verizon (or Sprint) activate a phone on their network they don't supply? If they wont then its a pointless exercise to produce a CDMA compatible phone. This is why GSM rules, your phone on your choice of carrier.

Yes. We were having a discussion about this on another thread. They will all activate a phone that has the correct CDMA and GSM bands. The factory unlocked iPhone 6/6+ and the Nexus 6 work on all 5 US carriers. Apple and Google both produced a device that works on all carriers; Microsoft can certainly do it as well.

[ajst222]

So you want Microsoft to waste time and money on CDMA phones for Verizon and wind up with getting screwed like icon owners did? You saw how horrible those poor guys and girls were treated.

The worst thing is not the fact of a lack of phones. Its a Partner' who does more harm than good. Just imagine what would have happened if Verizon actually not only properly supported the icon but updated faster than they did.

Selling a windows phone on all carriers is perfection but if all 4 are not on board to help you the. Drop them and strengthen yourself on carriers who are good partners.

Except aren't updates now being pushed out by Microsoft rather than the carriers?

Either way, just having that presence on Verizon is still important. Maybe you're forgetting the sheer size of Verizon and its customer base. There's no way for Microsoft to succeed in the US without being on Big Red.

[ajst222]

Will Verizon (or Sprint) activate a phone on their network they don't supply? If they wont then its a pointless exercise to produce a CDMA compatible phone. This is why GSM rules, your phone on your choice of carrier.

At the end of the day, Microsoft has evaluated the relationship they have with Verizon and deemed it detrimental so even though they'll lose a few users they decided terminating it is the best way to go. From the evidence over the years of how badly Verizon has treated WP can't say I blame them.

If by "losing a few", you mean failing to acknowledge the largest customer base in the US, then yes, they'll be losing a few.

Not just Verizon being a pain in the @ss as others have said, but let's take a quick look...

What phones has Verizon got from Nokia? The 822 and the 928 were just variants of the "real" thing. And they never got the 1020 and 1520. So why would Verizon want to bust their @sses when they're not getting the dynamite phones that AT&T did (through the BS carrier exclusives)?

Nokia never released one solid flagship across the board, and it appears Microsoft won't either now. It would make it more marketable rather than having a totally different variant and different name for every carrier.

[theefman]

If by "losing a few", you mean failing to acknowledge the largest customer base in the US, then yes, they'll be losing a few.



Not just Verizon being a pain in the @ss as others have said, but let's take a quick look...



What phones has Verizon got from Nokia? The 822 and the 928 were just variants of the "real" thing. And they never got the 1020 and 1520. So why would Verizon want to bust their @sses when they're not getting the dynamite phones that AT&T did (through the BS carrier exclusives)?



Nokia never released one solid flagship across the board, and it appears Microsoft won't either now. It would make it more marketable rather than having a totally different variant and different name for every carrier.

What good is having a large customer base when the carrier itself puts obstacles in the way of buying the phones? And at the end of the day all this is known to Microsoft so if they still made this decision the positives must outweigh the negatives.

[ajst222]

What good is having a large customer base when the carrier itself puts obstacles in the way of buying the phones? And at the end of the day all this is known to Microsoft so if they still made this decision the positives must outweigh the negatives.

What obstacles exactly?

[a5cent]

Except aren't updates now being pushed out by Microsoft rather than the carriers?.

Updates have always been served from MS or OEM servers. However, neither can legally push an update to a carrier's phone without the carrier signing off first. It's always been like that and it still is.
The only progress we've had are things like the PfD or insiders programs, which don't require carrier's permission to distribute.

[ajst222]

Updates have always been served from MS or OEM servers. However, neither can legally push an update to a carrier's phone without the carrier signing off first. It's always been like that and it still is.
The only progress we've had are things like the PfD or insiders programs, which don't require carrier's permission to distribute.

Right, I understand that, but I remember Microsoft announced that they are "bypassing" the carriers in the sense that it's not going exactly through them. The carriers will still get a chance to test it, but Microsoft will be pushing it out directly to the devices.

Or something like that...

[tgp]

So why would Verizon want to bust their @sses when they're not getting the dynamite phones that AT&T did (through the BS carrier exclusives)?

Yes the exclusives were/are a problem for Microsoft, but I don't think they had a choice. I doubt they wanted to do it any more than we want them to do it. But a WP is not an iPhone or Galaxy S series or Note where the carrier cannot afford NOT to do it.

What good is having a large customer base when the carrier itself puts obstacles in the way of buying the phones? And at the end of the day all this is known to Microsoft so if they still made this decision the positives must outweigh the negatives.

My opinion is that Microsoft needs to produce an unlocked phone that works on all carriers, including Verizon. Granted, if Verizon doesn't sell it they won't get the sales they would if Verizon would carry it in their stores, but at least it would be an option for Verizon's large customer base. If Microsoft sells an unlocked phone for all carriers, and comes up with some kind of financing to take the place of Edge or a 2 year contract, they might have a chance.

[ajst222]

Yes the exclusives were/are a problem for Microsoft, but I don't think they had a choice. I doubt they wanted to do it any more than we want them to do it. But a WP is not an iPhone or Galaxy S series or Note where the carrier cannot afford NOT to do it.

But in this case, it was AT&T paying Nokia for the exclusivity. It wasn't that Nokia or Microsoft was paying the carriers to have the phone, and it wasn't the other carriers didn't want to carry the phone.

[tgp]

But in this case, it was AT&T paying Nokia for the exclusivity. It wasn't that Nokia or Microsoft was paying the carriers to have the phone, and it wasn't the other carriers didn't want to carry the phone.

Do we know that for sure? There are also reports that AT&T refused to carry the phones unless they had exclusive access, which is what I tend to believe.

[a5cent]

Right, I understand that, but I remember Microsoft announced that they are "bypassing" the carriers in the sense that it's not going exactly through them. The carriers will still get a chance to test it, but Microsoft will be pushing it out directly to the devices.

Or something like that...

MS has been trying to renegotiate their rights to distribute updates to WP devices for years. It's purely a legal thing that has nothing to do with tech, servers, etc.

Apparently some things are changing with W10, but I've not seen anybody publish details. Whatever the details are, there is no way carriers will be bypassed! Ever! The best MS will get is a deal like Apple, where testing must be completed by a certain date.

I wouldn't be surprised if Verizon rejecting MS' terms and continuing to demand that any WP device they sell be a U.S. exclusive, is precisely why MS can no longer work with Verizon.

With MS reducing their portfolio to a very small number of devices, Verizon's demands for exclusive devices is basically Verizon putting insurmountable obstacles in the way of every other U.S. citizen who might want to purchase that device too.

It's true. MS can't succeed without Verizon. On the other hand, Verizon has done absolutely nothing for MS, despite Nokia repeatedly conceding to provide exclusives.

It's time MS started dictating terms, no matter the cost. If enough people leave Verizon to get a WP device, maybe not immediately, but once things like continuum start catching on, Verizon will be back.

MS needs to change the MS-carrier-customer dynamic, and they probably can't do that with Verizon.

[a5cent]

Do we know that for sure? There are also reports that AT&T refused to carry the phones unless they had exclusive access, which is what I tend to believe.

This is unfortunately much closer to the truth. Carriers would sometimes also promise more marketing dollars and higher subsidies for phones, but I've never heard of direct payments to OEMs for exclusives, unless the carrier directly ordered a custom built phone.

[theefman]

What obstacles exactly?

Obstacles like staff actively steering people away from buying a WP? Sticking the devices they have in the back room? When they do eventually display them sticking them in the back of the store with non-working devices? If Verizon wanted to support WP none of this would be happening, their corporate offices would make sure WP was well represented and displayed in stores.

And you know what, the bottom line is Verizon doesn't actually matter. WP has been on Verizon for a number of years now and its marketshare is still stagnant, that shows that being on this carrier is being vastly overhyped, otherwise wouldn't we have seen "massive" adoption from being on the allegedly largest US carrier?

[tale 85]

I'm sure TMO will too. However, as for myself (who actually would be willing to switch carriers, not considering all the average consumers who would not), I'm "stuck" on Verizon. Not saying that in a bad way since I like Big Red, but it's the best carrier in my area.

As far as unlocked devices, that would be totally awesome. As I understand, that way of buying phones is more popular overseas. However, here in the US, as I said, people go through their carriers, and don't even think of going elsewhere. Not to mention they wouldn't want to pay all that money for an unlocked phone

If you don't have to build variants for each carrier, I'm sure it would offset the cost of unlocked phones. Have the carriers give you a software package for their in house stuff. It would get downloaded upon activation.....or something.
Mass production goes a lot faster, and cheaper without having to add additional flavors.