Will an "unlocked" 950XL work on Verizon?

[HoosierDaddy]

Anyways, yes Verizon has been a bad carrier for promoting Windows Phones, but that's still not a good reason for Microsoft to make the 950's an AT&T exclusive and block CDMA networks.

That is nonsense. If Microsoft wanted 950s to be an AT&T exclusive the Microsoft Store wouldn't be selling an unlocked 950 side by side with the AT&T 950. Microsoft doesn't want to exclude 950s on any carrier BUT any carrier that wants them has to permit the OS and firmware to be updated on Microsoft's schedule. So far only AT&T has agreed to acceptable upgrade timing.

 

[DoctorPizza]

Still the fact of the matter is, and this was very public, noted in a pod cast with Mary Jo (who uses Verizon and wants it on Verizon as well) , that Verizon screwed over Microsoft, and they said they will not work with carriers that screwed them in the past, and the Verizon name was clearly said, and the only one by the way.

Microsoft's market position does not afford them this kind of capriciousness.

 

[DoctorPizza]

That is nonsense. If Microsoft wanted 950s to be an AT&T exclusive the Microsoft Store wouldn't be selling an unlocked 950 side by side with the AT&T 950. Microsoft doesn't want to exclude 950s on any carrier BUT any carrier that wants them has to permit the OS and firmware to be updated on Microsoft's schedule. So far only AT&T has agreed to acceptable upgrade timing.

Unbranded and unlocked phones don't have any carrier involvement for updates anyway.

 

[anywhereanytime]

I have been a long time - 14+ years - customer of Verizon and we have several Lumia Icons and Lumia 928s! We have many customers on Verizon here in Silicon Valley as Verizon LTE is just a great network.

But, as a business user, there just isn't anything better than Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile. I am stunned that this "public catfight" between Verizon and Microsoft has lasted for YEARS now!

WHY aren't large corporations banging on Microsoft's and Verizon's door - or - why doesn't Microsoft just set up a Verizon MVNO???

I would immediately jump ship to a Microsoft MVNO and "let Verizon just become a "dumb pipe" and let the "selling" happen by Microsoft!

Apple and Google should also both be pissed off at the carriers, or so I have read for years - when is somebody going to stand up to these carrier dictatorships?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_mobile_virtual_network_operators

 

[theefman]

I think you have it backwards.

Who is Mary Jo and exactly what did Verizon do to screw over Microsoft?

It was Nokia who decided to not include Glance and microSD support for the Icon/930. From what I'm reading the 735 and the Lancet are doing pretty well, and the 822 did pretty well on Verizon. The 928 and Icon didn't do so well. Why? Because Nokia decided not to do what Verizon wanted. Which was provide microSD card support. The 930 hasn't done all that well either. Microsoft is still picking up the pieces that Nokia left behind now that they own the Nokia Lumia line.

First of all, the 930 was not the first Lumia not to have a micro SD card slot, and the omission of Glance was a miss for just that one phone, pretty much all other high end Lumia's had it. The real question here though is why the heck is Verizon demanding hardware modifications to a phone and if the lack of a micro SD card slot was so important to them why did they go on to carry the phone only to do their best not to sell it? I doubt Nokia would have outright refused to tailor a phone to VZW's needs while they were negotiating its release and Verizon would have known exactly what they were agreeing to carry so why would that then be an issue? And how stupid can a company be to carry one phone (L928)without a vital component (to them) then go on to carry another phone from the same OEM with the exact same limitation?

Its strange to see people defending a carrier when its history has proven they are hostile to this platform from its inception (have people forgotten how a Verizon exec claimed WP wasn't needed and ios, android and BB were all they would consider carrying?) and this is apparently the reason Microsoft has chosen to cut ties with them, unlocked devices or otherwise so at the end of the day the real blame is definitely with Verizon. Time to deal with it and move on.

 

[DavidinCT]

The KIN failed for more reasons than the data plan actually. It was not a very open phone and did not have any kind of app store. The KIN basically failed because it was too limited. No apps, no games killed the KIN from the start. No amount of promotion from Verizon could fix that when competing phones have app stores and games available.

Again, do some homework here. This was quoted by many outlets back when the kin was finally killed off. The Kin didn't really have tons of apps because it was designed as Social media phone, designed to hit the yonger new phone market. It was not designed to have a big app store or anything like that.

The phone was planned as a low cost model with a low monthly rate to run, this was the orignal plan for it but, when it was finally released, Verizon FORCED users to require a $30 data plan (it was CHANGED FROM THE ORIGNAL PLAN FOR IT), and it was too expensive to run for what it was.

With the cost to run it was too high, no one would buy it for their kids (again the market it was designed for) and that is what killed it.... Not the lack of apps. Verizon is almost 80-90% at fault for this.

This problem as been clearly documented in the past and failue on the Kin..

Microsoft's market position does not afford them this kind of capriciousness.

Sure, I agree but, in the scope of things, Microsoft is 50-75% larger than Verizon is in a GLOBAL scale... Microsoft has the market power (in computing) to set trends and they chose what they want, and many times it screws them.

They clearly said this and Verizon was the name they said, not any other 3rd party carrier....

You know we can go back to page 5-10 and this whole discussion was there (it's already happened in this thread a few times now)

 

[tgp]

Do we NEED this thread? No. It's really entertaining though. :-D

"Windows Central - Come for the news, stay for the drama!"

 

[Generalheed]

That is nonsense. If Microsoft wanted 950s to be an AT&T exclusive the Microsoft Store wouldn't be selling an unlocked 950 side by side with the AT&T 950. Microsoft doesn't want to exclude 950s on any carrier BUT any carrier that wants them has to permit the OS and firmware to be updated on Microsoft's schedule. So far only AT&T has agreed to acceptable upgrade timing.

Like DoctorPizza said, unbranded and unlocked phones receive updates independently of the carrier. So there's absolutely no reason why Microsoft refused to let the 950's work on Verizon's network. As an unlocked phone, Verizon doesn't have to agree to anything. An unlocked phone on Verizon would most likely get updates faster than AT&T actually. So in the end, it's Microsoft's childish attitude to deliberately prevent these phones from working on Verizon's network as some kind of attempt to get us Verizon customers to leave as punishment for Verizon if that is what Microsoft's intent is.

 

[dkediger]

Microsoft's market position does not afford them this kind of capriciousness.

There's a story in this saga that needs to be told - at least exposed - and in better venues than a user forum. Its one thing for the tech press to call it out and shrug it off as "Oh, it's Microsoft/Verizon again..." and move on. There's a legitimate line of inquiry here as to Microsoft's justification for dumping Verizon users that's worthy of burning a few bridges to discover. Otherwise, the likes of Mary Jo Foley, Paul Thurrott, Leo Laporte, and I'll even throw Daniel in there are being complicit in accepting Microsoft's story of the past being justification for the future. Microsoft wants their story to be about the future, but their actions reveal entrenchment to the past. It affects long term perceptions of Microsoft's commitment to Mobile - it certainly does mine, and by extension, that of the place I work and the people I work for and with. It sad, because I have had for the first time ever, these people asking about Windows Mobile - and they leave shaking their heads incredulously.

 

[anon(7901790)]

Again, do some homework here. This was quoted by many outlets back when the kin was finally killed off. The Kin didn't really have tons of apps because it was designed as Social media phone, designed to hit the yonger new phone market. It was not designed to have a big app store or anything like that.

The phone was planned as a low cost model with a low monthly rate to run, this was the orignal plan for it but, when it was finally released, Verizon FORCED users to require a $30 data plan (it was CHANGED FROM THE ORIGNAL PLAN FOR IT), and it was too expensive to run for what it was.

With the cost to run it was too high, no one would buy it for their kids (again the market it was designed for) and that is what killed it.... Not the lack of apps. Verizon is almost 80-90% at fault for this.

This problem as been clearly documented in the past and failue on the Kin...

Which outlets are you talking about? Keep in mind, the vast majority of what you find in these forums and outlets is anecdotal. Anecdotes are all well and good. The simple fact about the KIN was that it was not a well thought out design. Here are some reviews of the device:

Reviewers highlighted a number of notable omissions from Kin's initial feature set:

Contact lists could only be copied from another phone by Verizon store employees. There was no way for the consumer to do this by any known means (over the air, via a memory or SIM card, wirelessly via Bluetooth and vCard, or via direct USB cable connection).

Kin had no calendar or appointment application, nor any ability to sync with Outlook calendar or Google Calendar. Some commentators suggested that a social phone should be able to share a social events calendar.

Kin was unable to Instant Message (IM), or use any IM client, which was considered odd for a phone built for messaging and aimed at the youth market. It was discovered that the ROM inside the phones contained the foundation for an IM system supporting AOL Instant Messenger, Windows Live Messenger, and Yahoo! Messenger, but it was never made operational. It was speculated that future revisions of the software would have enabled instant messaging.

There was no spelling correction or predictive text input.​

Microsoft Kin One and Two review
The Curious Thing About Microsoft Kin | PCWorld

Based on those glaring issues, nothing Verizon could do would have saved this device. Not when Verizon offered quality Android and Blackberry devices. Then less than a year later, offered the iPhone. Had my daughter been old enough, I wouldn't have bought this for her. Not because of the data plan by itself, but because of its lack of features. Essentially, Microsoft produced a neutered device that really didn't do anything very well.

And by the way, that $29.99 was a DATA plan. If you got yourself a Blackberry Storm or Curve, or a Droid or a Fascinate. You were still going to be paying $29.99 per phone. So why get a neutered phone, when you could get a full featured device and pay the same amount for the data?

 

[anon(7901790)]

There's a story in this saga that needs to be told - at least exposed - and in better venues than a user forum. Its one thing for the tech press to call it out and shrug it off as "Oh, it's Microsoft/Verizon again..." and move on. There's a legitimate line of inquiry here as to Microsoft's justification for dumping Verizon users that's worthy of burning a few bridges to discover. Otherwise, the likes of Mary Jo Foley, Paul Thurrott, Leo Laporte, and I'll even throw Daniel in there are being complicit in accepting Microsoft's story of the past being justification for the future. Microsoft wants their story to be about the future, but their actions reveal entrenchment to the past. It affects long term perceptions of Microsoft's commitment to Mobile - it certainly does mine, and by extension, that of the place I work and the people I work for and with. It sad, because I have had for the first time ever, these people asking about Windows Mobile - and they leave shaking their heads incredulously.

Well said. Much of this debacle can be traced back to Balmer and Elop; which was then placed in Nadella's lap.

 

[macroweb]

It's my, unqualified, opinion that Verizon likes to keep a low inventory on all products and will accept phones based up projected sales or overall product mix. I have seen VZW skip over one phone model when they foresee a potentially better model coming within a reasonable amount of time. With some pretty strong rumors regarding a Surface Phone coming, maybe as soon as quarter 1 of 2016, that this phone would be the one VZW will be willing to carry/sell. With the Surface Phone's predominate target being enterprise users, this phone would fit VZW's portfolio much better than a so-so Lumia device.

I personally use the Verizon Lumia Icon and I love it, so I will take a wait and see approach. If VZW blows off the Surface Phone, then I will move to AT&T.

Cheers!

 

[DoctorPizza]

There's a story in this saga that needs to be told - at least exposed - and in better venues than a user forum. Its one thing for the tech press to call it out and shrug it off as "Oh, it's Microsoft/Verizon again..." and move on. There's a legitimate line of inquiry here as to Microsoft's justification for dumping Verizon users that's worthy of burning a few bridges to discover. Otherwise, the likes of Mary Jo Foley, Paul Thurrott, Leo Laporte, and I'll even throw Daniel in there are being complicit in accepting Microsoft's story of the past being justification for the future. Microsoft wants their story to be about the future, but their actions reveal entrenchment to the past. It affects long term perceptions of Microsoft's commitment to Mobile - it certainly does mine, and by extension, that of the place I work and the people I work for and with. It sad, because I have had for the first time ever, these people asking about Windows Mobile - and they leave shaking their heads incredulously.

I don't think there is a "story" as such, actually. As I allude to in my review (based on information from various people within Microsoft) there's no great conspiracy or anything like that. Their phone division is understaffed (they laid off a lot of Nokia-acquired expertise, arguably too much), and underprioritized (righting the desktop ship was seen as more important). The 950 is not intended as some deliberate snub of Verizon; CDMA support just fell between the gaps due to limited resources. Microsoft is well aware that this is a problem.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Like DoctorPizza said, unbranded and unlocked phones receive updates independently of the carrier. So there's absolutely no reason why Microsoft refused to let the 950's work on Verizon's network.

You're talking about the other side of the coin. I was addressing a statement that Microsoft wanted AT&T to have an exclusive on the 950. The point being that if Microsoft wanted the 950 to be an AT&T exclusive they would not offer the unlocked 950 in the US just as they never offered the 1520s unlocked.

 

[to_be_announced]

End of the day the 950 & 950 XL wont work on Verizon. Do we really need a 104 page thread on the subject clogging up the forum? Put a fork in it, its done.

Clogging up the forum? Guess I hadn't noticed any ill affects to the forum from this thread.

This forum is good. It shows MSFT that there are VZ customers that are unhappy about the situation between them and the carrier.

 

[Lee Power]

Once the US joins the rest of us in the civilised world the carrier problem will disappear. The US always has to be different & special, phones, cars, mobile carriers etc.

 

[to_be_announced]

To all saying the reason these phones aren't on Verizon because the carrier treats WP like crap, I call BS.

First off, yes, I agree that Verizon hasn't been the best partner when it comes to WP. That still doesn't explain why MSFT didn't put CDMA capability into the phone and just sell it that way from their stores and online.

Second, the assumption with Verizon being snubbed but AT&T not is that the latter was somehow "good" to WP. It was not. It is not. I've found threads dedicated to this already with the poor customer service people are receiving at AT&T stores when they go to get these new Lumias.

We're hearing more and more from carriers on these phones as well. T-Mobile called out MSFT and said they were never approached to carry the phones. Verizon has done the same. It seems to me this is on MSFT. Not the carriers.

All they had to do was make the phone truly universally unlocked. Many OEM's do it. No reason they couldn't. Plain and simple.

 

[Generalheed]

To all saying the reason these phones aren't on Verizon because the carrier treats WP like crap, I call BS.

First off, yes, I agree that Verizon hasn't been the best partner when it comes to WP. That still doesn't explain why MSFT didn't put CDMA capability into the phone and just sell it that way from their stores and online.

Second, the assumption with Verizon being snubbed but AT&T not is that the latter was somehow "good" to WP. It was not. It is not. I've found threads dedicated to this already with the poor customer service people are receiving at AT&T stores when they go to get these new Lumias.

We're hearing more and more from carriers on these phones as well. T-Mobile called out MSFT and said they were never approached to carry the phones. Verizon has done the same. It seems to me this is on MSFT. Not the carriers.

All they had to do was make the phone truly universally unlocked. Many OEM's do it. No reason they couldn't. Plain and simple.

So in conclusion, let's grab our pitchforks and torches and head to Microsoft HQ! There's absolutely no excuse for these phones to not be truly universal. The carriers have nothing to do with it. Verizon is mostly innocent here for once and Microsoft is to blame.

 

[to_be_announced]

So in conclusion, let's grab our pitchforks and torches and head to Microsoft HQ! There's absolutely no excuse for these phones to not be truly universal. The carriers have nothing to do with it. Verizon is mostly innocent here for once and Microsoft is to blame.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Verizon is "innocent". Had they been a better partner, maybe MSFT decides to include the CDMA? I don't know.

In the end though, it was MSFT that decided to exclude CDMA from their phone, regardless of what was/is going on with their relationship with VZ.

 

[tgp]

We're hearing more and more from carriers on these phones as well. T-Mobile called out MSFT and said they were never approached to carry the phones. Verizon has done the same. It seems to me this is on MSFT. Not the carriers.

All they had to do was make the phone truly universally unlocked. Many OEM's do it. No reason they couldn't. Plain and simple.

Here is my opinion: I think that Microsoft thought it necessary to partner with a carrier to have any chance of moving the 950/XL. AT&T seems an obvious choice. However, I bet AT&T laid down some strict rules, such as providing a carrier branded device, and no capabilities for Verizon.

Microsoft probably had two options:

1. AT&T carrying them but not having them capable of running on Verizon
2. Unlocked and capable of running on any US carrier but no AT&T help

Pick your poison.