HP Elite X3 - Verizon hates us

[AV2RY]

I'm not going to buy this phone at least for not having Glance screen and "poor" camera. But some of you might be interested. I found this AMA on Reddit. Don't think it's been here

https://m.reddit.com/r/windowsphone/comments/4ttwxh/hp_x3_question_and_answer_time_ama/

 

[AV2RY]

Admins, please move this to HP forum. I couldn't find it but I did now

 

[xandros9]

Admins, please move this to HP forum. I couldn't find it but I did now

Gotcha!

 

[Krystianpants]

The camera is not poor there were some good images posted. One turned out bad. Hey do you take perfect pictures with your lumia all the time? Even my lumia 950xl will take a bad shot from time to time depending on many things. Don't decide the camera is poor until there has been a proper review. All about windows phones has a camera guru on the team and he does amazing reviews, I'm sure he will take it through the tests.

Also even the lumia 950xl has improved in camera quality because of the APP as well as firmware updates. So again, don't make rash judgements.

And I don't get the whole Verizon thing. If a phone supports CDMA they can do the certification process and by FCC ruling Verizon has to let them onto the network. I'm not sure he deals with Verizon directly to know this. And in another post he mentions a new device which will be on Verizon.

 

[DavidinCT]

This a quote from the AMA.... this pretty much sums up why we don't get a lot of devices on Verizon....

It's not just you. Having worked in the mobile industry before I can assure you that Verizon is a pain in the *** to work with. They have a bajillion and one super strict rules about lab entry, let alone actual lab testing. To top it off, their lab testing takes a week longer than AT&T or T-Mobile but they'll ***** and make life hell for an OEM that doesn't release their Verizon device at the same time as an AT&T/T-Mobile device. Basically, they want OEMs to sit on the other carrier's devices for a week.

They openly admit to giving Apple special privileges though.

 

[Krystianpants]

This a quote from the AMA.... this pretty much sums up why we don't get a lot of devices on Verizon....

It's not just you. Having worked in the mobile industry before I can assure you that Verizon is a pain in the *** to work with. They have a bajillion and one super strict rules about lab entry, let alone actual lab testing. To top it off, their lab testing takes a week longer than AT&T or T-Mobile but they'll ***** and make life hell for an OEM that doesn't release their Verizon device at the same time as an AT&T/T-Mobile device. Basically, they want OEMs to sit on the other carrier's devices for a week.

They openly admit to giving Apple special privileges though.

If this is indeed true then the OEMs should take them to court. But a single OEM would never do it. It would have to be a group of companies that get together and file a suit. The issue is that many of them won't do it as Verizon also provides free advertising for them. It's one of those scenarios where Verizon can continue to do bad things because of the benefits of following their tedious expectations.

 

[Marcin Dabrowsky]

If this is indeed true then the OEMs should take them to court. But a single OEM would never do it. It would have to be a group of companies that get together and file a suit. The issue is that many of them won't do it as Verizon also provides free advertising for them. It's one of those scenarios where Verizon can continue to do bad things because of the benefits of following their tedious expectations.

I agree Krystian, Verizon has for far too long gotten away with their "privileged" bs. This has been the case in the US in general where companies came before consumers for MANY years. We are only now beginning to slowly wake up to what the rest of the world has been doing. T-mobile was brave enough to be the first kid on the block to implement its European strategy model here in the states, and for this reason (coupled with my 2 phones for $100/month unlimited everything without a contract) they have my loyalty for a long time to come!

 

[Lumious]

Yes they do.

I bailed from a $150/month plan on VZW with an Icon and a 822. Now im with ATT using a 950 XL and 640 and couldn't be happier. Oh and i only pay 40$/month now and dont notice any difference.

 

[cracgor]

If this is indeed true then the OEMs should take them to court. But a single OEM would never do it. It would have to be a group of companies that get together and file a suit. The issue is that many of them won't do it as Verizon also provides free advertising for them. It's one of those scenarios where Verizon can continue to do bad things because of the benefits of following their tedious expectations.

Well this is Verizon's stance on the 950 business...I imagine it is the same for HP. Anyway, there is a phone number for you to call if you continue to have questions. It seems Microsoft hates you...Verizon is more like apathetic.

Verizon proves Microsoft responsible for no unlocked Lumia 950 XL on their network - MSPoweruser

 

[Kevin Rush]

Well this is Verizon's stance on the 950 business...I imagine it is the same for HP. Anyway, there is a phone number for you to call if you continue to have questions. It seems Microsoft hates you...Verizon is more like apathetic.

Verizon proves Microsoft responsible for no unlocked Lumia 950 XL on their network - MSPoweruser

The article seems suspicious. Why are there no comments? Why aren't the comments turned on?

If true, what does certification cost? Maybe we have a Kickstarter and get the phones certified ourselves? I know it has been discussed endlessly, but I think I remember, that the 950 and 950 XL do not have the necessary CDMA radio frequencies? So certification would not be possible.

Just wondering.

 

[cracgor]

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/mobile/phone/lumia950-xl-dual-sim/specifications/

The article seems suspicious. Why are there no comments? Why aren't the comments turned on?

If true, what does certification cost? Maybe we have a Kickstarter and get the phones certified ourselves? I know it has been discussed endlessly, but I think I remember, that the 950 and 950 XL do not have the necessary CDMA radio frequencies? So certification would not be possible.

Just wondering.

If they don't have the CDMA radio necessary, then it is still Microsoft that is preventing them from working on Verizon. My reading of the specs is that the 950 includes the necessary CDMA to work on Verizon (Band 2 and Band 4). Microsoft just isn't focused on Mobile enough to care about the extra step.

Microsoft responds to carrier availability questions about Lumia 950 and 950 XL
US Wireless Carrier Bands: Cheat Sheet

 

[dksf42]

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/mobile/phone/lumia950-xl-dual-sim/specifications/

If they don't have the CDMA radio necessary, then it is still Microsoft that is preventing them from working on Verizon. My reading of the specs is that the 950 includes the necessary CDMA to work on Verizon (Band 2 and Band 4). Microsoft just isn't focused on Mobile enough to care about the extra step.

Microsoft responds to carrier availability questions about Lumia 950 and 950 XL
US Wireless Carrier Bands: Cheat Sheet

The "most important band" in the US for Verizon is LTE Band 13 AFAIK !

 

[cracgor]

The "most important band" in the US for Verizon is LTE Band 13 AFAIK !

So then Microsoft is responsible for leaving it out.

 

[dksf42]

So then Microsoft is responsible for leaving it out.

Hard to say as the 950 and 950 XL were pure Microsoft and "consumer"!

THIS thread is Verizon "specifically with the HP Elite x3 for the Enterprise and HP is the "lead and not Microsoft"!

The "rumors" persist that a "Verizon network enabled HP Elite x3" is still in some state of negotiation remains the best hope!

The HP Elite x3 is launching in over 35 countries = Verizon is "the lone major US carrier holdout" !

BOTTOM-LINE = the HP Elite x3 IS the most powerful and awesome Windows 10 Mobile smartphone EVER conceived and ...

WE ALL should be proud of the fact that HP and Microsoft "had the brass balls" to execute this !!!

 

[a5cent]

So then Microsoft is responsible for leaving it out.

Not only MS. The hardware supports Verizon's bands, but they are disabled via software. Why? There is no official comment from either MS or Verizon, so we don't know.

However, no capitalist company limits the number of customers they can sell a device to without reason, meaning MS was coerced by something or someone. We just don't know by what.

Maybe AT&T demanded the device be a carrier exclusive?
Maybe MS felt that the ability to update Verizon L950/XL devices directly was a non negotiable requirement, to which Verizon replied: "no, and if you try we'll make life miserable for you and your Lumia customers"?
Maybe it was something else? We don't know.

All we can say for sure, is that MS expected the problems caused, by allowing the phone on Verizon's network, to outweigh the expected benefits.

 

[Guytronic]

All we can say for sure is that MS decided the benefits of supporting the bands of the U.S.' largest carrier didn't outweigh the problems doing so was expected to cause.

I was under the impression that CDMA technology was going by the wayside in the near future.
How many providers are still using it...Verizon, Sprint and US Cellular?

Reading up a bit on CDMA it looks like it's not worth the effort since GSM seems to hold the greater standard.
The x3 being a business oriented device may do much better globally with GSM.

 

[a5cent]

^ I don't believe that it's not worth it, because there is almost no effort involved for MS or HP. The Qualcom SoC in the X3 and the 950/XL already include everything that is technically necessary. This requires almost no engineering effort on MS' or HP's behalf. They just need to send their devices in for CDMA certification. That's an extremely small effort compared to the number of potential sales, even if the device isn't carried officially by Verizon. Verizon has a customer base that is larger than many other nation's populations. It's hard to imagine how certification couldn't be worthwhile.

 

[Guytronic]

The Qualcom SoC in the X3 and the 950/XL already include everything that is technically necessary.

Agreed...
Then again why support a technology that evidently has a short lifespan?
Far as I can tell CDMA is a US only thing.
Why limit a network with CDMA when GSM supports LTE with a single SIM?
Am I thinking in the wrong direction here?

 

[a5cent]

Agreed...
Then again why support a technology that evidently has a short lifespan?

Because CDMA is currently in use and will continue to be in use during the expected lifespan of these phones. These phones exist to be sold, so it makes sense to support the cellular standards that are a prerequisite to being sold on the U.S.' largest carrier, just like almost every other phone in the U.S.

Why limit a network with CDMA when GSM supports LTE with a single SIM?
Am I thinking in the wrong direction here?

I agree that CDMA needs to go. It's just an insane business decision to willy nilly disable CDMA on devices being sold today, before CDMA is actually gone.

You seem to be asking: "why support a dying standard?". The answer is obviously: "because it adds millions of people you can sell the device to for almost no extra effort".

I feel I'm not understanding your point, because I can't see how anyone can consider that cost/benefit ratio to not be worthwhile.

 

[Guytronic]

I feel I'm not understanding your point, because I can't see how anyone can consider that cost/benefit ratio to not be worthwhile.

I know a number of people on Verizon which as far as service they trust.
These same people usually lament: I wish I could find solid service elsewhere for a lot less money.
I've heard the cry for lower cost for existing customers numerous times.

As a cheapskate I would jump from Verizon in a heartbeat for less cost despite alleged awesome coverage.
I think AT&T is hellbent on stomping Verizon into the ground with coverage and lower costs for the user.