Will an "unlocked" 950XL work on Verizon?

[dkediger]

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.

I want to get out of the way that I want to provide more of an extra viewpoint and not be argumentative - its easiest to respond to your comments to so and I appreciate you participating in this thread. I'm a very casual and occasional ArsTechnica peruser.

Anyway - its really disheartening that there has been/still is that much disarray. Kind of like the Direct TV "Really High Voice" Payton Manning commercials. Their image is big "M"icrosoft but their execution (in Mobile) has been small "m"icrosoft.

Yeah - they're an entirely different animal than Apple - where mobile is pretty much their only current reason for being. But still, Microsoft expresses that mobile is important but the devil is in the details. As users, we're being left to fend for ourselves to fill those details in. And its not coming out pretty. Something more positive and substantive than the "...we want to work with those who want to work with us..." throwaway line. Well, I want to work with them - as a user and consumer in several capacities.

 

[DavidinCT]

<snip>

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?

Going way off topic here and we should take this subject (the death of the KIN). One of the big things noticed on all the reviews was the same problems I said.

When Verizon took in the phone, the AGREEMENT was for a very low cost data plan on it, this was between Verizon and Microsoft.... but, when it finally hit the market, Verizon FORCED a $30 data plan on it, NOT WHAT THEY AGREEED ON. This is what KILLED the KIN.

Sure every phone got a Unlimited data for $30 a month (sure I bet most people here would love to have that option again) but, on the Kin, it was NOT a full featured phone and was designed around a Phone and Social Media applications made for the younger demographic (12-18). This would need to be a cheaper monthly cost and why this device was created.

I see your point but, the AGREEMENT was for a lower cost data plan, Verizon backed out at the VERY LAST MIN....and this is why it's Verizon's fault.

Forgot where I got the details on this but, it was on a big news site years ago....It was confirmed by a few people over the years (known Microsoft contacts)

I work in IT and have been from the Windows 95 days, I follow most Microsoft news.. and the Kin was something I wanted to play with at one time but, like others saw the limits and stuck with Windows Mobile (pre-windows phone) at the time.

 

[to_be_announced]

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.

I think to say that CDMA just "fell between the gaps" is ridiculous.

I get that they may be understaffed and underprioritized and all that. But to let something as major as CDMA just get forgotten about is a bit of a stretch. No way something as major as that was left off any other way but deliberately.

 

[Generalheed]

I think to say that CDMA just "fell between the gaps" is ridiculous.

I get that they may be understaffed and underprioritized and all that. But to let something as major as CDMA just get forgotten about is a bit of a stretch. No way something as major as that was left off any other way but deliberately.

I agree, the phone's chipset already supports CDMA and it already has the proper CDMA radios. It probably took them more work to disable the CDMA radios via firmware than it did to just leave it be.

 

[dkediger]

Actually, I can see it - in a sort of Dilbert or Office Space way with the layoffs:

Former Nokia/Now MS/Soon to be ex MS Dude 1: "Hey - Did you hear Bob got the pink slip with all the rest of us?"

Former Nokia/Now MS/Soon to be ex MS Dude 2: "Yeah - Its hilarious. He's the CDMA cert guy. They're going to be so screwed. But keep it quiet - we don't want them to figure it out until its too late. It'll be our way of getting back at 'em for these layoffs...."

 

[to_be_announced]

Actually, I can see it - in a sort of Dilbert or Office Space way with the layoffs:

Former Nokia/Now MS/Soon to be ex MS Dude 1: "Hey - Did you hear Bob got the pink slip with all the rest of us?"

Former Nokia/Now MS/Soon to be ex MS Dude 2: "Yeah - Its hilarious. He's the CDMA cert guy. They're going to be so screwed. But keep it quiet - we don't want them to figure it out until its too late. It'll be our way of getting back at 'em for these layoffs...."

So they have no bosses or people that review things before they get the ok? There was no checks and balances to make sure of things like this?

To believe that would be to believe that MSFT is so disfunctional that they would just forget about a major function in a major device. I can't believe it.

 

[DavidinCT]

I think to say that CDMA just "fell between the gaps" is ridiculous.

Who is the moron who thought of that concept ? If your only TALKING about cell phones in the US, CDMA would come up, as Verizon and Sprint use it for their 3G network and it's got the largest foot print in the US.

No question CDMA was talked about but, for some reason, they turned it down.... My feeling is on the post I created last page how Verizon screwed over Microsoft but, what do I know ?

 

[DoctorPizza]

I think to say that CDMA just "fell between the gaps" is ridiculous.

I get that they may be understaffed and underprioritized and all that. But to let something as major as CDMA just get forgotten about is a bit of a stretch. No way something as major as that was left off any other way but deliberately.

You have a finite amount of development and test resources. You have to prioritize development and testing, and you need to get a minimum viable product on the market within a particular timeframe. You have a major new platform (W10, which is still pretty rough), running on new (to Windows) hardware, with an updated (if not entirely new) driver stack and baseband, a new marquee feature (Continuum), and a new app platform (UWP) which has the knock-on effect of making certain core apps (mail, settings) all-new.

CDMA is important, yes, but is it as important as GSM and LTE and all the other things that cause development and testing overhead? I don't think so. Add to this the lack of relevant expertise because they've been laid off, and the overheads of integrating what's left of the Nokia staff? It's easy to see how it would fall between the gaps. Not exactly _forgotten about_, but simply never the most important thing to be working on. Deferred and delayed all the time, such that it's not there to ship.

 

[Generalheed]

You have a finite amount of development and test resources. You have to prioritize development and testing, and you need to get a minimum viable product on the market within a particular timeframe. You have a major new platform (W10, which is still pretty rough), running on new (to Windows) hardware, with an updated (if not entirely new) driver stack and baseband, a new marquee feature (Continuum), and a new app platform (UWP) which has the knock-on effect of making certain core apps (mail, settings) all-new.

CDMA is important, yes, but is it as important as GSM and LTE and all the other things that cause development and testing overhead? I don't think so. Add to this the lack of relevant expertise because they've been laid off, and the overheads of integrating what's left of the Nokia staff? It's easy to see how it would fall between the gaps. Not exactly _forgotten about_, but simply never the most important thing to be working on. Deferred and delayed all the time, such that it's not there to ship.

The phone's chipset already supports CDMA and the antennas are all tuned to the correct CDMA frequencies. Lack of time and resources? Microsoft put in extra time and effort to disable CDMA and block Verizon's network in the firmware. From the beginning the 950 already supported CDMA and Verizon's LTE bands. Certification is done by 3rd parties anyways so it wouldn't take any extra effort or resources on Microsoft's part. It doesn't matter if there were layoffs or priority shifts. There's no defending Microsoft here, their actions were deliberate and planned out. Extra time, resources, and man power were diverted to disable CDMA and Verizon's LTE bands when it would've been easier and faster to just leave the phone as it is and have a 3rd party certify that CDMA works.

 

[DoctorPizza]

The phone's chipset already supports CDMA and the antennas are all tuned to the correct CDMA frequencies. Lack of time and resources? Microsoft put in extra time and effort to disable CDMA and block Verizon's network in the firmware. From the beginning the 950 already supported CDMA and Verizon's LTE bands. Certification is done by 3rd parties anyways so it wouldn't take any extra effort or resources on Microsoft's part. It doesn't matter if there were layoffs or priority shifts. There's no defending Microsoft here, their actions were deliberate and planned out. Extra time, resources, and man power were diverted to disable CDMA and Verizon's LTE bands when it would've been easier and faster to just leave the phone as it is and have a 3rd party certify that CDMA works.

"From the beginning the 950 already supported CDMA"

Then where is the CDMA-supporting 950 model?

There has to be communication between the baseband firmware and the OS. That the 950 and 950XL are the first Windows devices to use the X10 modem. And that there's more to testing than just "passing certification"--all the regular OS and driver development and testing needs to be done.

"Not supporting CDMA" isn't "extra effort". It's less effort. The idea that all this stuff just comes for free is not accurate.

 

[esbe118]

I'm with Page Plus, a secondary-citizen carrier that runs off of Verizon's towers. I'm currently using one of their nano-SIMs in my Icon. Would I be able to pop it out and stick it in a 950XL, since it wouldn't need activated?

 

[jmajid]

i think this has run its course.. and should be renamed to "when will this be closed?"

 

[anon(7901790)]

Who is the moron who thought of that concept ? If your only TALKING about cell phones in the US, CDMA would come up, as Verizon and Sprint use it for their 3G network and it's got the largest foot print in the US.

No question CDMA was talked about but, for some reason, they turned it down.... My feeling is on the post I created last page how Verizon screwed over Microsoft but, what do I know ?

You're not thinking globally, which Microsoft is. Verizon isn't competing on a global scale where Microsoft IS. Verizon is one of MANY carriers globally. The 950/950XL will work in practically EVERY country, to include the US; unlike it's predecessor, the 930, which can only work on LTE networks OUTSIDE the US. Turning on the CDMA for Verizon wouldn't significantly increase overall GLOBAL sales for Microsoft and doesn't really affect Verizon that much either.

Like I said previously, Microsoft made the conscious BUSINESS decision to not turn on CDMA. Like I said previously, it will hurt Microsoft here in the US more than Verizon. But that lack of CDMA support in no way hurts Microsoft GLOBALLY. China and India are the two markets with the most potential and South and Central America are not far behind. The North American and European markets are fairly well saturated with not a whole lot of growth potential.

"From the beginning the 950 already supported CDMA"

Then where is the CDMA-supporting 950 model?

There has to be communication between the baseband firmware and the OS. That the 950 and 950XL are the first Windows devices to use the X10 modem. And that there's more to testing than just "passing certification"--all the regular OS and driver development and testing needs to be done.

"Not supporting CDMA" isn't "extra effort". It's less effort. The idea that all this stuff just comes for free is not accurate.

Yes, it is less effort. Not supporting CDMA reduces the amount of testing needed (by CDMA I mean CDMA2000 not WCDMA). To make it a true carrier free phone would require Microsoft to test it on every CDMA network worldwide, because EACH CDMA network has a unique key. GSM and LTE does not have that issue, so testing is much easier and streamlined, therefore making it cheaper.

Wait...I'm agreeing with you... WTH?

 

[DoctorPizza]

I'm with Page Plus, a secondary-citizen carrier that runs off of Verizon's towers. I'm currently using one of their nano-SIMs in my Icon. Would I be able to pop it out and stick it in a 950XL, since it wouldn't need activated?

Not if you want service, no.

 

[RumoredNow]

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.

I think you skipped the salient point, Doctor.

AT&T may have gotten a branded version and a short lead time to sell the 950 vs the rest of the world because they agreed to not sit on updates. Perhaps other carriers lost out in the US because they could not accept overturning the status quo of placing their part in the update cycle on the back burner or ignoring it altogether. And when I say ignore, I'm looking at T-MoUS.

 

[Generalheed]

"From the beginning the 950 already supported CDMA"

Then where is the CDMA-supporting 950 model?

There has to be communication between the baseband firmware and the OS. That the 950 and 950XL are the first Windows devices to use the X10 modem. And that there's more to testing than just "passing certification"--all the regular OS and driver development and testing needs to be done.

"Not supporting CDMA" isn't "extra effort". It's less effort. The idea that all this stuff just comes for free is not accurate.

The chipset, the antennas, all supported CDMA from the beginning. The support was baked in. At the OS level, Windows 10 already supports CDMA, we've seen that on numerous Windows Phones. I know drivers are device specific, but considering the fact that all Windows Phones including the 950 have used Qualcomm chipsets, I can't imagine CDMA drivers being foreign to Microsoft, especially if the drivers are pretty consistent being Qualcomm chipsets even if the X10's are new to Windows.

The decision to cripple the 950's doesn't just affect Verizon customers either. The US isn't the only country that uses CDMA2000. The 950's were supposed to be globally unlocked, but that's not really the case. Most major smartphones are all globally unlocked and include CDMA regardless of whether there's carrier support. There's not really any excuse why Microsoft couldn't have done the same thing.

I think you skipped the salient point, Doctor.

AT&T may have gotten a branded version and a short lead time to sell the 950 vs the rest of the world because they agreed to not sit on updates. Perhaps other carriers lost out in the US because they could not accept overturning the status quo of placing their part in the update cycle on the back burner or ignoring it altogether. And when I say ignore, I'm looking at T-MoUS.

That still doesn't explain why Microsoft didn't just go ahead and make the phone globally unlocked. If they were willing to sell an "unlocked" version, then they should've just fully unlocked it. They don't need Verizon to carry the phone.

 

[nokia4life]

Why is this thread still open we know this phone will not work on verizon it has been noted by windows central, Microsoft , and every tech blogger out there who did a unboxing and put a verizon sim it. Can we close this its out of control folks either leave verizon and join us GSM folks or stay on older CDMA lock down tech....

 

[anon(7901790)]

That still doesn't explain why Microsoft didn't just go ahead and make the phone globally unlocked. If they were willing to sell an "unlocked" version, then they should've just fully unlocked it. They don't need Verizon to carry the phone.

We will probably never know why Microsoft made it's decision. We can only speculate.

 

[nokia4life]

We will probably never know why Microsoft made it's decision. We can only speculate.

Let me help you with that, the world is mainly on GSM here in the states two carriers decided not to go GSM which is the standard worldwide, Verizon and Sprint CDMA old technology. So when building the phone one would say do we want this to operation on 98% of the worlds towers or do we invest more money not knowing what the reception will be and make this compatible with the other carriers running CDMA as voice vs GSM. Well there you have it the majority of the world (BIG PICTURE here) operates on GSM so lets make this phone and release it with these bands and if it sells well we can then pitch to Verizon and or Sprint to see if they want to carry it on their CDMA network. Oh and lets not forget verizon likes to fidget around in the design and molest the phones before they are released and microsoft decided for the moment this is not needed. (BY FELICIA) CAN WE CLOSE THIS THREAD.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

c

That still doesn't explain why Microsoft didn't just go ahead and make the phone globally unlocked. If they were willing to sell an "unlocked" version, then they should've just fully unlocked it. They don't need Verizon to carry the phone.

This whole thread explains it perfectly. People blame the wrong party all the time because they don't understand. All a companycan do is try to make it as clear as possible and then sit back and take the misdirected, totally unwarranted hate anyway.

Example: We all know that for years Windows phones can read and answer texts hands free in pretty much ANY car with BlueTooth. iPhones can't or if they can its very recent. So we know the reason iPhone users can't get and answer their texts is the phone and not the car

But the vast majority of iPhone users blame the car and complain bitterly to the car makers for being jerks, incompetent, you name it. The car makers don't even try to fight it. You can't fight stupid. They just suck it up and add some Apple app to their new models.

Microsoft is better off saving the time and effort getting the phones certified and having customers blame a bad experience with Verizon on Microsoft. And there was a damn good chance that is what would have happened. Much better to make it very clear in black and white that these phones (just like a very many other phones) do not work with CDMA. There will still be misguided people (as in this thread) who blame Microsoft but the number will be much smaller this way. Smart move Microsoft to NOT get anyone's hopes up until Verizon demonstrates a desire to have these phones under the terms necessary for a good WM10 experience.