Yes. It would. Part of the reason for the massive adoption of LTE on the major carriers is that current SoCs are built with LTE radios and antennae in mind, whereas that does not exist with Wimax. Sprint would have to shell out money for Samsung or HTC or Qualcomm or whoever to develop a compatible Wimax chip. That's not just extra R&D costs, either. That's extra production costs and a much lower profit margin when, as you've already pointed out, Sprint is already struggling to stay afloat. It's not worth the costs. Plus, it would just create more confusion with customers wondering what's the difference between Wimax and "4G" if they're capable of the same speeds, which one's better, which will drain the battery more, etc. It would just be a huge mess for everyone involved.
Is Sprint really Floundering?
- Thread starter bearballz72
- Start date
Yes. It would. Part of the reason for the massive adoption of LTE on the major carriers is that current SoCs are built with LTE radios and antennae in mind, whereas that does not exist with Wimax. Sprint would have to shell out money for Samsung or HTC or Qualcomm or whoever to develop a compatible Wimax chip. That's not just extra R&D costs, either. That's extra production costs and a much lower profit margin when, as you've already pointed out, Sprint is already struggling to stay afloat. It's not worth the costs. Plus, it would just create more confusion with customers wondering what's the difference between Wimax and "4G" if they're capable of the same speeds, which one's better, which will drain the battery more, etc. It would just be a huge mess for everyone involved.
You're assuming some facts and ignoring others.
Sprint relaunched the Samsung Galaxy SII in December as the Samsung Galaxy SII Titanium. All the specs were the same (including the WiMax radio), but it came in a new color. I didn't hear much about, "confusion" for that product.
Forcing customers to buy 4G phones that they can only use on a 3G network has a cost too.
Sprint relaunched the Samsung Galaxy SII in December as the Samsung Galaxy SII Titanium. All the specs were the same (including the WiMax radio), but it came in a new color. I didn't hear much about, "confusion" for that product.
Forcing customers to buy 4G phones that they can only use on a 3G network has a cost too.
I'd assume that the new GS2 didn't sell nearly as well as the S3 because a lot fewer people cared. It didn't matter that it was new and had a Wimax radio because the market for the phone was smaller, and most people choosing the S2 knew what they were getting into. The others were most likely too budget-conscious to even care about what network they were connected to. And this doesn't even touch on the fact that the R&D and production costs are still way too high to introduce a brand new model with Wimax, regardless of customer confusion (and there's already enough confusion; even Sprint reps are often clueless of which type of 4G the S3 uses, let alone new Sprint customers who don't care enough about smartphones to research anything).
And no one's forcing anyone to buy a new phone, let alone a new 4G phone. If a person happens to be in the market for a new phone and wants a 4G-capable phone right now, then he'll have to inform himself of the current state of the network upgrade and decide if he will be OK with 3G until LTE gets rolled out to his area. If he's not OK with that, then he has 3 options: keep his current Wimax phone until LTE hits his market; go to VZW, AT&T, or T-Mobile permanently; or get a prepaid (or non-contract) phone plan with SimpleMobile, Straight Talk, T-Mobile or someone else until LTE hits his area, then go back to Sprint.
And no one's forcing anyone to buy a new phone, let alone a new 4G phone. If a person happens to be in the market for a new phone and wants a 4G-capable phone right now, then he'll have to inform himself of the current state of the network upgrade and decide if he will be OK with 3G until LTE gets rolled out to his area. If he's not OK with that, then he has 3 options: keep his current Wimax phone until LTE hits his market; go to VZW, AT&T, or T-Mobile permanently; or get a prepaid (or non-contract) phone plan with SimpleMobile, Straight Talk, T-Mobile or someone else until LTE hits his area, then go back to Sprint.
You're making my other point. True, no one is making anyone buy a new phone, but it's impossible to get a straight answer out of Sprint about when it is rolling out 4G service and where so that they can make an informed decision about whether or what phone to purchase. Intel from captured VC (another thread in the Sprint forum) indicates that Sprint has started work on the 4G network in Portland, but there are no official announcements about even starting work in Oregon much less a completion date. If they follow the same pattern they've used in other areas - upgrading a bare bones 20% of the towers in the market, holding a press release saying the network is ready in the city and then moving on to the next, "rollout" - that doesn't even help if your home or workplace are only served by the 80% of non-LTE towers. It's more like a soap opera than a wireless service:
How many months/years will it take Sprint to finish the other 80% of towers?
Which towers will be the 20% that get upgraded in the first pass?
If the Softbank merger doesn't go through will Sprint's 4G network remain a half-built, stillborn curiosity (like their WiMax network)?
Will the board revolt and fire Dan Hesse if the Softbank merger fails or will proof surface of the accusations that he was born a woman forcing him to resign in disgrace?
Stay tuned next week to find out !!! (or jump carriers)
How many months/years will it take Sprint to finish the other 80% of towers?
Which towers will be the 20% that get upgraded in the first pass?
If the Softbank merger doesn't go through will Sprint's 4G network remain a half-built, stillborn curiosity (like their WiMax network)?
Will the board revolt and fire Dan Hesse if the Softbank merger fails or will proof surface of the accusations that he was born a woman forcing him to resign in disgrace?
Stay tuned next week to find out !!! (or jump carriers)
Seems like one m must make the decision based on what exists now since all carriers are pretty coy about their plans.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
They have to be. Would you expect any other company to divulge proprietary information just so a consumer can make a purchasing decision? Should Ford let you know their plans for what vehicles they have planned for the next two years so you can decide if you should buy now or wait? And if they do divulge their plans, and you decide to wait to purchase, but something falls through because of unforeseen circumstances, they have a ticked off consumer.
Sprint is announcing markets when they have the build out planned. We do know they have said that NV is supposed to be completed by the end of 2013. Will it be 100% of all their towers? I doubt it, but this just reinforces my argument above. They've given a date, and that STILL is not good enough for people. And if they miss that date people will crucify them for it. It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for Sprint.
Community Blog List - Sprint 4G Rollout Updates my friend if you wish to look for actual information about sprints LTE rollout and for healthy discussions on telecom tech and stuff like that. Work has begun in the Oregon market and so will the rest of Samsungs markets in the coming month or two. Their deployment is more of a "shotgun" approach in that there is not really much of a plan other than if a tower is ready and a crew is ready then they'll work on that tower regardless if it's in the middle of nowhere, a small town, or a big city. When a site is ready, they'll work on it. Big cities will take longer than the smaller ones thanks to the higher cell site density. If two cities began at once, but one is a smaller city with ~ 80 towers and another is a big one with 200-300 sites, the one with the smaller amount of towers will be launched first because at the same amount of completion, the smaller city with the same amount of upgraded towers as the big one will have a bigger impact than the same amount in the larger city. 60/80 sites completed is much more meaningful and significant than 60/300.
But yep. Should read this piece about how internal stuff is going on @sprint.
Sprint internal correspondence discusses Network Vision Progress/Issues with Employees - Sprint 4G Rollout Updates
But yep. Should read this piece about how internal stuff is going on @sprint.
Sprint internal correspondence discusses Network Vision Progress/Issues with Employees - Sprint 4G Rollout Updates
Seems to me that Sprint is trying to recoup from the Nextel merger and consolidate it's Nextel customers first, rather than burning up cash by trying to directly compete with AT&T and take new LTE customers.
Seems like a pretty smart move to me. Pick the low hanging fruit before you go up. Yes, they may lose some people to AT&T, but they're losing less people on the Nextel network otherwise
http://m.cnet.com/news/sprints-coming-identity-shift-offers-hope/57568226
Sent from my LS670 using Android Central Forums
Seems like a pretty smart move to me. Pick the low hanging fruit before you go up. Yes, they may lose some people to AT&T, but they're losing less people on the Nextel network otherwise
http://m.cnet.com/news/sprints-coming-identity-shift-offers-hope/57568226
Sent from my LS670 using Android Central Forums
I've been with sprint for years, and they rock!
Remember what the doormouse said, feed your head!
Remember what the doormouse said, feed your head!
Citizen Coyote
Well-known member
And, they beat analysts projections
They did beat analysts' expectations, which is good, and they had overall positive subscriber growth. However, compared to the profits reported by Verizon and AT&T, they reported a loss (and not an insignificant one). Hence, the public perception that Sprint is floundering.
You originally asked if Sprint was really floundering. My argument (and Ry's too, I believe) is that the public perception is yes, Sprint is floundering, because NV has not advanced to a point where it impacts the public view of Sprint. Now, given the earnings report and knowing the challenges Sprint has faced and what they've managed to accomplish so far regarding NV roll-out, I think they have a good chance of eventually turning that public perception around. I hope they do. Sprint is a good carrier, and the US desperately needs many viable carriers in order to counteract the general horribleness of our wireless environment.
I'm willing to bet that the day Sprint reports a profit will be the day the public slaps them on the back and says, "Congratulations, you've made it out of the wilderness."
I think it's possible to say they are floundering now, however if all of their strategies are executed well, in a few years they may be once again in a solid position. They do have a long way to go to get up to current standards and the entire time the rest of the industry will still be moving forward, so that bar will continue to be higher and higher as they move towards it.
thenameisnigel
Well-known member
Also there's the FCC who doesn't like ideas like that.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
True At&t and Verizon are well ahead of Sprint in terms of market share, I don't think anyone is debating that fact. But Sprint has done better than expected the last three quarters, even though they're building a new network and losing a ton of cash. As soon as they shed what's left of Nextel, and get this deal with Softbank finalized they can go ahead and ramp up their deployment of Network Vision.
Whenever you embark on a large revamp of your network and service is interrupted people are going to complain (and rightly so). This past summer in the Chicago area, the service was terrible ( a lot of the same issues other people are complaining about now) and people jumped ship. But it got much better, Sprint even credited me on my bill almost everytime I called because of the service. When I was on A&t and they were rolling out their LTE network, the service was terrible and people complained, but it got better. Sprint losing customers was going to be expected, and I'm sure Sprint knew it as well.
So as someone else posted "damned if you do, damned if you don't".
Sprint is making all the right moves. As their network becomes more competitive they'll be in a better position to attract customers from Verizon and AT&T who have been battered and bruised by the limited/tiered data restrictions. Going forward, the Luddite network (TMO) is going to be in worse shape than Sprint was 5 years ago.
Last to build a 3G network
Last to get the iPhone
Last to build a 4G network
First to eliminate the hardware subsidy
Last to build a 3G network
Last to get the iPhone
Last to build a 4G network
First to eliminate the hardware subsidy
Trending Posts
-
[Chatter] "Where everybody knows your name ..."
- Started by zero neck
- Replies: 53K
-
-
-
News How to download YouTube videos to watch offline- Started by AC News
- Replies: 1
-
Error with posting a question
- Started by Puiman
- Replies: 2
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram