In the 10 years I've had a mobile phone, I can't think of any time when people weren't complaining about their carrier and wondering if any of the others were better. It didn't seem to matter who you were with. Like the Mutt motto: "All mobile carriers suck. This one just sucks less."
AT&T made a conscious choice to maintain its operating and net earnings at the expense of its quality of service (something we've heard detailed bits and pieces about, e.g. insufficient backhaul, like this article's comments on the not much used in the US market chip Apple used/uses). We'll see if that was a good choice as Verizon et. al. converge on LTE along with AT&T.
Instead I got a puff piece about twitter and people complaining with hashtags (yet again(!)) and about meetings with managers who most likely don't know or understand the issues with the network.
Nobody has approached the topic of 3G network saturation in a serious manner yet. I hope someone does one day.
The article said Qualcomm is working with Apple to make a chip that would allow the iPhone to operate on both AT&T and Verizon networks. Does that mean the chip would also work with Sprint by virtue of it also using CDMA or is there more to it than that?
But they both use EV-DO (specifically CDMA2000 EV-DO Rev. A), which is a standard...
On the other hand, it looks like Verizon is fast moving towards LTE. See: http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/18/verizons-lte-rollout-is-i...
My guess is that the next iPhone supports LTE and is available on either AT&T or Verizon.
Sprint, on the other hand, is only now thinking about using LTE:
That's the joke, jackass. It's easy to make someone look stupid by reporting a joke as a serious suggestion. If you get called on it, you flaunt your low opinion of their intelligence by saying, "Whatever, they say so much bizarre and retarded stuff it's impossible to tell when they're joking."
None of that is unusual, but why did Wired decide to include itself and its readership inside this junior high put-down instead of reporting it straight?
This is a real issue at larger tech companies who must interface with older, established players. Even back at Dell in the early 1990s there was some friction between sales/marketing managers and engineers, with the former arguing that the latter should dress a little sharper in case they inadvertently got on an elevator with a customer.
Perhaps as a matter of diplomacy, just to get under his skin, they decided to insult him or pull rank on him ("my market cap is bigger than yours"), but they certainly didn't do it on accident. And honestly I can't imagine them needing to invent ways to get under his skin when there are so many contentious issues on the table.
Even back at Dell in the early 1990s there was some friction between sales/marketing managers and engineers
That's the difference between being an engineer and being one of the most powerful and respected CEOs in the industry.
Plus, the 1990s were a lonnnggggg time ago. The bestsellers about the casual tech company culture of the early 2000s are already in the remainder bin, because they've achieved cliché status. If you think the executives at AT&T missed all that, well, it would have been impossible for them to miss it, because they were shopping at Barnes and Noble and watching CNN just like the rest of us.
And yes, these are MBAs who work in the IT field, since large companies have the philosophy that management is interchangeable, and you don't need expertise in a particular area to be able to run it.
The idea being that banks and that expect "professional appearance and behavior".
I do agree with his point about first impressions. It's better to wear a suit and have them tell you jeans and a t-shirt are ok than show up in jeans and a t-shirt and everyone else is wearing suits!
well, I guess you learn something new everyday.
"Very nice, Mr. Bateman, but while you were over at the Marine base getting your Florsheims shined, our load balancer went China Syndrome. We'll let your agency know if we need any more help, thanks."