- 02-24-2013, 04:35 PM #1
I just read on the USA Today website that Sprint planned to support the new Firefox OS whenever it launches. This coming from the same people that rejected Windows Phone 8 when it first came out because it was "untested" and they were not sure of the need for another mobile OS. What has changed so much that Sprint has agreed to welcome on BB10 and now Firefox right out of the gates, but they are waiting until the summer to welcome Windows Phone 8 hardware?
- 02-24-2013, 06:54 PM #4
How about asking every CDMA carrier in the US besides Sprint why they will not touch WP8 with the China Mobile based CDMA coding and cell network encryption? Sprint is making sure Microsoft meets the standards for encryption and coding the FCC wants, and the same goes for every CDMA carrier in the US, and the summer is Microsoft's deadline. Google has been meeting this since ICS, and Blackberry and Apple are ahead of the curve by at least 3-4 years.
The sooner Microsoft fixes the CDMA coding, the faster the CDMA market will jump on WP8. It has been a known issue since the summer of 2011.
- 02-25-2013, 07:48 AM #6
Yes, but those devices are using China Mobile based coding over current Qualcomm Standards, and they are also due to have the proper coding via an update when Microsoft has it ready to be distributed by the manufacturers.
Don't compare broken and easy to hack 256bit cell network encryption to Qualcomm based military standard coding with minimum 512bit cell network encryption, which is what the FCC recommend CDMA networks and mobile platform developers to use (mostly in preparation of new cell network standards) since late summer 2011. Remember the hearings FCC had with Microsoft, Google, Apple and Blackberry (formerly RIM)? They were about security of mobile platforms when on a cell network. GSM devices have the security increase suggestion plus the mission to have those devices being able to be locked when lost or stolen as GSM carriers in the US will join the (what is currently the) CDMA lost/stolen database Verizon, Sprint, US Cellular, and every other CDMA carrier in the USA share and add/remove devices on a daily basis.
To say Sprint is the evil carrier on the CDMA side when you have to give the tag on virtually every CDMA carrier (National, Regional, Postpaid, and prepaid) for telling a Microsoft to meet the FCC suggestion of using current Qualcomm standards is a sign of bias against a carrier, perhaps the technology which is the dominant one with nearly 2/3 of the total cell lines in the US MARKET.
This same analogy can be used with Nokia's "not interested on CDMA carriers outside of Verizon" approach to not address the bridges they burned over a decade ago when they called CDMA "a niche market in the US."
- 03-01-2013, 01:25 PM #7
I am a Sprint customer who has been waiting a long time for a Windows 8 phone. I did read in detail all of the articles and FCC reports as mrmdj31675 mentioned. It is clear as to why, but that doesn't make me feel any better. Sprint's responses to no MS Phone seemed a lot like "well we don't want you anyway" until the FCC issues were made more public. My eligibility will be in time for a Sprint Windows 8/8.1(?) phone hopefully...fingers crossed.If it isn't Windows, then it isn't trying hard enough.
- 03-02-2013, 11:30 AM #8
It may not make sense to the Windows Phone supporters, but the FCC has jurisdiction when it comes to cell network security. Sprint, and every CDMA carrier (including Verizon) have made or are making changes to their networks to increase their security in order to meet what could be FCC standards in the near future (Nokia has their work cutoff for GSM in order to meet higher FCC standards).
Is understandable why some here dislike CDMA technology, but as long as it hold the vast majority of the total cell phone lines in the US market, Microsoft has no other choice to fix their current CDMA coding to meet US Carriers/Qualcomm standards.
Since someone has seen the FCC transcripts for the hearings with Apple, Google, Blackberry, and Microsoft (assuming they were obtained through the Freedom Of Information Act), can someone publish them? That would clear a lot of smoke, and if WPCentral publishes them, it will probably start shortened the bridge that has been created between the site (and people defending their anti-Sprint agenda), and the Sprint subscribers and management which have been correct on all regarding Windows Phone and how Microsoft has managed their OS so far.
- 03-02-2013, 11:33 AM #9
Microsoft has been on the clock to actually meet the CDMA coding and encryption the FCC strongly suggested them to have done, and their time is running out, as well as they have a deadline to meet with Samsung, HTC, and Sprint (we will include Nokia as well since they have a device on Verizon).
- 03-02-2013, 01:53 PM #12
Techblogger, if that was the case, what would be the case for Verizon and AT&T since they sell about twice the iPhones Sprint sells. We could be talking 32billion commitments for each since they pay the SAME EXACT amount to Apple per each iPhone.
Anyone saying the 16billion dollar deal between Sprint and Apple needs to look at Verizon's commitment, and especially AT&T which had the iPhone as an exclusive for three years, but then again is easier to make Sprint the bad guy for trying to become more appealing, and also discard the fact they are also fully funding their Network Vision 3G rebuild/LTE deployment nationwide, funding for decommissioning Nextel so they can use the 800 MHz spectrum to double their footprint nationwide (and tenfold their indoor signal strenght). Those are not mentioned because they kill the vague and unresearched argument on why Sprint has not carried any WP devices in nearly two years, and keep the hatred towards David Owens for stating the fact WP sales figures and supoort towards the majority of the US cell phone market (CDMA 2000) has been disappointing at the very least. And save the Argument for CDMA support for China Mobile and their current broken substandard coding and encryption which makes Qualcomm certified CDMA coders stress about the same security issues the FCC has strongly suggested Microsoft to fix (and they have a deadline of summer, which may be matching the deadline Microsoft gave to Sprint, HTC, and Samsung).
03-02-2013, 06:32 PM #13
- 827 Posts
- 03-03-2013, 10:48 AM #14
You still have not proven that other carriers are not paying the same amount per device as Sprint is paying, so your point is moot and shows how much you dislike Sprint as a carrier because they have called it like it is when it comes to Windows Phone, and every CDMA carrier in the US which has been saying the same things Sprint has been saying.
Nice try, Aaron or whatever your real name is.
- 03-05-2013, 10:28 AM #15
If you hate Dan, it shows that you are more biased than you think. You will still hate Sprint as a carrier if they would have carried every WP7 and WP8 device available in the market over the iPhone 4/4S/5.
I can understand being passionate for Windows Phone, but to be hateful of a company which has only exposed the biggest Weaknesses of the platform (sale figures, cell network security, lack of major apps, non-exsistant CDMA 2000 support/lack of proper coding and encryption) shows your pure hatred, which translates into bias, and knowing you have been asked to get to the bottom on why Microsoft still has non exsistant CDMA support for the US market (unless the carriers accept broken China Mobile coding and encryption), you tried to make the guy who asked the question as foolish, when you were the foolish one.
- 03-05-2013, 09:00 PM #16
- 03-06-2013, 09:02 AM #17
Techblogger has only show his hatred to Sprint because they did not join WP8 at launch because of this deal with Apple. If that was the story, Sprint would had not gotten devices like the Galaxy s3, Galaxy Note, The Evo LTE (which is a One X Variant), the arriving soon HTC one, and the first LTE ready Direct Connect Kyocera Torque. He also forgets Sprint is in the middle of a nationwide rebuild of their 3G network (which supports SVDO)/LTE deployment, and since they are funding it in full they are cash strapped.
His biased point is to misiniform about the 16 billion dollars being paid all at once. Have in mind Sprint only needs to sell around 22-23 million units, and not counting the ones sold on Virgin Mobile, Sprint has sold about 8.4 million in the 4 1/2 quarters they have offered iOS devices, and that's not counting the quarter ending on March 31st.
Of course is easier to blame Sprint for the Windows Phone Woes, the broken China Mobile based coding Microsoft uses for CDMA currently used by Microsoft on Verizon, on why the biggest partner for WP8 (Nokia) is not interested in dealing with CDMA carriers in the US, and why is Microsoft pressing for time because of a deadline they have to meet with HTC, Samsung, Sprint, and especially the FCC when it comes to meeting current Qualcomm CDMA standards.
Sorry, but what I am expressing is the same thing the ones watching the situation have been saying, and to say Sprint has shown no interest on WP8 because of the 16 billion dollar deal is absurd and way off the reality when completely ignoring the Network Vision project, which once Softbank gets the final approval from the federal agencies involved, it will add a cash infusion of about 8 billion, which more likely will be used to put the Network Vision/LTE project in super overdrive.
Last edited by Paladinleeds; 03-11-2013 at 11:35 AM.
- 03-11-2013, 10:19 AM #18
Of course I will not get a response to what I have mentioned before because no response to bash Sprint or any CDMA carrier in particular for not having WP8 devices on their repertoire will be valid, knowing the facts point at a Microsoft who thinks they can get a 10% share in the US smartphone market without nearly all CDMA carriers willing to touch devices not properly codes to US carrier/Qualcomm/FCC standards.
If they are having problems with meeting current Qualcomm standards, how about Microsoft hire programmers with Qualcomm CDMA certifcations so they can meet a deadline with the FCC, All the OEMs, and especially the CDMA carriers (especially Sprint)? I want to see Techblogger (and/or the writers at wpcentral) get to the bottom of it as he has been asked for over a year instead of constantly bash Sprint and the CDMA carriers for Microsoft's woes on Windows Phone not getting devices into the CDMA market, and why is taking them nearly TWO YEARS to meet a strong suggestion from the FCC to use Qualcomm over the current China Mobile based CDMA coding and encryption.
It's not a threat, ITS A CHALLENGE to gain credibility when combining Windows Phone and CDMA on the same combination without using The "China Mobile codes better than Qualcomm" excuse.
MOD EDIT: DO NOT SHARE PERSONAL INFORMATION OF OTHER USERS.
Last edited by Paladinleeds; 03-11-2013 at 11:33 AM.
- 03-11-2013, 11:37 AM #19
I'm noticing a leakage of personal information of other users, as well as advertising. I have removed the offending content. For those with edited posts, check to see what has been removed. Make a note of it, I do not want to see it back.Windows Phone Central Moderator "Fortune cookie said: 'Outlook not so good'. I said: 'Sure, but Microsoft ships it anyway'." - Apparently you can have an iPhone transplant...
- 03-11-2013, 11:57 AM #21
Still does not excuse Microsoft for not meeting FCC/Qualcomm standards when they were pointed out to them nearly two years ago. The same was told to Google, anf they mostly addressed it for all CDMA devices with ICS from factory.
Also, My appologies for the comments earlier. I may have stepped out of line with what I have said.
- 03-17-2013, 10:49 PM #22
Well I hope MS and Sprint get this taken care of but this all makes sense now plus I have forgotten about all the FCC requirements with CDMA so forth. I just hope MS and Sprint gets some really nice hardware from HTC and not just a mid range device. Now with Samsung doing like Apple does with their Galaxies serious device plus Samsung kind of pulling away from WP Devices. I hope Sprint can get something with Nokia now since they said in the summer that they would have something from HTC and Samsung. Maybe this open the door for Nokia to get with Sprint but either way I will wait and see what Sprint does with WP Devices. I really don't want to go with anyone else due to I think Sprint still has the best rates with their plans than anyone else and I hope they can get a top end device from HTC like the new One coming out just in WP instead of Android. I have always been a big supporter of Sprint and MS but if they don't get a high end WP device I might have to look at another platform like Android which I per not too but might not have a chose if Sprint and MS don't get something going. Yes I could go with another carrier to get a good WP8 device but to me it's not worth paying $40-50 more a month to be data cap for a device. Basically paying more a month to get less so I will wait and see what they do this summer but it would be nice to know what kind of WP hardware they will bet getting before the summer so we all know what to be looking forward too. Thanks for all the info mrmdj31675.
- 03-18-2013, 07:24 AM #23
Nokia needs to offer a major appology to all the CDMA carriers first (and ironically starts with Sprint) before they can get devices to the majority of the US providers. Unortunately, Nokia has no interest in expanding their offerings beyond three carriers for the time being.
- 03-21-2013, 07:14 AM #24
Enthuz, you mention the lack of interest on the platform. These issues with Windows Phone were originally talked about and exposed back in the summer of 2011 when the FCC made the strong suggestion to them (and Google as well) to get with the times and use current Qualcomm standards (which now require 512bit minimum cell network encryption) in a way to meet future FCC requirements as well as bringing SVDO to the CDMA side (as it was finally made a reality late in 2010 by Qualcomm).
Lack of interest on WP on the CDMA side? How about explaining why there were only TWO devices, both made by HTC? Have in mind almost every contact based carrier carried the ARRIVE over the Trophy as Verizon did. Yes, it was "bulky" but also was the better device of the two. Ironically, there were no more CDMA devices in the US, and not even an effort to bring the platform to the CDMA side (which is much larger than GSM) of prepaid. Is Sprint "responsible" for this? Absolutely not!
This "holy war" against Sprint was because David Owens had the guts to go on record and say how bad the sales for Windows Phone have been for every carrier (and that includes the Nokia Lumia 900, taking nearly a year to sell 600k units on AT&T, compared to other high end devices which have sold 5-10 times that amount on that same carrier during the same period of time). Sorry, but the facts stack against the platform on everything that has gone wrong, and Microsoft still treats CDMA like a niche market in the US, when in reality that market holds nearly two thirds of the total cell phone lines in that same market.
Of course is far easier to blame the third largest carrier in the US because they refuse to accept any device on any platform not using Qualcomm coding and encryption standards.
- 03-21-2013, 09:16 AM #25
I disagree with one thing and that is how Sprint handled WP and the Arrive device. They are not the only guilty party like you mentioned when it comes to the support of WP on the CDMA side.
Why did Sprint even carry a device then? There is more to the story than what you or I know. The lack of support from Sprint trickled down to the reluctance to sell the devcie to customers and made a push to get customers to turn in the device for something different despite excellent reviews. Every Sprint store I walked into did a disservice to WP, and honestly they even know anything about the device, WP7, and did everything in their power to NOT sell the device. This occurred with customer service as well and even made statements that WP7 and the arrive was very buggy and practically a broken mess. How could the Arrive even crack the top 10 devices with Sprint if they made sure it did not sell? My experience and first hand knowledge of this is not new and not unique.
If it all came down to one thing and that is the current Qualcomm standards then one would think this would have played out very differently.