Jump to content

JustinRP37

S4GRU Premier Sponsor
  • Content count

    334
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

347 Trusted

About JustinRP37

  • Rank
    Member Level: 3G EVDO

Profile Information

  • Phones/Devices
    iPhone 6s, iPad Pro
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    New York
  • Here for...
    4G Information
  • Twitter Handle
    JustinRP37
  1. While I love being able to replace RAM in laptops to increase their lifespan, unfortunately this is going away. Most manufacturers are heading this way in the race to make everything as thin as paper. Microsoft, Dell, Apple, Samsung, etc all have models like this now. If I had to guess, I would say onboard non-replaceable memory will be the only option in laptops in the next few years. Personally, as much as I love thin devices, I find it a waste to have to replace the whole board when something happens to the RAM. That being said, yes the prices Apple charges for RAM are astronomical.
  2. I'd agree but you can't really buy self serviceable laptops that aren't crazy heavy anymore. Also working in high-tech labs I can tell you most machines are driven by macs or Linux computers. So I wouldn't say tech are less technologically savy. I'm around computers of all types. It all depends on your use case. Apple definitely is great for computer and smartphone newbies, but it is still quite prevalent in scientific settings. I'm not arguing one way or the other. Just don't like when people bash people for their tech decisions.
  3. I don't get it either, but as I consumer of all things tech, Apple still has hands down the best customer support. I have never had much success with dealing with other companies, but Apple has replaced multiple things out of warranty for me from batteries to iPad keyboards. Yes even they aren't perfect, but I am still satisfied when things go wrong.
  4. But but they unbundled the prices to make it seem like you were getting a much better deal for a few years! /sarcasm. Of course the carrier planned on making more money this way, they aren't benevolent!
  5. UK prices have changed much more because Apple pegs its prices to the USD. After Brexit both the Euro and Pound lost value relative to the USD so Apple of course raised their prices, in some cases more than the exchange rate amount. The price raise for AppleCare was when they changed to AppleCare + where they cover two incidences of accidental damage (something that previously required out of warranty repair). And the further price increase for the X, makes me wonder how much that faceID system costs. Also, historically, Apple and other manufacturers have not increase prices with inflation, the iPhone 8 is the first iPhone price increase. But it isn't just Apple the that has increased prices lately, go look at the Surface lineup at Microsoft or Samsung even. Band 71 won't be supported by the iPhone 8 or iPhone X, but Apple has historically done an absolutely amazing job at creating world phones that work on just about every network there is. Just pickup the Sprint or Verizon model and you can pretty much take that phone to any network worldwide. I do not get Apple bashing nor any other cell phone bashing. People use what they like plain and simple.
  6. You are making the assumption that it would be Sprint offering the package deal. I see nothing of the sort based on what the cable CEO's have said. The cable companies would be reselling the wireless service, not the other way around. I definitely do think Sprint's B41 would be awesome as a relay for cable, I really do. But again you have to focus on investors as they drive what a company does. Look at what they did to Verizon and FiOS! I am just saying to be cautious, especially with what I have heard from many people. I know a few people that do work with Comcast and I would say temper your expectations for a deal. As for bundling you are missing my point. Most people are not going to want their cable bill to go up the same amount as their current phone bill. People want to decrease their cable bills at all costs. Now if Comcast would say bundle with us and save, they would have to offer a discount on wireless service. This discount would have to be below what people current have to get them to switch. This means there would be even LESS margin for Sprint. Mean ARPU would still DROP to gain customers in a field that is already hyper competitive! Also, Comcast and Charter are not just going to infuse billions into Sprint for a buildout/densification. I just do not see a huge upside for cable in this deal unless they outright merge and take over Sprint, which is a possibility. I'm not trying to be negative in anyway, just tempering excitement etc. It would be great if cable would be able to rapidly help deployment, but I really do not see that happening. Maybe over the course of years +. Wireless is just too competitive right now to increase ARPU, which is what Sprint desperately needs to pay off debt and fund more CAPEX. Further here is a link from Comcast's last earnings (they do not seem keen on a acquisition or funding Sprint's buildout): http://www.fiercecable.com/cable/comcast-s-roberts-i-don-t-see-anything-industry-we-don-t-already-have-today
  7. I do not see why a cable company would be able to accelerate permits which are largely in the hands of governments. Cable co's constantly complain about this as well, especially in neighborhoods with buried lines. The backhaul would be huge for Sprint though and that would definitely help them out. And I do not see customer acquisition being big at all merely because people want to rid themselves of the cable company, not bundle more services. If they were to truly gain more bundled customers, they would literally almost have to give away the wireless service. I just do not see as much upside from an investor's standpoint in a deal such as this, which is why I think it has kind of stalled out and the two month period has expired. It would be a bad deal for the cable companies' investors. There is much more upside for Sprint though than the cable companies. You have to look at it from both sides, not just the side that makes it more appealing to Sprint.
  8. I honestly do not know how well a potential tie-up with cable would go. Yes Sprint might get some funding from them, but I really, and I stress REALLY, do not know many people that would want to give their cable company MORE business than they already have to. Comcast is one of the most hated companies in the country (I actually enjoy their service when I visit places with it, and they improve their network). I won't place much stock in a reselling deal unless there are other guarantees just because I do not think it would be a great business model. For the cable companies, there isn't much margin in bundling wireless service and any negative cellular service would also then look bad for the cable company. For Sprint, they would get an influx of cash most likely (which could go to CAPEX or debt), but they also would not have the margins on those subscribers as they would if they just sold their product directly to the customers.
  9. Verizon also posted a strong quarter and met and exceeded projections with postpaid net additions of 614k and a churn of just 0.94%. Now that the other big three have reported, it will be very interesting to see Sprint's numbers next week.
  10. We will get this all next week on August 1st. Hopefully they do not do the same thing they did last year where they initially had a higher CAPEX but then lowered guidance throughout the year. If they do not add a tremendous amount of subscribers soon though, then I do not know what will happen with CAPEX. Latest murmurs are saying Verizon may have added postpaid subscribers this quarter (guidance is 125,000 additions), so that really does not leave much room for net postpaid gains. With their current offers, they should be bringing in a lot of subscribers. Yes Sprint did not advertise the free for a year online, but it did get picked up by several news articles on sites like CNN, USA Today, and Fox.
  11. These are great points Redspark. I would say it is kind of mixed now in terms of what gets noticed more, slow/no data or dropped calls. In many instances a data loss can result in some major issues (i.e. not being able to purchase a Metro North ticket here in the NYC market, especially at stations that still lack ticket terminals (Waterbury come on!)). A dropped call can be frustrating as can something urgent not loading. This is where Sprint really needs to work on the network. The number of cases where you go from blazing fast speeds to sub 4Mbps speeds is still too high. Also, it will be interesting to see how the Sprint earnings look, especially with the free promo. Both TMUS and T have beaten Wall Street predictions this past quarter. AT&T ended up having a much better quarter than projected and only lost ~80,000k post paid subscribers, but gained a bunch of prepaid. AT&T also reported record low churn, while TMUS was port positive against all the other three. TMUS added a ton of subscribers (even without their funky DIGITS accounting). Verizon reports tomorrow and projects have been saying they did not have a bad quarter either (looks like they might have just narrowly beaten expectations). That doesn't leave many churning customers for Sprint to take in this past quarter. Maybe they were able to get more new smartphone customers! Let's hope!
  12. T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion V2

    Exactly this! They might not know it as voLTE, GSM, etc, but they will know others are able to send and receive email, map updates, iMessages, Whatapps, etc. I know businessmen that have let Sprint simply because of this. I also work in a laboratory that is jointly run by the state and a university and can say that simultaneous voice and data are huge for our field teams. You can talk them through data sets or GPS while on the phone.
  13. T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion V2

    They want to start using it because it is a selling point. Before I had voLTE, I never saw the need for it. After having used it now, it does have many advantages. Calls do sound better for sure. Verizon also lets user choose if they want to us it. They aren't forced onto it, which I believe is the right way to do it. Sprint will most likely follow this model (and they are with the two phones that do offer it). There are many markets that would be able to use voLTE reliably on the Sprint network and those users should be able to. I think voLTE will launch this fall along side iOS 11.
  14. T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion V2

    Exactly. Densification definitely needs a lot more work but it is happening on all networks. Hopefully Sprint keeps CAPEX up and really densifies LTE throughout the footprint.
  15. T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion V2

    But this argument still doesn't hold up when talking about a merger. If Sprint were to merge with T-Mobile, they would not add CDMA to T-Mobile towers, just like they won't add GSM to Sprint towers. They would simply keep pushing ahead with LTE rollout and densification. Sprint's lack of voLTE is not a positive at this point in time for the company, and they know it. That is part of the reason why I think the MagicBox is great. It is about densifying the network to prevent dropped calls from when they do transition to voLTE. Sprint knows people want voLTE, mainly for simultaneous voice and data (just look through Reddit and people discuss this all the time as a negative for Sprint). In cities like NYC Sprint can easily do voLTE now. Verizon has voLTE, but I can tell you it is not on par with the CDMA network for dropped calls outside of major metropolitan areas. On my Verizon phone I do turn voLTE off when I am in smaller towns because it is much more fragile than the CDMA airlink. I can see Sprint moving in much the same manner here.
×