iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus User Thread

[IsaiahL]

I'm very close to caving and getting a cheap Android just for Signal Check and LTE Discovery. Maybe a used Crystal? Maybe if I can find one that isn't blacklisted.

What phone do you currently own? If you have any iPhone other than a 6 I suggest an upgrade to a spark device. The iPhones before the 6 just don't do Sprint's network justice. To get the full usability from Sprint's network you need a 6 or any other spark enabled device that you may choose. If you switch to Android I think you should wait for the HTC M9. I've been hearing great things about that device, and it's the closest thing to the iPhone in the looks department.

 

 

Sent from my shiny new Space Grey iPhone 6 using Tapatalk

[Fraydog]

What phone do you currently own? If you have any iPhone other than a 6 I suggest an upgrade to a spark device. The iPhones before the 6 just don't do Sprint's network justice. To get the full usability from Sprint's network you need a 6 or any other spark enabled device that you may choose. If you switch to Android I think you should wait for the HTC M9. I've been hearing great things about that device, and it's the closest thing to the iPhone in the looks department.

 

 

Sent from my shiny new Space Grey iPhone 6 using Tapatalk

I am in a Non-Sprint territory right now, so I cannot move my postpaid VZW line over, however, I can still order a prepaid line for testing and things like that.

[lilotimz]

I am in a Non-Sprint territory right now, so I cannot move my postpaid VZW line over, however, I can still order a prepaid line for testing and things like that.

Moto X 2014 on Republic wireless.

Mah be good. Close to stock Android without much bloat and is pretty good quality.

[IsaiahL]

Moto X 2014 on Republic wireless.

Mah be good. Close to stock Android without much bloat and is pretty good quality.

I must admit, Motorola makes really good Android phones with near stock Android experience. If I were to switch I'd also consider them a candidate for which phone to buy. I think HTC, LG & Motorola are doing it right with Android. They're not obnoxious with it and their products like Samsung. Samsung just does the absolute most.

 

 

Sent from my shiny new Space Grey iPhone 6 using Tapatalk

[GoBigRed79]

Apple now is selling the Sprint Variant of the iPhone 6/6+ unlocked at the Apple Store.  Their disclaimer states it will work with Sprint. 

 

The unlocked iPhone includes all the features of iPhone but without a wireless contract commitment or a carrier installment plan. You can activate and use the unlocked iPhone on the supported wireless network of your choice, such as AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, or Sprint in the United States.

If you don’t want a multiyear service contract, or if you prefer to use a local carrier when traveling abroad, the unlocked iPhone is the best choice. If you choose T-Mobile, your iPhone comes with a T-Mobile SIM card already installed. You will need to contact T-Mobile or visit an Apple Retail Store to activate your iPhone.

Otherwise, the unlocked iPhone does not come with a nano-SIM card for iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 5s, or iPhone 5c so you’ll need to get one from any supported carrier worldwide. To start using your iPhone, simply insert the SIM card into the slot and turn on iPhone by pressing and holding the On/Off button for a few seconds. Then follow the onscreen instructions to set up your iPhone.

Purchasing an unlocked iPhone means you will not qualify for the lower iPhone price associated with a contract or a carrier installment plan. The unlocked iPhone 6 model is A1586. The unlocked iPhone 6 Plus model is A1524. The T-Mobile iPhone 6 model is A1549. The T-Mobile iPhone 6 Plus model is A1522. For details on LTE network support, please see www.apple.com/iphone/LTE.

To help decide whether the unlocked option is right for you, compare wireless service plans. Or call our iPhone Specialists at 1-800-MY-APPLE.

 

[irev210]

Apple now is selling the Sprint Variant of the iPhone 6/6+ unlocked at the Apple Store.  Their disclaimer states it will work with Sprint. 

 

This is great news.  It's awesome that Apple is just selling the Sprint iPhone unlocked to any customer for use on any major network in the USA.

 

I hope that Apple moves towards selling a single model that works across all carriers in the US - they are very close.

 

Very refreshing.  Nexus 6 and iPhone 6, the first phones to break down the 1 device/1 carrier rule.  Now, customers will be able to buy 1 device and use it on any carrier they would like.  It's game changing.  Unhappy with your service?  Just switch to a new carrier while not having to deal with contracts, ETFs, and other BS.

[GoBigRed79]

This is great news.  It's awesome that Apple is just selling the Sprint iPhone unlocked to any customer for use on any major network in the USA.

 

I hope that Apple moves towards selling a single model that works across all carriers in the US - they are very close.

 

Very refreshing.  Nexus 6 and iPhone 6, the first phones to break down the 1 device/1 carrier rule.  Now, customers will be able to buy 1 device and use it on any carrier they would like.  It's game changing.  Unhappy with your service?  Just switch to a new carrier while not having to deal with contracts, ETFs, and other BS.

 

Now if Sprint would just unlock iPhone's customers bought from them that are paid in full.

[IsaiahL]

Now if Sprint would just unlock iPhone's customers bought from them that are paid in full.

Yeah good luck with that lol.

 

 

Sent from my shiny new Space Grey iPhone 6 using Tapatalk

[irev210]

Now if Sprint would just unlock iPhone's customers bought from them that are paid in full.

 

It says VERY clearly on the Sprint Unlock Website:

 

Specifically, devices manufactured with a SIM slot within the past three years (including, but not limited to, all Apple iPhone devices), cannot be unlocked to accept a different domestic carrier's SIM for use on another domestic carrier's network. Sprint has no technological process available to do this. In accordance with Sprint's voluntary commitment contained within CTIA's Consumer Code for Wireless Service ("Unlocking Commitment"), Sprint is working to ensure that all devices developed and launched on or after February 11, 2015, are capable of being unlocked domestically.

 

Sprint has no technological process available to do this.  It would be EXTREMELY easy to have a process to unlock phones but they refuse to implement one.

 

 

It still cracks me up every time I read this.  Hackers who sell unlocks on eBay can do it, yet Sprint Corp. cannot.  It just makes Sprint look like a bunch of arrogant idiots.

[WiWavelength]

Sprint has no technological process available to do this.  It would be EXTREMELY easy to have a process to unlock phones but they refuse to implement one.

 

It still cracks me up every time I read this.  Hackers who sell unlocks on eBay can do it, yet Sprint Corp. cannot.  It just makes Sprint look like a bunch of arrogant idiots.

 

Tell AT&T and T-Mobile to develop all of their handsets to be compatible with VZW and Sprint.  That is two way, fair play.  But they would use a similar excuse -- "no technological process."  Oh, it would be "extremely easy."  But "they refuse to implement one."

 

AJ

[irev210]

Tell AT&T and T-Mobile to develop all of their handsets to be compatible with VZW and Sprint.  That is two way, fair play.  But they would use a similar excuse -- "no technological process."  Oh, it would be "extremely easy."  But "they refuse to implement one."

 

AJ

 

I didn't know AT&T and T-Mobile developed handsets.

 

You mean that T-Mobile and AT&T need to develop an unlocked handset with a manufacturer?  I thought that if say, Sony wanted to sell a phone an unlocked phone with LTE Band 4/5/12/17/13/25/26/41 - it could just do it.  I could buy it, take a T-Mobile sim, and just rock and roll.

 

I guess carriers could block the IMEIs... *shrug*

[WiWavelength]

I didn't know AT&T and T-Mobile developed handsets.

 

Absolutely, the network operators do "develop" handsets with their contracted OEMs.

 

If you want a Sprint example, if Sprint were otherwise not involved in device procurement, no handset would ever include the amalgam of band class 10 CDMA2000, band 26 LTE, and band 41 TD-LTE.

 

Let us not play dumb about this, okay?

 

AJ

[irev210]

Absolutely, the network operators do "develop" handsets with their contracted OEMs.

 

If you want a Sprint example, if Sprint were otherwise not involved in device procurement, no handset would ever include the amalgam of band class 10 CDMA2000, band 26 LTE, and band 41 TD-LTE.

 

Let us not play dumb about this, okay?

 

AJ

 

 

I mean, once we go VoLTE and cast CDMA away - can't any handset manufacturer just include the bands of the carriers they want to cover/support?  In the rest of the world, it seems like it is very common for devices to be unlocked and just work on carriers.

[irev210]

Tell AT&T and T-Mobile to develop all of their handsets to be compatible with VZW and Sprint.  That is two way, fair play.  But they would use a similar excuse -- "no technological process."  Oh, it would be "extremely easy."  But "they refuse to implement one."

 

AJ

 

 

So I did a little more digging and it appears you are pretty off base with this comment.

 

AT&T and T-Mobile don't develop handsets, manufacturers do.  While manufacturers can collaborate with AT&T to help make their handsets run better on AT&T's network, there is no obligation to do so.  For example, Apple works very closely with carriers to develop handsets as it is mutually beneficial.

 

But a great example of the freedom afforded to AT&T and T-Mobile customers (and even Verizon) - look no further than the One Plus One cellphone.

 

GSM (850/900/1800/1900MHz), UMTS (Bands 1/2/4/5/8), and LTE (Bands 1/3/4/7/17/38/40)

 

The One Plus One phone was developed without any support from AT&T or T-Mobile, yet works on both networks just fine.  It even works on Verizon where Verizon has LTE on Band 4.

 

All without ANY support from AT&T/T-Mobile/Verizon.

 

Unfortunately, Sprint does not take such a customer friendly stance.  This is fact.

 

While carriers can work with manufacturers to make devices specifically for their network, handset manufacturers are also free to make devices without carrier support.  This is not the case with Sprint.

 

Sort of a surprising post from you, AJ - you tend to be very sharp on this sorts of subjects.

[Boosted20V]

Question, the unlocked iPhone 6's Apple is now selling directly CAN in fact be activated by Sprint? The delay for unlocked devices is only those from another provider, correct?

[irev210]

Question, the unlocked iPhone 6's Apple is now selling directly CAN in fact be activated by Sprint? The delay for unlocked devices is only those from another provider, correct?

 

Phones from another provider won't work on sprint - unlocked or otherwise.

 

It's confusing as all heck.

 

Sim Free model A1586/A1524 is the sprint model - it works on AT&T/Verizon/Sprint/T-Mobile.  It is unlocked and is available to work on all four major carriers (has been whitelisted by Sprint).

 

Model A1549/A1522 is the AT&T/T-Mobile/Verizon model as it is lacking Band 25/26/41 support that sprint needs.  If you buy it "unlocked" or "full price" from the apple store, it will be unlocked.  It will work on all three carriers (if you buy the AT&T/T-Mobile version, Verizon support is "limited").

 

If you buy any phone directly from the provider (not at the Apple store) it is carrier locked (except for Verizon).  AT&T you need to pay it off/wait 60 days or whatever, T-Mobile will  unlock after 40 days, Verizon is just factory unlocked.  Sprint refuses to unlock.

 

 

Confused?  I sure was - took me a bit to get all that straight.

[Boosted20V]

Thank you. Considering buying one as a gift for someone on my family plan but didn't want to get screwed.

[WiWavelength]

So I did a little more digging and it appears you are pretty off base with this comment.

 

AT&T and T-Mobile don't develop handsets, manufacturers do.  While manufacturers can collaborate with AT&T to help make their handsets run better on AT&T's network, there is no obligation to do so.

No, my comments were not "off base." However, your comments are.

 

Who said that there was an "obligation"? Bar none, though, operators do develop handsets in collaboration with OEMs. There is even an acronym for the list of requests/requirements that operators put forth to OEMs. I cannot recall the acronym -- Neal Gompa knows. Regardless, this is how Sprint gets WiMAX capable, EVO branded handsets; how VZW gets SVLTE and band 13 capable, Droid branded handsets; and how AT&T gets band 17 capable handsets -- that specifically exclude band 12.

 

But a great example of the freedom afforded to AT&T and T-Mobile customers (and even Verizon) - look no further than the One Plus One cellphone.

 

GSM (850/900/1800/1900MHz), UMTS (Bands 1/2/4/5/8), and LTE (Bands 1/3/4/7/17/38/40)[/size]

 

The One Plus One phone was developed without any support from AT&T or T-Mobile, yet works on both networks just fine.  It even works on Verizon where Verizon has LTE on Band 4.

An exception does not make a rule. And you should know that. The above is just poor argumentation. Using the One PlusOne as your counterexample is like the guy on HowardForums using the Nexus 5 as his counterexample to my point about the inequity that unlocked Sprint handsets generally include T-Mobile compatible band support -- but that T-Mobile unlocked handsets generally do not include Sprint compatible band class/band support.

 

If the One PlusOne or the Nexus 5 were the only handset out there, or if they even constituted large portions of the installed user base, then you and the HowardForums guy would have solid arguments. Instead, they are little but niche handsets in the US market, rendering the support for your contentions weak, at best.

 

While carriers can work with manufacturers to make devices specifically for their network, handset manufacturers are also free to make devices without carrier support.  This is not the case with Sprint.

Without Sprint procurement, how many CDMA2000/WiMAX handsets do you think OEMs would have developed of their own accord? Moreover, how many CDMA2000/LTE handsets that support 3x carrier aggregation in band 41 would be forthcoming?

 

Face it, Sprint has a bunch of boutique band classes/bands. Some think that Sprint is stupid or even doomed -- because it has followed such a different path from VZW, AT&T, and T-Mobile, not to mention, the rest of the world. But if Sprint did not have band class 10 CDMA1X, band 26 LTE, and band 41 TD-LTE, Sprint already would be dead in the water. Sprint has no choice but to go forward with this path, and that generally means getting OEMs to build handsets specialized for Sprint.

 

Unless the FCC steps in and and mandates handsets be universally unlocked and fully compatible with all domestic operators -- and pigs fly -- anybody who wants that unlocked, open, independently developed handset ecosystem should go on over to T-Mobile.

 

Sort of a surprising post from you, AJ - you tend to be very sharp on this sorts of subjects.

As I show above, I am "very sharp on this [sic] sorts of subjects." My points are on target and well supported.

 

AJ

[irev210]

This is an interesting discussion - obviously two very different perspectives.

 

 

No, my comments were not "off base." However, your comments are.

Who said that there was an "obligation"? Bar none, though, operators do develop handsets in collaboration with OEMs. There is even an acronym for the list of requests/requirements that operators put forth to OEMs. I cannot recall the acronym -- Neal Gompa knows. Regardless, this is how Sprint gets WiMAX capable, EVO branded handsets; how VZW gets SVLTE and band 13 capable, Droid branded handsets; and how AT&T gets band 17 capable handsets -- that specifically exclude band 12.
 

 

Sure, there is always going to be pull from the wireless provider to get products that would specifically benefit the said wireless provider directly.  I got no qualms with a wireless provider paying a manufacturer to make a device specifically for them.  There is no doubt that a carrier would want to pay manufacturers to “seed” their networks with devices with new bands that are currently not fully deployed, etc.

 

 

 

An exception does not make a rule. And you should know that. The above is just poor argumentation. Using the One PlusOne as your counterexample is like the guy on HowardForums using the Nexus 5 as his counterexample to my point about the inequity that unlocked Sprint handsets generally include T-Mobile compatible band support -- but that T-Mobile unlocked handsets generally do not include Sprint compatible band class/band support.

If the One PlusOne or the Nexus 5 were the only handset out there, or if they even constituted large portions of the installed user base, then you and the HowardForums guy would have solid arguments. Instead, they are little but niche handsets in the US market, rendering the support for your contentions weak, at best.
 

 

In the rest of the world, they are substantial parts of the installed userbase.  There are scores of unlocked devices sold internationally – Sony, Motorola, Samsung, Blu, ZTE, HTC, Nokia, Blackberry, the list goes on.

 

 

The reason why they are niche handsets in the US market is due to historically strict carrier limitations on what would be supported and the US wireless carrier’s unique method of selling devices via subsidy (which is fading away).

 

 

This isn’t even bringing up the fact that the development of handsets that support many more bands allowing manufactures to accommodate Sprint’s boutique spectrum portfolio (though I dunno if Band 25 and Band 41 are all that boutique).

 

 

 

Without Sprint procurement, how many CDMA2000/WiMAX handsets do you think OEMs would have developed of their own accord? Moreover, how many CDMA2000/LTE handsets that support 3x carrier aggregation in band 41 would be forthcoming?

Face it, Sprint has a bunch of boutique band classes/bands. Some think that Sprint is stupid or even doomed -- because it has followed such a different path from VZW, AT&T, and T-Mobile, not to mention, the rest of the world. But if Sprint did not have band class 10 CDMA1X, band 26 LTE, and band 41 TD-LTE, Sprint already would be dead in the water. Sprint has no choice but to go forward with this path, and that generally means getting OEMs to build handsets specialized for Sprint.

Unless the FCC steps in and and mandates handsets be universally unlocked and fully compatible with all domestic operators -- and pigs fly -- anybody who wants that unlocked, open, independently developed handset ecosystem should go on over to T-Mobile.

 

Without Sprint procurement, zero CDMA2000/WiMAX handsets would have been developed since it required Sprint to procure them to be sold.  The bigger question is – if Sprint supported unlocked devices, how many devices would manufacturers made for Sprint customers?  T-Mobile faced this problem with DC-HSPA+.

 

 

What makes this particularly interesting is the global popularity of Model A1586/A1524 yet the US being introduced with two iPhone 6 SKUs.

 

I think it is fair to speculate that Apple did this because of Sprint.  I don't think Sprint wanted customers the ability to take their iPhones to other network operators and definitely didn't want customers with other iPhones on Sprint's network.  It's an outdated way to think nowdays - at least in my opinion.

 

Bottom line - I am just a big fan of a manufacturer like Apple to build one device for all networks in the USA.  If they want to build one device for Sprint, one device for Verizon, one device for T-Mobile, etc - that's their choice... but I would rather have them be given the choice then have no choice at all.

 

As we've seen, with the Nexus 6 and iPhone 6, the barriers setup by sprint are starting to fall and that is nothing but positive for customers.

[IsaiahL]

Got the old Tapatalk back woop woop, I finally decided to go on my computer and sync my phone. The old version of Tapatalk was on there. I deleted the new one and put the old one back on. Hello useable UI.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IsaiahL]

On another good note, my B41 speeds have risen above the 2mbps mark. I'm now getting 10 down and.70-1mbps up. Everything's looking up for me and Sprint.

 

- Sorry for the double post btw, it was too late for me to edit.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GoWireless]

Model A1549/A1522 is the AT&T/T-Mobile/Verizon model as it is lacking Band 25/26/41 support that sprint needs. If you buy it "unlocked" or "full price" from the apple store, it will be unlocked. It will work on all three carriers (if you buy the AT&T/T-Mobile version, Verizon support is "limited").

 

That is not entirely accurate. The Tmobile/AT&T/Verizon model DOES have bands 25 and 26. These two bands are stubs of the existing cellular and PCS bands and therefore are relatively simple to implement in devices which already support the celluar and PCS bands. Band 41 however is a different animal - spectrum-wise it's located nowhere near any of the commonly used cellular bands in the US and it also uses a different LTE broadcast scheme (TDD instead of FDD). Both are unique only to Sprint in the US.

 

As for this whole argument regarding who's supporting the other carriers' systems... I don't think there is some grand consipracy here. It's simply a function of two things: The popularity (or lack-thereof) of CDMA, coupled with the roaming needs of the carriers. The US carriers want to put capabilities in their phones for their customers to be able to roam internationally. Due to the relative lack of popularity of the CDMA standard outside of the US, Sprint and Verizon need to put GSM and UMTS capabilites in their devices so that their subscribers can roam outside the US. Since other countries use the same frequencies as the US, that means that those phones are by default also compatible with US carriers using those same frequencies and technologies - namely AT&T and to a somewhat lesser extent, T-Mobile. By the same token, given the wide availability of GSM based technologies outside the US, AT&T and T-Mobile don't have a need to put CDMA in their phones in order to give their users good romaing capabilities, which, in turn, means that those phones also won't support Sprint and Verizon.

Edited January 8, 2015 by GoWireless

[irev210]

That is not entirely accurate. The Tmobile/AT&T/Verizon model DOES have bands 25 and 26. These two bands are stubs of the existing cellular and PCS bands and therefore are relatively simple to implement in devices which already support the celluar and PCS bands. Band 41 however is a different animal - spectrum-wise it's located nowhere near any of the commonly used cellular bands in the US and it also uses a different LTE broadcast scheme (TDD instead of FDD). Both are unique only to Sprint in the US.

 

 

 

Ah great catch - I thought that they didn't.

 

Thanks for letting me know.

[Vince]

Dropped my gold baby in the sink today. This looks normal, right?

[jamisonshaw125]

Dropped my gold baby in the sink today. This looks normal, right?

[emoji24][emoji24]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Crapatalk