Sprint finds nothing wrong with selling LTE phones without LTE network
0. phoneArena 08 May 2012, 15:35 posted on
Since Sprint has not yet flipped the switch of its LTE network, one might think that selling LTE capable smartphones now does not seem logical. The carrier, however, does not share that standpoint. In a recent interview, Fared Adib, who is vice president of product development at Sprint, told AllThingsD that doing so actually makes sense...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
14. omarc26 (Posts: 360; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
it sucks that these phones dont support 4G wimax they only support 4G lte and slow 3G so in theplaces were sprint dnt have lte they would at least be on wimax which u gotta admit it aint that bad much better than evdo 3G but noo people are stuck in sloow 3G evdo even if theres wimax coverage in there area cuz theres no sprint lte there and the phones dnt support wimax.
15. iixacexii (unregistered)
There seems to be a misinterpretation that Sprint is cheap. In actuality because of that stupid 10 *premium* data charge my bill was about 100 a month getting crap speeds 200-400kbs average in NY( not to mention no wii max in long island). My att bill is 90 and my g-nex cruises on thier 3g/hspa+ averaging 5-10 down. No one should put up with sprints bs they charge way too much for their terrible service and speeds.
27. threeline (Posts: 267; Member since: 11 Sep 2011)
And they over taxed you guys in NY! That's like a kick a in the groin to go with your 200kbs speeds
17. Libra1985 (Posts: 47; Member since: 26 Feb 2011)
If I do recall correctly AT&T did the same thing prior to their LTE Network being turned on....
19. Jyakotu (Posts: 844; Member since: 12 Dec 2008)
That's not true. AT&T had LTE phones when their LTE was available. If you're thinking of when they sold 4G phones, that's only because T-Mobile called HSPA+ 4G, AT&T just followed suit. And rightfully so, since the definition of 4G was modified to include the technology. AT&T LTE phones have a HUGE advantage because even if you don't have LTE in your area, your phone falls back to HSPA+ and if not that, at least AT&T 3G has been proven to be the fastest.
29. RORYREVOLUTION (Posts: 3108; Member since: 12 Jan 2010)
Agreed, At&ts hspa+ network is very fast compared to 3G so it is quite useable unlike sprints 3G.
26. omarc26 (Posts: 360; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
yea only difference att had 3G hspa + which is waaaay faster than sprints 3G so they didnt have LTE but altleast people had 3G hspa
23. networkdood (Posts: 6330; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
Yeah, Sprint's stock is running very low, nowadays...what does that tell you?
40. Fallout09 (Posts: 421; Member since: 17 Oct 2011)
How quickly you guys forget that Apple was about to disapear and stock was just a low before good ol Microsoft went and bailed them out.... With the changes Sprint is putting into play, I say buy. buy. buy.
47. QWIKSTRIKE (Posts: 1148; Member since: 09 Mar 2010)
Good answer....This is what happens when investors don't see returns right away. Then when R&D adds cost to the bottom line companies stock fall as well. The market is fickle and very ignorant with this. Google lost money because of R&D and they took a hit in the stock. I bet the investors that bailed looked stupid when the R&D caused major net gains 6 months to a year later
31. xmusicianguy (Posts: 96; Member since: 13 Jul 2011)
I think the only thing Sprint is really known for is being the main sponsor for the Narcar Cup Races!
32. Phonecall01 (unregistered)
Most people get the wrong idea here. It's perfectly logical to release any new phone from now with LTE even if they don't have the network running yet. LTE is already adopted everywhere by many carriers so it's not going to fade. The mistake would to still release Wimax devices. It's a lot easier to keep up with the "New device" competition while the LTE network is still being built. They're 3G speed is in fact terrible, but a new phone with only that and no future LTE capability would be unacceptable. It's not like you're gonna pay more a month for an LTE device anyway.
34. Feech (Posts: 4; Member since: 01 Dec 2011)
I think people are going to be surprised. I have a feeling that Sprint has been working on LTE for some time and we may see 50 or more markets at launch time. I don't have this from anyone just more of a feeling than anything. I just can't see them launching so e of the most important devices on the network and technically not have a network to support it.
35. snowgator (Posts: 3598; Member since: 19 Jan 2011)
Would have loved to give Sprint my money, but with one tower- that would be the only number greater then no service at all- it was an amazing display of poor performance.
I am not against them selling LTE devices. More power to them. But, Sprint service was so poor in so many areas. Unless you were lucky enough to live in one of the few areas Sprint actually invested in, I am just curious why anyone would upgrade to a LTE device without waiting to see how the roll out goes?
43. pbui.818 (Posts: 78; Member since: 06 Feb 2012)
the problem with releasing an LTE is whether the modem/dsp/radio can handle all the variants and all the frequencies.
TDD-LTE or FDD-LTE?
Qualcomm recently announced plans for such a new chip.
Samsung does provide LTE as well but doesn't support all the variants that's why Exynos isn't in the US.
Apple got into trouble in Australia with their iPad WiFi + 4G because it didn't support the right version of LTE.
Will the first round of Sprint LTE devices support all the versions of LTE that they will need?
46. QWIKSTRIKE (Posts: 1148; Member since: 09 Mar 2010)
No they will only support 1900mhz., but that will be useable no matter what they won't phase 1900mhz out. They will ass 800, and 2500 mhz in the future with 1x LTE advance in the mix.
48. ZeldaStjohn (Posts: 2; Member since: 10 May 2012)
the plans like At&t lol just becuse they did not get there way.