Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

> Apple is nothing if not about planned obsolecense and upgrades. With a
> company like Verizon, users will have to go through the hassle of calling up
> Verizon, buying a Verizon blessed [i]phone and then get it activated. With
> GSM, Apple simply releases a new iPhonse [unlocked ... but that is in the
> future] and a user is free to just take the SIM out of the old one and put it
> in the new one.

I've activated many phones on Verizon without ever calling them, or
having to open the phone. It takes just a few seconds on-line to
activate the phone.

Buying a new iPhone from a Verizon store would not be materially more
difficult than buying one from an Apple or AT&T store.

> That alone seems like a major reason to me.

If on-line activation versus swapping a SIM seems like a major reason,
then you haven't been paying attention, since Apple first approached
Verizon for the iPhone they obviously weren't too concerned about this
issue. The major reason they wanted Verizon was because Verizon has
significantly more retail subscribers (and continues to increase their
lead in retail customers versus AT&T); it had nothing to do with GSM
versus CDMA. It's all about subscriber growth and sales potential. They
did what any company would do--try to get their product into the channel
with the largest sales potential.

> Also, since Europe is a major market for Apple, they are predominantly GSM, so
> it also make sense from that perspective.

Perhaps, but obviously Apple knew they could easily do both a GSM and
CDMA version of the phone. Look at other countries, where Apple always
first approaches the carrier with the largest sales potential, and if
turned down they go down the line until they find a carrier that will
agree to their revenue sharing terms. Also, one of the reasons the
iPhone has done poorly in Europe is because of the lack of 3G, so it's
unlikely that they did much research into the European market.