There's actually quite a bit of difference between GSM and CDMA2000
which results in a substantial amount of additional engineering,
certification, manufacturing, and marketing costs, substantial
commonality notwithstanding. (Even apparently dissimilar phones can
have a great deal of commonality as they tend to be built on standard
platforms.) If it were really that cheap and easy, Nokia wouldn't have
abandoned the CDMA2000 market. (Steven argues both sides of an issue
depending on how it best fits his pro-CDMA2000, anti-GSM agenda.)

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:15:01 GMT, "Remove This"
<spamdumpster@verizon.net> wrote in <9HNvh.2418$Xf4.2367@trndny09>:

>True.. (And that's the kind of reply to a post I can appreciate.)

>"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>news:45bf9534$0$69004$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net.. .
>> Remove This wrote:
>>> My guess on why thes VZ negotiations took place so early, was that Apple
>>> would've loved to have
>>> VZ as the exclusive carrier, but the decision between CDMA + GSM just had
>>> to be made...
>>
>> I doubt it. The part of the iPhone that would be CDMA or GSM is a very
>> small part of the total product. There are a great many phones that are
>> available in both GSM and CDMA.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>