Friday Poll: What took you so long, Verizon?

CNET News Poll

A higher calling
Why did it take Verizon so long to get next-gen phones?

It was hoping for an Apple deal
It was waiting for Android 2.0
What's wrong with Windows Mobile?
When you're No.1, you don't need good phone
It hates its users

View results

A new option: the Eris.

(Credit: Verizon)

Verizon on Friday is getting the Motorola Droid and the HTC Droid Eris, a duo of high-end Android handsets. These are the first next-gen handsets the VZN has offered, and its subscribers are understandably happy about that.

And it's about time. AT&T has offered Apple's iPhone for more than two years. Sprint users have been enjoying the Palm Pre for a while and can also opt for the HTC Hero, a sibling of Verizon's Eris. T-Mobile users have had access to Android devices for more than a year.

So why is Verizon so far behind the other carriers in offering these awesome new phones? Vote in our poll. And if you think of a reason we didn't mention, be sure to share it in our TalkBack section below.

[steel36]

The biggest reason is probably control. Verizon doesn't want to be a dumbpipe, although that's what we all want our provider to be. Plus, they couldn't just import the GSM-style phones produced overseas. Ultimately, giving up control as they have w/ Google is what will make them even more successful.

[JMBailey]

With the path created by the Iphone / AT&T and Verizon having missed that opp; why not wait until there was a viable market to pursue with a partner in need of help (MOT) and proven player such as Google. That path will now be paved quickly and more profitably via the most reliable and largest network coverage on the grid.

[BAJones29]

I have been a Verizon customer for 7 years before I left for AT&T. I can without doubt say that Verizon didn?t want a customizable smart phone because of the loss of control they had over the consumer. They have the best network services available, but when other providers offer newer and updated smart phones to their arsenals, Verizon looks a lot less appealing to the consumer. Let?s face it, the end user (me included) falls for the ?newer and smarter? phones that providers are now offering.

[DrMadducks]

I switched from AT&T to Verizon because I was so tired of not being able to use my cell phone in my house. While driving cross country, I could never talk to anyone along the Florida panhandle. My wife has an IPhone and I can never talk to her at her office. What I am getting at is, ultimately, it is a phone. And though I would love to have all of the iPhones capabilities, I need to use it as a phone first. And with AT&T, the iPhone fails as a phone miserably.

[izmickey]

@DrMadducks
I agree with you. whats the point of having a top of the line phone when the service sucks? Doesnt make sense to me. First reliable service then the phone.

[make_or_break]

@DrMadducks,
My wife shares your opinion as well. She loves the idea of the iPhone, but won't buy into one because Verizon has been dead-on dependable for her primary needs: of that as an actual phone device. Both of us remember the horrors we had with AT&T, and when we hear and read that it's still not much better than before it's reason enough to stay clear.

[TelecomPhil]

I'm thinking they wanted to buildout their network to handle the new phones first, thus avoiding the problem of AT&T's coverage and dropped call mess-up.

[JLBer]

Verizon has always demanded tha phone carriers disable functions in the phone that would other wise be available if Verizon offered their own version of that function. I love their network and I have never had a problem with their customer service, but I've never appreciated their heavy-handed approach to phone functionality. Too bad that I just got the LG enV Touch a few months ago. :(

[coal686--2008]

I agree with this completely. My wife has Verizon and the only way to get pictures off her phone in the past was to email them to herself for a $2 per message fee since it was a picture message. Every other phone company allowed their users to use MicroSD, which Verizon finally started to allow as well.

[docTWOtoxic]

I agree too. Verizon may have good service and all, but I can never see them going to iPhone. To hand over control of content to another service, never see it happen. They have always been controlling over everything they sell. I have to pay $4-5 for a crappy game through Verizon in which the same game or app cost .99 cents or free through iTunes. Nope, Verizon wants every cent they can get their greedy paws on.

I remember when I had Windows Mobile phone through Verizon. Verizon disabled the wifi so you could not use the phone side at the same time. I ended up going to the phone manufacturers website to get the fix just because Verizon had to have "Control". Sprint had the same phone and both functions worked at the same time without the "fix".

All in all.. iPhone & Verizon will not happen anytime soon. I hope they don't screw up this new Google phone to bad.

[zizzybaloobah]

I think they finally saw enough people jumping ship to get a fun or flashy phone that they had to do something. And for once, my new-every-2 finally kicks in when there's a phone I actually want to purchase. Was going to go for the enV Touch, but luckily held off when I heard that an Android phone would be coming.

[forever4now]

Smartphone development takes many months, marketing campaigns take time to develop & Google & Verizon were apparently in discussions for the last 18 months, so it doesn't appear to be a complete knee jerk reaction on Verizon's part.

I'm sure Verizon wanted & still wants the iPhone, but great Android devices gives them:

1. additional leverage with Apple.
2. an alternative to Apple, to stem user losses.
3. more data hungry devices, to increase revenue.
4. a good platform to deliver their own apps & services.
5. a good platform for non-smartphone devices (e.g. residential & business phones).
6. the Google buzz.

[make_or_break]

Google buzz? More like Google Big Brother. Jus' sayin...

[aaronm04]

It took the iPhone to convince Verizon that users WILL change networks for a better phone. Prior to that, they thought that a great network with ho-hum devices would be enough to keep their customers.

[abcd9009]

I still think Verizon's loss can be summed up in 4 letters - CDMA. Had Verizon been on GSM, Nokia would be jumping all over Verizon with their phones. Granted even Nokia (being world's #1 phone manufacturer) is nothing compared to the iPhone but at least it's far better than the other useless phones Verizon provided before Droid.
As much as I hate AT&T, I am glad it's beating Verizon (when it comes to choosing a smart phone) by having iPhone because it's Verizon's fault for choosing the outdated technology - CDMA knowing the rest of the world is on GSM, including one of their parent company Vodafone (World's largest carrier).

[JDubbs115]

I respectfully disagree. While true that CDMA undoubtedly turns some people away, knowing that people stay on Verizon because of their network is a massive draw to many other product makers. High-end smartphone companies like HTC, RIM, and more recently Samsung have all seemingly pledged commitment to big red and have been steadily announcing and releasing new, "next-gen" phones (as the writer calls it) for the carrier for the past year. And while AT&T has definitely managed to rake in the cash through monthly data plans from all the iPhones, it is definitely No. 2 when it comes to subscribers, despite Verizon's "outdated technology" (as you put it, though I think the CDG would have a few choice words with you). And being a CDMA carrier, in and of itself, is being phased out as a potential weakness due to Verizon requesting its manufacturers place SIM slots and 3G radios for GSM networks in their phones for world roaming, in addition to the long standing partnerships it has with foreign networks for their standard phones.

[abcd9009]

@JDubbs115

I agree with you that Verizon is #1 when it comes to subscribers but it's even worse than T-Mobile when it comes to phones. At the end of the day the phone manufacturers have to answer to the shareholders and those greedy shareholders only care about the bottom line.
So think of it this way... if you were a phone manufacturer would you provide phones for the #1 carrier in the US which has outdated network technology and or to #2 carrier, which by the way will also allow you to sell the same phone (without any addition labor or change in parts) to anywhere in the world and thereby generating more revenue.

I am not saying that HTC, RIM, Samsung and others won't create phones for Verizon. But what I am saying is the number of models they would create for Verizon would definitely be less than what they would create for a GSM network because those GSM phones can be sold anywhere in the world as compared to only limited carriers for CDMA.

Thanks to the iPhone people finally realize the true potential of the smartphone in the US but even that they can't use thanks to the useless AT&T network. What an irony the hottest selling smartphone designed in the US but has a limited use in the US whereas the rest of the world is enjoying all its features.

[JDubbs115]

If I were a phone manufacturer, I would provide phones for both carriers. Though #1 may use older technology, those millions of subscribers simply can't be ignored by my company and certainly wouldn't be ignored by my shareholders. Couple that with the fact that manufacturing older technology (like the CDMA chipsets) generally cost less than newer alternatives, and I see something that's potentially very profitable.

Don't get me wrong, I see your point, and agree that I would be less inclined to create a wider variety of devices for a technology that sees very little use. And while history may seem to favor that argument, look at the devices that have come to Verizon within the past year: the Samsung Omnia and upcoming Omnia 2, Blackberry Storm & Storm 2, the Tour, the HTC Touch Pro 2, the Imagio, and now the Droid and Droid Eris. All of these are serious contenders in the smartphone world in their own right. And note that the majority of them have GSM counterparts, and that many of the ones I listed for Verizon are dual-mode world phones (they have SIM cards). So surely there is some money to be made in all of this.

Verizon truly does have a lot of good smartphones, they just seem to be often overlooked or are knocked for not being as intuitive as the iPhone (because they're Windows Mobile) and are inevitably hidden behind its massive presence in the smartphone world.

[JonD23]

A lot of people are really looking forward to the development / progression of these devices:



[CNET editors' note: URL removed.]



Sinceraly

- excited user

[Tinman52]

Different demographics. From my perspective, I want a phone that can make calls first. My next requirement is texting and picture taking. Third would be email and web.

I follow the latest technology, but I don't always need it. I think Vcast video and apps is a good example of this. I tried them, but how often are you sitting around, in a public place, with nothing to do, where you need some video or an app to keep you occupied? Is there really value for the consumer there? In the case of Vcast with its subscription model, not really. Also, I think apps are just impulse purchases. It's a good business model, but I wonder how much value the consumer is really getting.

For me, the need for additional features build over time, but when it comes down to it, I really want a phone that makes calls and has a good virtual keyboard for texting. A decent camera w/flash, email client and web browser are secondary if there happens to be a cool phone available at the time. I'm thinking about upgrading to the Droid, but I've also been really happy with my LG Dare for the last 2 years also.

[Absolution2009]

I've had the LG Dare for 2 years also. Actually, this is my 3rd one because my other 2 broke (first one I cracked the touchpad, the 2nd one went into the ocean while I was surfing lol). But! The insurance is awesome ($50.00 each time, only like $2.99 per month on bill), got next day shipping for free, what more can I ask for?

VCAST Videos have last week TV episodes and this weeks! So if I miss an episode, no need to go home just to watch it on DVR, I can watch them during down time somewhere else since my phone is next to me!

I think honestly though like the 1st person said is control. Part of the reason I think the reception, no dropped calls etc. for Verizon is because they have their software cleaned up. They probably didn't want to go to a 3rd party because of that, it might cause the reliability etc. to turn to crap. Who knows, we'll see 8)

[aqnguyen87]

Long story short...

Verizon, suck it up, you know you want the iPhone, you've already crunched the numbers, and you know how badly customers want your network on the iPhone...

AT&T, wth are you doing with all that revenue from new customers??? 3 years and the coverage is hardly any better then what it started at...

Apple, where's my tablet???????

[heyjbeyer]

I really think that Verizon THOUGHT they had the next iPhone... in their BB Storm. they've pushed it for months with the 2-for-1. but I don't believe most people are that thrilled about Crackberry, other than those who are already jacked up on it.

[George-Anthony]

Just returned from Verizon. Was hoping to leave with an Eris. The Droid was nice, but didn't like the keyboard; was so flat, might as well have been virtual keyboard. Android 2.0 seemed pretty nice. The Eris was/is purty. However, Verizon said I'd be paying $99/month for 450 minutes, unlimited text/email/data. Too expensive for me at this time. I'm going to take my chances on the Sprint HTC Hero, same plan Verizon was offering, but only $69/month.

[ThePrairiePrankster]

I am looking forward to dumping my LG Voyager for one of these next Spring. I will let the early adopter enjoy the initial pain and suffering....and they will let me know which one doesn't suck.

[FirewaveZ]

I voted for, "It hates its users", not because I actually think that, but because it was the funniest option

[Dan7637]

"verizon hates its users"- that was funny

[jscott418]

For one Apple is the only one making money on the iPhone. AT&T is realizing it promised too much to Apple to get the iPhone. Verizon was probably smart to tell Apple where to go. The Droid probably will never come close to the iPhones success but why would Verizon care? They still provide great coverage which is what most people want. The phones come second. I have been a Verizon customer for very long time because I never have issues with connectivity. Smart phones are nice but can't do very much on a lousy network. I am looking forward to possible buying a Droid when I am due for a new phone.

No one will ever know if Verizon will suffer the crippling effects of a heavy data usage smartphone in the hands of millions of customers. Why? Because they will never sell a fraction of the phones that apple did.
If they were to sell a lot of the "druid", then all those "happy" verizon customers would suffer the negative effects of heavy data usage on the outdated cdma netwerk

[make_or_break]

@ (blank),
Excuse-making for AT&T and Apple for signing on with them is not pretty.

[Landmein]

How about, it was too high and mighty to pay for a big phone deal. Finally, a quality producer that was a little desperate made an offer: Motorola.