Sprint: Don't count on January Pre on Verizon

Mon Jun 8, 2009 1:00PM EDT

See Comments (24)

Earlier reports that Sprint had a mere six-month-long lock on the just-released Palm Pre are inaccurate, according to the network's CEO, who made statements to the contrary over the weekend.

According to a Cnet story, CEO Dan Hesse is quoted as saying reporters "need to check their facts" and that "both Palm and Sprint have agreed not to discuss the length of the exclusivity deal -- but I can tell you it's not six months."

The confusion seems to have arisen from another Sprint employee who stated, "We have the Pre through 2009," which many assumed meant that on January 1, 2010, Sprint would not have the Pre any longer. Verizon fanned that flame by making its own claim that the Pre would arrive on its network in "the next six months or so."

Exclusive handset contracts are a fixture in the telecommunications business, and most handsets begin their life on a single carrier only before expanding to rivals. The Apple iPhone is perhaps the most famous example of this, the proud owner of a reported five-year-long exclusivity arrangement with AT&T Wireless in the U.S.

Speculation now turns to how long the Sprint exclusive really is. Nine months? A year? 18 months? All fall roughly in the guidance offered by Hesse but everyone's keeping mum on the issue for now. Neither Sprint nor Palm are particularly powerful companies, so there's no telling how much time Sprint was able to wrangle out of the troubled hardware company.

Obviously Sprint wants to hang on to the Pre for as long as possible. The phone has so far been deemed a success, though limited inventories -- many stores had only a few dozen units allocated for the launch -- and a few big complaints have kept expectations somewhat muted. At the very least, one would expect Sprint would like to hang onto the Pre exclusively while the buzz remains positive, and ideally until the arrival of an upgraded Pre 2, which I would expect in Summer 2010.

So far, an estimated 50,000 Pre handsets have been sold. Anyone out there in Yahoo! Techland nab one? Thoughts? And for those of you still on the fence: Are you waiting for the handset to come to Verizon? And if so, how long are you willing to wait?

OK, that's a lot of questions. I'll shut up now.

Comments on Sprint: Don't count on January Pre on Verizon

Post a Comment

Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.

  • 1 Posted by magpagbst on Mon Jun 8, 2009 4:58PM EDT Report Abuse

    actually . . . i'm with verizon . . . went to a sprint store to check out the pre . . . i think the screen is too small (though quite vivid) . . . the plastic case feels cheap to me . . . and the way-too-small slide out qwerty is effectively useless to me (landscape slider anyone??) . . . so, i'll pass on the first gen pre and see what "pre 2" looks like . . . am thinking of jumping to at&t to get one of the new iphones though . . .

  • 2 Posted by rogueist on Mon Jun 8, 2009 5:18PM EDT Report Abuse

    New legislation on tap to be debated and put into law sometime in the next few months bars exclusivity contracts such as these. So while they are currently free to have whatever contracts they want, by the time the end of 2009 rolls around, they will be a thing of the past.

  • 4 Posted by bettencourt101638 on Mon Jun 8, 2009 6:24PM EDT Report Abuse

    WE THE PEOPLE nedd to teach a lesson to all those envolved Munufacturers and Cell Provider's; we need to let them "EAT" what the4y try to stick on to us; they do not word a "crap" and some not even provide what they promise and if they do it is in a very "por quality" SORRY people......I just get sick after a while.

  • 5 Posted by tomtrom77 on Mon Jun 8, 2009 6:40PM EDT Report Abuse

    The legislation would surely fail. I don't view exclusivity contracts any differently than I would if Sprint was the one who had the idea for the Pre, and and contracted Palm to build if for them. If Sprint had footed the bill to get the phone built, it would be theirs to sell - exclusively - until they saw fit. I see these current contracts as essentially the same thing, only with the hardware manufacturer bearing the risk. No one forces them to sign a deal. Let's keep the big, dumb government out of the way, please!

More Posts: First Prev 1 2 Next Last

Post a Comment


My Tech

Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.

Also on Yahoo! Tech

Computers Home Office Wi-Fi & Networking Phones & PDAs Cameras & Camcorders TV & Home Theater Portable Audio
 

Question and Answer content at Yahoo! Tech is written by Yahoo! users at Yahoo! Answers. Yahoo! does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any Yahoo! Answers content. For more information, read the Full Disclaimer.

Opinions expressed by the Advisors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Yahoo! Inc. Yahoo! receives no compensation from any manufacturer or distributor nor does it compensate any Advisor for the coverage of any product or service in any Advisor's content.