Spoken like someone who doesn't drop half a dozen calls every day.
It was a brilliant move because AT&T gave Steve Jobs a kick back to be the exclusive carrier, which he promptly spent on his new liver.
Now that he is healthy (live long and prosper Steve-O) he no longer needs the extra money and can now give me the choice to pick the best carrier for the area that I live in. I would choose a 64 gig Verizon iPhone. Not because Verizon is better, just because they are better for me.
Everyone should have the choice.
Yeah, but that's not the same as what you're asking for which seems to be, "everyone should have every choice." If you want the iPhone you do have a choice: switch. And, restrict yourself to 32GB.
PS: The swipe about SJ's liver was an unnecessary cheap shot.
I think the volumes of interest in unlocking is evidence you're looking for. If people were satisfied with the carrier selection, why would so many people unlock?
I suppose that widespread pay as you go plans in EU have something to do with that.
AT&T was no mistake. It was, in fact, a brilliant move by Apple.
It was a brilliant move at the time, but it's become a millstone around Apple's neck. Imagine the growth potential with iPhone available at any vendor one wants. I'm sure most shareholders would rather see Apple dominating on all fronts, rather than needlessly allow Droid and it's ilk to gain even one percent of sales.
That was early in the 2G iphone world when there were only UK, France and Germany selling the iphone and there were a lot of "missing" American iphones that were unlocked and exported.
It has nothing to do with whether consumers are satisfied with their carrier selection because the only way an Italian consumer could get an iphone in early 2008 was to buy an unlocked iphone because Apple hasn't launched the iphone in Italy yet.
Certainly that had something to do with it, but unlocking still exists and is still a big deal. If you type "iPhone" into your search bar, what populates the suggestion list? "iPhone Verizon" is #2, and "iPhone Dev Team" is #7. People are interested in using the iPhone outside of AT&T.
Quote:
Originally Posted by obsidi4n
I suppose that widespread pay as you go plans in EU have something to do with that.
Certainly. That only adds to the validity of my point that iPhone carriers are not selling the iPhone + service in the way people want to use it.
I think the volumes of interest in unlocking is evidence you're looking for. If people were satisfied with the carrier selection, why would so many people unlock? AI reported last year that up to 40% of iPhones in Europe were unlocked...
That's pretty poor evidence!
,,, and it's a report from 2 years ago... not last year.
At the time iPhone was available in only 3 European countries.
It was a brilliant move at the time, but it's become a millstone around Apple's neck. Imagine the growth potential with iPhone available at any vendor one wants. I'm sure most shareholders would rather see Apple dominating on all fronts, rather than needlessly allow Droid and it's ilk to gain even one percent of sales.
It looks like it will end at the next iPhone cycle. But will Apple go with a new radio in the next one for the T-Mobile USA or build a a CDMA-based iPhone for Verizon and/or Sprint? There are pros and cons for each. I?d wager that going with hybrid GSM/CDMA-based iPhone is out of the question.
I think the volumes of interest in unlocking is evidence you're looking for. If people were satisfied with the carrier selection, why would so many people unlock? AI reported last year that up to 40% of iPhones in Europe were unlocked... That was, of course, before Apple killed iTunes activation in favor of in-store only activation.
If that's not evidence enough, I don't know what is...
-Clive
Your evidence is not evidence, it's hearsay.
"The latest claims come by way of RBC Capital analyst Mike Abramsky, who in a research report to clients Monday said his checks with European resellers indicate unlocked units are accounting for as much as 40 percent of iPhone sales at some stores.
Slightly ahead of estimates by fellow analysts at Piper Jaffray, Abramsky also believes that unlocked iPhones comprise as much as 27 percent of US sales. Combined, he said, between 25 and 30 percent of iPhones have thus far been sold to with the intent that they'd later be operated unlocked."
I'm surprised you'd post that without reading past the headline. It's just what some ibanker got from some unnamed reseller. Note also the weakener "as much as". Pretty weak evidence.
Finally, interest in unlocking doesn't tell you anything about what happens in a totally different market. We all know that plenty of people switched to ATT to get the iPhone. So in Europe, how many people bought an unlocked iPhone rather than switching (from their Verizon to ATT)?
You can be certain that far fewer people switched carriers in Europe for the iPhone since they could just buy it unlocked for more and use it on other networks.
,,, and it's a report from 2 years ago... not last year.
At the time iPhone was available in only 3 European countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj
Your evidence is not evidence, it's hearsay.
"The latest claims come by way of RBC Capital analyst Mike Abramsky, who in a research report to clients Monday said his checks with European resellers indicate unlocked units are accounting for as much as 40 percent of iPhone sales at some stores.
Slightly ahead of estimates by fellow analysts at Piper Jaffray, Abramsky also believes that unlocked iPhones comprise as much as 27 percent of US sales. Combined, he said, between 25 and 30 percent of iPhones have thus far been sold to with the intent that they'd later be operated unlocked."
I'm surprised you'd post that without reading past the headline. It's just what some ibanker got from some unnamed reseller. Note also the weakener "as much as". Pretty weak evidence.
Finally, interest in unlocking doesn't tell you anything about what happens in a totally different market. We all know that plenty of people switched to ATT to get the iPhone. So in Europe, how many people bought an unlocked iPhone rather than switching (from their Verizon to ATT)?
You can be certain that far fewer people switched carriers in Europe for the iPhone since they could just buy it unlocked for more and use it on other networks.
And you'll also you'll notice that I said "up to 40%." I never said that 40% was proven fact, I simply quoted the premise of an AI article... why are you arguing that point so vehemently?
My position is that the popularity of unlocking (or desire to do so) is easily strong enough to conclude that Apple could've had substantially higher sales volumes of the iPhone to potential Verizon customers. The fact that "iPhone Verizon" is number two in your google search bar says it all.
The fact that unlocks exist at all is evidence to support that carriers are not meeting the needs of their consumer base, what's so hard to agree upon about that?
Spoken like someone who doesn't drop half a dozen calls every day.
It was a brilliant move because AT&T gave Steve Jobs a kick back to be the exclusive carrier, which he promptly spent on his new liver.
Now that he is healthy (live long and prosper Steve-O) he no longer needs the extra money and can now give me the choice to pick the best carrier for the area that I live in. I would choose a 64 gig Verizon iPhone. Not because Verizon is better, just because they are better for me.
Everyone should have the choice.
Absolutely brilliant response (if you have shit for brains)
Well you're certainly right about the incompatible systems, and I don't have any complaints about the short-term single-carrier roll-outs, but what's left to be explained is the absurdly long duration of their U.S. AT&T exclusivity.
Or perhaps Apple knows we Americans won't comparison shop, nor abstain from a product with whose terms of use we do not like and therefore decided to take advantage of our idiotic weakness.
-Clive
Given how things have gone in the rest of the world, with multi-carrier deals leading to increased market share, it's hard to imagine Apple being perversely stubborn in the US market just for the hell of it, or because they're anti-competitive, or don't like us, or whatever.
I'm not privy to the particulars of Apple's negotiations and terms with any given carrier, but I have to assume they have their reasons for continuing AT&T exclusivity beyond being assholes.
RIM's devices are available on multiple US carriers.
But not all of RiM?s devices are on all carriers. They do exclusivity like every other major vendor. Let?s not forget that Apple is new to the mobile business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Given how things have gone in the rest of the world, with multi-carrier deals leading to increased market share, it's hard to imagine Apple being perversely stubborn in the US market just for the hell of it, or because they're anti-competitive, or don't like us, or whatever.
I'm not privy to the particulars of Apple's negotiations and terms with any given carrier, but I have to assume they have their reasons for continuing AT&T exclusivity beyond being assholes.
By the best estimates the exclusivity will go until June 2010. After that the path seems less certain. There are some major pros and cons for Apple to stay with AT&T or to go with another carrier. To go with any other carrier in the US means to rework the hardware. This is unique to the US, save for Apple having to apparently remove the WiFi antenna from China Unicom iPhones for a few months.
Does it really seem like Apple to stock 3 devices in each capacity to satisfy each carrier. One for Verizon, one for Sprint and one for T-Mobile and AT&T with the additional spectrum added? On the surface it would seem easier to easier to just sell with T-Mobile who needs the business and who they already have a relationship with the parent company.
But not all of RiM?s devices are on all carriers. They do exclusivity like every other major vendor. Let?s not forget that Apple is new to the mobile business.
Apple may be, but their staff are not, they hired a lot of people with a lot of experience in the mobile industry, they purchased knowledge
Apple may be, but their staff are not, they hired a lot of people with a lot of experience in the mobile industry, they purchased knowledge
Hiring people with experience isn't remotely the same as real, in the field experience. Rolling out a new platform worldwide, a platform that arguably will prove to be central to Apple's fortunes in the decade to come (and in a field in which you have never competed involving entrenched players as partners), calls for patience, prudence and baby steps. And, you have to make sure each of those steps is working well before moving on to the next, because you're building the foundation of a new business that you expect to grow for years to come.
That's how Apple has done it, and it's hard to argue with the results. Outside of AT&T's inability to keep up with the massive increase in data usage, the iPhone has proven to be a rock-solid platform, with a stable, consistent presentation world wide, with stable, consistent access to software upgrades and apps. There's not another phone/platform on the market with this level of unified branding and unified user experience.
If Apple had just launched broadly across multiple carriers, or particularly in the US had launched with Verizon and whatever changes/restrictions they would have extracted (yes, I know they're getting better, but we're talking about negotiations a few years ago at a time they didn't sell a single un-Verizonized phone) I don't think that would be the case, no matter how many industry veterans Apple may have brought on board.
I thought NOKIA is Europe and Europe is NOkia...where is Nokia?......well people are smart nowadays...they dont like a phone that keeps on evolving into all the letters in the alphabet in form and design, yet internally inothing changes, same carppy and lousy OS with no apps whatsoever only their snakes games present LOL
I am looking forward when Nokia filed for bancrapsy their company is in the doldrum and nearing extinction..
My position is that the popularity of unlocking (or desire to do so) is easily strong enough to conclude that Apple could've had substantially higher sales volumes of the iPhone to potential Verizon customers. The fact that "iPhone Verizon" is number two in your google search bar says it all.
And since Apple has had rolling shortages, those sales to Verizon customers would have been lost elsewhere in the world, gaining Apple exactly zero new revenue. Couple that with the higher costs associated, and the weakness of what you're suggesting is obvious.
That's how Apple has done it, and it's hard to argue with the results. Outside of AT&T's inability to keep up with the massive increase in data usage, the iPhone has proven to be a rock-solid platform, with a stable, consistent presentation world wide, with stable, consistent access to software upgrades and apps. There's not another phone/platform on the market with this level of unified branding and unified user experience.
I just wish we could see the CV of the people questioning Apple's business decisions on the iPhone. It's a frigging business school case study in how to whip the ass of huge well entrenched conglomerates in just two years and make it look EASY for god's sake. And yet there are dummies with enough time to post on a message board all day who think they know enough to improve those decisions?
I just wish we could see the CV of the people questioning Apple's business decisions on the iPhone. It's a frigging business school case study in how to whip the ass of huge well entrenched conglomerates in just two years and make it look EASY for god's sake. And yet there are dummies with enough time to post on a message board all day who think they know enough to improve those decisions?
I thought NOKIA is Europe and Europe is NOkia...where is Nokia?......well people are smart nowadays...they dont like a phone that keeps on evolving into all the letters in the alphabet in form and design, yet internally inothing changes, same carppy and lousy OS with no apps whatsoever only their snakes games present LOL
I am looking forward when Nokia filed for bancrapsy their company is in the doldrum and nearing extinction..
Don?t count Nokia out just yet. They still have a market cap of $50B USD and they are the #1 handset vendor in revenue and the #2 handset vendor in operating profits, only recently being beat out by Apple.
Everyone has been caught off guard by Apple?s success in the market?even Apple themselves?but it?s opened up the doors for a whole era of expensive handsets and guaranteed data plans that are drive a lot of innovation. RiM has been selling a lot more handsets and I think a lot of that has to do with the iPhone.
Nokia has Maemo and Firefox has been ported successfully as Fennec (a name for a small fox breed, get it?). Even if Nokia doesn?t have winning HW, OS or app store this year they still have a a long time before they will even have to consider throwing in the towel. They can restructure and rebuild many times over before that happens. Apple was down to $5B USD market cap and they are now on the heels of MicroSoft.
Comments
Spoken like someone who doesn't drop half a dozen calls every day.
It was a brilliant move because AT&T gave Steve Jobs a kick back to be the exclusive carrier, which he promptly spent on his new liver.
Now that he is healthy (live long and prosper Steve-O) he no longer needs the extra money and can now give me the choice to pick the best carrier for the area that I live in. I would choose a 64 gig Verizon iPhone. Not because Verizon is better, just because they are better for me.
Everyone should have the choice.
Yeah, but that's not the same as what you're asking for which seems to be, "everyone should have every choice." If you want the iPhone you do have a choice: switch. And, restrict yourself to 32GB.
PS: The swipe about SJ's liver was an unnecessary cheap shot.
I think the volumes of interest in unlocking is evidence you're looking for. If people were satisfied with the carrier selection, why would so many people unlock?
I suppose that widespread pay as you go plans in EU have something to do with that.
AT&T was no mistake. It was, in fact, a brilliant move by Apple.
It was a brilliant move at the time, but it's become a millstone around Apple's neck. Imagine the growth potential with iPhone available at any vendor one wants. I'm sure most shareholders would rather see Apple dominating on all fronts, rather than needlessly allow Droid and it's ilk to gain even one percent of sales.
That was early in the 2G iphone world when there were only UK, France and Germany selling the iphone and there were a lot of "missing" American iphones that were unlocked and exported.
It has nothing to do with whether consumers are satisfied with their carrier selection because the only way an Italian consumer could get an iphone in early 2008 was to buy an unlocked iphone because Apple hasn't launched the iphone in Italy yet.
Certainly that had something to do with it, but unlocking still exists and is still a big deal. If you type "iPhone" into your search bar, what populates the suggestion list? "iPhone Verizon" is #2, and "iPhone Dev Team" is #7. People are interested in using the iPhone outside of AT&T.
I suppose that widespread pay as you go plans in EU have something to do with that.
Certainly. That only adds to the validity of my point that iPhone carriers are not selling the iPhone + service in the way people want to use it.
-Clive
I think the volumes of interest in unlocking is evidence you're looking for. If people were satisfied with the carrier selection, why would so many people unlock? AI reported last year that up to 40% of iPhones in Europe were unlocked...
That's pretty poor evidence!
,,, and it's a report from 2 years ago... not last year.
At the time iPhone was available in only 3 European countries.
It was a brilliant move at the time, but it's become a millstone around Apple's neck. Imagine the growth potential with iPhone available at any vendor one wants. I'm sure most shareholders would rather see Apple dominating on all fronts, rather than needlessly allow Droid and it's ilk to gain even one percent of sales.
It looks like it will end at the next iPhone cycle. But will Apple go with a new radio in the next one for the T-Mobile USA or build a a CDMA-based iPhone for Verizon and/or Sprint? There are pros and cons for each. I?d wager that going with hybrid GSM/CDMA-based iPhone is out of the question.
I think the volumes of interest in unlocking is evidence you're looking for. If people were satisfied with the carrier selection, why would so many people unlock? AI reported last year that up to 40% of iPhones in Europe were unlocked... That was, of course, before Apple killed iTunes activation in favor of in-store only activation.
If that's not evidence enough, I don't know what is...
-Clive
Your evidence is not evidence, it's hearsay.
"The latest claims come by way of RBC Capital analyst Mike Abramsky, who in a research report to clients Monday said his checks with European resellers indicate unlocked units are accounting for as much as 40 percent of iPhone sales at some stores.
Slightly ahead of estimates by fellow analysts at Piper Jaffray, Abramsky also believes that unlocked iPhones comprise as much as 27 percent of US sales. Combined, he said, between 25 and 30 percent of iPhones have thus far been sold to with the intent that they'd later be operated unlocked."
I'm surprised you'd post that without reading past the headline. It's just what some ibanker got from some unnamed reseller. Note also the weakener "as much as". Pretty weak evidence.
Finally, interest in unlocking doesn't tell you anything about what happens in a totally different market. We all know that plenty of people switched to ATT to get the iPhone. So in Europe, how many people bought an unlocked iPhone rather than switching (from their Verizon to ATT)?
You can be certain that far fewer people switched carriers in Europe for the iPhone since they could just buy it unlocked for more and use it on other networks.
You really think that Apple singed exclusivity agreements with AT&T in 2005 so Jobs could get a liver in 2009? I think you just took Teckstud?s crown.
Why are you so obssessed with me? Dude, get a life.
You even mention me in your signature now?
I'm like being stalked by you.
That's pretty poor evidence!
,,, and it's a report from 2 years ago... not last year.
At the time iPhone was available in only 3 European countries.
Your evidence is not evidence, it's hearsay.
"The latest claims come by way of RBC Capital analyst Mike Abramsky, who in a research report to clients Monday said his checks with European resellers indicate unlocked units are accounting for as much as 40 percent of iPhone sales at some stores.
Slightly ahead of estimates by fellow analysts at Piper Jaffray, Abramsky also believes that unlocked iPhones comprise as much as 27 percent of US sales. Combined, he said, between 25 and 30 percent of iPhones have thus far been sold to with the intent that they'd later be operated unlocked."
I'm surprised you'd post that without reading past the headline. It's just what some ibanker got from some unnamed reseller. Note also the weakener "as much as". Pretty weak evidence.
Finally, interest in unlocking doesn't tell you anything about what happens in a totally different market. We all know that plenty of people switched to ATT to get the iPhone. So in Europe, how many people bought an unlocked iPhone rather than switching (from their Verizon to ATT)?
You can be certain that far fewer people switched carriers in Europe for the iPhone since they could just buy it unlocked for more and use it on other networks.
And you'll also you'll notice that I said "up to 40%." I never said that 40% was proven fact, I simply quoted the premise of an AI article... why are you arguing that point so vehemently?
My position is that the popularity of unlocking (or desire to do so) is easily strong enough to conclude that Apple could've had substantially higher sales volumes of the iPhone to potential Verizon customers. The fact that "iPhone Verizon" is number two in your google search bar says it all.
The fact that unlocks exist at all is evidence to support that carriers are not meeting the needs of their consumer base, what's so hard to agree upon about that?
-Clive
Spoken like someone who doesn't drop half a dozen calls every day.
It was a brilliant move because AT&T gave Steve Jobs a kick back to be the exclusive carrier, which he promptly spent on his new liver.
Now that he is healthy (live long and prosper Steve-O) he no longer needs the extra money and can now give me the choice to pick the best carrier for the area that I live in. I would choose a 64 gig Verizon iPhone. Not because Verizon is better, just because they are better for me.
Everyone should have the choice.
Absolutely brilliant response (if you have shit for brains)
I think maybe it's a bit much to expect Apple to be in charge of bringing competition to the US cell industry.
No, but they have a interest in not participating by selling more units to either side and let them compete on their own merits.
RIM's devices are available on multiple US carriers.
Well you're certainly right about the incompatible systems, and I don't have any complaints about the short-term single-carrier roll-outs, but what's left to be explained is the absurdly long duration of their U.S. AT&T exclusivity.
Or perhaps Apple knows we Americans won't comparison shop, nor abstain from a product with whose terms of use we do not like and therefore decided to take advantage of our idiotic weakness.
-Clive
Given how things have gone in the rest of the world, with multi-carrier deals leading to increased market share, it's hard to imagine Apple being perversely stubborn in the US market just for the hell of it, or because they're anti-competitive, or don't like us, or whatever.
I'm not privy to the particulars of Apple's negotiations and terms with any given carrier, but I have to assume they have their reasons for continuing AT&T exclusivity beyond being assholes.
RIM's devices are available on multiple US carriers.
But not all of RiM?s devices are on all carriers. They do exclusivity like every other major vendor. Let?s not forget that Apple is new to the mobile business.
Given how things have gone in the rest of the world, with multi-carrier deals leading to increased market share, it's hard to imagine Apple being perversely stubborn in the US market just for the hell of it, or because they're anti-competitive, or don't like us, or whatever.
I'm not privy to the particulars of Apple's negotiations and terms with any given carrier, but I have to assume they have their reasons for continuing AT&T exclusivity beyond being assholes.
By the best estimates the exclusivity will go until June 2010. After that the path seems less certain. There are some major pros and cons for Apple to stay with AT&T or to go with another carrier. To go with any other carrier in the US means to rework the hardware. This is unique to the US, save for Apple having to apparently remove the WiFi antenna from China Unicom iPhones for a few months.
Does it really seem like Apple to stock 3 devices in each capacity to satisfy each carrier. One for Verizon, one for Sprint and one for T-Mobile and AT&T with the additional spectrum added? On the surface it would seem easier to easier to just sell with T-Mobile who needs the business and who they already have a relationship with the parent company.
But not all of RiM?s devices are on all carriers. They do exclusivity like every other major vendor. Let?s not forget that Apple is new to the mobile business.
Apple may be, but their staff are not, they hired a lot of people with a lot of experience in the mobile industry, they purchased knowledge
Apple may be, but their staff are not, they hired a lot of people with a lot of experience in the mobile industry, they purchased knowledge
Hiring people with experience isn't remotely the same as real, in the field experience. Rolling out a new platform worldwide, a platform that arguably will prove to be central to Apple's fortunes in the decade to come (and in a field in which you have never competed involving entrenched players as partners), calls for patience, prudence and baby steps. And, you have to make sure each of those steps is working well before moving on to the next, because you're building the foundation of a new business that you expect to grow for years to come.
That's how Apple has done it, and it's hard to argue with the results. Outside of AT&T's inability to keep up with the massive increase in data usage, the iPhone has proven to be a rock-solid platform, with a stable, consistent presentation world wide, with stable, consistent access to software upgrades and apps. There's not another phone/platform on the market with this level of unified branding and unified user experience.
If Apple had just launched broadly across multiple carriers, or particularly in the US had launched with Verizon and whatever changes/restrictions they would have extracted (yes, I know they're getting better, but we're talking about negotiations a few years ago at a time they didn't sell a single un-Verizonized phone) I don't think that would be the case, no matter how many industry veterans Apple may have brought on board.
I am looking forward when Nokia filed for bancrapsy their company is in the doldrum and nearing extinction..
My position is that the popularity of unlocking (or desire to do so) is easily strong enough to conclude that Apple could've had substantially higher sales volumes of the iPhone to potential Verizon customers. The fact that "iPhone Verizon" is number two in your google search bar says it all.
And since Apple has had rolling shortages, those sales to Verizon customers would have been lost elsewhere in the world, gaining Apple exactly zero new revenue. Couple that with the higher costs associated, and the weakness of what you're suggesting is obvious.
That's how Apple has done it, and it's hard to argue with the results. Outside of AT&T's inability to keep up with the massive increase in data usage, the iPhone has proven to be a rock-solid platform, with a stable, consistent presentation world wide, with stable, consistent access to software upgrades and apps. There's not another phone/platform on the market with this level of unified branding and unified user experience.
I just wish we could see the CV of the people questioning Apple's business decisions on the iPhone. It's a frigging business school case study in how to whip the ass of huge well entrenched conglomerates in just two years and make it look EASY for god's sake. And yet there are dummies with enough time to post on a message board all day who think they know enough to improve those decisions?
I just wish we could see the CV of the people questioning Apple's business decisions on the iPhone. It's a frigging business school case study in how to whip the ass of huge well entrenched conglomerates in just two years and make it look EASY for god's sake. And yet there are dummies with enough time to post on a message board all day who think they know enough to improve those decisions?
Quoted for truth
I thought NOKIA is Europe and Europe is NOkia...where is Nokia?......well people are smart nowadays...they dont like a phone that keeps on evolving into all the letters in the alphabet in form and design, yet internally inothing changes, same carppy and lousy OS with no apps whatsoever only their snakes games present LOL
I am looking forward when Nokia filed for bancrapsy their company is in the doldrum and nearing extinction..
Don?t count Nokia out just yet. They still have a market cap of $50B USD and they are the #1 handset vendor in revenue and the #2 handset vendor in operating profits, only recently being beat out by Apple.
Everyone has been caught off guard by Apple?s success in the market?even Apple themselves?but it?s opened up the doors for a whole era of expensive handsets and guaranteed data plans that are drive a lot of innovation. RiM has been selling a lot more handsets and I think a lot of that has to do with the iPhone.
Nokia has Maemo and Firefox has been ported successfully as Fennec (a name for a small fox breed, get it?). Even if Nokia doesn?t have winning HW, OS or app store this year they still have a a long time before they will even have to consider throwing in the towel. They can restructure and rebuild many times over before that happens. Apple was down to $5B USD market cap and they are now on the heels of MicroSoft.