iPhone helps AT&T continue subscriber gains on Verizon

[AppleInsider]

Verizon and AT&T have both reported their latest quarterly earnings, and the strength of the iPhone has continued to help AT&T close the gap on the market leader.

Update: In a conference call following Monday's earnings report, Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg said his company would welcome the iPhone on its network if Apple is interested, according to Digital Daily.

“This is a decision that is exclusively in Apple’s court,” Seidenberg said. “Obviously we would be interested if they thought it would make sense for them to have us as a partner. And so we will leave it with them on that score... We want to broaden the base of choice for customers, and hopefully along the way, Apple, as well as others, will decide to jump on the bandwagon.”

In its earnings reported Monday morning, Verizon said it now has an estimated total of 89 million subscribers, after adding 1.2 million customers during the September quarter. Last week, AT&T announced it added 2 million wireless subscribers during the same period, bringing its total base of customers to 81.6 million.

AT&T's 2 million customer increase was the highest third-quarter gain in company history. Officials said nearly 40 percent of the 3.2 million new iPhone activations were customers new to AT&T. That means of the 2 million new customers, roughly 1.28 million were iPhone users.

To put the total in perspective, more new customers came to AT&T for the iPhone than the total number of new subscribers gained by Verizon with all handsets during the September quarter.

Verizon's revenue saw a year-over-year increase to $27.27 billion in Monday's earnings report, but profit fell to $2.89 billion, or 41 cents per share. In the year-ago frame, it was $3.2 billion, or 59 cents a share.

Despite coming in much lower than AT&T, Verizon's 1.2 million new subscribers was ahead of analyst expectations of about 1 million.

As AT&T has continued to gain on Verizon thanks in part to exclusivity of the iPhone, the CEO of the nation's second-largest wireless provider also discussed the prospect of the iPhone becoming available on other carriers. Ralph de la Vega said during a question and answer session that he believes his company's portfolio will remain strong after the iPhone is no longer exclusive.

"We have a legacy of having a great portfolio... that will continue after the iPhone is no longer exclusive to us," de la Vega said. "We think we will continue after the iPhone... to drive (results)."

To combat the success of the iPhone, Verizon has turned to the Google Android mobile operating system. Google and Verizon intend to create, market and distribute products and services featuring Android-powered phones.

Verizon, in recent weeks, has also become aggressive in its advertising, directly mocking AT&T and Apple in a TV spot that compares the two providers' coverage maps. With a play on Apple's famous "there's an app for that" commercials, Verizon's twist declares "there's a map for that," to explain AT&T's inferior network coverage. In addition, a commercial for the Motorola Droid on Verizon's network also spoofs Apple's iPhone ads.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[vinea]

...waits for samab to denigrate the iPhone again...

[Quadra 610]

It's amazing, that even two years in, the iPhone is so game-changing that people are willing to put up with AT&T in order have it.

Only Apple.

[MacJack]

It is not the coverage as much as the integrated software.

[digitalclips]

I'd be very wary of mocking the iPhone if I were Verizon. The history of those who mock it isn't too good

[christopher126]

Originally Posted by digitalclips

I'd be very wary of mocking the iPhone if I were Verizon. The history of those who mock it isn't too good

Yep, think the music Industry, MP3 manufacturers, NBC and the rest of the Television Industry, the Movie Industry, PC manufactures who make laptops costing $1,000, or more MicroSoft, Dell, HP or and now Verizon can be added to that list.

Oh John Sculley and his management team and the then board of directors and the shareholders that bailed in the 90's When Jobs was told to leave!

Oh, the EU and the Chinese phone company that did not go with Apple!

Oh and lastly, my 2 brother-in-law's who are cheap dullards!

[anonymouse]

There was an interesting article on VentureBeat,

http://venturebeat.com/2009/10/24/an...s-more-muscle/

that points out that the carriers apparently see Android as a way to essentially promote their own services, as opposed to the iPhone's more, "Go forth on the Internet," approach. Seems sort of like AOL vs. the Web all over again, but will it play out in the same way? My guess is, yes.

[TenoBell]

It is interesting how Verizon bought 14 million new subscribers, because of the iPhone AT&T is still growing faster and earning more profit. Where would Verizon be if it had not bought Alltel.

However I don't think its good that Verizon and AT&T are growing so much larger than all other mobile phone companies.

[Rot'nApple]

[QUOTE=AppleInsider;150801...the strength of the iPhone has continued to help AT&T close the gap on the market leader.[/QUOTE]

Looks like Verizon's "there's a map for that," to explain AT&T's inferior network coverage over Verizon's superior network coverage, should tell Verizon, a superior Apple product trumps superior network coverage! So there!

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

It's amazing, that even two years in, the iPhone is so game-changing that people are willing to put up with AT&T in order have it.

Only Apple.

And that would be me. Thank god I live in the northeast where AT&T has a lot of 3G coverage according to the Verizon's "there's a Map" for that ad.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by digitalclips

I'd be very wary of mocking the iPhone if I were Verizon. The history of those who mock it isn't too good

Really - tell that to Justin Long and "I'm A MAc , your a PC" ads. But then you may be right 'cause Widows 7 is out and those ads now look more meanspitered than amusing. Politcal advertising at its worst.

[DanielSW]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Really - tell that to Justin Long and "I'm A MAc , your a PC" ads. But then you may be right 'cause Widows 7 is out and those ads now look more meanspitered than amusing. Politcal advertising at its worst.

You people who do nothing put copy-cat criticize everything under the sun don't seem to realize that your favorite targets just seem to continue to prosper and profit despite your silly cracks.

They prosper and profit mainly because they offer good products and services people want, and they deliver them in volume--basic economics.

Though nothing is perfect in the world, and though a number of people may indeed have their respective problems with this and that company, the facts of generally rising important statistics for Apple, AT&T, etc. should speak far louder to the sane and rational than all the "anti-babble" you people spout.

Apple's "Get a Mac" ad series is most likely its longest-lived and most successful. Why else would they continue it for years now? It's laughable how you armchair critics think you know far better how to run Apple than its current management.

[samab]

Originally Posted by vinea

...waits for samab to denigrate the iPhone again...

I don't actually denigrate the iphone. My point has always been that "half-a.s.s.ed" iphone killers have been doing relatively well enough in sales.

Originally Posted by TenoBell

It is interesting how Verizon bought 14 million new subscribers, because of the iPhone AT&T is still growing faster and earning more profit. Where would Verizon be if it had not bought Alltel.

However I don't think its good that Verizon and AT&T are growing so much larger than all other mobile phone companies.

Verizon didn't buy Alltel because of the iphone. Verizon bought Alltel because it was cheap --- as the venture capitalist firms who bought Alltel couldn't get cheap capital to finance the deal anymore.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

It's amazing, that even two years in, the iPhone is so game-changing that people are willing to put up with AT&T in order have it.

Only Apple.

It's like when you get married even though you may hate your in-laws.

[TenoBell]

Originally Posted by samab

I don't actually denigrate the iphone. My point has always been that "half-a.s.s.ed" iphone killers have been doing relatively well enough in sales.

In light of tumbling revenues and profits of many handset makers, while iPhone sales grow every quarter, are you so sure about that.

Verizon didn't buy Alltel because of the iphone. Verizon bought Alltel because it was cheap --- as the venture capitalist firms who bought Alltel couldn't get cheap capital to finance the deal anymore.

I didn't say Verizon bought Alltel because of the iPhone. I observed the results of Verizon buying Alltel in context with the iPhone's success. I think asking what would Verizon look like today if they had not bought Alltel is a good question.

[Rind]

Glad to hear ATT is gaining on Verizon.
Not saying ATT network is perfect ,but for the most Part its there when I need it.

If Verizon had Roll over then ATT would have something to worry about.

[samab]

Originally Posted by TenoBell

I didn't say Verizon bought Alltel because of the iPhone. I observed the results of Verizon buying Alltel in context with the iPhone's success. I think asking what would Verizon look like today if they had not bought Alltel is a good question.

(1) Verizon would have been less profitable because Verizon did really a nice job cutting cost with the Alltel merger.

(2) Verizon wouldn't have been able to do the "there's a map for that" commercial because Alltel actually had the largest wireless coverage on a square miles basis. Alltel covers large rural areas with not many population.

Alltel is a southern rural area carrier --- doesn't really matter much to the high-tech iphone world.

[TenoBell]

(3) AT&T would have 81.6 million subscribers, VZ would have around 75 million.

(4) AT&T would continue to grow faster, VZ would have no comparable handset to match the growth.

[tcphoto]

I was a Cingular/AT&T customer for eight years and dropped them because of poor customer service. I went to Verizon because of their coverage and good customer service. Unfortunately, I found out that they kill many of the features that I wanted in a phone. The differences between the software on the same phone was night and day. Last week, I shamed Verizon into releasing me 30 days early so I could get into an iPhone. Even if Verizon got the iPhone, I would be amazed if it functioned correctly. Besides, do you think that Steve appreciates the new Droid commercials? I don't think that he can separate business and personal.

[samab]

Originally Posted by TenoBell

(3) AT&T would have 81.6 million subscribers, VZ would have around 75 million.

(4) AT&T would continue to grow faster, VZ would have no comparable handset to match the growth.

Verizon Wireless never cared about the number 1 carrier status --- only fanbois care about that. VZW lost their number 1 status when Cingular bought AT&T Wireless --- what did VZW do to close that gap? Nothing, VZW continued to grow what they want to grow --- postpaid subscriber base. VZW could have closed that gap a lot more if they do what AT&T did --- buy market share with prepaid and MVNO's. But Verizon Wireless didn't do that.

How would AT&T grow faster? Alltel's customers are in Kentucky, Arkansas.... --- and they ain't the iphone crowd. VZW would still have no comparable handset with or without the Alltel merger.

[quinney]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Update: In a conference call following Monday's earnings report, Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg said his company would welcome the iPhone on its network if Apple is interested, according to Digital Daily.

“This is a decision that is exclusively in Apple’s court,” Seidenberg said. “Obviously we would be interested if they thought it would make sense for them to have us as a partner. And so we will leave it with them on that score... We want to broaden the base of choice for customers, and hopefully along the way, Apple, as well as others, will decide to jump on the bandwagon.”

It still sounds like Verizon wants Apple to do things Verizon's way. Apple wants Verizon to do things Apple's way (like AT&T did). Apple is driving the bandwagon and Verizon is the one who needs to do the jumping.

[noexpectations]

Here is the Verizon Map that shows where the iPhone is supported.



Want to see it again?



Enough Said.

[TenoBell]

Of course VZ cares about being the largest network. They brag about it in their marketing. AT&T cares about it too. You will go to any length to make VZ look good.

I'm no AT&T fanboy, I will admit I have no particular loyalty to them. I'm only with them because of the iPhone. I think AT&T deserves it's success because it took a risk with the iPhone. I think VZ deserves what it's getting because they did not have the foresight to take the risk.

If VZ had the iPhone they likely would have had over 100 million subscribers by now. AT&T would have been in serious trouble.

Originally Posted by samab

Verizon Wireless never cared about the number 1 carrier status --- only fanbois care about that. VZW lost their number 1 status when Cingular bought AT&T Wireless --- what did VZW do to close that gap? Nothing, VZW continued to grow what they want to grow --- postpaid subscriber base. VZW could have closed that gap a lot more if they do what AT&T did --- buy market share with prepaid and MVNO's. But Verizon Wireless didn't do that.

How would AT&T grow faster? Alltel's customers are in Kentucky, Arkansas.... --- and they ain't the iphone crowd. VZW would still have no comparable handset with or without the Alltel merger.

[calguy]

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

It's amazing, that even two years in, the iPhone is so game-changing that people are willing to put up with AT&T in order have it.

I'm not leaving Verizon & I will wait for the iPhone no matter how long it takes. I am not getting any other mobile device like it including an Android phone. Since I have done my time on the 2 year contract I get a nice credit towards a new phone which, you know, what phone I will use that for. Another reason not to get it now with AT&T is that the service barely gets 1 bar at my house. I just live in a hole when 1 mile down the road it is 3 or 4 bars. Also, when I travel Verizon has almost always had a signal to use. I know that may not be the case for others. And that's the way it is.

[samab]

Originally Posted by TenoBell

Of course VZ cares about being the largest network. They brag about it in their marketing. AT&T cares about it too. You will go to any length to make VZ look good.

I'm no AT&T fanboy, I will admit I have no particular loyalty to them. I'm only with them because of the iPhone. I think AT&T deserves it's success because it took a risk with the iPhone. I think VZ deserves what it's getting because they did not have the foresight to take the risk.

If VZ had the iPhone they likely would have had over 100 million subscribers by now. AT&T would have been in serious trouble.

Marketing is marketing, talk is cheap. If you actually look at what VZW did post Cingular/AT&T Wireless merger --- VZW didn't do much to reclaim that crown. VZW didn't go for the prepaid market and didn't go for the MVNO market. Action speaks much louder than words.

I think VZW deserves credit as the only wireless carrier in the whole world to say no to Apple and still manage to survive quite well. Taking the iphone isn't much of a risk, betting $22+ billion on FIOS is a much bigger and riskier bet.

If Apple signed with Verizon originally and drop those idiotic demands --- they would have (1) wiped Palm off the map, (2) seriously damaged RIM (without VZW's buy one get one promotion), launched in 80 countries much sooner (because only the original 4 carriers were stupid enough to sign the revenue sharing deal).

[photoeditor]

If Verizon would simply acknowledge Mac users, it would be nice, whether or not they get the iPhone. So many Verizon phones simply are not supported on the Mac for even basic things like syncing, yet well supported on the PC. How about hiring some software developers to take care of it? iPhone or not, the Mac situation on Verizon is unacceptable.

Also, I can't consider AT&T. Their network in Chicago is completely unacceptable -- easily the worst of any of the five main carriers in the market.

[mark2005]

Originally Posted by samab

If Apple signed with Verizon originally and drop those idiotic demands --- they would have (1) wiped Palm off the map, (2) seriously damaged RIM (without VZW's buy one get one promotion), launched in 80 countries much sooner (because only the original 4 carriers were stupid enough to sign the revenue sharing deal).

No, if Apple signed with Verizon originally under Verizon's terms, the iPhone would not be the iPhone. Among lots of other things, Verizon was blocking wifi on phones back then. And with no wifi, there's little reason to believe the Verizon network would've held up well under the 2G and 3G data load.

Also, Apple is in no rush to kill off RIMM or PALM. They are moving methodically for the kill.

[samab]

Originally Posted by mark2005

No, if Apple signed with Verizon originally under Verizon's terms, the iPhone would not be the iPhone. Among lots of other things, Verizon was blocking wifi on phones back then. And with no wifi, there's little reason to believe the Verizon network would've held up well under the 2G and 3G data load.

Also, Apple is in no rush to kill off RIMM or PALM. They are moving methodically for the kill.

No carrier in the world would have their network held up with that kind of data load.

But with CDMA voice and data on separate channels --- you would still get to make phone calls with a Verizon iphone.

Whenever you have the chance, you should kill your competition right away. If Microsoft didn't fear about their anti-trust thing years ago --- they could have killed Apple then, and not even give Apple a chance to come back.

Verizon is in no rush to buy market share at the expense of lower profit margin.

[mark2005]

Originally Posted by samab

But with CDMA voice and data on separate channels --- you would still get to make phone calls with a Verizon iphone..

True, except I can't talk and get data at the same time...

Verizon is in no rush to buy market share at the expense of lower profit margin.

And neither is Apple.

Whenever you have the chance, you should kill your competition right away.

You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth at once. Most distracting...

[samab]

Originally Posted by mark2005

True, except I can't talk and get data at the same time...

And neither is Apple.

You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth at once. Most distracting...

It's still better than not even having the chance to make a phone call with quite a few AT&T iphone customers.

I am not speaking out of both sides of my mouth at all. Even with a Verizon iphone, Verizon would not have the chance to wipe out AT&T. But with a Verizon iphone, Apple would have the chance to wipe out Palm and heavily damage RIM.

[mark2005]

Originally Posted by samab

It's still better than not even having the chance to make a phone call with quite a few AT&T iphone customers.

I am not speaking out of both sides of my mouth at all. Even with a Verizon iphone, Verizon would not have the chance to wipe out AT&T. But with a Verizon iphone, Apple would have the chance to wipe out Palm and heavily damage RIM.

Nobody said anything about a Verizon iPhone. You were discussing how Verizon didn't do anything radical to beat back AT&T, but just continued following its strategy of building a great network, including buying Alltel because it gave them additional network on the cheap. I agreed with you that that's the way to go.

But yet you think Apple should veer from their strategy just to wipe out Palm and heavily damage RIM. Apple (and great companies) doesn't target their competitors because other companies will just spring up and replace them. Apple's strategy is to build high-quality products with great margins as a result of, among many other things, its understanding of the user experience and software skills, and its best-in-industry supply chain (including making key investments). No need to give in to Verizon to its future detriment just to "wipe out Palm". That would be inane.

[samab]

Originally Posted by mark2005

Nobody said anything about a Verizon iPhone. You were discussing how Verizon didn't do anything radical to beat back AT&T, but just continued following its strategy of building a great network, including buying Alltel because it gave them additional network on the cheap. I agreed with you that that's the way to go.

But yet you think Apple should veer from their strategy just to wipe out Palm and heavily damage RIM. Apple (and great companies) doesn't target their competitors because other companies will just spring up and replace them. Apple's strategy is to build high-quality products with great margins as a result of, among many other things, its understanding of the user experience and software skills, and its best-in-industry supply chain (including making key investments). No need to give in to Verizon to its future detriment just to "wipe out Palm". That would be inane.

It doesn't have to be a Apple conscious decision to wipe Palm out or heavily damage RIM --- to be called a mistake.

Let's just say that for the sake of argument, I agree with you that it was a mistake for Verizon to reject Apple's iphone demands. But objectively --- with 20/20 hindsight --- Apple's decision not to sign with Verizon in the first place was a bigger mistake.

[mark2005]

Originally Posted by samab

It doesn't have to be a Apple conscious decision to wipe Palm out or heavily damage RIM --- to be called a mistake.

Let's just say that for the sake of argument, I agree with you that it was a mistake for Verizon to reject Apple's iphone demands. But objectively --- with 20/20 hindsight --- Apple's decision not to sign with Verizon in the first place was a bigger mistake.

Apple went to Verizon first because they knew having a great network was important. But even in hindsight, giving in to Verizon's demands would've been the biggest mistake. You make it seem like Verizon's demands would not have crippled the Apple user experience (ecosystem and all) and Apple strategy; I think it certainly would've.

In any case, Apple still holds the trump card.

[samab]

Originally Posted by mark2005

Apple went to Verizon first because they knew having a great network was important. But even in hindsight, giving in to Verizon's demands would've been the biggest mistake. You make it seem like Verizon's demands would not have crippled the Apple user experience (ecosystem and all) and Apple strategy; I think it certainly would've.

In any case, Apple still holds the trump card.

They didn't even go that far to talk about apple user experience and eco-system. This was 2005 when the iphone app store didn't even come in until 2008.

But what do know about the actual demands --- Apple drop all of them eventually.

[Roos24]

Originally Posted by mark2005

No, if Apple signed with Verizon originally under Verizon's terms, the iPhone would not be the iPhone. Among lots of other things, Verizon was blocking wifi on phones back then. And with no wifi, there's little reason to believe the Verizon network would've held up well under the 2G and 3G data load.

Also, Apple is in no rush to kill off RIMM or PALM. They are moving methodically for the kill.

... And Apple would not have had happy investors and $34,000,000,000 in the bank.

[TenoBell]

You must be a big wig at Verizon. There is no other way to rationalize you thinking this is an objective statement.

Originally Posted by samab

But objectively --- with 20/20 hindsight --- Apple's decision not to sign with Verizon in the first place was a bigger mistake.

[samab]

Originally Posted by TenoBell

You must be a big wig at Verizon. There is no other way to rationalize you thinking this is an objective statement.

Why? All the published demands Apple initially asked Verizon for has been drop in the last 2 years --- and they were drop rather quickly. Apple backed down on subsidies, backed down on revenue sharing.....

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by samab

Why? All the published demands Apple initially asked Verizon for has been drop in the last 2 years --- and they were drop rather quickly. Apple backed down on subsidies, backed down on revenue sharing.....

Apple still repairs its own iPhones in the US and controls its own all center. There was at least one more thing that Apple is doing in the US that Verizon previously wouldn't be happy with, but it's late so my mind is slipping more than usual.

Expect for profit sharing it looks like Verizon is the one that made all the changes to welcome the iPhone. They've even publically stated as much while pooh-poohing the iPhone in an iDon't advert for the Droid.

Verizon clearly needs the iPhone more than Apple needs Verizon. Unless is willing to really drop trou and grab ankle this time I din't think they will partner.

[samab]

Originally Posted by solipsism

Apple still repairs its own iPhones in the US and controls its own all center. There was at least one more thing that Apple is doing in the US that Verizon previously wouldn't be happy with, but it's late so my mind is slipping more than usual.

Expect for profit sharing it looks like Verizon is the one that made all the changes to welcome the iPhone. They've even publically stated as much while pooh-poohing the iPhone in an iDon't advert for the Droid.

Verizon clearly needs the iPhone more than Apple needs Verizon. Unless is willing to really drop trou and grab ankle this time I din't think they will partner.

Overseas iphone carriers do handle iphone tech support and warranty issues. Verizon has a point --- there are 100 apple stores and there are 1000 AT&T Wireless corp stores selling the iphone. The consumer is better off by driving to the local AT&T store that is minutes away than driving for hours (maybe even across stateline to get to the nearest apple store).

Verizon has a point of protecting their distribution partners. Just look at how badly RadioShack turned out after they ditched Verizon and signed with Cingular. RadioShack picked the wrong carrier partner, bited them in the ass. It was one problem after another --- first their cell phone sales drop because Cingular is a weaker carrier, then their CEO got fired because of his fake resume, then Cingular got the iphone and forbid Radioshack from selling it, then RadioShack went into bankruptcy protection.

And what was the lesson learned from this fiasco --- Verizon Wireless said no to the iphone because VZW wants all their distribution partners to be able to sell the iphone.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by samab

Overseas iphone carriers do handle iphone tech support and warranty issues. Verizon has a point --- there are 100 apple stores and there are 1000 AT&T Wireless corp stores selling the iphone. The consumer is better off by driving to the local AT&T store that is minutes away than driving for hours (maybe even across stateline to get to the nearest apple store).

All things being equal, sure, but you aren’t going to get the same kind of help from an Apple Store employee, whether it be in-store tech support or over-the-phone tech support from a Verizon or AT&T CSR who is expected to deal with dozens of phones.

Apple isn’t doing this in the US. If ever need tech support you’ll know this is a very good thing. People had problems with the Storm and Verizon wasn’t so good about it. People had problem with the Pre and Sprint was sub par about switching out defective units. With the Apple Store or their phone support you can get it done very quickly and easily.

Verizon has a point of protecting their distribution partners. Just look at how badly RadioShack turned out after they ditched Verizon and signed with Cingular. RadioShack picked the wrong carrier partner, bited them in the ass. It was one problem after another --- first their cell phone sales drop because Cingular is a weaker carrier, then their CEO got fired because of his fake resume, then Cingular got the iphone and forbid Radioshack from selling it, then RadioShack went into bankruptcy protection.

I have always hated Radio Shack for there horrible products and customer service so I can’t feel bad for them as a company, but I have to wonder if the deal with Cingular had Apple specificall stating that no distribution partner could sell the iPhone. They have always been crap.

This is where you say to yourself that Apple is a distribution partner, and you are correct, but they are the hardware vendor. They have a vested interest in the device succeeding. In other countries, Nokia has stores and the sales people have knowledge of the phones functions and how to resolve issues.

And what was the lesson learned from this fiasco --- Verizon Wireless said no to the iphone because VZW wants all their distribution partners to be able to sell the iphone.

WE all know that wasn’t the only reason. Now we are at a place where Verizon is saying they would welcome the iPhone, yet it comes across very desperately, yet Apple doesn’t need Verizon. They couldn’t even keep up with demand for the current replace.

Next year the demand will be even higher; the only pressing issue is having that many iPhones with excessive usage usage on one carrier, and I have doubts that Apple would even choose AT&T for the overflow.

I’d add the GSM radio to the device in the US and go with T-Mobile USA, but that is just me. That should be plenty fo breathing room for AT&T’s network while making a lot of people happy that won’t go to AT&T for legitimate reasons. On top of that, both carriers can have voice and data at the same time.