or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Analyst says iPhone is lifeblood of AT&T success
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Analyst says iPhone is lifeblood of AT&T success - Page 4

post #121 of 141
You have no point here, all of the carriers are the results of mergers. Didn't Verizon just complete a major merger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

If the rumor about AT&T having to manually remove the MMS blocks one subscriber at a time is true, then it makes perfect sense.

After 10 million different mergers, AT&T's backend is basically held up by scotch tape.
post #122 of 141
The majority of the posts you make are to continually pull out these same statistics. Yes Verizon is a successful company, we all agree. To keep bringing this up adds nothing new to the conversation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Verizon Wireless has a lower churn than AT&T Wireless. And Verizon Wireless has beaten AT&T Wireless in NET subscriber additions every single quarter since the iphone was launched --- when you take out the $13 a month ARPU Tracfone customers.

Verizon outspends AT&T on network infrastructure spending --- because Verizon spends less money on handset subsidies. Verizon Wireless has HIGHER data ARPU than AT&T Wireless --- AT&T relies on cheap $13 Tracfone customers for most of their net adds for the past few years.

Verizon Wireless has HIGHER profit margin than AT&T Wireless.

You WON'T drop Verizon landline --- because it's QUAD bundling. Vonage died because of bundling --- even though Vonage is cheaper than VOIP from cable companies.
post #123 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

The majority of the posts you make are to continually pull out these same statistics. Yes Verizon is a successful company, we all agree. To keep bringing this up adds nothing new to the conversation.

The majority of my posts are responding to people who pull out the same incorrect statistics --- which in turn forces me to correct them.

If you don't want me to correct them, then you can correct them.
post #124 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

You have no point here, all of the carriers are the results of mergers. Didn't Verizon just complete a major merger.

AT&T went through a lot more mergers than its competitors --- the current AT&T is the combination of AT&T Wireless/Cingular Wireless/SBC/BellSouth.

For many years after AT&T Wireless merged with Cingular Wireless --- their backend systems still segregated their customers into individual "markets". They also have to deal with 3 different wireless network technologies --- TDMA/GSM/Analog --- for their integration efforts.

Verizon has been pretty much the same since its formation --- in 2000. I won't call their Alltel purchase as major.
post #125 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

I won't call [Verizons] Alltel purchase as major.

Of course not, because then youd have to acknowledge the 14.7 million subs they bought in 34 states for over $28 Billion, as well as acknowledging that Altell still has analog, just like AT&T.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #126 of 141
Anytime anyone criticizes Verizon about anything you start pulling out the numbers. Whether they actuay adress the complaint or not.

The original post you addressed the person said that Verizon made a mistake allowing AT&T to get the iPhone. It's true it was a mistake. AT&T would be in serious trouble right now if they did not have the iPhone. Verizon would be far ahead of all US carriers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

The majority of my posts are responding to people who pull out the same incorrect statistics --- which in turn forces me to correct them.

If you don't want me to correct them, then you can correct them.
post #127 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

AT&T went through a lot more mergers than its competitors --- the current AT&T is the combination of AT&T Wireless/Cingular Wireless/SBC/BellSouth.

For many years after AT&T Wireless merged with Cingular Wireless --- their backend systems still segregated their customers into individual "markets". They also have to deal with 3 different wireless network technologies --- TDMA/GSM/Analog --- for their integration efforts.

Verizon is a combination of Bell Atlantic Mobile, NYNEX Mobile Communications, AirTouch Communications, PrimeCo Communications, GTE Mobilnet. Now Alltel.

AT&T has shut down TDMA.

Quote:
Verizon has been pretty much the same since its formation --- in 2000. I won't call their Alltel purchase as major.

Of course you don't.
post #128 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

verizon wireless has a lower churn than at&t wireless. And verizon wireless has beaten at&t wireless in net subscriber additions every single quarter since the iphone was launched --- when you take out the $13 a month arpu tracfone customers.

Verizon outspends at&t on network infrastructure spending --- because verizon spends less money on handset subsidies. Verizon wireless has higher data arpu than at&t wireless --- at&t relies on cheap $13 tracfone customers for most of their net adds for the past few years.

Verizon wireless has higher profit margin than at&t wireless.

You won't drop verizon landline --- because it's quad bundling. Vonage died because of bundling --- even though vonage is cheaper than voip from cable companies.

fair enough
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #129 of 141
Okay I have been with At&T now for a little over a month but let me tell the service is so excellent. I love their customer support, and how I can change my plans anytime I want without having to renew my contract each time. I also live in New York City and must say the service with a dropped call every now and then is still excellent. I had T-Mobile before this for about 3 years and the phone service always sucked. The customer card was the worst ever. AT&T is just so much better then T-Mobile that it is shocking.
post #130 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Verizon is a combination of Bell Atlantic Mobile, NYNEX Mobile Communications, AirTouch Communications, PrimeCo Communications, GTE Mobilnet. Now Alltel.

That's what I said --- Verizon hasn't made a really big merger since its formation in 2000. If there were any big integration problems, Verizon would have solved them ages ago.

AT&T Wireless/Cingular Wireless/SBC/BellSouth mergers all occurs much more recently.

AT&T Wireless and Cingular Wireless merged in Oct 2004, only 2.5 years before the original iphone was launched. It is not within the realm of reasoning to speculate that while they were busy with the integration of AT&T Wireless and Cingular Wireless --- they jerry-rigged their backend to accomodate the iphone's lack of MMS by manually blocking MMS on each iphone account.

Putting a jerry-rig solution is easy, removing the jerry-rig is always much harder.
post #131 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Anytime anyone criticizes Verizon about anything you start pulling out the numbers. Whether they actuay adress the complaint or not.

The original post you addressed the person said that Verizon made a mistake allowing AT&T to get the iPhone. It's true it was a mistake. AT&T would be in serious trouble right now if they did not have the iPhone. Verizon would be far ahead of all US carriers.

If I take your theory a little bit further --- then Verizon is not the company that made the really big mistake. If AT&T didn't have the iphone, maybe they would have concentrated on the really important, but mundane stuff --- like network improvements. AT&T wouldn't have been in serious trouble if they didn't have the iphone --- because they would be forced to spend on iphone subsidy on network improvements.

Apple made a much bigger mistake by not launching the original iphone with Verizon 2 years ago --- when Palm was much weaker financially. Would Apple make much less money with a original Verizon iphone launch? Of course, they would make much less money. But killing Palm --- like the Visa card commercial said --- is priceless.
post #132 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

That's what I said --- Verizon hasn't made a really big merger since its formation in 2000. If there were any big integration problems, Verizon would have solved them ages ago.

AT&T Wireless/Cingular Wireless/SBC/BellSouth mergers all occurs much more recently.

AT&T Wireless and Cingular Wireless merged in Oct 2004, only 2.5 years before the original iphone was launched. It is not within the realm of reasoning to speculate that while they were busy with the integration of AT&T Wireless and Cingular Wireless --- they jerry-rigged their backend to accomodate the iphone's lack of MMS by manually blocking MMS on each iphone account.

Putting a jerry-rig solution is easy, removing the jerry-rig is always much harder.

1) Your continuation to ignore the the 14.7 million subscribers Verizon bought in 34 states for over $28 Billion, as well as acknowledging that Altell still has analog, just like AT&T, is not getting you any objectivity points. That is a huge purchase that includes all the issues that you have pooh-poohed AT&T for.

2) Having a hypothesis on how much time between mobile carrier mergers and acquisitions is required to do more than jerry rig a network together is not the same as proof. You have offered no evidence as to how compatible these networks were previously, how much money AT&T has put into merging the networks, or anything at all that resembles an iota of proof.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #133 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

If I take your theory a little bit further --- then Verizon is not the company that made the really big mistake. If AT&T didn't have the iphone, maybe they would have concentrated on the really important, but mundane stuff --- like network improvements. AT&T wouldn't have been in serious trouble if they didn't have the iphone --- because they would be forced to spend on iphone subsidy on network improvements.

If AT&T didnt get the iPhone they wouldnt have the original iPhone profits to which the next years subsidies cold be pulled from. They also wouldnt have all those >$69/month iPhone contracts for 24 months to be able to make sound business decisions to upgrade their network at many billion dollars a year. They also wouldnt have had needed to spend that money on network upgrades much less forced if iPhone with its excessive data usage was not on their network.

Quote:
Apple made a much bigger mistake by not launching the original iphone with Verizon 2 years ago --- when Palm was much weaker financially. Would Apple make much less money with a original Verizon iphone launch? Of course, they would make much less money. But killing Palm --- like the Visa card commercial said --- is priceless.

Its safe to say that the only way Verizon would have excepted the iPhone is if Apple had no control of the anything, including what apps were put on the device. I surely wouldnt have gone to Verizon if Visual Voicemail was an additional $5/month, YouTube streaming wasnt available, apps were done through Verizon, Google Maps required an additional monthly fee to use the GPS or removed entirely in favour of Verizons own app, and no iTunes Store, just Verizons expense option to get ringtones. Verizon might play ball, not there is no way the iPhone would have been the device everyone tries to beat if Verizon got its hands on it before 2007.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #134 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

1) Your continuation to ignore the the 14.7 million subscribers Verizon bought in 34 states for over $28 Billion, as well as acknowledging that Altell still has analog, just like AT&T, is not getting you any objectivity points. That is a huge purchase that includes all the issues that you have pooh-poohed AT&T for.

2) Having a hypothesis on how much time between mobile carrier mergers and acquisitions is required to do more than jerry rig a network together is not the same as proof. You have offered no evidence as to how compatible these networks were previously, how much money AT&T has put into merging the networks, or anything at all that resembles an iota of proof.

Everything is relative, isn't it?

Compare the amount of integration that Verizon has to go through in recent years with AT&T --- there is a great deal of difference between the two. Compare the Analog/TDMA/GSM/WCDMA transition to the relatively simple Analog/CDMA transition --- another big difference.

I said that all the major mergers that created Verizon occurred when Verizon was formed in 2000 (all but the Alltel merger --- which Verizon has just started their integration recently). I said that all the major mergers that created the current AT&T are much more recent.

I never said I have any "proof" on this matter --- I said it from the beginning that it was a "rumor" (from boygeniusreport) about the jerry-rigging. I said that if the rumors were true, I can understand it.
post #135 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

If AT&T didnt get the iPhone they wouldnt have the original iPhone profits to which the next years subsidies cold be pulled from. They also wouldnt have all those >$69/month iPhone contracts for 24 months to be able to make sound business decisions to upgrade their network at many billion dollars a year. They also wouldnt have had needed to spend that money on network upgrades much less forced if iPhone with its excessive data usage was not on their network.

Its safe to say that the only way Verizon would have excepted the iPhone is if Apple had no control of the anything, including what apps were put on the device. I surely wouldnt have gone to Verizon if Visual Voicemail was an additional $5/month, YouTube streaming wasnt available, apps were done through Verizon, Google Maps required an additional monthly fee to use the GPS or removed entirely in favour of Verizons own app, and no iTunes Store, just Verizons expense option to get ringtones. Verizon might play ball, not there is no way the iPhone would have been the device everyone tries to beat if Verizon got its hands on it before 2007.

AT&T would have spent the money on network improvements anyway because Verizon is winning customers on the network improvement issue. Verizon spends more on capex than AT&T even though Verizon doesn't have the iphone, doesn't face excessive data usage from the iphone....

You would have gotten apps much sooner if Verizon got the iphones --- and you would have paid the same $10 a month getting either VZ Navigator or AT&T Navigator. You might get Google Maps for free right now --- but the GPS pinpointing is close to useless with the current iphone. VZ never had that much complaints on their GPS pinpointing.
post #136 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Compare the amount of integration that Verizon has to go through in recent years with AT&T --- there is a great deal of difference between the two. Compare the Analog/TDMA/GSM/WCDMA transition to the relatively simple Analog/CDMA transition --- another big difference.

The primary reason AT&T still had an analog and TDMA network is because there were paying customers who used those networks. As I told you before AT&T has shut analog/TDMA networks down.

As of February 18th, 2008, AT&T has discontinued service of its TDMA/Analog network

Quote:
I said that all the major mergers that created Verizon occurred when Verizon was formed in 2000 (all but the Alltel merger --- which Verizon has just started their integration recently). I said that all the major mergers that created the current AT&T are much more recent.

What does it matter if the mergers happened in 2000 or 2004? Both companies were still formed from other companies.
post #137 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

AT&T would have spent the money on network improvements anyway because Verizon is winning customers on the network improvement issue. Verizon spends more on capex than AT&T even though Verizon doesn't have the iphone, doesn't face excessive data usage from the iphone....

Yes we all agree, Verizon has done a better job of maintaining and updating its network. Most of us have acknowledged this, its nothing new.

Quote:
You would have gotten apps much sooner if Verizon got the iphones --- and you would have paid the same $10 a month getting either VZ Navigator or AT&T Navigator. You might get Google Maps for free right now --- but the GPS pinpointing is close to useless with the current iphone. VZ never had that much complaints on their GPS pinpointing.

Since it seems you don't use an iPhone, on what basis are you asserting that the iPhone GPS pinpointing is useless?
post #138 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

The primary reason AT&T still had an analog and TDMA network is because there were paying customers who used those networks. As I told you before AT&T has shut analog/TDMA networks down.

As of February 18th, 2008, AT&T has discontinued service of its TDMA/Analog network

What does it matter if the mergers happened in 2000 or 2004? Both companies were still formed from other companies.

I know that they shut down their analog/TDMA network. But you can't just shut them down first without correspondingly overlay it with a brand new GSM network. There is a lot more work involved in AT&T's Analog/TDMA/GSM/WCDMA migrations than Verizon's relatively simple Analog/CDMA migrations.

Of course, it matters --- because AT&T's network integration was still continuing in 2006-2007 while the alleged rumored jerry-rigged was taking place. If AT&T had fully finished their merger related integration in 2006-7, then there would have been no need to jerry-rig the iphone launch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Since it seems you don't use an iPhone, on what basis are you asserting that the iPhone GPS pinpointing is useless?

On the basis that TomTom sells their nav apps to dozens and dozens of other smartphones, the iphone is the only one that they need to include a separate GPS receiver.
post #139 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

I know that they shut down their analog/TDMA network. But you can't just shut them down first without correspondingly overlay it with a brand new GSM network. There is a lot more work involved in AT&T's Analog/TDMA/GSM/WCDMA migrations than Verizon's relatively simple Analog/CDMA migrations.

Its not that simple for Verizon, they are dealing with analog/CDMA/EV-DO/LTE. Verizon may do a better job than AT&T at managing all of these standards but Verizon certainly is not dealing with only two.

Quote:
Of course, it matters --- because AT&T's network integration was still continuing in 2006-2007 while the alleged rumored jerry-rigged was taking place. If AT&T had fully finished their merger related integration in 2006-7, then there would have been no need to jerry-rig the iphone launch.

Exactly what were they jerry-rigging? Do you actually have any details on what they were jerry-rigging?


Quote:
On the basis that TomTom sells their nav apps to dozens and dozens of other smartphones, the iphone is the only one that they need to include a separate GPS receiver.

Complete biased speculation, in other words BS.





TomTom has not made an integrated dashboard cradle for dozens and dozens of other phones. As far as I can see the iPhone is the only phone they've made one for.

I would imagine TomTom's GPS receiver works better than the GPS receiver in any phone.
post #140 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Its not that simple for Verizon, they are dealing with analog/CDMA/EV-DO/LTE. Verizon may do a better job than AT&T at managing all of these standards but Verizon certainly is not dealing with only two.

Exactly what were they jerry-rigging? Do you actually have any details on what they were jerry-rigging?

Everything is RELATIVE, isn't it? Qualcomm made the transitions of cdmaOne to 1x to ev-do rev 0 to ev-do rev A relatively easy.

To all you people that think I am some sort of Verizon fanboi --- here is my take: AT&T ain't doing that bad of a job.

AT&T has to deal with a lot more RECENT mergers, has to deal with RELATIVELY complex network migration issues (comparing with Europe, they didn't even have TDMA) --- somehow AT&T still has the largest iphone data allowance in the whole world (not counting Canadian carrier Rogers' time limited special 6 GB iphone plan) and the third fastest iphone speed in the whole world (wired.com survey).

Somehow while they were delivering all these technical achievements --- AT&T jerry-rigged their database with MMS opt-out codes on individual accounts --- and suddenly AT&T becomes some sort of villain.

http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2009/...l-late-summer/
post #141 of 141
Ok people let's get back to the topic and not get carried away with squabbling and arguing. It does us all no good, right?

Carry on..
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Analyst says iPhone is lifeblood of AT&T success