AT&T activates record 3.2M iPhones, says exclusivity could end - Page 4

Even with widespread HSDPA, GSM is still around. LTE will be here along with HSPDA, GSM, CDMA2000 and CDMA.

2013 seems a little optimistic for the cost, difficulty and coverage that Verizon has to do over the US, but even if they can do it, its only 2009. Apple didnt even put out a HSDPA-capable iPhone when AT&T had 3G in all major cities.

Why put one one out new on Verizon with LTE when they are just testing it? Are there even radios that are small enough and power efficient to fit into the svelte iPhone? Sounds more like a well placed vapourware campaign to stay on Verizon waiting than actual proof that there is one coming shortly.

Maybe it is hard to grasp because RIM has no problem making phones that work with 100% of the market and happens to still be holding off Apple while gaining marketshare (both from Nokia).

Maybe it is hard to grasp because folks like yourself will toss around the smartphone label when noting that Apple doesn't need to sell as many phones as Nokia because they sell more expensive phones with much better margins and better profitability.

Yet people turn this around and note that because all of the people in sub-sahara use GSM, that Apple couldn't possible make a dime off some percentage of high dollar spending Americans in numbers above 140 million with a CDMA phone.

It is ridiculous.

If Verizon is opening 30 markets in 2010, that means phones are ready to be made that have both CDMA and LTE or else why would they build the network. VZ had decided since 2007 that it was gonna switch to LTE. I'll be the first to admit that VZ is sometimes like an evil dictator when it came to phones. That's the one BIG gripe I had about them, but lately it looks like they're softening that stance. They have to in order to stay as the number one carrier in terms of subs. They could easily be over the 100 million mark if they just compromised a lil.

Bravo Trumtman. Well said. Analysts predict that Apple could very easily sell double and in a much shorter time period the iPhones they have already sold if they ended the exclusivity deal with AT&T. Do you not think the shareholders would want to see that?

That is a valid point, but I havent seen much in the way of LTE phones on sites like Engadget cropping up, though CES 2010 will be a better place to show case them for the year. I look forward to the specs of these LTE phones.

People get all saucer eyed when they think of the potential bandwidth that LTE can offer, yet even on the worlds UMTS which can do 42Mbps dn/22Mbps up while still technically 3G, there are no phone radios that can handle that. Still working with HSUPA on some phones. There are some countrys carriers that have Evolved HSPA setup, apparently, but I know of know phones with such radios. I dont see how a Verizon phone will be small enough, and power efficient enough without drastically reducing the potential bandwidth to something that is more inline with HSUPA.

You're right, Apple doesn't know what they're doing. If only they would listen to you, they could be successful.

Did you see this article?
That is pretty unreal for a company that couldn’t possibly gain any ground in the already entrenched cellphone business. That is as much as Apple makes in the PC market in the US, and they did it under two years, with little sale time for the current 3GS and with only two models on the market.

That just means that apple makes more money per phone.

Obviously if they command more revenue for moving less product that means they make more per phone. What this means from a financial standpoint is that Apples iPhone is very successful and can easily move into cheaper devices while still commanding a higher than industry average in profit. RiM moves more product but they also have to BOGO sales and make increasing less profit per device. Their real profits came from BES and the per unit per year licensing. That is changing in this new era. Marketshare means squat without the profits to make it worthwhile.

I agree with all that you say here. I am on my third 3G, due to one failure, and the second one failing to hold much of a charge after a whole four months of service. And, it seems every time there is a new firmware release, Safari crashes more, and battery life goes down even more.

I'm paying for 3G, and finding it in darn few places. Or, it shifts from 3G to Edge like a motorist going through the gears at rush hour.

AT&T's service in Nashville is anywhere from abysmal to fairly decent. It was only on a recent trip to Richmond VA that I learned AT&T actually had reliable coverage someplace. Most other places the coverage is poor to fair.

The concept of the iPhone is great; I enjoy using the features and find the phone's ergonomics quite good. But, give me better battery life, and give me FAR better and more reliable service.

My contract with AT&T is up next July. At that time, I will cease being an AT&T customer. I will seek out a phone with battery life offered by a service with decent coverage.

So good for you that you have no Apple fever! We all are just lost and damned to it for ever. Once you go mac you never go back...

Actually, I am the only one here that supports that theory.

All the other people are either saying that it would cost massive amount of money to design it or massive amount of money to manufacture it.

But if people just look at the raw numbers --- it doesn't cost a lot of money to design a CDMA iphone and it doesn't cost a lot of money to manufacture a separate model (Apple already does it for the wifi-less chinese iphone for instance).

Even with increased licensing costs (which i know we disagree on) Apple would make a killing by having a CDMA iPhone. CDMA may be hitting a dead-end, technologically, but its be the default standard for many carriers for many years to come. At least we can agree on that.

PS: Im starting to question whether Apple will go to another carrier, not that think it will be Verizon, but AT&Ts CEO has stated too many times now that they wont have iPhone exclusivity forever. That just seems odd to say at all. I wonder if Apple would like to keep it simple, but AT&Ts network simply cant handle the load. I dont think Verizons network could either with the amount of data iPhones use each month in comparison to other devices, but I dont see how they can possibly build the complex networks fast enough to deal with the demand. Their network will get to its saturation point, if it hasnt already in places.

Are they? Don't feel like going back through a lot of posts, but my impression certainly isn't that everybody but you is claiming that Apple wouldn't make a phone for Verizon because it would cost "a massive amount of money." I think you're indulging in a bit of a straw man, here.

My impression is that the arguments are various, but generally center on two things: Verizon has shown itself to be inimical to the kinds of concessions that Apple is sure to demand, and that it's really not in Apples best interests to go to the trouble to build a specific phone for the fraction of a fraction that Verizon's US CDMA business represents, particularly when it is set to expire over the next few years.

On that latter point, it's really about spending any money, rather than any large amount of money.

I dont think we have info on this Chinese iPhone yet. No WiFi HW or just no WiFi drivers and SW in OS? Is it going to look like the 3G or 3GS or be something complete new?

Well, if Apple goes CDMA, then Qualcomm sues you for licensing fee. If Apple goes GSM, then Nokia sues you for licensing fee.


Verizon already stated publicly that they didn't agree to revenue sharing (gone), full priced iphone without subsidy (gone), tech support/warranty issues (gone, other international carriers do iphone tech support and warranty), restricted distribution (partially gone, it's not just apple store and at&t corp stores anymore).

You might as well say that Apple shouldn't have designed the original 2G iphone that sold in only 6 countries and that it only sold 5-6 million units --- because we all know that a Verizon iphone would sell more than that.

You have to spend money to make money. As I said it repeatedly, Apple enjoys something like 50% gross profit margin on the iphone. Spending that little extra bit of money will not dent their profit margin much.

Nokia is simply suing, and one report has it at a measly $200M. Who is to say if they will win. Apple would have to pay the additional per unit fees for each CDMA iPhone. I believe its the reason WCDMA and TD-CDMA were created.


Profit sahring is gone, unfortunately for us consumers, but the price of the iPhone wasnt the full price when profit sharing was in place, it was just an additional price the consumer didnt have to pay directly, or at all, if they didnt sign up with AT&T. It was Apple that asked AT&T to stop profit sharing. AT&T reportedly got an extra year of exclusivity out of the deal for cutting it.


Its not gone in the US, and with Apple being so prominent here, this being there largest market and having many stores I can all but guarantee that Apple would still have the same stance on warranty, call center and repair issues.


Youre right, but that just adds to the logistical issue Ive mentioned. You go to a Best Buy phone center and ask to get an iPhone, but all they have is the iPhone for the carrier you dont really want. Does the customer know the pros and cons of each carrier and each network type? Is Best Buy or Apple pushing for a certain carrier that makes them more money per device, hence the artificial herding? Do they really want to carry two models in each capacity?


Its more like 40%. Still high, though I think RiM was higher prior to the iPhones arrival.

You have to spend money to make money.

Apple migrated away from profit sharing because they couldn't get any other carriers (aside from the original 4 carriers who sold the 2G iphone) to agree on profit sharing.

Sure, there are 100 Apple stores in the US, but there are 1000 AT&T corporate stores. And Verizon is right on that issue --- consumers are better off to have the option of travelling minutes away from their homes to get iphone tech support than to travel for hours to get to an Apple store.

The issue is even worse right now for artificial herding --- because if you go to an AT&T agent store and ask for the iphone, they will diss the iphone and try to sell you a blackberry (because AT&T agent stores can't sell the iphone).

What's not off the table is Verizon's insistence on their phones defaulting to their own app store. That alone is a deal breaker, and we're really not privy to whatever other conditions Verizon may be insisting on.


Except that the original roll-out was part of a long term plan which was always predicated on selling the same phone in many more markets. Which has no bearing on selling a CDMA phone to Verizon, which has built in limitations for future growth.


The simple rebuttal to this line of thinking is "but Apple hasn't done that." Unless you want to argue that Apple is insane/perverse/stupid (and their recent performance seems to suggest otherwise), or that you are simply better qualified to make business decisions for Apple than they are, we're going to have to assume they have their reasons, and that they extend beyond some kind of uncharacteristic cluelessness.

If Verizon really wanted the iPhoneeven though the iDont ad seems to spit in Apples faceI think they would be willing to forego their app store on the iPhone as default, or at all. The App Store is just too entrenched and too big to be ignored. The other vendors really dont have anything else. Android is the closest thing and its still woefully behind, and inferior, though part of that is the SDK, OS, UI and how the apps can interact with the HW.


This goes to making the MBA, not including Blu-ray drives or OS support, not licensing and supporting Mac OS X for every x86 machine on the market, not including HDMI in their Macs, making there Macs thinner which limits the performance options and adds costs, using more expensive materials when a cheap plastic case is adequate, and not making the mythical xMac and other Macs that suit individual and niche interests. Did I miss anything out?

PS: We may not agree with Samabs stance here but at least we can have a civil conversation with him about it. I wish the board was like this more often.

Yeah, it's a shame the signal to noise ratio has plummeted as of late-- seems to coincide with an influx of iPhone owners who nevertheless think Apple and its users suck, and feel a need to tell everybody about it.

Honestly, you could take almost any thread on AI and edit all the obvious trolls, "fanboy" accusations, and tired old strawmen about Apple's crimes and the attitudes of its customer base, and you magically have a much, much more pleasant forum.

Doesn't require fealty to Apple, doesn't require never criticizing Apple, doesn't require not being pissed off at Apple or thinking they're doing it wrong. Just get rid of the nasty stuff that proceeds from the assumption that anyone who likes Apple's hardware is a dupe or a moron.

Way back when, when we had far fewer blatantly anti-Apple members, we were no less fractious or skeptical of some of Apple's moves. We just didn't exude smug contempt for having the poor taste to, you know, be an Apple customer, on an Apple website.

Let’s not forget that it was MS’ $150M loan to Apple they kept them from closing up shop a decade ago.

Okay for yourself and several others. It is indeed time to talk off the fanboy goggles and please give back the 2006 Verizon talking points.

This is from boygeniusreport.com

I just want to add that this is a Google Experience phone, and my line about Verizon and GPS was a joke. Verizon hasnt and wont touch or control any functionality on the Droid. GPS is 100% open, theres Wi-Fi, Android Market, etc.

Some of you are right that back when I had my V3m Razr from Verizon, the first year that it was out, the locked out the ability to tranfer files to it via Bluetooth. It was frustrating, annoying and pissed a ton of people off. This is why a year into owning that phone, they released a firmware upgrade that opened up bluetooth file transfer. Every phone myself or any of my friends have owned since then have no trouble transferring via bluetooth and this has been true for three years.

Verizon also began releasing new firmwares that reenabled GPS on some smartphones in which it had been disabled.

Verizon has gone from asking vendors to take Wifi out to requiring them to put it in with regard to smartphones.

Finally as noted above, Google got Verizon to agree to Google Experience as the default state on the phone with Verizon concerns as secondary or non-default.

This doesn't mean I want Google or Verizon or anything like that to "win." I just hate when people turn off their brains and repeat points that perhaps were once true but no longer are and haven't been for several years.

Apple is doing a great job and the iPhone is both the standard and a joy to use but in some ways it is starting to feel very much like 1995 and Android is starting to remind me a little too much of Win 95. The same concerns are even cycling around again for example multitasking. Back then it was desktop computer and now it is phones. For now Apple has the mindshare and even the network effect factors working in their favor but that is no guarantee.

Apple is still only 2-3% of the entire world cell market. They still are well behind Nokia and RIM with regard to marketshare. This is early in the game and things could change quickly. Declaring Apple doesn't have to change because you think the competition won't is encouraging Apple to fail.

1) Was this really Googles doing or Motorola who make the Droid and who get the OS for free, since its open source.

2) Obviously some things have changed with Verizon. Are they not requiring the Verizon Store as defaultor at allsince the Android App Store has a couple thousand of apps?

3) Apple having 2-3$ of the worlds cellphone market is huge for a smartphone, especially one so expensive. It reportedly took 32% of all phone revenue last quarter. With just over 2 years since release that seems pretty phenomenal.

4) It is early in the game and I see Apple surpassing RiM even though RiMs unit sales and marketshare will also grow, but we really should look at the profitability of the devices to see which are actually successful in the space.

5) I predict that Android will be the most popular phone OS. Besides people in general moving to internet-capable phones, Android is free, has a decent SDK, UI and App Store. Like the Mac, its not for everyone. The phone OS that can work on multiple hardware platforms is bound to be the dominate one, but that doesnt mean it will be the most profitable.

6) Anyone notice the Droid was licensed from Lucas. This should means a whole line of Droid phones from Verizon.

Yep, Gizmodo or somebody had a report that Verizon will be using "Droid" as the branding for a line of Android phones.

One problem for Android going forward (and which was predicted by a lot of folks) is handset fragmentation. When you're trying to get developers to get behind your platform, it's a tougher sell if they have to figure out which of multiple configurations they're going to be writing for.

Hell yeah it is. This, like the Mac platform, is one reason why Apple will continue to succeed in the premium end of the market but you know this.

Ive even read articles about issues with the openness of Android. Since you can run background apps you have code for the potential that another app could be snagging your resources in an unfriendly way. While I think that Apple will be allowing 3rd-party apps to run in the background for v4.0, starting with the 3GS and onwards, I think they will regulate how many can run and how much resources they can grab while running in the background.

PS: I wonder if Android will plan a Push Notification Server. I know Palm said were going to develop one for WebOS, but seeing how much time it took Apple to make it and Palms reluctance to even make an syncing app for the Pre, I have to think they have scratched that idea.

It wasn't a loan, it was part of a settlement that Microsoft entered into to avoid having penalties dictated to them by a judge. As is well documented, Microsoft stole QuickTime code for use in Windows and got busted when Windows shipped with unauthorized Apple code.

But you knew that. (This is for those who don't and might believe you.)

Yet they need to be so to present some appeal to Apple.

Verizon is co-existing with RIM and Google app stores. If Apple doesn't like it, then it's Apple's problem, not Verizon's.

What limitations to future growth? A extra $5 million to design a CDMA iphone and maybe a handful of percentage of profit margins.

I never said that Apple is insane or stupid to refuse to create a CDMA iphone. I said that it's not that hard or that expensive to make a CDMA iphone. Of course, Apple likes a 50% profit margin more than a 45% profit margin.

Actually I would say it is Verizon's problem, in that the iPhone would do them a lot more good than partnering with Verizon would do Apple. At any rate, RIM and Google's app stores are pretty meager and have little mass recognition; augmenting them with a carrier store doesn't really change much. Apple, on the other hand, is obviously the 800 lb gorilla in this arena. Being obliged to channel any of their operation through a carrier would be ludicrous. Who does that benefit, other than Verizon?


The limitation on the number of CDMA phones that can be sold via Verizon now and in the near future, compared to the vast opportunities presented by a global GSM phone.


But if it's not that hard, and only involves a few percentage points off Apple's margins, and would mean lots of extra money, then what could Apple's motivations be, outside of incompetence, perversity or madness?

You're saying that Apple is forgoing a great deal of revenue for no earthly reason. I'm saying that seems unlikely, so there must be more to it than meets the eye. You might consider what the terms of Apple's exclusive deal with AT&T might be, for instance.

Even if Apple added CDMA to the iPhone (and that's a big "if"), Verizon would have to move to EVDO B to be able to support simultaneous cell phone calls and data connectivity. They don't have that that now. That big red "there's a map for that" map they show on TV is all the EVDO A towers they got from buying out Alltel, but EVDO A kills the 3G data connection when the phone rings.

Rather than try to fix the old technology this year (which would mean updating all of those EVDO A towers to EVDO B), Verizon is rolling out their 4G LTE infrastructure next year. And that's where the iPhone could start to be available on Verizon.

But there is no way that Teh Steve is going to modify the existing iPhone and drive up manufacturing costs just to support Verizon's old, soon-to-be-abandoned. US-only 3G technology. Not when there is a future-proofed direction that will be able to meet the new LTE 4G standard that will be going worldwide anyway.

1)I suspect it was the doing of both Verizon and Google. Google clearly has some requirements to get the "Google Experience" brand but likewise Verizon has really opened up to realizing that people want internet everywhere and bundling. They are now offering cell service bundled with their FIOS service. They are allowing WIFI on the phones because they know people will give them more money per month and the majority won't fully utilize all of what they have purchased.

2) I've heard of both. I read that on BB devices both stores are loaded but then again, RIM requires BIS service with part of that money clear not going to Verizon so it seems fair Verizon would make that demand in return. I can tell you that lately Verizon has been pushing apps out to smartphones like Last.fm as an example. I would suspect that even if their apps don't start off on the phone, they will reserve the right to push them out to the phone.

3) Apple has done a great job but past success doesn't guarantee future success. It is also clear that some of the folks lining up this time are the contenders rather than the pretenders.

4) RIM is very curious to me. I see the BOGO offers as much more than just something that expands marketshare. It clearly does so at the cost of present profits but it also helps get rid of legacy issues and costs more quickly. Look at the release of the Storm 2 while simultaneously releasing the exact same software for the original Storm. To me it feels like they totally understood the legacy software issues that could hold them back and the clear inferiority of their own software solutions due to these legacy issues and also due to coming more from the business/email side. So they are quickly handing out the 5.0 platform to whatever will run it, even at the cost of present phone sales, and if your hardware won't run it, they'll practically give you the new phone to run it with the offers (BOGO) while possibly sucking in a new friend or family member. They didn't get clean slate Google did but it feels like they are doing the best they can with what they have.

5) I think we are very early in this game. I think people are thinking this is a settled matter when it feels to me much like Windows 3.1 versus OS/2 versus Mac. In those days Apple was riding high due to the inability of anyone else to not only match the Mac OS, but to even create a good enough solution. Suddenly Win95 was good enough graphically and on a few points (multitasking) was better and Apple was quickly falling into the toilet going from huge profits and sales to massive losses.

6) I suspect you are right. Verizon has really helped their phone makers in this regard. My wife could care less about electronics but knows she likes EnV-stuff. If Verizon offers her an EnV3, EnV-Touch, EnV-Chocolate, etc... she will automatically be interested due to branding.


What you are describing above is the classic mistake Apple made early in the Mac development. No cloning, total control, high margins until something was good enough at a third of the cost and no means to quickly adapt to that. Apple isn't quite so bad off here but the point is they can't stand still and turn down easy money.


Apple is forgoing a great deal revenue for no earthly reason. I'll say it. Analysts have said it as well. There isn't more to it than meets the eye. Apple is secretive and has no reason to discuss anything until the AT&T agreement is done or extended. Everything until then is up for negotiation. You ask what could be the motivation for not doing this and I say Apple has a historic blind spot with regard to believing that good enough technology can suddenly overtake great technology. The only time they have successfully managed to avoid this blindspot was the iPod. They relentlessly drove down the price, improved the product and created several price points and models that differentiated their offerings. Because of this the iPod became the more than just a temporary thing, but the generic term for the category and the absolute market leader. Ask yourself if we see this happening with the iPhone and the answer is no. There have been dozens of threads asking when is Apple basically going to expand the iPhone BRAND instead of just offering a slightly better iPhone.

At this stage on the iPod, Apple was offering the Mini and the 4G classic (yes two and a half years in they were on their fourth model already) By a little after the beginning of the third year, they were offering the Shuffle and had discontinued the iPod photo. We see absolutely nothing like this happening with the iPhone. We can believe this is because of the exclusivity agreement and will change or we can ponder if Apple has returned to the mean of past behavior.


Apple puts up with carrier limitations now and people accept the limitations when the phone is capable but the network is not. No one stopped buying the iPhone when it could do MMS but AT&T could not offer it. Most have not stopped buying the iPhone because it can offer tethering but AT&T cannot. Apple can release the CDMA variant that can do data/voice and perhaps even is ready for LTE and let Verizon take the heat for what is offered or not offered. This is why Apple's rep has gone up and AT&T's down with the iPhone.

All of you are assuming that if or when the exclusivity deal end that Apple has to go with another carrier and that's just not true. I remember when cell phone contracts were only for a year and when it expired I wasn't forced to re-up unless I wanted a new phone. So why does Apple have to provide a phone for anyone else? They may just go unlocked, and yes there are plenty of people willing to pay $700 for a phone, just look at all the websites that sell unlocked phones.

and another thing, doesn't Apple make a new phone on a yearly basis?, and isn't it changed from the previous version every year? Even if CDMA is a dying technology it will be around for at least another few years and there will be a few new iPhones in between, correct? So a CDMA could be easily be thrown in there somewhere

You're already paying back the subsidy in your monthly voice and data rates. An unlocked $700 phone would still cost the same monthly rate as people with subsidized phones are paying. Where's the upside?

In the US, you are restricted the AT&T 3G network because T-Mobile's 3G operates on incompatible frequencies. Once the LTE 4G transition starts, you'll have a lot more options for things like unlocked phones or carrier non-exclusivity. That's at least a year or two away.

Verizon isnt slated to complete LTE until 2013, and even that seems overly optimistic. After it does reach the same coverage as their current CDMA network, CDMA will reign supreme in many areas. Id say CDMA has well over a decade left of per unit usage dominance for Verizon.

Speaking of subsidies, AT&T makes double on many iPhones. My friend tried activating a used iPhone and AT&T wanted him to sign a two yr contract. Why? He had the device already, why hold him for two yrs?

Officially the only way to buy the iPhone in the US is through AT&T or Apple at a subsidized price. I dont your friends experience is uncommon, but I know its possible to get it without the contract.

Like John.B stated, you end up paying more than people buying subsidized iPhones because your data plan rate doesnt change and you still stuck using it on AT&T. The cheaper method would have been to buy the subsidized iPhone and then unlock it if you need to use it in other countries. The cancelation fee for any AT&T contract is $175 minus $5 per month of use. That plus the cost of the subsidized device make it cheaper than the software unlocked devices being sold online, last time I checked.

The only way that your friends situation is in any way easier is if its factory unlocked, so he doesnt have to worry about software updates re-locking the device. Outside of that, I see no other viable reason for going that route.

But even its factory unlocked he still has to activate the phone with AT&T and they will still want him to sign a two yr contract

They all charge that cancellation fee to recover the cost of the phone. There's one really good thing I can about VZW is that the cancellation fee gets lower the longer you go into the contract.

1) As I stated, since the iPhone only sold subsidized any store you go in will try to get you into a 2 year contract, but you can get on a month-to-month plan.

2) The cost to recover the subsidy is less than the retail value of the phone, which makes buying one on eBay a financially unsound option, and only useful for what I mentioned earlier.

3) As I stated, AT&T lower the cost of the cancelation fee, too. This is not just a Verizon thing.