or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Verizon, Apple quarreled over iPhone retail options, digital content
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Verizon, Apple quarreled over iPhone retail options, digital content - Page 5

post #161 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacificfilm View Post

@moderator...everyone has option to say what they want but it would be good to follow up on your comment about sarcasm...this person seems to thrive on being odd/different but also takes up a lot of time and space. i'm working and a student and like to catch up on things "inside apple" but these kind of posts are more like rants.
. . . .
So many posts, so much sad anger, and sadly, I have so little time to read what I hope is insightful info.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

No, I think we would be talking about the "rumour" were you here, or not. Its a fan site. For people interested in a company, and their products. Android forums are for people interested in googles mobile OS.

Its not really going to give you any hints on how to invest, by the time something is reported here it is old news to investors.

we're here for the discussion.

A discussion about one of the biggest good-news stories in business history, and this guy has the job of obstructing and derailing the discussion in whatever perverse way he can think of.

He can't be doing this for conventional trollish reasons. Nothing in the annals of abnormal psychology could account for the amount of derision, scorn, humiliation that he invites upon himself. He is being paid to do this, clearly. He must not ever be taken seriously, as if he is playing with a full deck.

He mentions today that he has been following the forum for years. Who was he, before he became the creature from the Black lagoon in June 2010?

A couple of months ago he invited us over to his place see how badly his wife's iPhone works on AT&T. Today he's pretending his iPhone works okay. I think he forgets details because he's mostly making it all up.

But I wish someone had taken him up on his invitation . . .
post #162 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

You know what Apple's problem is? They can't partner with anyone because their CEO has delusions of Godhood.

You know what, in the case of the iPhone, I'm actually glad that Jobs is a control freak. Look at Android on Verizon. You have bing forced on it, eFuse on some Moto phones, and all carrier junk installed. Apple is pretty much the only company that has a complete control over the OS of their phone (iOS). All other manufactures are at the mercy of the carriers.
post #163 of 222
It's a known fact that carriers make far, far more money off of the monthly plans than they do on selling the handsets. The money they make off of handset sales is a pittance in comparison.

AT&T has a limited role when it comes to the iPhone, but it still charges just as much money for iPhone data plans as it does for every other smartphone's data plan. It's not like AT&T is reducing the price of the data plan. Also, if I recall correctly, Apple ran all of the TV advertisements for the iPhone. AT&T didn't run any. AT&T spent pennies on the dollar for iPhone advertisements. So basically, AT&T charged the same amount of money in monthly fees despite not having to spend a dime on iPhone advertisements.

I see Verizon running all those Droid advertisements. If they got the iPhone with the same arrangement that Apple has with AT&T, then they would be able to charge the same amount of money but not have to spend any money on advertisements. There must be tons of people clamoring for an iPhone on Verizon. The only thing is that Verizon would have to accept a lesser role.

In a way, comparing the Android model and the iOS iPhone model is meaningless. The point is that none of the Android phone manufacturers have as well-established of a distribution as Apple does. Most of them, like HTC and Motorola, sell their phones in wholesale to retailers, who in turn sell them to individual customers. That's not how Apple operates. Apple has a well-established distribution system for selling products to individual customers. In fact, direct sales, i.e. products sold in Apple stores, account for a larger percentage of total sales than those of retailers like Best Buy and others.

Google tried to sell the Nexus One directly to individual customers, but it's something that they have never done before. The points is that most Android manufacturers simply have no choice but to rely on carriers to sell to individual customers.
post #164 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Right... All apps on the App Store never crash at all...

All Apps have crashed in my 3G including the phone app & even rebooted the phone
post #165 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

How can you say that? I bought an iMac, a MacBook Pro, three generations of iPhone, a dozen iPods over the years and I'm a snappy dresser.

I prefer to be judged by the company I keep. And that's YOU my friend.

Please remember I am the spiritual leader of the Apple Insider forum.

Lol, hey I enjoy your posts, may not agree, but always funny. So we can argue all day long or days as the case my be, about the choice to or not to partner with Verizon. My opinion is it was a mix of two things, when Jobs was ready to launch the iPhone he wanted control over the user experience. He wasn't going to get that from Verizon. So he signed on with ATT, with the added benefit of the ability to build one GSM model that would work across 95% of the worlds mobile networks. Now fast forward to today, hard to argue he didn't make the right choice. So now Apple has the leverage to push Verizon to do what they want mostly. Do you do it...not sure, you have to add additional assembly line space to build CDMA versions of the phone mainly for the US.

I don't work in manufacturing so I don't know how much extra that would cost. To me it would seem to make sense to add T-Mobile to the fold, and wait for LTE. If anything Apple has never seemed worried about having the largest market share. Build a really good device that the users love and call it a day. I'm ok with that model.
post #166 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvswarup View Post

I see Verizon running all those Droid advertisements. If they got the iPhone with the same arrangement that Apple has with AT&T, then they would be able to charge the same amount of money but not have to spend any money on advertisements. There must be tons of people clamoring for an iPhone on Verizon. The only thing is that Verizon would have to accept a lesser role.

Yes, Verizon spent $100 million on the original Droid ad campaign --- but it is a lot cheaper than subsidizing the iphone.
post #167 of 222
You don't want V-cast on your iPhone... V-cast is not an app, it is a DRM laden user and device control system for media and other content that locks you into a single source of overpriced, limited selection, poor quality media distribution. You think Apple is control freakish and restrictive? Just try V-cast.

With Apple you can choose any source for content (in the proper mpeg format) and sync your media to an iPhone from your computer. Not to mention YouTube, Netflix, and lots of other media apps available in the app store. With Verizon, they don't want to let you do that, they want you to get all media from V-cast and only V-cast.

I can see a deal where Apple & Verizon could meet in the middle by having Verizon provide V-cast as an app in the app-store like any other app. That way it could be installed and used by those who want it, and deleted by those who don't.
post #168 of 222
<This message is hidden because Blackintosh is on your ignore list.>

this is the message you should see when you scan the ai blog.

anything else means that you are encouraging this creep and generating hits for him.
post #169 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post

Well, those "delusions" of Godhood/grandeur has made him the most admired CEO in the world, who has taken one company that people were saying should be liquidated, and made it one of the largest in the world.

Have you ever thought that, maybe, just maybe, this guy knows what the f*** he is doing? And you, random internet commenter, who thinks he knows better than that guy, might be the one with the actual delusions?


I don't see why you guys are feeding this guy.
post #170 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

I didn't say Apple was a blunder, I said this is a typical Apple blunder, one of the blunders that Apple sometimes goes through. And to answer your questions, yes Apple did go through its fair share of blunders.

First of all, you are suggesting that Apple commits as many blunders as everyone else. Yet the only evidence you present is a baseless conjecture that never occurred.

If anybody has made a blunder, it was you and you seem to have more than your fair share of them!
post #171 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I can't recall those programs when I bought two iMacs in 2008 for my daughter and my wife. What were the names of them?

The game was "Nanosaur" . "Eric's Solitare Sampler" also came on the disk. They could be described as "so 20th century". They were not installed by default with System 8.5, but were included on the iMac Software install disk (the disk which came with the multi-colored iMacs and possibly with the bondi blue iMac). This dates back to 1998 when men were men and mice had balls and resembled hockey pucks. "...a couple years ago..." as posted by Caliminius is a bit off. I'm still making my way through the posts and have not read beyond the post which I am replying to, so if someone has already supplied this information, my apologies!
post #172 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Yes, Verizon spent $100 million on the original Droid ad campaign --- but it is a lot cheaper than subsidizing the iphone.

You do realize Verizon subsidizes the Droids, right? Or do you really think the manufacturers are only getting $200 for each?

Additionally, you also do realize the subsidy is probably a lot higher than what ATT pays for the iPhone because Verizon also gives 2 devices for the price of one.

The only reason ATT hasn't done that to increase the number of data plan customers is because Apple does not allow them to.
post #173 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I wonder how difficult it will be to jailbreak a CDMA iPhone. Wouldn't it be just ironic if Apple made the phone and gave it to Sprint, assuming that Sprint would comply with all of Apples restrictions just like AT&T. Then the jailbreakers can try to get it running on Verizon. Good luck without a removable SIM.

I'm no expert, but my understanding is that Sprint's and Verizon's networks are not compatible.
post #174 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

Agreed, but is that Apple's job? Should Apple deny itself substantial profit just to teach Verizon a lesson?

Look, Apple and ATT have a year left on their contract. Until that contract runs out, NO ONE is getting the iPhone! It IS Apple's job to ensure the customers experience with it's products are engaging and consistent. If that means "playing GOD", as you like to put it, then so be it.

If Verizon (or anyone else) wants the best phone on the market on their network, they will have to allow Apple to continue to run the show as they have. If you haven't noticed, it has worked out well! Apple will NOT sacrifice usability just to get the phone on a network. I bet many networks will bend over backwards to accommodate Apple solely based on the performance of the iPhone so far. Apple is doing quite well so far WITHOUT having to compromise anything. The company is flourishing and NOT hurting for cash. There IS such a thing as having principles (which I gather you have NONE).

You claim to be an Apple fan, but ALL of your posts reflect the total opposite. Your negativity toward Apple is in EVERY post you make. You come here just to bash, act like you're god's gift to man, and offer nothing but rants and one-sided "it's what I want" views. You are truly pathetic and, obviously, have ZERO life.
post #175 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

The whole concept of being an Apple fanboy is beyond my comprehension,

Perhaps someone could explain it to me one day.

In case you missed it from earlier:

To those who use "fanboy" on this site as some kind of epithet:

This is a site that caters to those with a sincere interest and enthusiasm for all things Apple. We are Apple fans, if you will.

The world is filled with fans of this or that. I am also a fan of the University of Southern California football team. I have a season ticket. I wear articles of clothing with their colors and logos. I cheer them on and read articles about the team and games. Do I think they are perfect? No. As a matter of fact they kind of suck this year. Can I say that as a fan? I just did. Do I think the teams we compete against should be vilified? Only during the heat of a game. I really do understand that those other guys are human beings just like me, and I even cheer for them if they end up in a bowl game.

So tell me again why being a fan of Apple is something so reprehensible that should call non-fans to this forum to drop hate bombs? Do I waste my time going to Android-centric or Windows-centric sites to piss in their pool? No. And I wonder at those who do. What kind of pettiness and social immaturity possesses someone do want to do that?

If those who come here to name-call really have the courage of their convictions (hating fans), let them go to the end zone grandstands of the Green Bay Packers or Oakland Raiders, and call out and insult those fans with the funny costumes right to their faces. I'd pay to watch a YouTube video of the results.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #176 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by iBill View Post

I'm no expert, but my understanding is that Sprint's and Verizon's networks are not compatible.

Technically, they are, but you have to have Verizon willingly activate your Sprint phone on their network, and so far I don't see Verizon willing to do it.
post #177 of 222
Im gonna take a gander that most of the people that think Apple would cave to Verizon and believe Apple needs Verizon more than Verizon needs Apple are switchers (newbies to Apple and the way Apple is and has been ever since the days they were founded in a garage tinkering with electronics....

Don't throw shoes - I'm just reckoning that'd be the case.

post #178 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

So let Verizon sell their V Cast stuff on the iPhone. What's the big deal? Apple bent and put Netflix on the Apple TV.

You know what Apple's problem is? They can't partner with anyone because their CEO has delusions of Godhood.

What a coward. The man has resurrected the most successful rebound in US Corporate history and this joke of a profile can't take it.
post #179 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

What a coward. The man has resurrected the most successful rebound in US Corporate history and this joke of a profile can't take it.

Great point! Remember when Apple allowed others to make Mac clones? A total FAILED partnership. Apple chooses partnerships carefully. Blackintosh would run Apple into the ground if he were in charge.
post #180 of 222
At this stage, potential Verizon iPhone sales are not that critical to Apple. The phone is being sold all over the world and they are in short supply. They have people from China buying phones in the US, Canada, UK and shipping to China. Other parts of the world have the same problem.

Why bother making iPhones in another radio standard (CDMA) that is going to be phased out anyway? Worst would be setting a precedent to break the iTunes control of content... then everybody will demand the same or more. The economies of scale are with the increasing the supply of the UMTS/3G iPhone... and yes, make the white phone too.

It makes sense why Apple went with ATT in the first place. They use UMTS/3G/GSM that is being used all over the world. Allows for economies of scale in manufacturing and distribution. Roaming is possible, but not economic... but that can change too. UMTS also allows for simultaneous use of voice and data. I have not had too many issues with the ATT service.
post #181 of 222
you want your iphone to start looking like android?
I can't see apple giving up total control over hardware/software to appease a carrier.


http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/...oid-phones.ars
post #182 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post

You do realize Verizon subsidizes the Droids, right? Or do you really think the manufacturers are only getting $200 for each?

Additionally, you also do realize the subsidy is probably a lot higher than what ATT pays for the iPhone because Verizon also gives 2 devices for the price of one.

The only reason ATT hasn't done that to increase the number of data plan customers is because Apple does not allow them to.

AT&T had to file a SEC profit margin warning because of iphone subsidy, Verizon never had to do that with Blackberry BOGO's and Droids. It is the definite proof that Verizon's handset subsidy is less than AT&T.
post #183 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

AT&T had to file a SEC profit margin warning because of iphone subsidy, Verizon never had to do that with Blackberry BOGO's and Droids. It is the definite proof that Verizon's handset subsidy is less than AT&T.

That may true, but your evidence doesnt support your hypothesis. You failed to adjust the number for profit sharing switching to subsidization which Verizons profits never had to adjust for.
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 #184 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by AjitMD View Post

It makes sense why Apple went with ATT in the first place. They use UMTS/3G/GSM that is being used all over the world. Allows for economies of scale in manufacturing and distribution. Roaming is possible, but not economic... but that can change too. UMTS also allows for simultaneous use of voice and data. I have not had too many issues with the ATT service.

I completely disagree.

Apple signing with AT&T --- led them to a FAILED experiment of full priced $600 simlocked iphone with a 2 year contract with carrier revenue sharing. It took FOREVER to expand internationally because no carrier except the original 4 carriers took the revenue sharing.

If Apple signed with Verizon originally, Apple could have sold the iphones in 70 countries in 2007.
post #185 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

That may true, but your evidence doesnt support your hypothesis. You failed to adjust the number for profit sharing switching to subsidization which Verizons profits never had to adjust for.

It doesn't matter --- because Verizon Wireless has a much higher profit margin than AT&T Wireless. It's all in the SEC filings.
post #186 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

S... Why is letting Verizon make some money on the iPhone idiotic? Apple let ATT make a bag of cash by making them exclusive partners. Was that fair business??
...

Wake up and smell the coffee! Apple made the exclusive deal with AT&T because Jobs wanted to change the terms of the deal in the US cellphone market. Before the iPhone not only was the technology crap (more specifically the UX), the whole show was dominated by the carriers rather than handset makers, developers, and users. Carriers, especially Verizon, decided what crap they put on your handset, what could not be deleted, ridiculous charges for 'services' which were actually apps, etc.

Verizon had to be left out to hang in the breeze in order to encourage them to change their business practices so the US market wouldn't always remain the worst for users. We will probably learn if that mission was accomplished early in 2011.
post #187 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdbryan View Post

Wake up and smell the coffee! Apple made the exclusive deal with AT&T because Jobs wanted to change the terms of the deal in the US cellphone market. Before the iPhone not only was the technology crap (more specifically the UX), the whole show was dominated by the carriers rather than handset makers, developers, and users. Carriers, especially Verizon, decided what crap they put on your handset, what could not be deleted, ridiculous charges for 'services' which were actually apps, etc.

Verizon had to be left out to hang in the breeze in order to encourage them to change their business practices so the US market wouldn't always remain the worst for users. We will probably learn if that mission was accomplished early in 2011.

Whether you are stuck in the Verizon walled garden or the Apple walled garden --- it's still a walled garden. A golden cage is still a cage. I don't see a single difference between buying a $3 a day Verizon Navigator on GIN and a $3 a day AT&T Navigator on iphone itunes app store.

The worldwide launch of the iphone has proven definitively that the grass in NOT greener on the other side of the pond. Many Europeans woke up from their delusions when they got stuck with simlocked iphones, with a 2 year contract, with tiny 250 MB data allowance and without pro-rated ETF.
post #188 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

Umm, their network is not everywhere. How are you going to rule the world like that?

Leave off the "umm" next time will you?

Perhaps not everywhere, but GSM covers more of the globe than BetaMax... I err mean CDMA.

A CDMA iphone means either 2 product lines, or a phone that costs more in the rest of the world where CDMA either never happened, or admitted defeat, longer development time and more possible problems. Americans can choose a GSM network, most of the world can't choose a CDMA one.

If the phone is good enough, a gsm phone can still be bought by folk that are traditionally Verizon customers (they switch). It doesn't matter how good your CDMA phone is, it won't sell in most of europe.
post #189 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

AT&T had to file a SEC profit margin warning because of iphone subsidy, Verizon never had to do that with Blackberry BOGO's and Droids. It is the definite proof that Verizon's handset subsidy is less than AT&T.

That basically is just an indication of how popular the iPhone was compared to the rest of the crap (also, Verizon is a lot bigger than ATT outside of mobile).

To explain, ATT pays Apple the unsubsidized iPhone amount upfront. So if you buy an iPhone in June for $200, ATT pays Apple $600 (or whatever) in June itself. In June, ATT makes a loss of $400 on that iPhone. However, you are bound by a contract to stick with ATT for the next 24 months. That means you pay about $60/mo to them for those 24 months + $30/mo for Data. Over those 24 months, you will shell out ~$2160 to ATT for the iPhone. After a period of 24 months, they end up making a profit (well, not really, its much less, but for illustration) of 2160-400.

So the quarter that the iPhone first started selling in millions, ATT had all these losses they were taking, but the income was spread over a period of 2 years. Hence, the profit warning.

ATT does not need to do this anymore, because there is enough of an existing iPhone subscriber base who are paying the $90/mo that the upfront costs for the new iPhone buyers isn't as significant.

IOW, the main reason Verizon didn't have to issue a profit warning was because it wasn't selling as many Droids as ATT was iPhones.
post #190 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

If Apple signed with Verizon originally, Apple could have sold the iphones in 70 countries in 2007.

That's stupid, because Verizon turned Apple down.

There was no "if Apple signed with Verizon".
post #191 of 222
i wou;ld gather that for all the bs here today . SPRINT or t-mobile may just grab the i-phone .

or maybe the i=phone will go out to market at full price and we choose we to go ???

But verizon's EGO and apple's EGO .. make's this look like it may not ever happen.

For verizon to get the iphone I guess they would have to upfront pay for at least one million iphones. Only then would apple know their gonna be a good partner.


9
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #192 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucep View Post

i wou;ld gather that for all the bs here today . stint or t-mobile may just grab the i-phone .

or maybe the i=phone will go out to market at full price and we choose we to go ???

But verizon's EGO and apple's EGO .. make's this look like it may not ever happen.

For verizon to get the iphone I guess they would have to upfront pay for at least one million iphones. Only then would apple know their gonna be a good partner.


9

Even if you could get an iPhone at full cost (I can, come to the uk! Kinda blows the ego argument) to make it work you better get your soldering iron out. The iphone physically cannot work on verizons CDMA network. That's what happens when you pick the losing horse in a technology race.
post #193 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

They could put the logo on the back. No one would see it if the phone is in a case As far as understanding a good thing, wouldn't it be a good thing for someone who lives in an area with no ATT coverage to be able to get an iPhone? It's really that simple when you look at it logically.

Apple would never, ever, ever, in a million years, allow another comany's logo to be emblazoned on their hardware. Did I just say "never" even though you should never say "never"? Yeah, I think I did. Never. If you don't get this to your very core then you are a very clueless individual indeed.

And, by the way, the most popular case for the iPhone 4 is Apple's own bumper, and it doesn't cover the back.

Thompson
post #194 of 222
Ditto that: I'm utterly surprised that "Major sticking points in negotiations between Verizon and Apple" wasn't simply the issue of the Verizon logo somewhere (at least once) on the iPhone.
post #195 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

I completely disagree.

Apple signing with AT&T --- led them to a FAILED experiment of full priced $600 simlocked iphone with a 2 year contract with carrier revenue sharing. It took FOREVER to expand internationally because no carrier except the original 4 carriers took the revenue sharing.

If Apple signed with Verizon originally, Apple could have sold the iphones in 70 countries in 2007.

So I think we get that you're a proponent of Verizon - that much is obvious. However, let's take apart some of the logic you are using here and see if it stands up to scrutiny. Verizon opted out of the iPhone when Apple brought it to them - that has been established by Verizon statements. Apple turned around and brought it to Cingular - just prior to the Cingular buyout of ATT Mobile nee Wireless. ATT went for the opportunity - and Apple offered the iPhone sans subsidy. And the results were:

Quote:
In 2007, Apple reported selling 270,000 iPhones during the new smartphone's first two days of availability. Apple did not accept pre-orders for the iPhone before its June 29, 2007 launch. Instead, thousands lined up outside the company's retail stores, some waiting for days, to get their hands on the smartphone.

The original iPhone was made available in the UK, France, and Germany in November 2007, and Ireland and Austria in the spring of 2008. Following which of course was the updated iPhone 3G. That was a little over 3 years and 3 models ago. Given the demand domestically which tapped out nearly all retail sources, Apple was slow to release internationally until they could offer reasonable supplies to those markets. But not forever. The GSM vs. CDMA opportunity was serendipity, not a failure. GSM is the worldwide market leader by a factor of ten. So 70 countries with minority populations and an aging 20th century technology - not so good.

If you look at the deployment of 4G/LTE you may notice that LTE is in fact enhancements UMTS which is the underpinning GSM technology spec. Which means of course that for at least the data portion of their network Verizon is moving to GSM technology. So bone up a bit and adjust your statement in light of facts, not wishful thinking.
post #196 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjpoblam View Post

Ditto that: I'm utterly surprised that "Major sticking points in negotiations between Verizon and Apple" wasn't simply the issue of the Verizon logo somewhere (at least once) on the iPhone.

Unless they plan to make it look physically different in a way that is instantly obvious theyll at least need to note that its CDMA. I wonder if they will use a SIM card on this model.
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 #197 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore View Post

So I think we get that you're a proponent of Verizon - that much is obvious. However, let's take apart some of the logic you are using here and see if it stands up to scrutiny. Verizon opted out of the iPhone when Apple brought it to them - that has been established by Verizon statements. Apple turned around and brought it to Cingular - just prior to the Cingular buyout of ATT Mobile nee Wireless. ATT went for the opportunity - and Apple offered the iPhone sans subsidy. And the results were:

The original iPhone was made available in the UK, France, and Germany in November 2007, and Ireland and Austria in the spring of 2008. Following which of course was the updated iPhone 3G. That was a little over 3 years and 3 models ago. Given the demand domestically which tapped out nearly all retail sources, Apple was slow to release internationally until they could offer reasonable supplies to those markets. But not forever. The GSM vs. CDMA opportunity was serendipity, not a failure. GSM is the worldwide market leader by a factor of ten. So 70 countries with minority populations and an aging 20th century technology - not so good.

If you look at the deployment of 4G/LTE you may notice that LTE is in fact enhancements UMTS which is the underpinning GSM technology spec. Which means of course that for at least the data portion of their network Verizon is moving to GSM technology. So bone up a bit and adjust your statement in light of facts, not wishful thinking.

Cingular saying yes to Apple was BAD for Apple --- because it led to Apple to conclude all the other carriers around the world would accept such terms. But they didn't.

It has nothing to do CDMA vs. GSM. It has to do with business models. Every single cell phone manufacturers make both CDMA and GSM phones. It's not that difficult and it's not that costly to make a second version. Apple could have been in 70 countries in 2007 --- Verizon in the US and 69 other countries with GSM networks. All Apple had to do in 2007 in order to be in 70 countries --- was to accept handset subsidy is the norm and revenue sharing is a business model dead end.

Palm would have died in 2007 --- instead of being rescued first time by private equity and then the second time by HP. Google would had a much more difficult time with getting Android launched.

WCDMA is a CDMA technology, so you might as well bone up to the fact that Qualcomm won --- Qualcomm is the size of Nokia and Ericsson COMBINED.
post #198 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucep View Post

i wou;ld gather that for all the bs here today . stint or t-mobile may just grab the i-phone .

or maybe the i=phone will go out to market at full price and we choose we to go ???

But verizon's EGO and apple's EGO .. make's this look like it may not ever happen.

For verizon to get the iphone I guess they would have to upfront pay for at least one million iphones. Only then would apple know their gonna be a good partner.


9

...so ATT doesn't pay upfront for iPhones? Some ATT retail store managers are going to be pretty surprised when THAT gets out! And since when does business plan equate to ego?

Everyone else.. (and you know who you are *cough*cough*Blackintosh*

STOP! anthropomorphizing corporate entities. It isn't ego, it is a calculated look at the business plan, what stands to be gained and what stands to be lost in the transaction. Sheesh. Business 101 stuff. If what Apple is bringing to the table isn't net plus enough to interest Verizon (or vice versa) it doesn't happen. It is simple math and future planning. Why burden this with stupid words like "ego", or Apple hates Verizon, or whatever else has been offered along those lines? Especially article headlines that read like this one! Do not assume that because you've seen Wall Street that you understand the complex operations of large corporations.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even trolls. But not everyone is entitled to be heard, or acknowledged as being right. I submit that the old adage about "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people." It's all about intent. Trolls come to disrupt and for the particularly pernicious, to draw attention, like a small child acting up in public, to themselves.

Corporations compete, they sue, countersue, and disagree during negotiations. Occasionally individual egos get caught up in the mix, especially with highly motivated and colorful CEOs, but the vast majority of the issues are in the numbers. Stepping off my soapbox. Sorry for the rant - but not enough to delete it.
post #199 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post

That basically is just an indication of how popular the iPhone was compared to the rest of the crap (also, Verizon is a lot bigger than ATT outside of mobile).

IOW, the main reason Verizon didn't have to issue a profit warning was because it wasn't selling as many Droids as ATT was iPhones.

I specifically stated Verizon Wireless vs. AT&T Wireless --- nothing to do with the landline business.

The main reason why AT&T Wireless has to grab that much high-paying iphone subscribers (which required them to massively subsidize the iphone) --- is that AT&T Wireless has so much more prepaid subscribers and Tracfone MVNO subscribers (which has something like a $11 ARPU in 2008).

http://www.glgroup.com/News/TracFone...PCS-27077.html

$100 ARPU iphone subscribers gets canceled out by $11 ARPU Tracfone subscribers.

This is why Verizon Wireless has a higher overall ARPU than AT&T Wireless. This is why Verizon doesn't need to sell the iphone. This is why Verizon doesn't need to sell a lot of Droid's. This is why Verizon doesn't have to massively subsidize Droid's.
post #200 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

This is a typical Apple blunder, where they'll negotiate only after they're utterly desperate. Had they negotiated and signed a contract back in '08 or even '09, Verizon would've not had this kind on arm-twisting rights.

Why did Apple extend the AT&T contract that pushed them into a corner, is beyond me.

Apple can't make enough iPhones to meet demand as it stands now. There are still many countries waiting for the iPhone. These two facts alone should show that Verizon has no real arm-twisting rights.

For now it is sort of like Apple can say the iPhone is their ball and you will either play the game by their rules or they will just take their ball and go play with the kids in the other ballpark who don't have a ball either. In time that may change but not today and by then Apple will probably have a newer and much better ball that everyone wants to play with.
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Reply
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Verizon, Apple quarreled over iPhone retail options, digital content