Android's weak sales drive Verizon toward Apple's iPhone - Page 3

DUH! What about the sales spike when a new Android phone is released. One iPhone sales spike a year versus how many Android sales spikes?

You just admitted that Android is only in a close race with the iPhone because Android is offered to 100% of all subscribers and the iPhone only to 33% of all subscribers. Nowhere in this article is it said that Android is loosing against the iPhone in the U.S. currently in raw numbers sold. Just that Android is offered to three times as many subscribers (ie, to 100%) as the iPhone is (ie, to 33%) but that Android is nowhere near to selling three times as many devices as the iPhone (in the U.S.), which it should if it had equal appeal.

Two points.

1) How much did the fact that this was the iPhone 4 launch quarter play into this? You gotta figure the iPhone will be king in the quarter (and probably the subsequent quarter) that it's released. I am not sure about the whole "hit the wall thing". They didn't have enough iPhones to meet latent demand in the launch quarter. That's bound to play out in the stats in the months after.

2) How much did Verizon's plans and policies dissuade customers from signing on? While I'm sure the iPhone played a huge part. I doubt the carrier had no role at all in how things played out. Here's an alternative take:

http://www.infosyncworld.com/reviews...oid/11598.html

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how things play out.

I don't own an Android or an iPhone and won't comment on the merits of one vis-a-vis the other but will point out that there's a lot of ink being wasted on questionable data here. Asymco themselves preface their whole analysis with the caveat:

That's an interesting point. I wonder why the company put resources into an analysis of numbers that they can't even confirm to be accurate or inaccurate. I've read that those numbers were "leaked" to them?

This.

Apple makes money on the sale of the device, and has a very nice software and content ecosystem to provide them continuing revenue. Apple has a very strong interest in keeping the user experience, app & media buying experience very smooth and friendly. Google doesn't have the power to force the handset makers to keep their mitts off the UI or to let the users get updates directly from Google rather than going through the carriers. Apple relies on Apple for everything but the connection and bandwidth. Google/Android relies on handset manufacturers, carrier software, and carrier connectivity.

If VZW could get out of the way and give people a pure Android experience, they would have better results. But VZW is not wired that way; they want to lock-down and control the handset.

- Jasen.

Verizon bet against Apple, a company being run by one of the most gifted CEOs of our time. In retrospect, perhaps not a smart move.

That information is also in the AT&T financials information you linked. It's the line right below wireless ARPU.


Not because Android sales are "failing" but not succeeding to the extent that the iPhone is and not driving growth at a rate that VZW is likely happy with. Is that failing? Depends.


You CAN average the two out but it is meaningless to the discussion. A point you never seem to get either willfully or because you simply don't grasp the subject. That AT&T wants additional revenue from low margin prepaid phones is completely immaterial to the advantages of having the iPhone in the line up.

The bottom line is that the iPhone has contributed hugely to the AT&T's bottom line and NOT Verizon. This is not a situation that VZW will want to have continue.

Data is the only real growth driver in wireless and the iPhone has been a weapon AT&T has been able to leverage despite all it's other issues.

Will VZW die without the iPhone? Certainly not. Are they doing anywhere close to where they would be doing if they had gotten a CDMA iPhone 4 when AT&T got the their iPhone 4?

Not even close. VZW may not need the iPhone for survival but it sure is in that "WANT REALLY REALLY REALLY BADLY category.

A spike is something that goes up then down. New iPhone releases make sales go up and continue going up.

You might not recall it, but my original point was your putting analysis in scare quotes. You said it was because of sales figures, I pointed out that the analysis went beyond that to structural analysis of Verizon's sales mix. So yes, you were dismissing that out of hand as well.


Nope, they're doing a good Android business. As is Verizon. Who doesn't have the iPhone to balance things out. Point of the article. Again.


"Logical fallacy" isn't a slur that you can just level because you feel like it, like "dumb fuck." It means something. You failed to demonstrate any logical inconsistency, and instead just changed the subject.


Fair enough, Daniel may have changed the emphasis from the original article. But the context even there still makes it clear that we're talking about Verizon vs. AT&T, not some failure of Android in the market at large.


If that's the only point you wanted to make, it's a) trivial, and b) irrelevant to the point being discussed. Nothing in the original article or Daniel's gloss suggest that Android is doomed, or that it is failing in the market place, or that somehow excellent AT&T sales eclipse excellent Android sales on vendors other than Verizon. Not sure why you're so dead set on turning this into "Android is so kicking ass, liars!"

And, again, talking about people you know doesn't add anything to the discussion. I can say "Everyone I know is waiting on an iPhone from Verizon" and it doesn't mean a thing.


Except that, outside of a minor point of emphasis, you haven't actually cited any "bullshit" in the article at hand. Instead, you've mounted a spirited defense of the idea of Android's competitiveness in general, without addressing any of the points regarding Android sales on Verizon vs. iOS sales on AT&T specifically, which, yet again, was the topic of the article.

Except that they don't put the "bad" numbers on their press releases.


But there is no difference in growth rate among postpaid subscribers --- since the iphone 4 was launched in Q2, the difference is 1000 postpaid subscribers (out of 70-80 million postpaid subscribers).


VZW's profit margin and profit went up. They are the only national carrier out of the 4 that has increased profit margin in recent quarters.

And that's how you make real money.

You don't need to sell an iphone to get that $70-80 ARPU subscriber, you can also sell them a zero dollar feature phone with unlimited voice plan (which brings in the same amount of ARPU as an iphone).

Each Verizon iPhone sold (including those moving from ATT to Verizon) reportedly nets Apple somewhere between $500 and $600 dollars in revenue. Even if that number were to drop to between $400 and $500 per phone in a non-exclusive deal, I don't know that I would characterize the added revenue from a Verizon iPhone as peanuts.

Uh, I freely admitted that based on the available evidence. Hope you aren't thinking you just gave me a revelation, cause you didn't.

Also too, if the iphone is sold on all carriers is is likely that Att's sales will go down since most find Att to be crap, Consumer Reports included. As I already said, we will find out soon enough.

I am not sure why some are trying to turn this into Android v iOS or ATT v Verizon debate. My takeaway from this article and its underlying report is pretty straight-foward: Though Android sales have benefited Verizon, they are still not satisfied with the results. As a result, Verizon would like to offer the iPhone as a handset option.

All this talk about Android being available on all US carriers does nothing but explain why Android sales might be underperforming Verizon's expectations. If anything, this bolsters the rumor that Verizon is seeking a semi-exclusive deal on the iPhone which prevents Sprint and T-Mobile from acquiring the iPhone for their networks.

Bottom line: Verizon wants to be able to offer the best array of handsets which drive post-paid subscriptions.

How is Verizon not satisfied?

Since the iphone 4 was launched in Q2, Verizon Wireless had 1.249 million postpaid net adds and AT&T Wireless had 1.250 million postpaid net adds. Apple and AT&T threw the kitchen sink at Verizon ---- and AT&T managed to beat Verizon by 1000 postpaid subscribers --- out of 70-80 million postpaid subscribers.

Verizon is not trading profit margins for market share.

The funny thing is that we are in an Apple forum --- which means that all of you know Apple makes a pretty good living with high profit margins and low market share.

I said that was my takeaway.

You keep trying to argue with data but you have no way of knowing if the data proves that Android has met Verizon's expectation (unless you are a Verizon executive in which case please let us know). Note that I never said Verizon is disappointed in Android sales, only that they might not have met expectations. At any rate, it appears that Verizon would like to add the iPhone to its handset offerings which I think would be a good move for both Verizon and Apple.

deleted

Edited by MacRulez - 5/4/12 at 1:04pm

Verizon's stated goals have been maintaining and improving profit margins.

These people are not delusional --- they don't expect a second rated Android experience to go and beat Apple's iphone in sales numbers.

Here is a second take to the original story.

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/7...wlc=1292361934

You continue to post as if you are an insider privy to what are Verizon's expectations for Android. If you are, please state your affiliation with Verizon.

As for Verizon's stated goals of maintaining and improving profit margins, are you suggesting that a Verizon iPhone would be at odds with these stated goals? Seems to me that a Verizon iPhone would increase postpaid subscriptions and ARPU and also increase churn for ATT. This could allow Verizon to increase their lead in postpaid subscriptions even further, another metric the industry follows. Don't pretend that Verizon does not concern itself with the very metrics used to analyze the industry.

It seems to me that the crux of the article is true - Verizon would like to add the iPhone to its handset arsenal. Do you have any substantive arguments that a Verizon iPhone would disadvantage Verizon?

You seem to be arguing for argument's sake (I have said nothing disrespectful of Verizon or Android) which is why some wonder if you are not a Verizon shill.

Quotes were used because they presented as sales figures derived from "proprietary research." It isn't as accurate as actual sales from VZW vs. Att, but notice how I said on my very first post, "So far, so good."


But you said:


They said it was a danger for them. Well, why? Putting all the eggs in one basket?


Perhaps, but that goes for Att too. As mentioned, if the iphone goes to Verizon, sales could drop from Att to Verizon, and Android may or may not stay the same.

Now, I won't assume that this is your belief as well, but you brought it up.


Premise made by the original article:


Supportive evidence? From the original article


But they only addressed the iphone on Att in that graph when they sell more than iOS devices.

What was Att's split of Smartphone OSes? 95% Apple? Who knows.

IF VZW was the only source of Android, just as Att is the only source of iphones, it would be a fair comparison. But, that isn't the case, as already explained.

If the premise was "Sales of Android phones at Verizon have not matched sales at Att", that can be supported. But to support the oringinal claim, one needs to show a sales of all iphones vs. all android phones.


True. But as of late DED has been on a role of taking as many pot shots as he can, even if it makes no sense.


Sure, and that Att sells more than 2.5x phones than Verizon does Android isn't trying to say something without saying it?

Or,


Funny how comparing global activations of numbers on iOS vs. Android would be better than "let's see how many smartphones were found to be sold by a third party analyst from VZW and Att. Include Sprint and T-Mobile, oh why would I need to include them?"


I clarified this for you on my second reply. You proceded to jump on me about me committing the fallacy of relying on anecdotes on your subsequent reply.


I'm not the one who asserted that "Android is simply not competitive with Apple's iPhone," then quoted it, thus agreeing with it, without proof. Had DED said "while this isn't entirely conclusive, it does show how much Att is leading with the iphone..." I'd be just fine with that.

All of DED's articles about him recalling the past are fun to read. And, as being around for those days, I independently can verify what he posted is true.

This? No.

As the technewsworld article that I linked --- the original article is flawed because it only counted retail sales, when most of Blackberry's sales in the US are corporate enterprise. Of course, the Blackberry market share within Verizon "collapsed".

The entire line of analysis is idiotic. The article painted Verizon as being backed in a corner --- meanwhile if you look at the real data, Verizon beats AT&T in ARPU, beats AT&T in data ARPU, beats AT&T in churn, beats AT&T in profit and profit margins, tie AT&T in postpaid net adds... I don't see how anyone can agree with even a single line of that article.

Of course, Verizon would like to add the iPhone to its handset arsenal --- they have been saying that since day 1. But that doesn't mean that they will give the farm away just to have it.

You freely admitted that Android is not as competitive as the iPhone? This is news to me. I do not read your sentence: "To come to the conclusion that Android cannot compete with the iphone based on how it sells at Verizon is downright retarded." as admitting this.

Of the 14 m iPhones sold at AT&T, 10 m came from existing subscribers and 4 m from new subscribers. At worst, the switching from any carrier (ie, also from Sprint and T-Mobile) comes to a halt and AT&T looses these 4 m new subscribers and Verizon gets an equivalent 10 m iPhone customers out of its own subscriber base. In the short term, there will be some pent-up demand, in the mid-term, the total number of smartphone customers will increase noticeably (and this will likely help both leading platforms).

I'll answer those questions if you rewrite them to become actual questions.

Does Verizon understand that AT&T sells are higher because in the US you can't get an iPhone any where else. With Android, you can buy them with any carrier. If Verizon was the only carrier for Android them trust me the numbers would be a lot different.

I love Apple products but lets not fool ourselves. They are making big inroads. if Apple does not choose another carrier, Android will own the top Smartphone spot. The HTC is a reputable device even though I love my iPhone4... Maybe this competition will keep Apple honest and not taking customers for granted...

Top smartphone OS spot by counting unit numbers. Apple has a huge lead in profits and mindshare that still appears to be growing. Even if Apple releases an iPhone to all US carriers Android should still take overtake Symbian as the number handset OS in the world. It certainly wont be Apple at the top of with an OS that is only on their HW and their HW starting a much higher price than you can get other mobiles for.

Yes, Apple had no shot at dominating the phone market whether talking about total market or just smartphones. Too many phones for Apple to build and sell enough at the margins they want.

The tablet market? Possibly. It's a much more discretionary buy for folks with more discretionary income. For the moment, the major players (not the Shenzhen specials) seem to be settling around Apple's iPad price points and that hugely favors Apple.

The primary outlier is the Nook Color and that's not a real tablet and likely subsidized by B&N based on expected e-book sales.