or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › AT&T denies accusations that it pushed its retail outlets to sell iPhones alternatives
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AT&T denies accusations that it pushed its retail outlets to sell iPhones alternatives - Page 2

post #41 of 63
Originally Posted by iComa View Post
I was not aware that any mega-corporation would be "non-denominational", indeed I always assume a company will look out for it's best interests; if they did not, I doubt that they would stay in business very long.

 

When you own spectrum, you have certain legal requirements.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #42 of 63
Quote:

Refuse to believe?

Sorry... I got my info from quotes like this around the web last week:

Tuesday, Jul 24, 2012 - AT&T has announced their second quarter results, and this time around the iPhone accounted for 3.7 million or almost 73% of the 5.1 million smartphones sold.

A 73% snapshot (or even a trend line for that matter) proves nothing in regards to loss or gain of sales.  For all we know, that number would have been 80% if not for the "pushing" of other branded phones.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Doesn't have squat to do with any of that. AT&T is supposed to be nondenominational by definition. Apple is not

Not quite nondenominational, as Markbriton noted, Apples offers option to purchase service through AT&T or Verizon.  But for that matter, how would AT&T respond to complaints that Apple was "pushing" Verizon instead of AT&T?

 

-drewys

post #43 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

When you own spectrum, you have certain legal requirements.


I don't know what legal requirements there are, or which ones would not be met by hardware retail sales strategies, if you have that information that would be interesting to look at; and again, until there is some hard evidence to the contrary, AT&T has stated they are not pushing other phones over iPhone.

post #44 of 63

AT&T Pusging iPhone Alternatives

I was in an AT&T store recently and the staff were doing exactly as suggested. A number of customers came into the store for new phones and were pushed towards the Samsung Galaxy S3. It was very subtle, just things like "the iPhone can do this or that". Seemed to work too as 2 of the customers did by Samsung products.
post #45 of 63
Originally Posted by drewys808 View Post
Not quite nondenominational, as Markbriton noted, Apples offers option to purchase service through AT&T or Verizon.  But for that matter, how would AT&T respond to complaints that Apple was "pushing" Verizon instead of AT&T?

 

Not what I meant by nondenominational, but you got the spirit of the argument right.

 

Originally Posted by iComa View Post
I don't know what legal requirements there are… 

 

When you own spectrum like that, you can't just sell a single company's product on it. 


…until there is some hard evidence to the contrary, AT&T has stated they are not pushing other phones over iPhone.

 

Dozens of first-hand testimonies to the contrary spread across many websites in response to their response not good enough?

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #46 of 63
Quote:

Originally Posted by drewys808 View Post

 

how would AT&T respond to complaints that Apple was "pushing" Verizon instead of AT&T?

 

-drewys

That would be interesting, and if something like that were to happen, I'd have to assume it would happen because Apple would be able to make a better profit from Verizon iPhone sales; and again, it would be Apple's right, and responsibility to consider that revenue if it presented itself.

post #47 of 63
Originally Posted by iComa View Post
…it would be Apple's right…

 

No… Do you not get that all these companies have agreements in place that prevent this nonsense?

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #48 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

 

When you own spectrum like that, you can't just sell a single company's product on it. 

 

Dozens of first-hand testimonies to the contrary spread across many websites in response to their response not good enough?

I'd need to see the particular law that requires a company to sell particular hardware, and in what fashion they may sell it; no offense, but just because some person on a forum said so won't cut it, some documentation to back up your supposition would be very helpful.

 

As for the first hand testimonies, the ones I have seen have  been indicitive of a sales person showing a customer their choices, if AT&T were not educating its consumers about their options that would be favoritism, sorry, the testomony I have seen so far does not lead me to believe that Apple is being picked on, and again the sales stats seem to back up AT&T's assertion that they are not playing favorites, but who knows /shrug, we'll see what happens in the next set of stats from Q3.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

No… Do you not get that all these companies have agreements in place that prevent this nonsense?

Since I have not had the opportunity to ask all these companies about what if any agreements they have in place, I do not know what is allowed and not allowed, and I doubt any of them would give that information to me in any event. Also note that I said that I think it would be an interesting situation to witness.

 

I really doubt there is a big conspiracy here, but then again, I did not put my tin-foil hat on today, so I might be being impelled by some outside infuence to believe AT&T until some hard evidence, like an official memo or something of the like comes along to show that there is in reality a conspiracy to not sell Apple products. Sorry, it's all gotten a bit ridiculous, all that has happened is supposition, nothing more, no hard evidence presented on anything.

post #49 of 63
Originally Posted by iComa View Post
I'd need to see the particular law that requires a company to sell particular hardware, and in what fashion they may sell it; no offense, but just because some person on a forum said so won't cut it, some documentation to back up your supposition would be very helpful.

 

Apple would own spectrum and would have created their own network on which the iPhone would have exclusively been had it not been for laws prohibiting such a monopoly.

 

Look it up.

 

As for the first hand testimonies, the ones I have seen have  been indicative of a sales person showing a customer their choices, if AT&T were not educating its consumers about their options that would be favoritism, sorry, the testimony I have seen so far does not lead me to believe that Apple is being picked on…

 

Right… 

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #50 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewys808 View Post

A 73% snapshot (or even a trend line for that matter) proves nothing in regards to loss or gain of sales.  For all we know, that number would have been 80% if not for the "pushing" of other branded phones.

Correct... but I wasn't discussing trends of losses or gains.

Of course we're still left to guess what "could have" happened.

All we know for sure is that 73% of smartphones at AT&T last quarter were iPhones. But you're right... it could have been higher or lower.

We'll have to wait another 3 months to see any significant trends.
post #51 of 63

Oh poor poor AT&T.  The struggled for so long when the iPhone came out.  They sold so many that it cost them million to upgrade their network.  After all these years of Apple iPhone contracts taking advantage of poor poor AT&T and it's data network.  Maybe AT&T should file for chapter 11.

 

Verizon seems to be doing just fine though and yet they have the iPhone as well.  Wow they don't see Apple or Apple iPhone users taking advantage of Verizon's data network.  Maybe Verizon knows something AT&T doesn't.  Maybe AT&T is just a big green hungry monger.

An Apple man since 1977
Reply
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
post #52 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Apple would own spectrum and would have created their own network on which the iPhone would have exclusively been had it not been for laws prohibiting such a monopoly.

 

Look it up.

I was not aware that Apple would build it's own network if it were not illegal to operate anything but iPhones on that network. Please, point me to where to look such information up, or better still, since you already seem to have read it, get me a link to the particular information, as well as a link to where Apple has said that they want to build a network, but due to regulations are unable to do so because they would not allow any other brands on their network.

 

Forgive me if I'm coming off a bit sarcastic, I truely am not being; but I am being objective, and since I am not the one making claims about what a company is doing, just commenting on what has been said, and what has been said has not been backed up with evidence. Seems to me if someone is going to make accusations, it would behoove them to have evidence, I could make any statement I want in a blog, or in a forum, and then require it's readers to look it up for themselves and quit my day job and call myself a reporter.

post #53 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

Could Apple? Sure. Would they? Probably not.
But if I was AT&T... I'd be careful.
Nearly 3 out of 4 smartphones sold by AT&T are iPhones.
AT&T would be devastated if something happened and they couldn't sell the iPhone anymore...
But again... I doubt Apple would pull their phones from AT&T.

Exactly. AT&T is the top 2 largest carrier in the US. Apple is certainly not going to take the iPhone away from it and AT&T knows that. I think it's just a game of chicken right now and no one has blinked yet.

In many ways, both need each other.
post #54 of 63

Can't say for sure about AT&T but on two trips to company-owned Verizon Wireless store was aggressively steered away from the iPhone even though in at least one visit my daughter wanted an iPhone and didn't want to hear about anything else.

post #55 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by iComa View Post

As for the first hand testimonies, the ones I have seen have  been indicitive of a sales person showing a customer their choices, if AT&T were not educating its consumers about their options that would be favoritism,

 

You're clearly have never worked for AT&T :)

 

This is what you get told "You must do X (sell X number of phones, renew X number of contracts) or you get zero bonus, you must show them at least Y different choices", so as the sales rep you do whatever it takes to meet the quota, even if you have to lie through your teeth. The easiest way to do that? Show a customer something that is cheaper. Then when they object to being shown something they don't want, relent and sell them what they want, having fullfilled the "show them at least Y different choices" iPhone. For everyone else who doesn't know why the device they're being shown isn't better than the iPhone, they see the price tag and take it. Usually people buying gifts.

 

At third party retailers, policies are even weaker. Back in 2004 or so, the standard scam was to "we will pay your ETF", they turn around call your old carrier and say you died, was shipped off to the military, etc. That BTW is also how you lose your phone number too, since the phone number is recycled as soon as the account is closed. You can only port a number while it's active. Seems awfully suspicious for someone to port a number and then immediately die. The other scam was to make the buyer of the phone sign a contract that says that if they lose their commission from the wireless carrier, that the customer pays them (the third party retailer) an ETF too. Believe me, the the worst people to buy a phone from are the third party retailers, because some of them don't care one bit about how you get screwed later as long as they get their commission. There's also the case where they promise all sorts of stuff that can be ticked off in the computer, which is then removed by MDE that enforces validity of feature/plan/promos.

 

But I'm just repeating experiences from the pre-merger AT&T. Have things changed? I sincerely doubt it. This is a standard sales tactics. If something is illegal, or might tick off a partner, you instead word your policies in a way that the sales/customer support people's own greed does it for you.

post #56 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


Exactly. AT&T is the top 2 largest carrier in the US. Apple is certainly not going to take the iPhone away from it and AT&T knows that. I think it's just a game of chicken right now and no one has blinked yet.
In many ways, both need each other.

I agree they both need each other. If this report is true, Apple should send a message to all Apple Store managers advising them to "highlight the benefits" of Verizon over AT&T. Or at least Apple should let AT&T know that they could do this if they so choose.

post #57 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Apple would own spectrum and would have created their own network on which the iPhone would have exclusively been had it not been for laws prohibiting such a monopoly.

That's a different matter. Whether or not the FCC would prevent a company from using their own network only for their own phones is not really what's being discussed here. The question that was being discussed is whether the law controls how AT&T sells hardware - and it doesn't. There's nothing illegal about trying to convince customers to buy an Android phone instead of an iPhone (assuming that they're not playing 'bait and switch' games - and they don't appear to be doing that since customers can still buy the iPhone). Specifically, the argument was whether carriers have to be 'non-denominational' and the answer is that they don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbriton View Post

I agree they both need each other. If this report is true, Apple should send a message to all Apple Store managers advising them to "highlight the benefits" of Verizon over AT&T. Or at least Apple should let AT&T know that they could do this if they so choose.

Exactly. Or, even better, Apple could talk to the customers about how much money they'd save by buying an unlocked phone and going with one of the pay as you go carriers. That's going to be more appealing to some customers than simply switching to Verizon. I suspect I'm typical and I wouldn't be interested in switching to Verizon. The price isn't all that different, nor is the service. Sure, they both have fancy maps, but in my experience, I have good coverage almost everywhere I go, so the 'superior' Verizon service wouldn't be that big a deal. OTOH, when I found that I could cut my bill by $50 per month or more by switching to Straight Talk, it was an easy decision.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #58 of 63

It's pretty obvious that all the carriers are doing this. They make more money with Android phones and, because of the "open" nature of Android, they can have handset manufacturers lock them down and install carrier crapware on the phones, to generate even more revenue off the customer. This is, in fact, the only reason Android has decent sales numbers, because carrier sales staff are pushing them onto naive customers.

post #59 of 63

Two weeks ago I called ATT about an iPhone upgrade date they had moved back for some unknown reason. One Rep told me it was due to a payment issue over a year ago(not the case) and said there was nothing she could really do but put in a request for it to be checked out. Then before ending the call she told me they couldn't give me an upgrade for an iPhone but could go ahead and upgrade for another smartphone. The one she mentioned was the Samsung Galaxy S3. Two days later I called again this time speaking with another Rep for 15 minutes before I was redirected to a "manager".  She proceeded to sathey could change the upgrade date back to the original but before she put in the request she asked if I would be interested in a Samsung Galaxy S3.

 

 

So this apparently is an ATT business-wide strategy.

post #60 of 63

I just visited my local AT&T store. They had about 20 phones on display. None of them were iPhones. I asked the guy behind the desk if he sold iPhones and he said that they did. I said I was puzzled that there were no iPhones on display and he replied that if they put iPhones on display, they get stolen. I responded that this implied the other phones were not worth stealing. He was not amused.

post #61 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by softeky View Post

I just visited my local AT&T store. They had about 20 phones on display. None of them were iPhones. I asked the guy behind the desk if he sold iPhones and he said that they did. I said I was puzzled that there were no iPhones on display and he replied that if they put iPhones on display, they get stolen. I responded that this implied the other phones were not worth stealing. He was not amused.

That was pretty odd then. Every ATT store I've ever been in had a separate display area segregated from the "lesser phones" dedicated solely to Apple. Perhaps you just mistakenly missed looking on the other side of the store rather than Apple devices not having a presence.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #62 of 63

Maybe one day Apple will make their own carrier service, to make sure that they stay there along with their Apple products. Seams feasible. They have the cash to make it a reality. maybe they have the tech ready for it too.

post #63 of 63

Not only I, but 2 friends of mine have had the same issue with Verizon. They tried to steer us away from an iPhone and put us into Androids. I filed a complaint with Verizon acusing them of the same practice. Of course they deny pushing any one product over another..

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • AT&T denies accusations that it pushed its retail outlets to sell iPhones alternatives
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › AT&T denies accusations that it pushed its retail outlets to sell iPhones alternatives