Originally Posted by TenoBell
Not upset at all I just don't agree.
Nah. If you weren't upset, you wouldn't be taking the regular sniffy cheapshots you do at me, Mel, Aegis, and anyone else who disagrees with you.
Buck up Teno... being wrong isn't the end of the world, y'know. You'll get other stuff right.
This is based on your narrow definition of poor sales.
Sure. Like setting a goal of "slightly under 100,000 iPhones" in France, and missing it by nearly 30%. Or the unofficial reports out of the UK that show O2 missing its projections by large amounts.
Yep, not meeting sales goals is certainly a "narrow definition" all right.
No one is saying everything is hunky dory.
Actually, you have been, by spinning non-stop about the iPhone even before its US launch. It's been quite something to see.
Just because Apple has built incredible attention around the iPhone does not mean they can rest they must continue to innovate. During the US launch Jobs said they were already working on the next iPhone.
We actually agree here. But the problem is, where is
the next iPhone? They need it ASAP, not mid-to-late '08.
But if you really feel "tough love" from some unknown people in an anonymous internet forum will sway a billion dollar company with thousands of smart employees. I won't try to break that delusion.
I dunno... I think ppl were saying the very same thing right before Jobs decided to cough up the $100 credit to early iPhone adopters. Apparently what we think does matter, at least a little bit. And even if it didn't, I wouldn't have a problem telling it like it is, rather than spinning that Apple is infallible at the drop of a hat.
The 50 to 100 spin is what Lombard told CNN/Money during the France launch.
And yet we have direct quotes from reputable news sources on the very day he said it that have him setting a goal of "slightly under 100,000" iPhones sold. Hey, his words, not mine.
If you don't like it, take it up with Reuters and all the others, not me.
The same goes for your example as well, its not the case in many places around the US. My example could be applied to most any major metropolitan areas around the country.
You want to think so, but it really can't be. In fact, looking at the latest Consumer Reports
and JD Powers surveys
, ATT consistently lost to both Verizon and even T-Mobile, both by region (JD Powers) and in most of the large metropolitan areas surveyed (Consumer Reports).
All carriers are not the same. Why should they be? Their native networks are not the same, the technologies used are not always the same, and roaming agreements only go so far.
You keep picking around the notion of churn rates without giving any real information about it.
Sigh. Teno, you argue so much on wireless issues that I sometimes forget that you really don't know much about them. To break it down:
Churn rates vary quarter to quarter, but Verizon's churn is usually close to 1%, which means that about 1% of their customers leave every month, which is a very low rate in the wireless industry.
ATT's churn has been averaging around 1.6% in recent months, overall. But ATT sometimes likes to give the postpaid-only number, which is lower (like around 1.3-1.4%), since that takes the high-churn prepaid customers out of the equation. Still, if you measured Verizon's churn the same way, it'd come out around 0.9%.
Why is that a big deal? Well, because with carriers the size of ATT and Verizon, the difference between a 1.4% churn rate and 0.9% is approximately one million more customers leaving you, every quarter
Going on with the major carriers, Alltel's churn is quite similar to ATT's.
Sprint and T-Mobile have churn numbers in the 2 to 3% range, i.e. very bad. T-Mobile actually has the best customer service in the industry, and is good in metro areas, but they just don't have very good coverage. Outside of metro areas or major highways, you're more likely to have poor or no service with them, plus they have almost no 3G deployed as of yet.
Sprint on the other hand, is having major network problems, and their customer service is legendarily horrible. Their churn has been getting worse recently, and they're having a hard time attracting new customers, to the point where their number of postpaid customers is actually shrinking
A nifty little chart on this can be found here:http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/...ate/2007-11-09
ATT is said to have higher churn than Verizon
Not "said". They actually do
have a higher churn rate than Verizon, by a significant margin. That's simply the stats reported by ATT and Verizon, quarter after quarter. Unless you'd care to try to spin that too? lol
but [ATT] remains larger customer base than Verizon. Which means ATT looses more but also gains more. In the end what does it really mean?
ATT got their larger customer base via large acquisitions. For example, Cingular bought the old ATT Wireless for $41 billion back in 2004, which brought 21 million more customers on board (the resulting company just recently got rebranded 'ATT Mobility'... yeah, I know, confusing).
Recently they just bought Dobson, which will give them nearly 2 million more customers.
The funny thing is, even with their huge acquisitions, they're barely keeping ahead of Verizon. Back when the ATT-Cingular merger happened (late '04), the combined company had roughly 5.5 million more customers than Verizon. That lead dwindled to around 2 to 2.5 million customers in recent quarters, largely on the strength of Verizon's better churn rate/better customer retention.
It's not that Verizon is great everywhere... no one
is (which is an argument against carrier exclusivity). But they do seem to be good in more areas than ATT is, based on national surveys and customer loyalty statistics.
However, the point would not be to replace ATT with Verizon. Rather it would be to have the iPhone available to both (and to T-Mobile, Sprint, Alltel, US Cellular, etc), so that any customer, anywhere, could get an iPhone and still pick the best carrier for their area and needs.
Simple, n'est pas?
They are smaller in raw population numbers. But these areas have much higher income, education, and job averages than most of the rest of the country. The iPhone will sell much better in San Francisco than some rural area in North Carolina. Or just about any rural area anywhere.
For how long do you think Apple can maintain a strong sales pace by selling to only a relatively small slice of the population? Eventually all the big-city yuppies who care enough to want one will have one already, and again, that's only going to be in the particular big cities where ATT service is actually good. Gotta love those 30-day return policies that wireless carriers have.
It's kind of like opening an indie film in New York and LA only... fine for opening weekend and maybe a bit beyond, but you best get that thing on a whole lot more screens ASAP if you want to keep doing any real business.
Finally, don't count out North Carolina. Raleigh-Durham is a great area.
I've used my iPhone in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, and Atlanta. ATT coverage is a little better in some than others but it mostly works fine in all of them.
Tell that to my brother... he lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, but recently dumped ATT for Verizon, because he couldn't stand the inconsistent call quality with ATT. I guess your anecdotes cancel one another out.
The fact is, Teno, the US is a huge area to cover geographically, even if you were to concentrate primarily on the more densely-populated areas and major highways. The big carriers spend around $6 billion per year on their networks alone and STILL can't provide good coverage everywhere. So in the face of that enormous challenge, why would you assume that all carriers are good almost everywhere?
Just doesn't make sense, especially in light of the low satisfaction scores that are pervasive within the industry, as THT pointed out. It's not that all carriers suck (they don't), but simply that its really tough to meet consumer expectations, which are for wireless to be landline quality and landline reliability, EVERYWHERE, in a very vast country.