2.5m AT&T iPhone users; Piper on WWDC Macs; 3G stock panic - Page 2

It's certainly easier to move more product that way but someone has to pay for the device. Ideal profit requires a good balance between the perceived value and actual cost.

Apple takes delivery of 188 shipping containers marked only as "electric computers"

I couldn't remember where I read that.

I know how you feel man

Prithy, what was known and where was the logic?

Deduction, my dear Watson.

As Solipsism said, it's deduction.

We know what the phone has. We know what's in the new software code, because it's been seen, and announced and demoed by Apple, as well as inferences of 3G and other features in the ver 2.0 software..

We know that 3G is coming because Jobs said it was. They're marketing the phone later this year to segments of the world where 3G is important, perhaps overriding.

So, from that, we can deduce what may arrive in the next edition.

Most other wilder guesses are just that, guesses. But a guess is similar to a prediction depending on how strongly it's stated.

Rumors are where someone says thay they have gotten word from someone in Apple, or a close supplier, that something will appear.

Again, that's different.

Apple went with AT&T because they had the most extensive GSM network the same type of network that is in Europe and Asia as well as rest of world. Sent from my iPhone. The point is that ATT did not have go pay up, it was easier for Apple to support one type of network than many different types or other non-GSM networks.

As you say.

This is so obvious, that I don't understand why more people don't realize it.

Jim Gerace, Verizon VP, stated that they passed on the iPhone. I believe that is true. The time frame also suggests that Apple went to Verizon first. I also believe this is true. I also believe that Apple went to AT&Ts biggest competitor(s) to gain a better bargaining foothold. If AT&T knew they were the only really choice for Apple since they were the only GSM network in the US that had 3G frequencies that corresponded with emerging tri-and quad-band chips thinks may have gone differently. (speculation)

Correct but it was obvious that Apple really wanted AT&T, I mean I was scratching my head when I heard that Apple was talking with Verizon, and I was on Verizon at the time. I don't think it was one company over the other or better technology that made the final decision. I think like you say, Apple knew going in AT&T would be easier to deal with if they knew they were not the only game in town, that way AT&T could make the GSM connection and sell that idea like it was their own. A classic Steve tactic.

AT&T "Plus we use GSM like they do in Europe and Asia, if you want to roll this puppy out around the world it is much easier to support one communication chip-set."

Steve "Good point, anything else?"

AT&T "Plus we can set-up a special iPhone plan with unlimited data, your customers like it easy correct. Plus we are getting access to hotspots all around the US, more on that later"

Steve "I guess I'll have to switch carriers."

It's my opinion that it was probably Apple that presented the idea of unlimited data plans at half the regular price to AT&T. AS it was recently pointed out to me recently on these forums, data plans are optional for smartphones, so by making them a requirement on the iPhone drastically helps to balance the cost to AT&T for heavy users.

Using your example above, AT&T may have also presented to Apple that T-Mobile, the otehr GSM in the US, is just getting their 3G bands and have no networks setup, while AT&T uses more common frequencies used throughout the world.

Not that I totally disagree, but there had to be something else for the data plan idea to work, unlimited data at half the price, AT&T had to want this too. The reason for the want eludes me, but I don't think it fits that it was only at Apples' request. AT&T had to fell like they were breaking the mold with Apple, it may have been like "we talked to the others and we can use them but we want AT&T because of your GSM network and who you are in the world of cummunication, but here is what we want to do to turn the smartphone business upside down. We can get our customers to pay for the phone, or most of the phone so AT&T won't have to pay for that, but we need to shakeup the smartphone market, do you want to just sell walkie-talkies', or do you want to change the way the world communicates?"

If Apple sold over 5 mil iPhones and 2.5 mil are with AT&T that means that at least 2.2 mil have been unlocked and are in other networks here and abroad.

Perhaps it was projections of how many new customers AT&T will obtain and how many people on low rate plans moving into smartphone plans that was the reason for the lower than average unlimited/unlimited data plan.


PS: Since AT&T has worked hard this past year to get their less than stellar 3G network upgraded are we to expect new iPhone data plans to be more inline with their other unlimited/unlimted data plans? If it remains at $20 then it would help indicate the number of new AT&T customer and upgrading customers balances the lower cost data plan, if it goes up to $35 then that helps to indicate that the iPhone subscribers aren't as powerful to the AT&T bottom line.

Of course, this is just speculation on how one might argue a case for or against AT&T's benefit of the iPhone. Unless we can look at the contract between Apple and AT&T there are no facts that can be obtained about the motivation of price of the data plan.

Phones are the bottom line number or at least an important one, however with that said I think as an Apple user that it is the OS that is the difference and the one top line item that will drive the bottom line. Since I got my iPhone I have looked at it more and more like a computer in my pocket, and now with programs coming that will only heighten the experience. Apple has a different approach to smartphones. It is not the AT&T internet it is Safari just like on the Mac, it is Google maps, and easily using them to find your way around. It is using, what appears to be iChat to SMS, gee iChat can do much more... These are baby steps, but it is easy to see the tools that Apple is bringing to the party are much more robust and fully featured. I hope the data plans are the same cost wise. I also take solace in the fact that Apple is not going to have iPhones sold into plans that do not include data, also if AT&T did even ok on the first iPhone experience then they should be able to see the difference and they will really want iPhone 2. And apparently they did ok because they are hiring temps again and they would not do that if they were not at least doing ok, however my guess is that they are doing great with the iPhone. Remember that the iPhone is way ahead of the iPod in many ways, and the iPod revolutionized MP3 players and that market. If AT&T only looked at the success of the iPod and the iPhone and the fact that they are making money, maybe even more money than with other phones, then they should be very happy with the iPhone. In short I do not expect Apples' market penetration to remain at 3%, it takes time (11 to 12 months maybe) for the market to decide what kind of egg it is being sold, apparently the market is deciding that the iPhone is a good egg and at $200 very much worth exploring.

This week, Apple stock has been doing pretty darn well all things considered, the stock market has been sliding down all week. There were a couple times where everything my stock widget is tracking was colored red.

The OS is certainly the big difference. Nokia bought a software development company at the beginning to 2008, presumably to better compete with mobile OS X. In April, if I recall correctly, they did admit they need to beef up their OS platform. This is good news; while there is no one phone that fits everybody I don't want Apple to think that it's too far ahead in it's consumer/PMP/smartphone field to slow down the platform's evolution.


As an example of computer in your pocket, I went into Indiana Jones 4 an hour early to get a good seat Wednesday night. There were only 20 people in the theater and 6 of them were actively engaged in their iPhones. Most telling is that the other 14 had no cell phone out. Of course, i popped mine out and entertained myself until the the previews began, even posting that story on AI forums. 3G and App Store will make this even more usual to an even larger group.


Can we expect later version of the ipod line to come with mobile OS X? Seems feasible to me as Apple refines the OS and ARM performance increases. Are we expect Apple to eventually kill off the iPod Classic line or is the market for HDD based iPod still popular enough to warrant the product line?

If there wasn't that short lived fear of a delay in the new phone, the stock could still have been sitting at $190. It's amazing that one word can disrupt a trend.

I don't agree with that assessment at all.

Apple wanted the best partner for their initial launch in the US --- and Verizon is the best carrier in the US.

It is a bigger problem for Apple right now --- because the world didn't end for Verizon with AT&T's iphone launch. If they launched the iphone with Verizon --- then we don't have an worldwide iphone exporting problem.

So you're saying that Apple wanted Verizon but couldn't get them? That it had nothing to do with the fact with what the Verizon VP stated about Apple's demands being too much for them?

Note that "best" is a realtive term which means nothing without severe quantifiaction and that Apple also went with 02 which isn't considered "best" in the UK in terms of network speeds or service.

Could it be that Apple went with the carrier that would make them the most money knowing that what ever carrier they went with would bring a great many new subscribers to that carrier? Could Apple have possibly figured that going with Verizon would have more costly simply for the fact that it would require a company that prides itself on not trying to produce different products for different markets to have a separate device for the US market and one for the EU market?

Apple couldn't get Verizon to accept Apple's demand, but Verizon was Apple's first choice.

The simplist explanations are often the correct one.

Otherwise, we will be spinning conspiracy theories after conspiracy theories --- that AT&T was Apple's "real" first choice and Verizon was a "head fake" to get AT&T to the negotiating table.

You have to remember that 900K activation in the christmas quarter at 40% new subscribers is 360K net adds. That's it folks --- out of 2.7 million net adds in the AT&T's christmas quarter net adds, the iphone contributed 360K (a 13% contribution). And the company that does the iphone activation --- their price drop 40% in one day.

http://www.forbes.com/technology/200...markets45.html

Companies do make mistakes --- like RadioShack ditching Verizon and started selling Cingular cell phones a few years ago (greater commission with Cingular). But what a mistake that was for RadioShack.

World of difference my friend, world of difference. More than 2.5 million iPhones roam these shores, and they're equipped with software nothing like you'd find on any primitive VZW offering. Best yet, with the App Store and iPhone 2.0 software on the way, along with whatever additional hardware improvements Apple may opt for besides the much touted 3G, there can be no fair comparison. Everything else is nonsense. Software matters - I thought we would know that here, Mac OS X versus Windows after all!

You can already buy ringtones, music, games, apps and turn-by-turn navigation on the LG Voyager.

You can play guitar hero on the Voyager right now --- it costs $12 on the Verizon Get It Now store.

We don't know that. The evidence points to AT&T not being the carrier first approached. There is no proof that Verizon was the first. Your decision to look at things with simplicity would onlybe valid here if there were two carriers in the US. But Occam's Razor does have validity, but looking at Apple's past approaches to things AT&T is the "best" choice for Apple:

• Stated Reason: It allowed Apple to initiate profit sharing (which it would it couldn't ever do with Verizon)
  
• Stated Reason: It allowed Apple to open up its own call center for iPhone support and allow the device to be serviced by Apple staff (Verizon stated it didn't want to take a back seat to HW and service support)
  
• Deduced Reason: It allowed Apple to have one device instead of two (less R&D equals more net profit per unit)
  
• Potential Reason: It allowed Apple to add other services and pricing structures, like Visual Voicemail and $20 unlimited data plan (can you see Verizon doing both of those)
  
• Potential Reason: It allowed Apple to include their OS on the device with carrier meddling (as Verizon is notorious for altering firmware installations to promote their pay services)

Again, we know now that a Verizon VP stated that AT&T was not the first. Do you think he really knows who Apple went to first or who Apple thought was the "best" choice? The logical assettion would not to take Jim Gerace's word as canon. We have plenty of evidence of high level employees making assertions about Apple's products (especially from carriers) that turn out to be completely wrong.


I do remember your numbers. But you think a single, highend model cellphone with a required data plan being responsible for 13% of all new activations is low, while I think that is high. Does Verizon have a similar device responsible for their new activations?


Yes, they do make mistakes, but I see no mistake with Apple going GSM over a dual CDMA/GSM product or having two products for each network type. If you wish to argue that Apple going locked then you'll have a foundation as speed at which the hackers unlocked each new version and the number being shipped over seas does seem to have taken Apple by surprise with their no cash and small unit limits.

BTW, I am not aware of the Radio Shack situation. Could you explain it or link to an unbiased article?

You can do read emails, surf the internet, play movies and music, burn CDs, etc on all personal computers, but that doesn't mean that one isn't more stable and have a better user interface over other offerings.

Yes, you can't take anyone's PR words as the truth --- which means that you can't take Apple's words of those stated, implied, deduced reasons... as the truth as well.

Why do I trust Verizon's words on these issues? Because everything that Verizon said before the iphone launch came true ---- part of the Verizon's official reason of turning down the iphone was that it can't justify not letting their independent agents not sell the iphone and may cause problems with their own sales staff with commissions.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm

Look at Hofo's agent's and employee's threads on these issues AT THE TIME OF THE LAUNCH. AT&T independent agents were pissed that they couldn't sell the iphone and some were actively dissing the iphone and try to sell potential customers another phone. Employees were scared that they don't even get a commission with the itunes activation.

http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=1187621
http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=1187868

There were no monday morning quarterbacks. Verizon said those things BEFORE the iphone launch, BEFORE Apple even disclosed the pricing, the activation procedures, the at&t corporate store selling only....

But the problem is that the iphone does NONE of those things.

Just having a nice user interface that does nothing --- is still nothing.

There's this as well: the merging of the computer and phone experience into one extended ecology.

Sure, Verizon will sell me all kinds of stuff, through their store, and then make it as difficult as possible to move that stuff on and off my phone.

The iPhone is partaking in the iTunes/Mac OS ecosystem, so the same mechanisms that I use to buy music, rent movies, edit photos, etc. on my laptop or desktop transfer over to the iPhone. I can stop treating my cell phone like some special little world of its own, messing around with expensive add ons like "V Cast", and start treating it like a portable computing device that extends the functionality of my larger computers.

Verizon doesn't want to be relegated to "network provider", they want to be the whole thing. Even if Apple approached Verizon first, I can't imagine that Verizon was going to give up much on that point, and I know for sure Apple wasn't going to go along with having the iPhone turned into a portal for Verizon's media services.

Huh? The iPhone doesn't allow you to surf the internet, view emails, listen to music or watch movies?

No, I was talking about buying ringtones over-the-air, buying music over-the-air, buying apps, buying games, getting turn-by-turn navigation that the LG Voyager can do right now.

The problem is that 90% of us use windows --- in which itunes for windows is the most unstable and unsecured app on earth. iTunes has basically replaced Internet Explorer as the most unsecured app in the windows world.

if you make such a claim youlll need to have some evidence to make it up. That has not been my experience in any way.

We know about the QT issue when using QT in a webpage, but that isn't iTunes.

PS: Hyperbolic terms like "most <blank> in the world" will not help your side of this debate.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Top-1...07-70055.shtml

Besides the fact that all of those could be remedied with v2.0's App Store, you are making your argument based on very specific items that the LG Voyager has and that new develoment platform hasnot. I can pick an assortment of things that the Vogager can't do but that wouldn't make for a good argument.

BTW, the iPhone can download songs over-the-air when connected to WiFi.

Basically any 3G Verizon phone can do those things --- which means that 35 million Verizon users can do those things.

Why do y'all bother with this bitter Verizon employee who is on an internet hate campaign against Apple, iphone, and AT&T.

You did supply a link about apps that had security issues, but the basis of the very brief article seems to rate items based on the fact they fixed the issues. That mean that apps with undisclosed security issues that aren't updated aren't making the list. We've seen this type logic and had this discussion before. Apple usually breaks down the specifics of the vulnerabilities fixed more than MS does so some anti-Apple pundits like to use that as a way of saying that Apple is less secure.

BTW, you have supplied no link that iTunes is the most "unstable app on earth."


As previously stated by Addabox, Verizon wants to have their own environment which the iPhone wouldn't possibly comply. This means that potentially all phones on Verizon's network will have access to their higher private network services. This is great for them, no body says differently, but saying that a one year old platform is bad because these option won't be available for another month while overlooking all the benefits that the iPhone has over other devices is nothing but a slithery marketing tactic.

There is no one device that fits everyone's needs. If the LG Voyager is the choice for you then go for it. There are legitimate reasons to complain about the iPhone and Apple and iTunes and OS X and AppleTV or Steve Jobs or anything else associated with Apple, but I haven't read one argument that addresses those issues.

Honestly, I have nothing better to do on days the stock market is closed. Also, I really, really enjoy learning how to debate more effectively. Practice makes perfect, as they say.

i think one of the big things att likes is the low cost of getting a NEW customer. it's a saturated market, new customers usually comes with huge incentives. the iphone is the incentive.