Originally Posted by samab
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.
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)
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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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?