or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › BlackBerry Storm sales reported just one fifth that of iPhone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

BlackBerry Storm sales reported just one fifth that of iPhone

post #1 of 95
Thread Starter 
A late launch and buggy software are described as normal by Resesarch in Motion, but may have led the company to sell just half a million of its first touchscreen BlackBerry in the final weeks of 2008 -- a fifth of what Apple's iPhone 3G reportedly achieved in the same quarter.

Anonymous people familiar with Verizon's phone sales tell the Wall Street Journal that about 500,000 Storm devices passed through the carrier's gates in the month after its launch on November 21st.

While its sales figures are deemed "promising," the smartphone missed more than half of the fall calendar quarter due to delays. Its results also purportedly pale in comparison to AT&T's for its flagship iPhone: although Apple in its latest quarterly report didn't break down iPhone 3G sales by region, the newspaper claims that AT&T will report selling about 2.4 million iPhones in the same period when its quarterly results are made public on Wednesday.

Moreover, the very mixed reception for the Storm is allegedly the byproduct of a launch strategy that put timing over quality. Sources for the Journal say that RIM and Verizon were so eager to launch the first touchscreen BlackBerry ahead of November 28th -- also known as Black Friday and the biggest shopping day of the year -- that the two started shipping units with glaring bugs that have included crashes, severe lag and other problems.

The early hiccups required a similarly rushed fix in December and are still being mended. RIM's co-CEO Jim Ballsillie notes that one upcoming patch will change the Storm's vertical keyboard from the prediction-heavy SureType format (also used on the BlackBerry Pearl) to a conventional QWERTY format like those on iPhones and a handful of other devices.

RIM and Verizon alike counter claims that the launch has been less than ideal. Balsillie doesn't divulge specific numbers but says that his Canada-based company is building about 250,000 Storms per week. He acknowledges that the software was flawed but that bugs in complex phones are the "new reality."

A Verizon spokesman in turn says that, despite claims to the contrary, return rates on the Storm are below 10 percent and that early results have "lived up to our expectations."

Even so, the build rates and customer acceptance are potentially sobering for the two firms, which paired up specifically to answer Apple's cellphone. At the height of its launch popularity during the summer, the iPhone 3G was rumored in production volumes as high as 800,000 per week, or more than three times RIM's present manufacturing rate.

RIM's current all-time high was in its September-to-November fiscal quarter, when it nearly topped Apple's iPhone 3G launch performance by shipping 6.7 million BlackBerries, albeit during a quarter in which the Storm had just a week on store shelves.
post #2 of 95
As bad as these numbers sound, after actually trying to use a Storm I believe they may be over-stated. It's hard to believe that 500,000 people bought one of these POS's in just under two months and less than 10 people took it back?

Also, even if sales are at 500,000 the channels would already be glutted with the things if the manufacturer was making 250,000 a week. Sounds kinda fishy all round to me.

Edit: just realised that "single digits" refers to percentage likely.

Edit 2: The sales period seems like only two solid weeks, so if manufacturers are making 250,00 a week, then all that's really happened here is that the two weeks worth of manufactured goods have moved to the stores. This doesn't necessarily mean they sold any.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #3 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

A Verizon spokesman in turn says that, despite claims to the contrary, return rates on the Storm are below 10 percent and that early results have "lived up to our expectations."

What 9.9% returned?
I know one person personally who did.
post #4 of 95
Quote:
The sales period seems like only two solid weeks, so if manufacturers are making 250,00 a week, then all that's really happened here is that the two weeks worth of manufactured goods have moved to the stores. This doesn't necessarily mean they sold any.

Yeah, I'd be very interested to see just how many Storms have actually been activated, although if the outlook is as bad as it seems, I doubt RIM or Verizon are going to be very willing to give out that information.
post #5 of 95
Three person's I personally know, that bought the BBS, all returned within the 30 day period and bought the iPhone instead... the BBS has helped promote the iPhone.

One Verizon friend, is going to try the BBS for 30 days... if he doesn't like it, he's jumping ship to AT&T for the iphone.

One thing is for sure, AT&T really made out getting the iPhone exclusive... too bad Verizon told  to take a hike.

Once the exclusive is over, RIM doesn't have a prayer.... most people I know are not holding out for RIM, rather, they are holding out for Verizon. If Verizon were smart, they should be contracting with  right now for the next big thing.
post #6 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

What 9.9% returned?
I know one person personally who did.

Me too. I played around with it and the GUI is very slow and the click screen is counterintuitive.
When a company stops chasing profit and start chasing the betterment of their products, services, workforce, and customers, that will be the most valuable company in the world.
Reply
When a company stops chasing profit and start chasing the betterment of their products, services, workforce, and customers, that will be the most valuable company in the world.
Reply
post #7 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ten View Post

Three person's I personally know, that bought the BBS, all returned within the 30 day period and bought the iPhone instead... the BBS has helped promote the iPhone.

One Verizon friend, is going to try the BBS for 30 days... if he doesn't like it, he's jumping ship to AT&T for the iphone.

One thing is for sure, AT&T really made out getting the iPhone exclusive... too bad Verizon told  to take a hike.

Once the exclusive is over, RIM doesn't have a prayer.... most people I know are not holding out for RIM, rather, they are holding out for Verizon. If Verizon were smart, they should be contracting with  right now for the next big thing.

I doubt Apple would make a phone for verizon even if the exclusive deal was over today. I could be wrong, but when they make one phone that works in most countries throughout the world, not sure they would setup a separate manufacturing process just for verizon, but you never know.
[ JUSTIN ]
[ @justin_horn ]
[ @whenwillapple ]
Reply
[ JUSTIN ]
[ @justin_horn ]
[ @whenwillapple ]
Reply
post #8 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzy13 View Post

I doubt Apple would make a phone for verizon even if the exclusive deal was over today. I could be wrong, but when they make one phone that works in most countries throughout the world, not sure they would setup a separate manufacturing process just for verizon, but you never know.

You'll have to rationalize that thought with the fact that so many other companies make phones for Verizon. Do you see the contradiction? Also, do you really think that it would cost Apple so much to drop a new chip or two into the iPhone that it wouldn't be worth the HUGE market that Verizon would provide? 65 million subscribers. If Apple could get 5% of that, that's 3 million phones. 3 million times $500 = 1.5 billion. 50% profit margin works out to $750 million profit. How much do you think it costs to put a couple different chips in a phone?
post #9 of 95
Worldwide the number are quite different. 3 billion people use GSM while only 450 million people use CDMA. I don't think the numbers support creating a second manufacturing line.

On top of that Verizon's business model does not fit with how Apple sells the iPhone. They would have to reconcile those differences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

You'll have to rationalize that thought with the fact that so many other companies make phones for Verizon. Do you see the contradiction? Also, do you really think that it would cost Apple so much to drop a new chip or two into the iPhone that it wouldn't be worth the HUGE market that Verizon would provide? 65 million subscribers. If Apple could get 5% of that, that's 3 million phones. 3 million times $500 = 1.5 billion. 50% profit margin works out to $750 million profit. How much do you think it costs to put a couple different chips in a phone?
post #10 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

You'll have to rationalize that thought with the fact that so many other companies make phones for Verizon. Do you see the contradiction? Also, do you really think that it would cost Apple so much to drop a new chip or two into the iPhone that it wouldn't be worth the HUGE market that Verizon would provide? 65 million subscribers. If Apple could get 5% of that, that's 3 million phones. 3 million times $500 = 1.5 billion. 50% profit margin works out to $750 million profit. How much do you think it costs to put a couple different chips in a phone?

To futher that, Verizon now has 80 million customers. Also, dont forget that ATT jumped on the LTE bandwagon, so they will have to put the same chipset in the iphone in the future anyway. I am not aware of a company that would pass an opportunity to build for them, it would be financially ignorant.
post #11 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Worldwide the number are quite different. 3 billion people use GSM while only 450 million people use CDMA. I don't think the numbers support creating a second manufacturing line.

That still ignores the point that all phone makers DO find the time and resources to drop a CDMA chip in their phones for Verizon. Just how much do you think it would cost anyway? $750 million?
post #12 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzy13 View Post

I doubt Apple would make a phone for verizon even if the exclusive deal was over today. I could be wrong, but when they make one phone that works in most countries throughout the world, not sure they would setup a separate manufacturing process just for verizon, but you never know.


All companies will be going to 4G in the 2010 timeframe. Both AT&T and Verizon will be going to LTE, while Sprint will be going to WiMax.

I'm assuming that the new 2010 model iPhone will still work on AT&T's network. If so, then it will also work on Verizon's.
post #13 of 95
People just never learn. Apple's iPhone at introduction wasn't exactly picture-perfect either with the firmware issues but smack goes to RIM for coming out with a phone way before it was ready for release.

An engineer would not ship a product until it is perfect. Meaning, nothing will ever ship.

Marketing wants to ship a product yesterday to get it in the hands of people. Meaning, "I don't care if it doesn't work, we got to get it out the door."

I think Apple did a great job with the v1.0 iPhone. Sure it wasn't perfect but it was far more polished and usable. They found a much better balance of stability and worked the kinks out once it went to the masses.

RIM should just be ashamed. So many companies pull stunts like these and usually end up ruining their reputation in the process. They could have waited a few more weeks. Perhaps for the Christmas holidays. There is just no excuse. RIM obviously won't be going out of business but the folks that put it out too early really should be shown the door. For an executive to imply that these bugs are the "new reality" is just plain ignorant.

Polish your product buddy. Don't throw crap out the door. If you do, don't complain when it gets thrown back at you.

</rant>
post #14 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

A late launch and buggy software are described as normal by Resesarch in Motion

Late and buggy have been the norm for cellphone makers for years, but now that the iPhone has arrived, that kind of schlock will put a company on the fast-track for bailout funding from Uncle Obama.
post #15 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

People just never learn. Apple's iPhone at introduction wasn't exactly picture-perfect either with the firmware issues but smack goes to RIM for coming out with a phone way before it was ready for release.

An engineer would not ship a product until it is perfect. Meaning, nothing will ever ship.

Marketing wants to ship a product yesterday to get it in the hands of people. Meaning, "I don't care if it doesn't work, we got to get it out the door."

I think Apple did a great job with the v1.0 iPhone. Sure it wasn't perfect but it was far more polished and usable. They found a much better balance of stability and worked the kinks out once it went to the masses.

RIM should just be ashamed. So many companies pull stunts like these and usually end up ruining their reputation in the process. They could have waited a few more weeks. Perhaps for the Christmas holidays. There is just no excuse. RIM obviously won't be going out of business but the folks that put it out too early really should be shown the door. For an executive to imply that these bugs are the "new reality" is just plain ignorant.

Polish your product buddy. Don't throw crap out the door. If you do, don't complain when it gets thrown back at you.

</rant>

RIM's real problem with the Storm isn't the bugs. While that's not good, and a number are still lingering, the real problem is with the keyboard.

To get that "click" they have a bump on the back of the middle of the screen. That sits on a round microswitch. when you press the screen, the switch depresses, clicks, and pushes the screen back up. The edge of the screen is also attached so dirt won't get inside.

The problem with this whole concept is that it takes some effort to click the "buttons". While a few clicks isn't a problem, typing a paragraph quickly gets tiring. Apparently, according to all the reviews I've read (and bookmarked, in case anyone is interested) that have commented on it, the phone often mistakes a swipe as a click, and visa versa.

These are serious problems that require a re-design of that entire concept. It's not just a software bug that can be fixed later. The entire phone must be scrapped and replaced.

I've tried it, and indeed, it is fun to use at first, but the click get old real quick.

I can't see any advantage to them. they still don't tell you that your finger is hitting the right "key". They don't even tell you that your finger is hitting a "key" at all! You might just be hitting the space between. Anywhere you press, the screen will click. While sounds and such do give you that info, you get that info on the iPhone as well.

It just wasn't that well thought out. It's "cool", but not that useful.
post #16 of 95
Also keep in mind that there is 1 model of iPhone (apart from memory size differences) and several models of Blackberry. I missed that in the article.
I don't believe one can compare just the Storm to the iPhone, it should be Blackberry against the iPhone.
post #17 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prism View Post

Also keep in mind that there is 1 model of iPhone (apart from memory size differences) and several models of Blackberry. I missed that in the article.
I don't believe one can compare just the Storm to the iPhone, it should be Blackberry against the iPhone.

You're right, of course, but it's RIM that's comparing the Storm to the iPhone, so it is fair. It's the closest thing RIM has to the iPhone.
post #18 of 95
If it's RIM that does the comparing and making it obviously, then yes it's fair I guess.
post #19 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

RIM's real problem with the Storm isn't the bugs. While that's not good, and a number are still lingering, the real problem is with the keyboard.

To get that "click" they have a bump on the back of the middle of the screen. That sits on a round microswitch. when you press the screen, the switch depresses, clicks, and pushes the screen back up. The edge of the screen is also attached so dirt won't get inside.

The problem with this whole concept is that it takes some effort to click the "buttons". While a few clicks isn't a problem, typing a paragraph quickly gets tiring. Apparently, according to all the reviews I've read (and bookmarked, in case anyone is interested) that have commented on it, the phone often mistakes a swipe as a click, and visa versa.

These are serious problems that require a re-design of that entire concept. It's not just a software bug that can be fixed later. The entire phone must be scrapped and replaced.

I've tried it, and indeed, it is fun to use at first, but the click get old real quick.

I can't see any advantage to them. they still don't tell you that your finger is hitting the right "key". They don't even tell you that your finger is hitting a "key" at all! You might just be hitting the space between. Anywhere you press, the screen will click. While sounds and such do give you that info, you get that info on the iPhone as well.

It just wasn't that well thought out. It's "cool", but not that useful.

That sounds absolutely pointless, and counter-productive.

I presume Apple have the patent on capacitive touch clicking by finding the centre of an area of pressure (e.g., a finger tip shaped area) as the likely point of contact? I assume they also have a patent on the keyboard design that works out likely words from your typing pattern rather than the exact place you typed. Both of these will make RIM's job much harder to come up with an alternative.
post #20 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

That still ignores the point that all phone makers DO find the time and resources to drop a CDMA chip in their phones for Verizon. Just how much do you think it would cost anyway? $750 million?

Nokia and Sony Ericsson both got out of CDMA because it was unprofitable. Qualcomm control CDMA in the US and everything is done on their terms. They're the ones making all of the profits. The R&D cost simply isn't worth it for a lot of companies.

Qualcomm's flavour of CDMA is an evolutionary dead-end. There's no logical reason for Apple to bring the iPhone to Verizon.
post #21 of 95
I remember when this phone was released an people were saying this would kill of the iphone if Apple didnt implement all the basic features iphone lacked, this phone sure killed the iphone, just like the G1, now we'll have the N97 and Pre to come have a go.
post #22 of 95
Nothing wrong with RIM introducing this product. Yes, quality could have been better, but RIM is still beating Apple hands down in penetration of smartphones, and to the extent they can pressure apple on their turf it is a good thing for them. The new Bold and Curve are awesome products that will take customers away from Apple, and for those who MUST have a touch screen, well, you've got a work in progress that will improve over time.
post #23 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by veleno View Post

Nothing wrong with RIM introducing this product. Yes, quality could have been better, but RIM is still beating Apple hands down in penetration of smartphones, and to the extent they can pressure apple on their turf it is a good thing for them. The new Bold and Curve are awesome products that will take customers away from Apple, and for those who MUST have a touch screen, well, you've got a work in progress that will improve over time.


Yawn even with all those phones and Apple with one phone is outselling them, we heard before the storm launched that it would finish Apple, yet the storm hardly made a breeze talk less of a storm.
post #24 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

That sounds absolutely pointless, and counter-productive.

I presume Apple have the patent on capacitive touch clicking by finding the centre of an area of pressure (e.g., a finger tip shaped area) as the likely point of contact? I assume they also have a patent on the keyboard design that works out likely words from your typing pattern rather than the exact place you typed. Both of these will make RIM's job much harder to come up with an alternative.

I haven't done more than skim through the patents, they're too long for a quick read, with all the drawings and diagrams, so I don't know exactly what it is that Apple patented about this.

But one thing I have read somewhere, is that the screen actually reads up to about 15 touch sites the same time. I'm not sure what the software does with that in the broader sense, as with specific gestures. In other words, will it allow four finger gestures now?

But it does use it in detecting a key. So if you hit 60% of a key, the space between, and 20% of the next key, at the same time, it will assume that you meant the key with the 60% and read only that one. With my Treo, if I hit more than one of those tiny keys at once, it would read both. A physical key doesn't know or care. It's why the QUERTY keyboard was developed way back in the first placeto slow typists down so that wouldn't happen.
post #25 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

Nokia and Sony Ericsson both got out of CDMA because it was unprofitable. Qualcomm control CDMA in the US and everything is done on their terms. They're the ones making all of the profits. The R&D cost simply isn't worth it for a lot of companies.

Qualcomm's flavour of CDMA is an evolutionary dead-end. There's no logical reason for Apple to bring the iPhone to Verizon.

Broadcom too.
post #26 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

Nokia and Sony Ericsson both got out of CDMA because it was unprofitable. Qualcomm control CDMA in the US and everything is done on their terms. They're the ones making all of the profits. The R&D cost simply isn't worth it for a lot of companies.

Qualcomm's flavour of CDMA is an evolutionary dead-end. There's no logical reason for Apple to bring the iPhone to Verizon.

What about 3/4 of a billion dollars in profit?
post #27 of 95
Reading this and some reviews of the new Nokia 5800 (which some people at work now have) I was reminded of some quotes from the incumbent handset manufacturers around the time of the original iPhone announcement.

They were along the lines of "we're not worried, we've been doing this for 15 years and trust us, it is hard to make a good handset. Apple are starting from scratch. It will take them 3 versions to even have something workable". Perhaps is was Motorolla?

Anyway, point is, obviously they were wrong, the iPhone is a huge success and the user experience eclipses any other mobile device (including all the previous iPods) I've ever used.

But I was also reminded of something Apple said just recently - "The user experience of handheld devices is much more about the software now than the hardware". Being successful with mobile devices doesn't require 15 years of handset manufacturing experience, but it will benefit of 15 years commitment to software design focused on the user experience, not feature lists. Oh, and paring that with top-notch hardware and industrial design that you also control completely. no concessions to legacy...

I played with my co-workers N5800 for about 3 minutes before I had to excuse myself with a "that's great, really..." and walk away feeling so sorry for him. He'd bought it outright for £200 and it is very ordinary. The symbian-based OS is so much legacy stuff dressed up as new. The touch screen, well, isn't one. It requires a stylus, not fingers. Oh dear.

Anyway, I am sure the big guys will continue to refine their offerings closer and closer to the iPhone designs and lessons learnt (good, and a few bad). After a debut that really can't be called anything other than spectacular, the onus is on Apple to continue to lead the space.

And my wish-list for the iPhone 2.0 (3G was 1.5), from a obviously happy first-gen iPhone user?:

- Better still camera quality, whatever that takes
- Front-firing iSight for 3G video calls. Apple can totally own mobile video calls if they play this right. Then they can release an Apple TV iSight peripheral and own wired/home video conferencing too...
- A physical design that helps me know the top from the bottom of my iPhone in my pocket .
- Enable all available Bluetooth features like stereo audio and file xfer.
- More standards-based syncing with Google contacts, calendar etc.
- A hundred little incremental user interface improvement that can come from looking hard at what people do with their iphone and making is even more effortless. "Think Simpler"
post #28 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by pumpkinhead View Post

Reading this and some reviews of the new Nokia 5800 (which some people at work now have) I was reminded of some quotes from the incumbent handset manufacturers around the time of the original iPhone announcement.

They were along the lines of "we're not worried, we've been doing this for 15 years and trust us, it is hard to make a good handset. Apple are starting from scratch. It will take them 3 versions to even have something workable". Perhaps is was Motorolla?

Anyway, point is, obviously they were wrong, the iPhone is a huge success and the user experience eclipses any other mobile device (including all the previous iPods) I've ever used.

But I was also reminded of something Apple said just recently - "The user experience of handheld devices is much more about the software now than the hardware". Being successful with mobile devices doesn't require 15 years of handset manufacturing experience, but it will benefit of 15 years commitment to software design focused on the user experience, not feature lists. Oh, and paring that with top-notch hardware and industrial design that you also control completely. no concessions to legacy...

I played with my co-workers N5800 for about 3 minutes before I had to excuse myself with a "that's great, really..." and walk away feeling so sorry for him. He'd bought it outright for £200 and it is very ordinary. The symbian-based OS is so much legacy stuff dressed up as new. The touch screen, well, isn't one. It requires a stylus, not fingers. Oh dear.

Anyway, I am sure the big guys will continue to refine their offerings closer and closer to the iPhone designs and lessons learnt (good, and a few bad). After a debut that really can't be called anything other than spectacular, the onus is on Apple to continue to lead the space.

And my wish-list for the iPhone 2.0 (3G was 1.5), from a obviously happy first-gen iPhone user?:

- Better still camera quality, whatever that takes
- Front-firing iSight for 3G video calls. Apple can totally own mobile video calls if they play this right. Then they can release an Apple TV iSight peripheral and own wired/home video conferencing too...
- A physical design that helps me know the top from the bottom of my iPhone in my pocket .
- Enable all available Bluetooth features like stereo audio and file xfer.
- More standards-based syncing with Google contacts, calendar etc.
- A hundred little incremental user interface improvement that can come from looking hard at what people do with their iphone and making is even more effortless. "Think Simpler"

I agree with most of all that.

I do have to say though, that finding which way is up is easy. When I have it in a pocket, rather than on my waist, I just feel for the button, or the earphone. Both are obvious when a finger quickly moves over them. You can also feel for the side buttons, the camera, the connector, etc. It only takes a second.
post #29 of 95
lets see
storm has tedious keyboard, poor OS, NO WIFI, and when someone says "single digit return" it could be just for a day , that day or an hour,
here's how you tell penetration----how many are surfing the web?
funny they don't tell us that do they hmmmmmm
how many app downloads....hmmmm no info for that
corp app development......hmmmmm no info for that either

iphone is the standard.....hmmmmmm they don't want to discuss that

i've never seen one......none of my geek phone guys/ girls have one....they dismiss it

let's see......lets market a high end phone....without highend stuff
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #30 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

Nokia and Sony Ericsson both got out of CDMA because it was unprofitable. Qualcomm control CDMA in the US and everything is done on their terms. They're the ones making all of the profits. The R&D cost simply isn't worth it for a lot of companies.

Qualcomm's flavour of CDMA is an evolutionary dead-end. There's no logical reason for Apple to bring the iPhone to Verizon.

First, Nokia has come back and is producing CDMA devices. Ericsson, well the phones were junk, and sales drove them out.

It is silly to think of CDMA that way, its an evolution of GSM/TDMA. It provides more capacity, clarity and security, which is essential for service providers. If it was not logical to bring it to Verizon, they would not have offered it to them, which they did. Almost all of verizons PDA devices also now offer GSM as well, mainly because they are a partnership company owned by Verizon Comm, and Vodaphone, the largest carrier in the world. Apple is not ignorant enough to ignore the massive opportunity, they were simply unable to convince verizon its worth the required terms. Time will tell, I have used a BBS and iphone and others and honestly most of the stuff I have read on here is pure fanboy hype. Both of the devices are pretty sweet, it's simply a mater of preference, and we are only comparing a little over a month of existence for the BBS right now. I ended up liking the Samsung Omnia better than both of them.
post #31 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwk984 View Post

Apple is not ignorant enough to ignore the massive opportunity, they were simply unable to convince verizon its worth the required terms.

You are over stating the massive opportunity of Verizon. 80 million in the US vs billions of GSM users around the world. Apple doesn't need Verizon.

Quote:
Time will tell, I have used a BBS and iphone and others and honestly most of the stuff I have read on here is pure fanboy hype. Both of the devices are pretty sweet, it's simply a mater of preference, and we are only comparing a little over a month of existence for the BBS right now.

Ah, their goes the fanboy accusations.

You need to search around the net. Their have been lots of bad reviews of the Storm from sites that have nothing to do with Apple.
post #32 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

You are over stating the massive opportunity of Verizon. 80 million in the US vs billions of GSM users around the world. Apple doesn't need Verizon.

Apple doesn't need Verizon? What does that prove? 80 million subscribers. The work to put some new chips into the iPhone is well understood, it's been done for hundreds of other phones in the past 5 years. Apple has demonstrated with ATT the demand in the USA for the iPhone, and it's over 10% of ATT's subscribers. If Apple could sell 8 million iPhones, for a gross of over two billion dollars, you don't think that would be profitable?
post #33 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwk984 View Post

First, Nokia has come back and is producing CDMA devices. Ericsson, well the phones were junk, and sales drove them out.

It is silly to think of CDMA that way, its an evolution of GSM/TDMA. It provides more capacity, clarity and security, which is essential for service providers. If it was not logical to bring it to Verizon, they would not have offered it to them, which they did. Almost all of verizons PDA devices also now offer GSM as well, mainly because they are a partnership company owned by Verizon Comm, and Vodaphone, the largest carrier in the world. Apple is not ignorant enough to ignore the massive opportunity, they were simply unable to convince verizon its worth the required terms. Time will tell, I have used a BBS and iphone and others and honestly most of the stuff I have read on here is pure fanboy hype. Both of the devices are pretty sweet, it's simply a mater of preference, and we are only comparing a little over a month of existence for the BBS right now. I ended up liking the Samsung Omnia better than both of them.

Some reviews of the Storm:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/15421...ppointing.html

http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/19/b...-storm-review/

http://gizmodo.com/5093715/blackberr...-perfect-storm

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...3591085.column

http://www.time.com/time/business/ar...860717,00.html

http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=212101426

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-...m-Lacks-Punch/

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/26909

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1093...m-is-a-washout

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/27/te...ogue.html?_r=2

I'm sure there must be more reviews (other than articles where the writer hasn't actually used it at all, or for more than a few minutes), but I don't have them bookmarked.
post #34 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

You are over stating the massive opportunity of Verizon. 80 million in the US vs billions of GSM users around the world. Apple doesn't need Verizon.

80 million users in a first world country (with higher 3G penetration than the 5 largest european countries) ---- is a lot different than 700-800 million poor cell phone users in the third world.

The US market still represents about 1/2 of the world's iphones sold.
post #35 of 95
post #36 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by pumpkinhead View Post

I played with my co-workers N5800 for about 3 minutes before I had to excuse myself with a "that's great, really..." and walk away feeling so sorry for him. He'd bought it outright for £200 and it is very ordinary. The symbian-based OS is so much legacy stuff dressed up as new. The touch screen, well, isn't one. It requires a stylus, not fingers. Oh dear.

Really? We've got one at work and I've never had to use the stylus. What exactly did you need the stylus for?

I think Nokia has actually been very clever with the 5800. They've looked at what Apple do best (shiny techno-lust gadgets) and looked at what they do best (mass market phones). Instead of directly copying the iPhone (*cough* Omnia *cough*), they've taken the form-factor and delivered something different - a very cheap touchscreen smartphone. It's not as good as the iPhone but it's decent for the price - especially in the weakening global economy. The iPhone is still a minimum of £350 to buy outright from 02 and it's still locked to their network.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kwk984 View Post

First, Nokia has come back and is producing CDMA devices. Ericsson, well the phones were junk, and sales drove them out.

No, Nokia are not producing CDMA devices. They're re-badging Sanyo phones. Nokia got rid of its CDMA R&D facilities a couple of years back.

Quote:
It is silly to think of CDMA that way, its an evolution of GSM/TDMA. It provides more capacity, clarity and security, which is essential for service providers.

I was very precise with my language. CDMA is not an evolutionary dead-end. Qualcomm CDMA is a dead-end. The world and its dog is moving to the GSM Association's LTE standard. The wireless standards that Verizon built its network on, IS-95/EV-DO, were technically very good. However, they were effectively controlled by one company and this starved the market of competition. Verizon CDMA devices were always much more expensive to develop, manufacturer and buy because of this lack of competition.
post #37 of 95
Yes Apple doesn't "need" Verizon. I agree the iPhone on Verizon would add to Apple's profits, but Apple does not need the iPhone on Verizon to be highly profitable. Their is a difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

Apple doesn't need Verizon? What does that prove? 80 million subscribers. The work to put some new chips into the iPhone is well understood, it's been done for hundreds of other phones in the past 5 years. Apple has demonstrated with ATT the demand in the USA for the iPhone, and it's over 10% of ATT's subscribers. If Apple could sell 8 million iPhones, for a gross of over two billion dollars, you don't think that would be profitable?
post #38 of 95
I agree Verizon is a highly profitable business. But I do not agree that Verizon is more desirable than the majority of the worlds market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

80 million users in a first world country (with higher 3G penetration than the 5 largest european countries) ---- is a lot different than 700-800 million poor cell phone users in the third world.

The US market still represents about 1/2 of the world's iphones sold.
post #39 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Yes Apple doesn't "need" Verizon. I agree the iPhone on Verizon would add to Apple's profits, but Apple does not need the iPhone on Verizon to be highly profitable. Their is a difference.


What it would do is add to the hype.

If it did arrive on Verizon, which is very possible sometime 2010, after LTE arrives, and somehow became their most popular phone, which is very possible, what would that tell other manufacturers?

I understand that in other places around the world, where Apple's brand is not quite as strong, while the phone has been pretty popular, it's not as strong as it is here. But covering Verizon would put a crimp in everyone else's plans and force them to rethink their strategies.
post #40 of 95
why doesn't apple buy its own network, or MVNO they could charge for the phone and make a everything package like sprint for $50/ month and kick butt
verizon would have to make major concessions to apple that ATT has, verizon with its vcast makes mucho why let apple dilute this.
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › BlackBerry Storm sales reported just one fifth that of iPhone