Unfortunately, AT&T is being compared with Verizon Wireless and VZW is pulling massive profit margins without selling the iphone.
What nonsense are you attempting to spout, and which margin are you talking about?
Here's the data for 2008 (annual):
Profit Margin: ATT 10.37% VZ 6.60%
Oper Margin: ATT 18.22% VZ 17.34%
EBITDA Margin: ATT 34.25% VZ 33.72%
And, here's the data for the latest quarter (Q2'09):
Profit Margin: ATT 10.66% VZ 11.76%
Oper Margin: ATT 17.92% VZ 16.45%
EBITDA Margin: ATT (na) VZ (na)
With the exception of a minor outperformance in the NI margin in the latest quarter (and NI margins are more prone to accounting shenanigans from a reporting standpoint than operating margins), ATT outperforms VZ in all the reported metrics.
What nonsense are you attempting to spout, and which margin are you talking about?
Here's the data for 2008 (annual):
Profit Margin: ATT 10.37% VZ 6.60%
Oper Margin: ATT 18.22% VZ 17.34%
EBITDA Margin: ATT 34.25% VZ 33.72%
And, here's the data for the latest quarter (Q2'09):
Profit Margin: ATT 10.66% VZ 11.76%
Oper Margin: ATT 17.92% VZ 16.45%
EBITDA Margin: ATT (na) VZ (na)
With the exception of a minor outperformance in the NI margin in the latest quarter (and NI margins are more prone to accounting shenanigans from a reporting standpoint than operating margins), ATT outperforms VZ in all the reported metrics.
Get real.
Source: finance.google.com.
I said the wireless subsidiaries, not the whole company.
Quote:
In the second quarter, AT&T's wireless service margins fell to 38.3%, down from both the first quarter and the year-earlier period. The decline was largely blamed on the estimated $720 million in subsidies the carrier has to pay Apple Inc. (AAPL) to keep the iPhone reasonably priced.
In comparison, Verizon Wireless had service margins of 46% in the first quarter. The wireless carrier is jointly owned by Vodafone Group Plc (VOD) and Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ), which will report second-quarter results on Monday.
This is rubbish...AT&T locks iPhone users in for two to five years on average and they are all paying on average $100 per month for connection services at 9 MILLION users. That's a hell of a lot of dough that no one else has had access to that's why AT&T was willing to eat the subsidy to double the number of subscribers to AT&T services. AT&T has benefited quite nicely from selling the iPhone.
It is rubbish, propagated by the WSJ... as if they had some kind of inside information. I seriously doubt that.
why are AT&T profits being compared to their profits a year ago? Doesn't it make more sense to do a comparison to their profits before the iPhone? The difference between iPhone 3G release and the 3GS release is this year AT&T ate part of the subsidy from 3G owners who upgraded.
I said the wireless subsidiaries, not the whole company.
Quote:
In the second quarter, AT&T's wireless service margins fell to 38.3%, down from both the first quarter and the year-earlier period. The decline was largely blamed on the estimated $720 million in subsidies the carrier has to pay Apple Inc. (AAPL) to keep the iPhone reasonably priced.
In comparison, Verizon Wireless had service margins of 46% in the first quarter. The wireless carrier is jointly owned by Vodafone Group Plc (VOD) and Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ), which will report second-quarter results on Monday.
Cute, but no cigar. The article also says: "Any quarter with a spike in iPhone sales has led to a drop in profitability."
That is the problem when you focus in net income, as I mentioned before. (Investments in future growth in revenue show up as expenses today, which can mean nothing).
(Incidentally, the data reported in the WSJ article are intriguing. It talks about net income margins. Actual SEC filings by ATT and VZ that I've seen only provide segment Operating Income data. Can you please provide a cite from a publicly reported data source that verifies WSJ's numbers? Thanks.).
It is rubbish, propagated by the WSJ... as if they had some kind of inside information. I seriously doubt that.
I am skeptical too. It is possible that they are quoting analyst numbers (which these publications often tend to do - but the WSJ is usually above that sort of stuff; anyway, hopefully, samab will provide me a primary data source for WSJ's net income margin claims. I am quite happy to be corrected).
Quote:
Originally Posted by alandail
why are AT&T profits being compared to their profits a year ago? Doesn't it make more sense to do a comparison to their profits before the iPhone? The difference between iPhone 3G release and the 3GS release is this year AT&T ate part of the subsidy from 3G owners who upgraded.
That's exactly right. And, the WSJ article acknowledges that.
PS: Yawn. Off to bed. Getting late. Will respond to samab tomorrow, if needed.
If it was such a bad deal, AT&T wouldn't have extended the contract last year & tried to do it again this year. Verizon also seems pretty interested in getting the iphone. Seems like the carriers don't mind the arrangement at all.
Not really. You have to remember that until Verizon launches a network that is actually compatible with an iPhone that Apple makes, AT&T still has some negotiating power. And it's not as if Apple can realistically switch to a different carrier right now anyway. No other network in the US supports the iPhone in it's current incarnation.
However, there seems to be an issue most people are forgetting. Even if Verizon launches its LTE network next year, they will NOT have full nationwide coverage in major cities until 2013, which means needing to fall back on a "2G/3G" network in most places. Since Verizon uses CDMA, that means either sticking in more hardware on the iPhone, making a completely separate version of the phone, or Verizon could have roaming agreements with T-Mobile. The first two imply that Apple spouting "CDMA is dead" was just a cover because they were still in their contract with Apple and the latter means that Verizon will have little, if any, control over the quality of their network for the newest of their users (to be honest, this option will never happen).
So until the buildup of Verizon's LTE network is complete, I don't see Apple making a Verizon iPhone. Besides, they've never been one to dabble in new tech until it's proven itself.
Cute, but no cigar. The article also says: "Any quarter with a spike in iPhone sales has led to a drop in profitability."
That is the problem when you focus in net income, as I mentioned before. (Investments in future growth in revenue show up as expenses today, which can mean nothing).
(Incidentally, the data reported in the WSJ article are intriguing. It talks about net income margins. Actual SEC filings by ATT and VZ that I've seen only provide segment Operating Income data. Can you please provide a cite from a publicly reported data source that verifies WSJ's numbers? Thanks.).
The slow and steady wins the race --- VZW maintains its margins quarter to quarter.
why are AT&T profits being compared to their profits a year ago? Doesn't it make more sense to do a comparison to their profits before the iPhone? The difference between iPhone 3G release and the 3GS release is this year AT&T ate part of the subsidy from 3G owners who upgraded.
They are not really comparing with the year before. They are comparing AT&T Wireless with Verizon Wireless.
Verizon Wireless will have a higher margin quarter after quarter --- doesn't matter if it's a iphone launch quarter, or a regular quarter or the last quarter of the iphone's life when AT&T ran out of iphones.
It just means that the exodus will be even more massive the minute Verizon gets to sell the iphone.
1) If Verizon gets it any time soon
2) Unless Verizon's data network crashes and burns harder the AT&T's
I wouldn't assume just because they get it that service is going to be all bubble gum and lolly-pops. Granted, Verizon is getting to see what the iPhone does in terms of volume, but whether or not they are able to do anything about it in the short term is debatable. That's why as I stated earlier, I don't think the iPhone on Verizon is going to happen any time soon. They are going to want to avoid the public relations nightmare AT&T has had.
I guess, at least from AT&T perspective, their can be a product that is too good.
YOU ARE FINALLY LIVING. DESIGN HAS EVOLVED TO MAKE YOUR LIFE WORTH LIVING." computers from the fruit company.
Yeah, these statements sound about the same level of idiocy that rockstar devotees (and rockstar itself), usually puts forth.
GTA is a disgusting piece of crap game and rockstar is a company full of sociopathic twelve year olds inhabiting the bodies of 20 something idiots who think they are "edgy" cause they go for the lowest common denominator.
This guy has an interest in Apple not getting a good deal somewhere else. The guy is talking about how the current carrier lost in the deal with Apple at a time when Apple is likely talking to other companies. I wouldn't be surprised if AT&T hired the guy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkral
If it was such a bad deal, AT&T wouldn't have extended the contract last year & tried to do it again this year. Verizon also seems pretty interested in getting the iphone. Seems like the carriers don't mind the arrangement at all.
LOL. All carriers stink, including and especially Verizon. It really comes down to 1) who offers the better service where you live, and 2) who is screwing you less.
Comments
Unfortunately, AT&T is being compared with Verizon Wireless and VZW is pulling massive profit margins without selling the iphone.
What nonsense are you attempting to spout, and which margin are you talking about?
Here's the data for 2008 (annual):
Profit Margin: ATT 10.37% VZ 6.60%
Oper Margin: ATT 18.22% VZ 17.34%
EBITDA Margin: ATT 34.25% VZ 33.72%
And, here's the data for the latest quarter (Q2'09):
Profit Margin: ATT 10.66% VZ 11.76%
Oper Margin: ATT 17.92% VZ 16.45%
EBITDA Margin: ATT (na) VZ (na)
With the exception of a minor outperformance in the NI margin in the latest quarter (and NI margins are more prone to accounting shenanigans from a reporting standpoint than operating margins), ATT outperforms VZ in all the reported metrics.
Get real.
Source: finance.google.com.
Yeah, I have been quite happy with my service too. Doesn't earn you many friends round here to say that, though.
Couldn't agree more. I am very happy with ATT. (Switched from Verizon).
What nonsense are you attempting to spout, and which margin are you talking about?
Here's the data for 2008 (annual):
Profit Margin: ATT 10.37% VZ 6.60%
Oper Margin: ATT 18.22% VZ 17.34%
EBITDA Margin: ATT 34.25% VZ 33.72%
And, here's the data for the latest quarter (Q2'09):
Profit Margin: ATT 10.66% VZ 11.76%
Oper Margin: ATT 17.92% VZ 16.45%
EBITDA Margin: ATT (na) VZ (na)
With the exception of a minor outperformance in the NI margin in the latest quarter (and NI margins are more prone to accounting shenanigans from a reporting standpoint than operating margins), ATT outperforms VZ in all the reported metrics.
Get real.
Source: finance.google.com.
I said the wireless subsidiaries, not the whole company.
Quote:
In the second quarter, AT&T's wireless service margins fell to 38.3%, down from both the first quarter and the year-earlier period. The decline was largely blamed on the estimated $720 million in subsidies the carrier has to pay Apple Inc. (AAPL) to keep the iPhone reasonably priced.
In comparison, Verizon Wireless had service margins of 46% in the first quarter. The wireless carrier is jointly owned by Vodafone Group Plc (VOD) and Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ), which will report second-quarter results on Monday.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...23-716753.html
This is rubbish...AT&T locks iPhone users in for two to five years on average and they are all paying on average $100 per month for connection services at 9 MILLION users. That's a hell of a lot of dough that no one else has had access to that's why AT&T was willing to eat the subsidy to double the number of subscribers to AT&T services. AT&T has benefited quite nicely from selling the iPhone.
It is rubbish, propagated by the WSJ... as if they had some kind of inside information.
?No buttons. No reception. No Storage Capacity. All Ego? the ifruit
"Think Simple. Think Minimalism. Think Overpriced.
YOU ARE FINALLY LIVING. DESIGN HAS EVOLVED TO MAKE YOUR LIFE WORTH LIVING." computers from the fruit company.
I said the wireless subsidiaries, not the whole company.
Quote:
In the second quarter, AT&T's wireless service margins fell to 38.3%, down from both the first quarter and the year-earlier period. The decline was largely blamed on the estimated $720 million in subsidies the carrier has to pay Apple Inc. (AAPL) to keep the iPhone reasonably priced.
In comparison, Verizon Wireless had service margins of 46% in the first quarter. The wireless carrier is jointly owned by Vodafone Group Plc (VOD) and Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ), which will report second-quarter results on Monday.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...23-716753.html
Cute, but no cigar. The article also says: "Any quarter with a spike in iPhone sales has led to a drop in profitability."
That is the problem when you focus in net income, as I mentioned before. (Investments in future growth in revenue show up as expenses today, which can mean nothing).
(Incidentally, the data reported in the WSJ article are intriguing. It talks about net income margins. Actual SEC filings by ATT and VZ that I've seen only provide segment Operating Income data. Can you please provide a cite from a publicly reported data source that verifies WSJ's numbers? Thanks.).
It is rubbish, propagated by the WSJ... as if they had some kind of inside information.
I am skeptical too. It is possible that they are quoting analyst numbers (which these publications often tend to do - but the WSJ is usually above that sort of stuff; anyway, hopefully, samab will provide me a primary data source for WSJ's net income margin claims. I am quite happy to be corrected).
why are AT&T profits being compared to their profits a year ago? Doesn't it make more sense to do a comparison to their profits before the iPhone? The difference between iPhone 3G release and the 3GS release is this year AT&T ate part of the subsidy from 3G owners who upgraded.
That's exactly right. And, the WSJ article acknowledges that.
PS: Yawn. Off to bed. Getting late. Will respond to samab tomorrow, if needed.
If it was such a bad deal, AT&T wouldn't have extended the contract last year & tried to do it again this year. Verizon also seems pretty interested in getting the iphone. Seems like the carriers don't mind the arrangement at all.
Not really. You have to remember that until Verizon launches a network that is actually compatible with an iPhone that Apple makes, AT&T still has some negotiating power. And it's not as if Apple can realistically switch to a different carrier right now anyway. No other network in the US supports the iPhone in it's current incarnation.
However, there seems to be an issue most people are forgetting. Even if Verizon launches its LTE network next year, they will NOT have full nationwide coverage in major cities until 2013, which means needing to fall back on a "2G/3G" network in most places. Since Verizon uses CDMA, that means either sticking in more hardware on the iPhone, making a completely separate version of the phone, or Verizon could have roaming agreements with T-Mobile. The first two imply that Apple spouting "CDMA is dead" was just a cover because they were still in their contract with Apple and the latter means that Verizon will have little, if any, control over the quality of their network for the newest of their users (to be honest, this option will never happen).
So until the buildup of Verizon's LTE network is complete, I don't see Apple making a Verizon iPhone. Besides, they've never been one to dabble in new tech until it's proven itself.
Cute, but no cigar. The article also says: "Any quarter with a spike in iPhone sales has led to a drop in profitability."
That is the problem when you focus in net income, as I mentioned before. (Investments in future growth in revenue show up as expenses today, which can mean nothing).
(Incidentally, the data reported in the WSJ article are intriguing. It talks about net income margins. Actual SEC filings by ATT and VZ that I've seen only provide segment Operating Income data. Can you please provide a cite from a publicly reported data source that verifies WSJ's numbers? Thanks.).
The slow and steady wins the race --- VZW maintains its margins quarter to quarter.
AT&T Wireless
http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pi...rticleid=26961
Verizon Wireless
http://investor.verizon.com/financia...09Bulletin.pdf
why are AT&T profits being compared to their profits a year ago? Doesn't it make more sense to do a comparison to their profits before the iPhone? The difference between iPhone 3G release and the 3GS release is this year AT&T ate part of the subsidy from 3G owners who upgraded.
They are not really comparing with the year before. They are comparing AT&T Wireless with Verizon Wireless.
Verizon Wireless will have a higher margin quarter after quarter --- doesn't matter if it's a iphone launch quarter, or a regular quarter or the last quarter of the iphone's life when AT&T ran out of iphones.
It just means that the exodus will be even more massive the minute Verizon gets to sell the iphone.
1) If Verizon gets it any time soon
2) Unless Verizon's data network crashes and burns harder the AT&T's
I wouldn't assume just because they get it that service is going to be all bubble gum and lolly-pops. Granted, Verizon is getting to see what the iPhone does in terms of volume, but whether or not they are able to do anything about it in the short term is debatable. That's why as I stated earlier, I don't think the iPhone on Verizon is going to happen any time soon. They are going to want to avoid the public relations nightmare AT&T has had.
I guess, at least from AT&T perspective, their can be a product that is too good.
Especially when they realize that CDMA doesn't support voice and data simultaneously and that AT&T was shown to have faster Internet speeds.
It doesn't affect me in Australia as we dumped CDMA years ago.
It will be interesting to see what all the "grass is always greener" Verizon switchers have to say at some possible future date.
Especially when they realize that CDMA doesn't support voice and data simultaneously and that AT&T was shown to have faster Internet speeds.
It doesn't affect me in Australia as we dumped CDMA years ago.
Wired.com survey a few months ago showed that the CDMA carriers were faster in AT&T's HSDPA network.
The ROW (rest of the world) got suckered into "paper spec" speed ratings.
Wired.com survey also showed that Australian iphone users turned in the slowest 3G iphone speed in the world.
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/08/global-iphone-3/
good stuff coming out of rockstar since its the same people who made a parody outta of the iphone as the fruit phone and of apple.
?No buttons. No reception. No Storage Capacity. All Ego? the ifruit
"Think Simple. Think Minimalism. Think Overpriced.
YOU ARE FINALLY LIVING. DESIGN HAS EVOLVED TO MAKE YOUR LIFE WORTH LIVING." computers from the fruit company.
Yeah, these statements sound about the same level of idiocy that rockstar devotees (and rockstar itself), usually puts forth.
GTA is a disgusting piece of crap game and rockstar is a company full of sociopathic twelve year olds inhabiting the bodies of 20 something idiots who think they are "edgy" cause they go for the lowest common denominator.
They give real game designers a bad name.
If it was such a bad deal, AT&T wouldn't have extended the contract last year & tried to do it again this year. Verizon also seems pretty interested in getting the iphone. Seems like the carriers don't mind the arrangement at all.
No other network in the US supports the iPhone in it's current incarnation.
bolt for better carriers.
with this level of detail and immersive gameplay on Apple?s new gaming platforms,? Rockstar President Sam Houser said.
Interesting line that.
Wired.com survey a few months ago showed that the CDMA carriers were faster in AT&T's HSDPA network.
I'd like to refer you to this:-
http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2009/...ts/#more-31138
Now perhaps you have a link regarding your contention that CDMA is faster?