AT&T defends its iPhone network via YouTube outreach

1567911

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 210
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Verizon has had its own version of apps for years. They even have VCAST, they're "exclusive" video clip service. The iPhone came with apps and it didn't take a genius to figure out it would soon have many more. Everyone knew we'd have third party apps pretty quickly.



    I don't claim to "know" what happened, just what I've read and heard. My understanding is that AT&T was willing to do the deal VZW wasn't. They were willing to abide by Apple's restrictions on everything from sale price to subsidizing to proprietary features/apps.



    You made it sound like Verizon has never sold a smartphone before --- they have been selling windows mobile smartphones for years.



    What you read and heard are just conspiracy and revisionist theories. The only thing that you can trust are comments that were made before fanbois starting spinning these theories. Steve Jobs didn't say anything (on these topics) in the original Jan 2007 keynote. Wall Street analysts didn't have an idea on revenue sharing (and why should they because it's an entirely untried business model). Verizon VP came out 1 week later and flushed out the details --- which all were later confirmed when the iphone was actually launched 5 months later. Nothing was polluted at that time.
  • Reply 162 of 210
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,972member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    You made it sound like Verizon has never sold a smartphone before --- they have been selling windows mobile smartphones for years.



    What you read and heard are just conspiracy and revisionist theories. The only thing that you can trust are comments that were made before fanbois starting spinning these theories. Steve Jobs didn't say anything (on these topics) in the original Jan 2007 keynote. Wall Street analysts didn't have an idea on revenue sharing (and why should they because it's an entirely untried business model). Verizon VP came out 1 week later and flushed out the details --- which all were later confirmed when the iphone was actually launched 5 months later. Nothing was polluted at that time.





    I haven't made it sound like anything. You inferred hidden meaning where there was none.



    As for "conspiracy theories" and "revisionist theories:" First, I have no motivation to engage in any of that. I also don't have hard evidence suggesting why VZ didn't end up with the iPhone. That said, we can offer reasonable explanations.



    These explanations come about because your post and others beg the question. The question is: Why did AT&T end up with iPhone despite having a smaller user base and technically inferior network (both are indisputable)?



    There are but two possible reasons: 1. Money and 2. Technical problems with either CDMA and/or features Apple demanded.



    Given that VZW and Apple have a lot of smart engineers, the only reasonable choice is money. We know that Verzion already was/is pretty deep into their own app market (Get It Now, I believe its called). We also know that Apple had a list of restrictions from subsidizing to who could sell the phone to who knows what else.



    So tell me, who is being unreasonable here? No one "knows" why VZW didn't get the iPhone, but can certainly offer reasonable suppositions. Mine is that Apple arrogantly approached VZW as they have been known to do with others, laid out their terms, and VZW told them to pound sand. AT&T decided that even with Apple's demands, they could see a huge growth in subscribers, which they did. AT&T hoped to high heaven that their network could handle it. Of course, it couldn't and still can't. But that's another issue.
  • Reply 163 of 210
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,972member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    ....



    It's not about whether I am against revenue sharing or not --- it's about Apple wasting valuable time and energy on a failed business model. It was a failed experiment for Apple to try the $600 iphone with a 2 year contract and the revenue sharing. They could have spent that time and energy on more productive work.



    Given they sold a ton at that price point, I'd have to disagree that it was a failure.
  • Reply 164 of 210
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Given they sold a ton at that price point, I'd have to disagree that it was a failure.



    Has any other cell phone sold more in a single weekend than the iPhone?
  • Reply 165 of 210
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Given they sold a ton at that price point, I'd have to disagree that it was a failure.



    Except that Apple could have sold many times that amount if they sold it at $400 (instead of $600) and Palm would have never been rescued by private equity firms.



    Long term gain is vastly more than those short term gain.
  • Reply 166 of 210
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    These explanations come about because your post and others beg the question. The question is: Why did AT&T end up with iPhone despite having a smaller user base and technically inferior network (both are indisputable)?



    There are but two possible reasons: 1. Money and 2. Technical problems with either CDMA and/or features Apple demanded.



    Given that VZW and Apple have a lot of smart engineers, the only reasonable choice is money. We know that Verzion already was/is pretty deep into their own app market (Get It Now, I believe its called). We also know that Apple had a list of restrictions from subsidizing to who could sell the phone to who knows what else.



    So tell me, who is being unreasonable here? No one "knows" why VZW didn't get the iPhone, but can certainly offer reasonable suppositions. Mine is that Apple arrogantly approached VZW as they have been known to do with others, laid out their terms, and VZW told them to pound sand. AT&T decided that even with Apple's demands, they could see a huge growth in subscribers, which they did. AT&T hoped to high heaven that their network could handle it. Of course, it couldn't and still can't. But that's another issue.



    At the time when AT&T signed the iphone deal with Apple --- AT&T was the largest carrier in the US.



    I don't know why you keep on saying that no one knows why VZW rejected the iphone. VZW listed their reasons why they rejected the iphone in the Jan 2007 interview --- and there were no monday morning quarterbacking or revisionist retelling of the story.



    Did Verizon "invented" the revenue sharing "excuse"? No, it was confirmed months later by SEC filings from both AT&T and Apple that revenue sharing is part of the iphone agreement.



    Did Verizon "invented" the distribution partner "excuse"? No, it was confirmed months later by actual events that only AT&T corp stores and Apple stores can sell the iphone.



    Did Verizon "invented" the warranty and support "excuse"? No, it was confirmed months later by actual events that it is Apple (and not AT&T) that will handle these issues.
  • Reply 167 of 210
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post


    And you did your own study on this? Did you work for AT&T's and Verizon's IT department? Where do you gain such knowledge that you feel you can believe that Verizon would have had the same level of service?







    To answer your question, yes I am an insider for the mobile business. I also know other insiders in different departments of different carriers. Thats how I gain my knowledge. How do you gain yours?
  • Reply 168 of 210
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    If JBL can sell a stereo that can stream music from the iphone or ipod via bluetooth --- then JBL don't have to pay for the licensing fee for the dock. It's as simple as that. Money is money, everything else is conspiracy theories.



    JBl can make BT headsets, but JBL is going to make more money from the iPod stereo systems that make use of the dock connector.



    Quote:

    VZW doesn't have to make people happy --- they make money for their partners and their customers have the highest customer satisfaction rate.



    How are they gaining high customer satisfaction if they don't have to make anyone happy?



    Quote:

    Palm chose to use webkit --- and Apple once they open-source the webkit, Apple doesn't have a choice to exclude Palm. Also Apple has been excluding Palm Pre from syncing with itunes.



    Palm is able to use webkit because Apple developed it and offered it for open use by anyone. Apple excludes everyone (outside of Apple) from syncing directly with iTunes.



    Quote:

    Google Maps is not a turn-by-turn nav apps. Verizon doesn't restrict other nav app makers from selling their apps in the GIN store. So it's those nav app makers' choice to whether to develop for the Verizon GIN store. What, you are going to blame Verizon because these other app makers (like tomtom) are not developing for the GIN store.



    My point is that Google Maps is a free navigation app, you want to play semantics with turn by turn.



    So you are telling us that TomTom, Garmin and others are ignoring Verizon's 80 million subscribers by choice, Verizon has played no part?



    Quote:

    VZ Navigator has been the most popular app on the GIN store and they have been offering it for a long long long time. When every single zero dollar phone can use that function, you know that Verizon knows certain thing or two on the subject.



    Its quite easy to be the most popular when people have little other choice.



    Quote:

    It's not about whether I am against revenue sharing or not --- it's about Apple wasting valuable time and energy on a failed business model. It was a failed experiment for Apple to try the $600 iphone with a 2 year contract and the revenue sharing. They could have spent that time and energy on more productive work.



    I think its extreme to call it a failed waste of time. Apple sold millions of iPhone's and made billions of dollars. Of course your retort is that Apple could have sold even more phones, but looking at the success of the iPhone I don't think it matters.
  • Reply 169 of 210
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    JBl can make BT headsets, but JBL is going to make more money from the iPod stereo systems that make use of the dock connector.



    How are they gaining high customer satisfaction if they don't have to make anyone happy?



    Palm is able to use webkit because Apple developed it and offered it for open use by anyone. Apple excludes everyone (outside of Apple) from syncing directly with iTunes.



    My point is that Google Maps is a free navigation app, you want to play semantics with turn by turn.



    So you are telling us that TomTom, Garmin and others are ignoring Verizon's 80 million subscribers by choice, Verizon has played no part?



    Its quite easy to be the most popular when people have little other choice.



    I think its extreme to call it a failed waste of time. Apple sold millions of iPhone's and made billions of dollars. Of course your retort is that Apple could have sold even more phones, but looking at the success of the iPhone I don't think it matters.



    No, JBL is going to make more money on stereos with bluetooth streaming because bluetooth licensing fee is much lower than apple licensing fee.



    Carriers are in the league with used car salemen for consumer satisfaction ratings --- so it's not difficult to be number 1 in consumer satisfaction. Verizon Wireless just have to suck less than the other carriers.



    Once Apple open-sourced webkit, they can't exclude Palm from using the source code. There are unintended consequences of open-sourcing.



    Garmin is doing their own cell phone with their own GPS solution, so you are going to pin that on Verizon's fault???



    Choice is over-rated. Basically 99% of the iphone apps are useless.



    More money is more money. If Apple's iphone was a success, it could have been even a bigger success.
  • Reply 170 of 210
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    No, JBL is going to make more money on stereos with bluetooth streaming because bluetooth licensing fee is much lower than apple licensing fee.



    Carriers are in the league with used car salemen for consumer satisfaction ratings --- so it's not difficult to be number 1 in consumer satisfaction. Verizon Wireless just have to suck less than the other carriers.



    Once Apple open-sourced webkit, they can't exclude Palm from using the source code. There are unintended consequences of open-sourcing.



    Garmin is doing their own cell phone with their own GPS solution, so you are going to pin that on Verizon's fault???



    Choice is over-rated. Basically 99% of the iphone apps are useless.



    More money is more money. If Apple's iphone was a success, it could have been even a bigger success.



    You are only consdering the cost of the license, but the cost of R&D for adding the BT module and creating/ buying the driver will far outweigh the cost of the dock R&D. The BT will also only stream at a lower quality than what is capable from a simple direct line-in port that can easily also charge the iDevice. On top of that, the averge user is likely not going to want to set up such a system just to have an inferior setup. I'd say that JBL would likely make more money from having the iPod dock that connects to all the very popular iPod.
  • Reply 171 of 210
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post


    You are only consdering the cost of the license, but the cost of R&D for adding the BT module and creating/ buying the driver will far outweigh the cost of the dock R&D. The BT will also only stream at a lower quality than what is capable from a simple direct line-in port that can easily also charge the iDevice. On top of that, the averge user is likely not going to want to set up such a system just to have an inferior setup. I'd say that JBL would likely make more money from having the iPod dock that connects to all the very popular iPod.



    Bluetooth chipset manufacturers provide reference drivers.



    So what's with all the fuss by apple fanbois complaining for 2 years that the iphone can't stream music via bluetooth. That's a lot of revisionist retelling of the story.



    Apple deliberately crippled digital out for the ipod so that they can charge a lot of money on licensing fees from their digital dock out setup. It's encrypted and needed authentication in order to get digital out.



    http://www.stereophile.com/news/010408wadia/
  • Reply 172 of 210
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    Bluetooth chipset manufacturers provide reference drivers.



    So what's with all the fuss by apple fanbois complaining for 2 years that the iphone can't stream music via bluetooth. That's a lot of revisionist retelling of the story.



    Apple deliberately crippled digital out for the ipod so that they can charge a lot of money on licensing fees from their digital dock out setup. It's encrypted and needed authentication in order to get digital out.



    http://www.stereophile.com/news/010408wadia/



    How much do those drivers cost compared to require splitting a cable so that the output from an iDevice can match the dock mold for audio input? JBL doesn't make more money if they include, at their cost, a feature that isn't of great interest to many consumers. I'm guessing that the real interest in A2DP was for wireless BT headsets, where if make more sense even with the loss of quality. The iPod dock does push product. You can find cheap ass alarm clocks with iPod docks. The include the dock and advertise this fact because it's a strong selling point.



    Apple didn't cripple the BT stack to disable A2DP; it never had it until v3.0. If you've used a Mac you'd know that BT was never Apple strong point. It sucks but don't make a conspiracy out of it. Apple excels in some areas and fals short in others. There seems to be a theme from self hating Apple product users that Apple should be able to anything at any time and if they don't they are purposefully and personally screwing you over. That simply isn't true.
  • Reply 173 of 210
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    No, JBL is going to make more money on stereos with bluetooth streaming because bluetooth licensing fee is much lower than apple licensing fee.



    Licensing fees don't account for the fact that stereo systems are more lucrative that BT headsets.



    Quote:

    Carriers are in the league with used car salemen for consumer satisfaction ratings --- so it's not difficult to be number 1 in consumer satisfaction. Verizon Wireless just have to suck less than the other carriers.



    That's a good point. VZW gets high points for its network, but no one praises its phone selection.



    Quote:

    Once Apple open-sourced webkit, they can't exclude Palm from using the source code. There are unintended consequences of open-sourcing.



    This brings my point full circle. Which was Apple is not interested in crushing Palm.



    Quote:

    Garmin is doing their own cell phone with their own GPS solution, so you are going to pin that on Verizon's fault???



    You are totally avoiding the point of my question.



    Quote:

    Choice is over-rated. Basically 99% of the iphone apps are useless.



    99% of most all apps on all software platforms are useless, but that does not mean we don't want competition.



    Quote:

    More money is more money. If Apple's iphone was a success, it could have been even a bigger success.



    What proof do you have that if Apple had sold the original iPhone as subsidized that it would have been significantly larger success than what it had been. These types of things are easy to say because there is no way you can actually prove it.
  • Reply 174 of 210
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,972member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    Except that Apple could have sold many times that amount if they sold it at $400 (instead of $600) and Palm would have never been rescued by private equity firms.



    Long term gain is vastly more than those short term gain.



    1. That is probably true, but they might not have made more money. Either way, "being able to do better" is not a failure.



    2. So let me get this right: Palm is in business because the iPhone was priced high initially. Good lord.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    At the time when AT&T signed the iphone deal with Apple --- AT&T was the largest carrier in the US.



    That's a good point, though it was widely known that their network was inferior.



    Quote:



    I don't know why you keep on saying that no one knows why VZW rejected the iphone. VZW listed their reasons why they rejected the iphone in the Jan 2007 interview --- and there were no monday morning quarterbacking or revisionist retelling of the story.



    Did Verizon "invented" the revenue sharing "excuse"? No, it was confirmed months later by SEC filings from both AT&T and Apple that revenue sharing is part of the iphone agreement.



    Did Verizon "invented" the distribution partner "excuse"? No, it was confirmed months later by actual events that only AT&T corp stores and Apple stores can sell the iphone.



    Did Verizon "invented" the warranty and support "excuse"? No, it was confirmed months later by actual events that it is Apple (and not AT&T) that will handle these issues.



    I don't know what you're taking issue with. In the article, the VP said this:



    Quote:

    . "The iPhone product is something we are happy we aren't the first to market with," Strigl noted, citing Apple's steep and one-sided terms including a cut of monthly subscription fees and total control over distribution and customer relations



    This is exactly what I've been saying. They rejected Apple's revenue sharing (or whatever you choose to call it) plan and didn't like their other restrictions. The apps might not have been a big part of it, but to assume that it didn't cross Verizon's collective mind is ludicrous. Since it wasn't referenced though, we don't know. All we have is a public statement that may or may not tell the whole story.
  • Reply 175 of 210
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post


    Has any other cell phone sold more in a single weekend than the iPhone?



    No. The Pre also has lost its hype and we certainly don't hear anything mentioning the Pre's sales anymore. Guess it's become a flop.
  • Reply 176 of 210
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    I will offer that the reason for confusion and mystery over the MMS/iPhone issue from AT&T is....completely and utterly b******t.



    That's the only explanation that makes any technical sense, since 850 MHz spectrum additions in no way shape or form = a way to enable MMS in small or high volumes.
  • Reply 177 of 210
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    Choice is over-rated. Basically 99% of the iphone apps are useless.



    More money is more money. If Apple's iphone was a success, it could have been even a bigger success.



    WTH!!! Go research more on Apple's iPhone/iPod Touch platform apps now.. I'm 100% sure you do not own an iPhone/iPod Touch. My 32GB 3GS has 8 pages of apps, with 16GB of music, 4GB of videos and 1GB of pictures. Through my 8 pages of apps, I only have 2 fancy apps ( Fart app and Beer app ) and 2 games ( Tap Tap and Hangman ) The rest of the apps are for utilities, social networking, organizing stuff like tasks, etc , productivity apps and stuff that help me in my everyday life. ( Find a new restaurant,etc ) To me, the iPhone is 100% not a toy and it depends what apps you put in. On it's own, it's the best smartphone till now and a mini-Macbook IMO. Different people have different interests and some use their iPhone/iPod Touch for pure games and entertainment. I don't. See, the way I use my iPhone makes it a professional device that I can even say is on par with my MBP, only smaller, more portable and in a much nicer package. The iPhone is a success. I don't see the sense in your last sentence BTW. Find me a phone that can beat the iPhone in terms of sales and user satisfaction. I have owned every iPhone till now ( iPhone 8GB, white 16GB 3G and white 32GB 3GS ) and I've never found a phone that is TRULY better than it. Go look at the "iPhone-Killers". They've all become flops and are struggling to catch up with Apple. The iPhone is till years-ahead of other "high-end" models released by other manufacturers. So, have a look at the iPhone's success first before making conclusions.
  • Reply 178 of 210
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    Except that Apple could have sold many times that amount if they sold it at $400 (instead of $600) and Palm would have never been rescued by private equity firms.



    Long term gain is vastly more than those short term gain.



    Oh really? How about this for long term gain?



    How much would iPhone sales have skyrocketed (thanks to media hype) if the Sept 2007 price reduction was that much less dramatic? The price went from 600 to 200! Artificial value had 3 months to assign itself, fanbois paid the premium, then the rest of the world got a crack at it, once supplies were at a reasonably high enough level to support that level of demand.



    The iPhone really went on sale in Sept 2007. iDay6/29/07 was for no one but media and fanbois.



    Say it with me now....

    Planned. From. The. Start.



    But that's just a conspiracy theory right? Multi-billion dollar organizations that plan out their success is just crackpot theory right?



    Take your freshman marketing analysis elsewhere.
  • Reply 179 of 210
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,972member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    ....



    Choice is over-rated. Basically 99% of the iphone apps are useless.



    More money is more money. If Apple's iphone was a success, it could have been even a bigger success.



    I think you're either trolling or truly ignorant. There are certainly useless apps. But the number can't approach 99%.



    Your second statement is, well, dumb. It's hard to imagine Apple doing any better than it has with the iPhone. I don't think THEY even thought it would be this big. Look at the supply shortages for both the 2.5G and 3G models. I had to wait a MONTH before standing a reasonable shot at getting a 3G. Even then there was a line 15-20 deep before the store's opening. So please...don't tell me how many more they could have sold.
  • Reply 180 of 210
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    2. So let me get this right: Palm is in business because the iPhone was priced high initially. Good lord.



    This is exactly what I've been saying. They rejected Apple's revenue sharing (or whatever you choose to call it) plan and didn't like their other restrictions. The apps might not have been a big part of it, but to assume that it didn't cross Verizon's collective mind is ludicrous. Since it wasn't referenced though, we don't know. All we have is a public statement that may or may not tell the whole story.



    You don't want to keep your competitors around --- they might bite you in the ass later on. It's like how Microsoft invested in Apple in 1997 to help them survive --- biting them in the ass now. Who knows whether Palm is going to do 10 years down the road, may bite Apple in the ass.



    "Strigl noted, citing Apple's steep and one-sided terms including a cut of monthly subscription fees and total control over distribution and customer relations".



    My interpretation comes from reading the whole interview. Revenue sharing is revenue sharing (we both agree on that). Total control over distribution means that third party Verizon independent agents can't sell the iphone. Total control over customer relations means Apple get to do warranty and technical support.



    As I stated repeatedly, everything else is just conspiracy theories. The Jan 2007 interview was 1 week after the keynote, 5 months before the actual iphone launch --- and it wasn't tainted by any rumors spreaded out by bloggers. From the time of the Verizon-Apple negotiation to the actual launch of the iphone app store --- that's 3 years. That's an eternity in silicon valley.
Sign In or Register to comment.