As a Verizon (landline) employee I read a memo stating that Verizon Wireless has plans to open 30 markets with LTE in 2010 and be done with its entire footprint during 2013. That's one year before AT&T plans to start its LTE rollout. So I really think extending the contract would be really stupid of Apple to do. And last I checked Steve Jobs is no dummy lol
IYou say that Verizon plans to be doing with the entire LTE footprint in 2013. Assuming that the entire footprint means that LTE will in every area that CDMA is currently in and there is not a single problem that delays the rollout, that is still 4 years from now. That means that Apple wouldn?t have to have an LTE-only iPhone for 4 years. That seems excessive considering that HSDPA will improve, then move to HSUPA and the to HSPA+ within that time. I am concerned that even though Verizon is starting to jump on LTE, even though they have little choice if they want to thrive in the future, will there be LTE radios in cellphones in 4 years that meet or beat the HSUPA and HSPA+ radios in cellphones in power consumption, size, and throughput?
The report states that HSPA subscribers are projected to hit 1.4 billion in 2012, while competing standard EVDO, used by Verizon, will have only 304.6 million users by 2013.
Without saying if I think the exclusivity will continue or not, if this analyst is basing his conclusion primarily on this fact, then he really should find a new job. That's roughly 20% of the worldwide market you are ignoring there. And about 50% if you look at the US alone.
Besides, you are talking about devices that typically only last 2-3 years. So the projected number of users 4 years from now is irrlevant to a device I'd be selling today.
300 million users is a big enough market to justify the nominal expense of creating a Verizon phone. The only real financial consideration is how the subsidies might change if it were non-exclusive. Would the extra profit from Verizon phones offset the lower subsidies ATT would likely be willing to pay if they didn't have exclusivity?
Only if they don't feel like selling iPhones to users in markets without full 4G coverage. Which will be nearly all of them.
4G-only won't be a feasible solution for at least 2 years. Even with VZW throwing money at the problem the way they have been.
Apple sticking with AT&T for another year would be a mistake.
Not sure about that. I've seen no evidence that Verizon's EVDO/CDMA network would hold up under the load imposed by iPhone users. Maybe they'd be less dropped calls since voice is separate from data on their network, but that's it.
4G won't be nationwide for at least 3 years. (It's been 5 years or more since both AT&T and Verizon embarked on 3G, and neither has yet to provide 3G all over the US.) And so in the future, when you are in one of those places where there is no 4G, and the phone drops back down to 3G, will it be more bearable to drop from 4G to AT&T's HSPA+/HSUPA (i.e., 14 or 21Mbps) or to Verizon's slower EVDO?
The answer really is for AT&T to do what they say they're going to do and do it quickly. The various enhancements to HSPA have already been fielded in other places around the world; the equipment to do so are known quantities, unlike the situation with LTE.
Fully agree that that was a dumb statement by iSuppli. That $30 a month from every iPhone owner is helping AT&T fund the development of their HSPA and future LTE network.
Well, wait a minute. Are you allocating that entire $30 to developing HSPA and LTE? What about emergency upgrades of *existing* towers and their backhauls? More and more iPhone users are coming online, and service is getting worse. How much do you invest in just trying to make things work for another month or two?
AT&T put themselves in a bind. The revenue the generate from iPhone sales (while huge) isn't enough to both make needed fixes today *and* build out LTE for the future. iSuppli probably could have said it better, but it was a valid point: AT&T has not figured out how to make the iPhone's massive data use profitable.
I can only imagine the laughs that the Apple team had after meetings with AT&T in the early days of contract negotiations. You can just see the Apple guys, pitching the exclusive contract and high revenue sharing numbers with powerpoint's about how revolutionary the phone would be and how many people would switch to AT&T to get it... and the AT&T guys doing their financial analysis based on the way people used data on pre-iPhone devices.
"AT&T has not found a way to monetize data traffic generated by the iPhone."
Uhhh– so me paying $30 a month for my data plan is not monetizing? WTF?
According to my math, each iPhone has a $400 subsidy from AT&T to Apple. If it is weighted over a 24 month contract, it comes out to about $16 per month (400/24=16). That leaves AT&T with $14 per month on the data plan to enhance the network and make a profit.
IYou say that Verizon plans to be doing with the entire LTE footprint in 2013. Assuming that the entire footprint means that LTE will in every area that CDMA is currently in and there is not a single problem that delays the rollout, that is still 4 years from now. That means that Apple wouldn?t have to have an LTE-only iPhone for 4 years. That seems excessive considering that HSDPA will improve, then move to HSUPA and the to HSPA+ within that time. I am concerned that even though Verizon is starting to jump on LTE, even though they have little choice if they want to thrive in the future, will there be LTE radios in cellphones in 4 years that meet or beat the HSUPA and HSPA+ radios in cellphones in power consumption, size, and throughput?
No, Apple would make an LTE phone much sooner than that since LTE will be the worldwide standard just like GSM is, and I'm sure many countries will be able to transition from GSM to LTE much sooner than we here in the states can, so look for phones that are built with both, the BB STORM has both CMDA/EVDO + plus QUAD BAND GSM built into it
Not sure about waffling but I certainly think what are seeing is lots of interested parties rallying for pole position (as it were) trying to nudge the outcome they will profit from. But who knows... its all a crap shoot and in the end you know who's getting stuck with the dirty end of the plunger...
According to my math, each iPhone has a $400 subsidy from AT&T to Apple. If it is weighted over a 24 month contract, it comes out to about $16 per month (400/24=16). That leaves AT&T with $14 per month on the data plan to enhance the network and make a profit.
But remember you paid $199 for the iPhone so its only dishing out an additional $200, but you don't only pay for the data either, you pay for your monthly minutes, you should have included that as well, because after all it is a phone to make calls with, is it not?
No, Apple would make an LTE phone much sooner than that since LTE will be the worldwide standard just like GSM is, and I'm sure many countries will be able to transition from GSM to LTE much sooner than we here in the states can, so look for phones that are built with both, the BB STORM has both CMDA/EVDO + plus QUAD BAND GSM built into it
How many countries that have completed their W-CDMA coverage have stopped using GSM? I don?t think any have. How many phones have W-CDMA but don?t have GSM radios in them? I don?t think there are any.
Do you not realize that phones with WCDMA(UMTS) also have GSM radios in them, and that phones that later come with LTE will also have earlier generation radios in them? They aren?t going to just drop GSM and WCDMA or CDMA and CDMA2000 for LTE. They are going to be stepped devices that include the older tech radios as these networks have been built out, are more complete and will continue to be more complete for a long time to come.
The Storm you mention is using two 2G radios and two 3G radio technologies. It?s not the same as using a 2G, 3G and 4G radio technology in the same device. There will likely be a point when the dual 2G and dual 3G chips get small enough, power efficient enough and cheap enough to be used in more devices but that time has not yet come. And I doubt that Apple, obsessed with size, would even consider this option, especially since they have yet to make a CDMA-based phone for countries that are dominated by CDMA-based networks.
The report states that HSPA subscribers are projected to hit 1.4 billion in 2012, while competing standard EVDO, used by Verizon, will have only 304.6 million users by 2013.
yes, and all 1.4 billion of them are hitting the same tower as am i.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
"Facing dropped calls, service interruptions and slow download speeds, iPhone users in certain markets are blaming AT&T," said Jagdish Rebello, director and principal analyst. "iPhone users are overloading AT&T’s network with data traffic generated by the download and usage of apps. However, the real problem is that AT&T has not found a way to monetize data traffic generated by the iPhone."
jagdish rebello, director and principal analyst, you are a sphincter-extraordinaire!
How many countries that have completed their W-CDMA coverage have stopped using GSM? I don?t think any have. How many phones have W-CDMA but don?t have GSM radios in them? I don?t think there are any.
Do you not realize that phones with WCDMA(UMTS) also have GSM radios in them, and that phones that later come with LTE will also have earlier generation radios in them? They aren?t going to just drop GSM and WCDMA or CDMA and CDMA2000 for LTE. They are going to be stepped devices that include the older tech radios as these networks have been built out, are more complete and will continue to be more complete for a long time to come.
The Storm you mention is using two 2G radios and two 3G radio technologies. It?s not the same as using a 2G, 3G and 4G radio technology in the same device. There will likely be a point when the dual 2G and dual 3G chips get small enough, power efficient enough and cheap enough to be used in more devices but that time has not yet come. And I doubt that Apple, obsessed with size, would even consider this option, especially since they have yet to make a CDMA-based phone for countries that are dominated by CDMA-based networks.
Actually its predicted that the CDMA network will be up for another 10 years, but building a phone for multiple carriers isn't that hard, every other company does it except for Apple. You can get a BB Curve for every company and even with a two way radio for Sprint. I'd love to have an iPhone and so do millions of VZW customers. I just think at this point it makes much more business sense to go with other carriers than to stay with AT&T
Without saying if I think the exclusivity will continue or not, if this analyst is basing his conclusion primarily on this fact, then he really should find a new job. That's roughly 20% of the worldwide market you are ignoring there. And about 50% if you look at the US alone.
Besides, you are talking about devices that typically only last 2-3 years. So the projected number of users 4 years from now is irrlevant to a device I'd be selling today.
300 million users is a big enough market to justify the nominal expense of creating a Verizon phone. The only real financial consideration is how the subsidies might change if it were non-exclusive. Would the extra profit from Verizon phones offset the lower subsidies ATT would likely be willing to pay if they didn't have exclusivity?
Actually Apple would get less per phone, but do you know how millions of iPhones it would sell almost immediately? If it built a CDMA phone how may of the 87 million VZW subscribers would get an iPhone (I being one of them) and how many of the 49 million Sprint customers would get one? That's just too big of a market for Apple to continue to ignore.
Actually its predicted that the CDMA network will be up for another 10 years, but building a phone for multiple carriers isn't that hard, every other company does it except for Apple. You can get a BB Curve for every company and even with a two way radio for Sprint. I'd love to have an iPhone and so do millions of VZW customers. I just think at this point it makes much more business sense to go with other carriers than to stay with AT&T
Every other cellphone vendor has more than one phone to sell, but not every cellphone vendor makes every model phone work for every network architecture, and they certainly don?t make every phone work for both CDMA- and GSM-based networks at the same time. Does Nokia make and CDMA-based cellphones? How about any other cellphone vendors that mainly sells in Europe?
I don?t think it makes sense to dump AT&T, but I?d love for the iPhone to go to other carriers if only to get some users off AT&T?s network so I can get some bandwidth back. As for business sense, Apple still likes to function as a boutique shop and they don?t seem to be keen on having to stock an identical iPhone in their stores for each capacity that only works on CDMA-based networks nor do they seem to care about making a larger, thicker iPhone that costs more and uses more power just to have a device with lower bandwidth chips so they can have one device that is both GSM- and CDMA-based. It?s just not how Apple has operated in the past.
Actually Apple would get less per phone, but do you know how millions of iPhones it would sell almost immediately? If it built a CDMA phone how may of the 87 million VZW subscribers would get an iPhone (I being one of them) and how many of the 49 million Sprint customers would get one? That's just too big of a market for Apple to continue to ignore.
Apple is already having trouble keeping up with supply demands. They might find that they are at the ends now with being able to keep their current factories producing quality product.
That is not to say it?s impossible. It?s obviously possible but scaling up is something not to be taken lightly. Nor should you scale up just to piddle out later on when you?ve saturated your market too quickly which will cause your stock to fall in the next quarter and next year when you latter sales results are lowered. You can say the same for every single Apple product. Why don?t they make a 15? MacBook or a netbook or whatever. You want it there is likely a market for it, but that doesn?t mean that it?s good for their long term objectives.
The iPhone will evolve into other areas. It has too, it?s the only way a smart company can grow, but how you do it is important. To say, ?but if only they made a phone for Verizon then would sell millions more? that is obvious, but it?s not good business to just sell everywhere to everyone and expect it to work out or otherwise Apple wouldn?t have partnered with any carrier anywhere.
Every other cellphone vendor has more than one phone to sell, but not every cellphone vendor makes every model phone work for every network architecture, and they certainly don?t make every phone work for both CDMA- and GSM-based networks at the same time. Does Nokia make and CDMA-based cellphones? How about any other cellphone vendors that mainly sells in Europe?
I don?t think it makes sense to dump AT&T, but I?d love for the iPhone to go to other carriers if only to get some users off AT&T?s network so I can get some bandwidth back. As for business sense, Apple still likes to function as a boutique shop and they don?t seem to be keen on having to stock an identical iPhone in their stores for each capacity that only works on CDMA-based networks nor do they seem to care about making a larger, thicker iPhone that costs more and uses more power just to have a device with lower bandwidth chips so they can have one device that is both GSM- and CDMA-based. It?s just not how Apple has operated in the past.
Yes Nokia does, it currently makes 3 phones for verizon and 2 more on the way. Most phone makers make the same exact phone for different carriers they just give it a different name from one co. to the next. Sony is the only company that doesnt have a phone with Verizon. BTW that boutique crap went out the window when Apple decided to put Intel chips in its computers and let people run MS Windows on its computers.
BTW that boutique crap went out the window when Apple decided to put Intel chips in its computers and let people run MS Windows on its computers.
The CPU has nothing to do with being a boutique style computer shop or trying to run like one. There are plenty of these shops on line that make Intel-based PCs running Windows. Every PC maker that caters specifically to gamers, especially the ones that put desktop-grade components into a 20lb notebook for portable gaming despite having less than an hour of battery, are boutique PC makers.
Apple still functions as one despite it’s growth. I doubt they can keep it up for too much longer and I expect that even their Mac line will have to diversify more if they plan to keep beating records each quarter.
Apple is already having trouble keeping up with supply demands. They might find that they are at the ends now with being able to keep their current factories producing quality product.
That is not to say it?s impossible. It?s obviously possible but scaling up is something not to be taken lightly. Nor should you scale up just to piddle out later on when you?ve saturated your market too quickly which will cause your stock to fall in the next quarter and next year when you latter sales results are lowered. You can say the same for every single Apple product. Why don?t they make a 15? MacBook or a netbook or whatever. You want it there is likely a market for it, but that doesn?t mean that it?s good for their long term objectives.
The iPhone will evolve into other areas. It has too, it?s the only way a smart company can grow, but how you do it is important. To say, ?but if only they made a phone for Verizon then would sell millions more? that is obvious, but it?s not good business to just sell everywhere to everyone and expect it to work out or otherwise Apple wouldn?t have partnered with any carrier anywhere.
Of course, I understand that fact, both the carrier and the maker sign exclusivity deals because its profitable for both, but at some point it does stop being profitable. Will AT&T finally realize the deal should have ended sooner when it starts bleeding customers the way Sprint has been for the last few years? The network problems also affect the non-iphone users. So someone with a BB can easily go to another carrier without missing much, in fact they'll probably wonder why they were with AT&T to begin with.
The network problems also affect the non-iphone users. So someone with a BB can easily go to another carrier without missing much, in fact they'll probably wonder why they were with AT&T to begin with.
Yeah, they do, which makes me wonder why they started ?requiring? all smartphones to have an unlimited data plan at $30/month. With smartphone OSes getting better browsers and more connected apps I would understand if they required the unlimited data package for any smartphone that wanted data in any regard, but to require it for all when then their network is already saturated doesn?t make much sense to me. It?s not like these new fees will get pushed into the network upgrades right away and it may make things worse if a new BB owner on AT&T decides that if I have to have it I might as well get the most of it. Or even worse, lose the customer to another carrier altogether. Maybe Apple will be buying AT&T and making it Apple?s Troubled & Tired network. All iPhones all the time!
i don't buy it. Apple has gotten a ton of flack about the contract and there are lots of unlocked phones out there. I suspect they will unlock the phone in 2010 and be done with it.
also, I do NOT see them making a CDMA device of any kind. they would be reinventing the wheel. I believe that all devices will stay GSM and it's successors. Which means if Verizon wants the phone or anything else, they have to change games to support the device. otherwise, it's ATT and TMobile (at least here in the US).
Comments
As a Verizon (landline) employee I read a memo stating that Verizon Wireless has plans to open 30 markets with LTE in 2010 and be done with its entire footprint during 2013. That's one year before AT&T plans to start its LTE rollout. So I really think extending the contract would be really stupid of Apple to do. And last I checked Steve Jobs is no dummy lol
IYou say that Verizon plans to be doing with the entire LTE footprint in 2013. Assuming that the entire footprint means that LTE will in every area that CDMA is currently in and there is not a single problem that delays the rollout, that is still 4 years from now. That means that Apple wouldn?t have to have an LTE-only iPhone for 4 years. That seems excessive considering that HSDPA will improve, then move to HSUPA and the to HSPA+ within that time. I am concerned that even though Verizon is starting to jump on LTE, even though they have little choice if they want to thrive in the future, will there be LTE radios in cellphones in 4 years that meet or beat the HSUPA and HSPA+ radios in cellphones in power consumption, size, and throughput?
The report states that HSPA subscribers are projected to hit 1.4 billion in 2012, while competing standard EVDO, used by Verizon, will have only 304.6 million users by 2013.
Without saying if I think the exclusivity will continue or not, if this analyst is basing his conclusion primarily on this fact, then he really should find a new job. That's roughly 20% of the worldwide market you are ignoring there. And about 50% if you look at the US alone.
Besides, you are talking about devices that typically only last 2-3 years. So the projected number of users 4 years from now is irrlevant to a device I'd be selling today.
300 million users is a big enough market to justify the nominal expense of creating a Verizon phone. The only real financial consideration is how the subsidies might change if it were non-exclusive. Would the extra profit from Verizon phones offset the lower subsidies ATT would likely be willing to pay if they didn't have exclusivity?
Only if they don't feel like selling iPhones to users in markets without full 4G coverage. Which will be nearly all of them.
4G-only won't be a feasible solution for at least 2 years. Even with VZW throwing money at the problem the way they have been.
Apple sticking with AT&T for another year would be a mistake.
Not sure about that. I've seen no evidence that Verizon's EVDO/CDMA network would hold up under the load imposed by iPhone users. Maybe they'd be less dropped calls since voice is separate from data on their network, but that's it.
4G won't be nationwide for at least 3 years. (It's been 5 years or more since both AT&T and Verizon embarked on 3G, and neither has yet to provide 3G all over the US.) And so in the future, when you are in one of those places where there is no 4G, and the phone drops back down to 3G, will it be more bearable to drop from 4G to AT&T's HSPA+/HSUPA (i.e., 14 or 21Mbps) or to Verizon's slower EVDO?
The answer really is for AT&T to do what they say they're going to do and do it quickly. The various enhancements to HSPA have already been fielded in other places around the world; the equipment to do so are known quantities, unlike the situation with LTE.
Good!!!! Know all you verizon morons will STFU for a year!!
I think you meant 'VerizonTards'.
Fully agree that that was a dumb statement by iSuppli. That $30 a month from every iPhone owner is helping AT&T fund the development of their HSPA and future LTE network.
Well, wait a minute. Are you allocating that entire $30 to developing HSPA and LTE? What about emergency upgrades of *existing* towers and their backhauls? More and more iPhone users are coming online, and service is getting worse. How much do you invest in just trying to make things work for another month or two?
AT&T put themselves in a bind. The revenue the generate from iPhone sales (while huge) isn't enough to both make needed fixes today *and* build out LTE for the future. iSuppli probably could have said it better, but it was a valid point: AT&T has not figured out how to make the iPhone's massive data use profitable.
I can only imagine the laughs that the Apple team had after meetings with AT&T in the early days of contract negotiations. You can just see the Apple guys, pitching the exclusive contract and high revenue sharing numbers with powerpoint's about how revolutionary the phone would be and how many people would switch to AT&T to get it... and the AT&T guys doing their financial analysis based on the way people used data on pre-iPhone devices.
"AT&T has not found a way to monetize data traffic generated by the iPhone."
Uhhh– so me paying $30 a month for my data plan is not monetizing? WTF?
According to my math, each iPhone has a $400 subsidy from AT&T to Apple. If it is weighted over a 24 month contract, it comes out to about $16 per month (400/24=16). That leaves AT&T with $14 per month on the data plan to enhance the network and make a profit.
IYou say that Verizon plans to be doing with the entire LTE footprint in 2013. Assuming that the entire footprint means that LTE will in every area that CDMA is currently in and there is not a single problem that delays the rollout, that is still 4 years from now. That means that Apple wouldn?t have to have an LTE-only iPhone for 4 years. That seems excessive considering that HSDPA will improve, then move to HSUPA and the to HSPA+ within that time. I am concerned that even though Verizon is starting to jump on LTE, even though they have little choice if they want to thrive in the future, will there be LTE radios in cellphones in 4 years that meet or beat the HSUPA and HSPA+ radios in cellphones in power consumption, size, and throughput?
No, Apple would make an LTE phone much sooner than that since LTE will be the worldwide standard just like GSM is, and I'm sure many countries will be able to transition from GSM to LTE much sooner than we here in the states can, so look for phones that are built with both, the BB STORM has both CMDA/EVDO + plus QUAD BAND GSM built into it
Talk about waffling.
Not sure about waffling but I certainly think what are seeing is lots of interested parties rallying for pole position (as it were) trying to nudge the outcome they will profit from. But who knows... its all a crap shoot and in the end you know who's getting stuck with the dirty end of the plunger...
Wake me when net neutrality becomes a reality!
Dave
According to my math, each iPhone has a $400 subsidy from AT&T to Apple. If it is weighted over a 24 month contract, it comes out to about $16 per month (400/24=16). That leaves AT&T with $14 per month on the data plan to enhance the network and make a profit.
But remember you paid $199 for the iPhone so its only dishing out an additional $200, but you don't only pay for the data either, you pay for your monthly minutes, you should have included that as well, because after all it is a phone to make calls with, is it not?
No, Apple would make an LTE phone much sooner than that since LTE will be the worldwide standard just like GSM is, and I'm sure many countries will be able to transition from GSM to LTE much sooner than we here in the states can, so look for phones that are built with both, the BB STORM has both CMDA/EVDO + plus QUAD BAND GSM built into it
How many countries that have completed their W-CDMA coverage have stopped using GSM? I don?t think any have. How many phones have W-CDMA but don?t have GSM radios in them? I don?t think there are any.
Do you not realize that phones with WCDMA(UMTS) also have GSM radios in them, and that phones that later come with LTE will also have earlier generation radios in them? They aren?t going to just drop GSM and WCDMA or CDMA and CDMA2000 for LTE. They are going to be stepped devices that include the older tech radios as these networks have been built out, are more complete and will continue to be more complete for a long time to come.
The Storm you mention is using two 2G radios and two 3G radio technologies. It?s not the same as using a 2G, 3G and 4G radio technology in the same device. There will likely be a point when the dual 2G and dual 3G chips get small enough, power efficient enough and cheap enough to be used in more devices but that time has not yet come. And I doubt that Apple, obsessed with size, would even consider this option, especially since they have yet to make a CDMA-based phone for countries that are dominated by CDMA-based networks.
The report states that HSPA subscribers are projected to hit 1.4 billion in 2012, while competing standard EVDO, used by Verizon, will have only 304.6 million users by 2013.
yes, and all 1.4 billion of them are hitting the same tower as am i.
"Facing dropped calls, service interruptions and slow download speeds, iPhone users in certain markets are blaming AT&T," said Jagdish Rebello, director and principal analyst. "iPhone users are overloading AT&T’s network with data traffic generated by the download and usage of apps. However, the real problem is that AT&T has not found a way to monetize data traffic generated by the iPhone."
jagdish rebello, director and principal analyst, you are a sphincter-extraordinaire!
How many countries that have completed their W-CDMA coverage have stopped using GSM? I don?t think any have. How many phones have W-CDMA but don?t have GSM radios in them? I don?t think there are any.
Do you not realize that phones with WCDMA(UMTS) also have GSM radios in them, and that phones that later come with LTE will also have earlier generation radios in them? They aren?t going to just drop GSM and WCDMA or CDMA and CDMA2000 for LTE. They are going to be stepped devices that include the older tech radios as these networks have been built out, are more complete and will continue to be more complete for a long time to come.
The Storm you mention is using two 2G radios and two 3G radio technologies. It?s not the same as using a 2G, 3G and 4G radio technology in the same device. There will likely be a point when the dual 2G and dual 3G chips get small enough, power efficient enough and cheap enough to be used in more devices but that time has not yet come. And I doubt that Apple, obsessed with size, would even consider this option, especially since they have yet to make a CDMA-based phone for countries that are dominated by CDMA-based networks.
Actually its predicted that the CDMA network will be up for another 10 years, but building a phone for multiple carriers isn't that hard, every other company does it except for Apple. You can get a BB Curve for every company and even with a two way radio for Sprint. I'd love to have an iPhone and so do millions of VZW customers. I just think at this point it makes much more business sense to go with other carriers than to stay with AT&T
Without saying if I think the exclusivity will continue or not, if this analyst is basing his conclusion primarily on this fact, then he really should find a new job. That's roughly 20% of the worldwide market you are ignoring there. And about 50% if you look at the US alone.
Besides, you are talking about devices that typically only last 2-3 years. So the projected number of users 4 years from now is irrlevant to a device I'd be selling today.
300 million users is a big enough market to justify the nominal expense of creating a Verizon phone. The only real financial consideration is how the subsidies might change if it were non-exclusive. Would the extra profit from Verizon phones offset the lower subsidies ATT would likely be willing to pay if they didn't have exclusivity?
Actually Apple would get less per phone, but do you know how millions of iPhones it would sell almost immediately? If it built a CDMA phone how may of the 87 million VZW subscribers would get an iPhone (I being one of them) and how many of the 49 million Sprint customers would get one? That's just too big of a market for Apple to continue to ignore.
Actually its predicted that the CDMA network will be up for another 10 years, but building a phone for multiple carriers isn't that hard, every other company does it except for Apple. You can get a BB Curve for every company and even with a two way radio for Sprint. I'd love to have an iPhone and so do millions of VZW customers. I just think at this point it makes much more business sense to go with other carriers than to stay with AT&T
Every other cellphone vendor has more than one phone to sell, but not every cellphone vendor makes every model phone work for every network architecture, and they certainly don?t make every phone work for both CDMA- and GSM-based networks at the same time. Does Nokia make and CDMA-based cellphones? How about any other cellphone vendors that mainly sells in Europe?
I don?t think it makes sense to dump AT&T, but I?d love for the iPhone to go to other carriers if only to get some users off AT&T?s network so I can get some bandwidth back. As for business sense, Apple still likes to function as a boutique shop and they don?t seem to be keen on having to stock an identical iPhone in their stores for each capacity that only works on CDMA-based networks nor do they seem to care about making a larger, thicker iPhone that costs more and uses more power just to have a device with lower bandwidth chips so they can have one device that is both GSM- and CDMA-based. It?s just not how Apple has operated in the past.
Actually Apple would get less per phone, but do you know how millions of iPhones it would sell almost immediately? If it built a CDMA phone how may of the 87 million VZW subscribers would get an iPhone (I being one of them) and how many of the 49 million Sprint customers would get one? That's just too big of a market for Apple to continue to ignore.
Apple is already having trouble keeping up with supply demands. They might find that they are at the ends now with being able to keep their current factories producing quality product.
That is not to say it?s impossible. It?s obviously possible but scaling up is something not to be taken lightly. Nor should you scale up just to piddle out later on when you?ve saturated your market too quickly which will cause your stock to fall in the next quarter and next year when you latter sales results are lowered. You can say the same for every single Apple product. Why don?t they make a 15? MacBook or a netbook or whatever. You want it there is likely a market for it, but that doesn?t mean that it?s good for their long term objectives.
The iPhone will evolve into other areas. It has too, it?s the only way a smart company can grow, but how you do it is important. To say, ?but if only they made a phone for Verizon then would sell millions more? that is obvious, but it?s not good business to just sell everywhere to everyone and expect it to work out or otherwise Apple wouldn?t have partnered with any carrier anywhere.
Every other cellphone vendor has more than one phone to sell, but not every cellphone vendor makes every model phone work for every network architecture, and they certainly don?t make every phone work for both CDMA- and GSM-based networks at the same time. Does Nokia make and CDMA-based cellphones? How about any other cellphone vendors that mainly sells in Europe?
I don?t think it makes sense to dump AT&T, but I?d love for the iPhone to go to other carriers if only to get some users off AT&T?s network so I can get some bandwidth back. As for business sense, Apple still likes to function as a boutique shop and they don?t seem to be keen on having to stock an identical iPhone in their stores for each capacity that only works on CDMA-based networks nor do they seem to care about making a larger, thicker iPhone that costs more and uses more power just to have a device with lower bandwidth chips so they can have one device that is both GSM- and CDMA-based. It?s just not how Apple has operated in the past.
Yes Nokia does, it currently makes 3 phones for verizon and 2 more on the way. Most phone makers make the same exact phone for different carriers they just give it a different name from one co. to the next. Sony is the only company that doesnt have a phone with Verizon. BTW that boutique crap went out the window when Apple decided to put Intel chips in its computers and let people run MS Windows on its computers.
BTW that boutique crap went out the window when Apple decided to put Intel chips in its computers and let people run MS Windows on its computers.
The CPU has nothing to do with being a boutique style computer shop or trying to run like one. There are plenty of these shops on line that make Intel-based PCs running Windows. Every PC maker that caters specifically to gamers, especially the ones that put desktop-grade components into a 20lb notebook for portable gaming despite having less than an hour of battery, are boutique PC makers.
Apple still functions as one despite it’s growth. I doubt they can keep it up for too much longer and I expect that even their Mac line will have to diversify more if they plan to keep beating records each quarter.
Apple is already having trouble keeping up with supply demands. They might find that they are at the ends now with being able to keep their current factories producing quality product.
That is not to say it?s impossible. It?s obviously possible but scaling up is something not to be taken lightly. Nor should you scale up just to piddle out later on when you?ve saturated your market too quickly which will cause your stock to fall in the next quarter and next year when you latter sales results are lowered. You can say the same for every single Apple product. Why don?t they make a 15? MacBook or a netbook or whatever. You want it there is likely a market for it, but that doesn?t mean that it?s good for their long term objectives.
The iPhone will evolve into other areas. It has too, it?s the only way a smart company can grow, but how you do it is important. To say, ?but if only they made a phone for Verizon then would sell millions more? that is obvious, but it?s not good business to just sell everywhere to everyone and expect it to work out or otherwise Apple wouldn?t have partnered with any carrier anywhere.
Of course, I understand that fact, both the carrier and the maker sign exclusivity deals because its profitable for both, but at some point it does stop being profitable. Will AT&T finally realize the deal should have ended sooner when it starts bleeding customers the way Sprint has been for the last few years? The network problems also affect the non-iphone users. So someone with a BB can easily go to another carrier without missing much, in fact they'll probably wonder why they were with AT&T to begin with.
The network problems also affect the non-iphone users. So someone with a BB can easily go to another carrier without missing much, in fact they'll probably wonder why they were with AT&T to begin with.
Yeah, they do, which makes me wonder why they started ?requiring? all smartphones to have an unlimited data plan at $30/month. With smartphone OSes getting better browsers and more connected apps I would understand if they required the unlimited data package for any smartphone that wanted data in any regard, but to require it for all when then their network is already saturated doesn?t make much sense to me. It?s not like these new fees will get pushed into the network upgrades right away and it may make things worse if a new BB owner on AT&T decides that if I have to have it I might as well get the most of it. Or even worse, lose the customer to another carrier altogether. Maybe Apple will be buying AT&T and making it Apple?s Troubled & Tired network. All iPhones all the time!
also, I do NOT see them making a CDMA device of any kind. they would be reinventing the wheel. I believe that all devices will stay GSM and it's successors. Which means if Verizon wants the phone or anything else, they have to change games to support the device. otherwise, it's ATT and TMobile (at least here in the US).