Remind me again HOW many years did it take until Verizon FINALLY (perhaps somewhat begrudgingly) offered its peasants I mean subscribers a phone with BlueTooth functionality?
Apple also crippled the bluetooth functionality of the iphone for years because they get a lot of money from iphone "certified" peripherals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005
We'll know Monday when Verizon reports; I expect to see their churn go up a bit more (possibly equaling AT&T's) and their new subscribers to be less than AT&T's 2m. During this past year, their churn has already been around 30% higher than it was in 2Q07 (pre-iPhone).
My theory right now is that Verizon is now taking the AT&T/iPhone threat more seriously than ever, as the 3GS (and $99 3G) has increased defections. The passive 2-for-1 BB worked for awhile but grew stale (no more takers). And the Storm and Storm 2 was and are useless in the battle. So Verizon is going even more strongly on the offensive.
AT&T gained 1.385 million postpaid retail subscribers, lost 176K prepaid retail subscribers and gained 817K wholesale (Tracfone) subscribers. On Monday, Verizon is probably going to announce that they gain 1.3 million retail subscribers, 95% of them postpaid.
Why can't we just do like RIM and have the iPhone open to all carriers? Exclusivity causes work-arounds. Besides, t-mobile, for example, is how the iPhone works in Europe. There is no reason why anyone can't have an iPhone, regardless of their carrier. (Unless they're on Medicare).
Why? Because Verizon hasn't agreed to Apple's demands for iTunes Store, App Store, no VCast, no Verizon name on phone, iPhone marketing only by Apple, Apple warranty/ repair servicing, handset pricing, Apple Store sales/sign-ups($), etc.
And most importantly, Verizon hasn't given Apple enough of an incentive to make a CDMA handset.
Like the way you use the word "stuffed" as you continue to show up here to poo-poo iPhone and AT&T. Cook clearly stated that channel inventory was much lower than Apple wanted so there was no stuffing going on to supply over 80 countries with 3G and 64 countries with 3GS, many of which are still undersupplied.
Inventory is inventory.
AT&T's 3.2 million activations are actual activations.
Apple increased channel inventory by 500K iphones for the quarter and we don't know how many iphones were stuffed to the Chinese carrier for late October launch.
It does NOT cost a lot of money to make a CDMA iphone. The chipset manufacturers will provide Apple with all the necessary drivers. That's how the whole world works.
Stuffed? The demand for the iPhone was outstripping supply. I highly doubt that Apple was stuffing AT&T?s channels well beyond what they could sell while limiting many other countries in the process. What is your financial reasoning for that?
As for China, they are using a different device in some regards. The US iPhone is only going back to China through gray markets. I don?t think we know yet if the WiFI radios are not included or if it?s a software disable, but the back of the device would surely be different for the US and China, as well as the box and accessories it comes with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
Not many.
Out of the 2 million new customers, 800K came from wholesale MVNO subscribers (Tracfone). So AT&T gained only 1.2 million retail subscribers.
Verizon is probably going to announce that they gained 1.2-1.3 million retail subscribers in Q3 on Monday (and 95% of them are postpaid). A virtual tie between the two carriers.
Prepaid and postpaid are still paid. If they are still getting their money what is the issue? It?s like someone else saying that Verizon?s smartphone sales don?t count as much as AT&T?s iPhone sales because they are cheaper devices. It?s still a sale and it?s still a device running on their network.
PS: AT&T was only 8M away from Verizon as of the June 2009 results. Will they push ahead or fall back this quarter? Even with more subscribers I have doubts AT&T will be making any strides in their profit margins. The iPhone seems to be costing them a lot on HW and forcing them to improve their network by the billions while still not being able to keep up the device?s network demands. Doesn?t look like a good time to own AT&T stock.
Apple also crippled the bluetooth functionality of the iphone for years because they get a lot of money from iphone "certified" peripherals.
And what's you're point besides possibly derailing the points I made??! Showing me something about Apple that I already know in no way changes the fact that Verizon is NOT the open arms all technology is welcome HERE corporation they are painting themselves out to be.
My point was to simply address the 'perception' that Verizon was the 'all new technologies' loving corporation when that statement has no basis in truth. I never said anything about Apple... in fact I'm often on the 'wrong side' on these boards since my view is that Apple manages the App Store far to strictly for my tastes and I'm not shy about saying it... but none of that changes the facts about what type of company Verizon is compared to the 'mask' they're wearing at the moment.
Apple also crippled the bluetooth functionality of the iphone for years because they get a lot of money from iphone "certified" peripherals.
I thought the discussion was about how AT&T phones in general can work worldwide while Verizon offer crippled phones (even the ones with GSM capabilities are crippled).
Less 3.2M for US, leaves 3.6M overseas, which is more than 3.2M. Which was what the original poster's point was.
What's your point?
My point is that the OP said that there is no point for Apple to even talk to Verizon about the iphone. My point is that the AT&T's share against worldwide has been pretty much steady at about 45% and basically everybody is talking about the benefit of the iphone going multiple carrier in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Prepaid and postpaid are still paid. If they are still getting their money what is the issue? It?s like someone else saying that Verizon?s smartphone sales don?t count as much as AT&T?s iPhone sales because they are cheaper devices. It?s still a sale and it?s still a device running on their network.
It's not really about prepaid vs. postpaid. It's really about how Tracfone is doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee
And what's you're point besides possibly derailing the points I made??! Showing me something about Apple that I already know in no way changes the fact that Verizon is NOT the open arms all technology is welcome HERE corporation they are painting themselves out to be.
My point was to simply address the 'perception' that Verizon was the 'all new technologies' loving corporation when that statement has no basis in truth. I never said anything about Apple... in fact I'm often on the 'wrong side' on these boards since my view is Apple manages the App Store far to strictly for my tastes but none of that changes the facts about what type of company Verizon is compared to the 'mask' they're wearing at the moment.
Dave
And my point is that "perception" is perception --- with a lot of bias involved. Objectively, right now you can get a Verizon Blackberry with a true world phone, with wifi, with uncrippled bluetooth and you can install Google Voice on it.
I thought the discussion was about how AT&T phones in general can work worldwide while Verizon offer crippled phones (even the ones with GSM capabilities are crippled).
That's in the past. Verizon no longer cripples their world phones and smart phones.
And you can't get AT&T to unlock your iphone anyway.
That's in the past. Verizon no longer cripples their world phones and smart phones.
And you can't get AT&T to unlock your iphone anyway.
Again, we are not talking about the iPhone. However, If you want an officially unlocked iPhone with AT&T you can get one from eBay but you can't get your Verizon phone to work worldwide unless it is dual system, where the selection is very limited. Can you tell me which phones Verizon sell right now that is not crippled?! Oh wait.. they said November and it is only one phone. I don't have anything against Verizon but I prefer phone makers to dictate features not carriers and I prefer my phone to be software locked not hardware locked (even though I prefer it to be completely unlocked).
It blows me away that there are "numerous reports" suggesting iPhone might move to Verizon. It's simply preposterous to think Apple would create an entirely separate piece of hardware to run on Verzion's network, which is fundamentally incompatible hardware as compared to every other carrier that currently carries the iPhone.
When Verizon launches LTE in 2011, along with T-Mobile and AT&T, sure, iPhone will jump to them. But certainly not before then, and it's a mark of incredible ignorance on the part of these analysts to think otherwise.
1. I agree with you on the "numerous reports" thing. In the end these "reports" are nothing but 1 persons opinion.
2. I think you are completely overestimating the difficulty of a) installing a cdma chip versus a gsm chip or b) adding a cdma chip in addition to the gsm chip to made the cdma version a world phone.
Apple the company who gives there customers hardly any options at all on every single product they sell, even has 2 or more versions of most things (imac, mac mini, etc). There will be a CDMA iphone in less than a year you can bet your life on that.
3. If I were a betting man, and I am. I would bet 5 to 1 that we we will see the iphone on Sprint before Verizon.
4. The iphone was offered to Sprint and Verizon BEFORE ATT, they both passed, they didn't want to give up any of their "power" to a phone manufacturer, it would set a terrible precedent as it has with ATT. In the long run they made the correct decision, and neither of them is going to bow down to Apple, then or now. They have moved on and are in a much better position because of it, on the other hand Apple knows that the US GSM network is shit and even the sheep are starting to realize it.
Again, we are not talking about the iPhone. If you want an officially unlocked iPhone you can get one from eBay. Can you tell me which phones Verizon sell right now that is not crippled?! Oh wait.. they said November and it is only one phone. I don't have anything against Verizon but I prefer phone makers to dictate features not carriers and I prefer my phone to be software locked not hardware locked (even though I prefer it to be completely unlocked).
Birds who live inside a golden cage, is still locked inside a cage.
The whole point with all the FCC talks right now is that Verizon dictating features is still governed by the FCC. Neither Google nor Apple are under any FCC rules --- which means that they can do a lot more damage to the consumer when they are dictating stuff.
2. I think you are completely overestimating the difficulty of a) installing a cdma chip versus a gsm chip or b) adding a cdma chip in addition to the gsm chip to made the cdma version a world phone.
Apple the company who gives there customers hardly any options at all on every single product they sell, even has 2 or more versions of most things (imac, mac mini, etc). There will be a CDMA iphone in less than a year you can bet your life on that.
Actually it is quite simple and cheap to design a CDMA iphone. A former Virgin Mobile executive is saying that it would cost about $5 million to design a CDMA iphone.
Birds who live inside a golden cage, is still locked inside a cage.
The whole point with all the FCC talks right now is that Verizon dictating features is still governed by the FCC. Neither Google nor Apple are under any FCC rules --- which means that they can do a lot more damage to the consumer when they are dictating stuff.
You still don't get it. If you want Verizon (carrier) you will be stuck with the features they offer you but if you want AT&T you can get any phone with the features you want and move between any GSM carrier worldwide. AT&T and T-Mobile are facing the same forced unlocking lawsuit Verizon and Sprint had to settle few years back.
Actually it is quite simple and cheap to design a CDMA iphone. A former Virgin Mobile executive is saying that it would cost about $5 million to design a CDMA iphone.
I don?t think anyone here thinks it?s overly costly to design it. After that there are extra licensing fees involved and then the most complex logistical issues of manufacturing, packaging and and stocking of two different types of phones for different networks for each different capacity. That it?s something Apple is fond of.
They have yet to make a CDMA phone for countries that don?t have GSM-based networks. They even went with China Unicom over the much larger China Mobile; is it not reasonable to think that was partially due to the Unicom being GSM-based?
Then there is the elephant in the room. If Apple can?t get make enough of the current iPhones now while still not being in all the countries that the 3G is in, why do we think that making another completely different set of iPhones for the largest carrier in the US for Apple?s largest iPhone market to date would help this issue. As far as I can tell the problem was not a shortage of GSM radios.
You still don't get it. If you want Verizon (carrier) you will be stock with the features they offer you but if you want AT&T you can get any phone with the features you want and move between any GSM carrier worldwide. AT&T and T-Mobile are facing the same forced unlocking lawsuit Verizon and Sprint had to settle few years back.
You still don't get it.
For all the talk about consumer freedoms --- the big red devil who nickels and dimes you at every corner and supposedly cripples every phone in existence, gets the highest consumer satisfaction rating in the US.
For all the talk about consumer freedoms --- the big red devil who nickels and dimes you at every corner and supposedly cripples every phone in existence, gets the highest consumer satisfaction rating in the US.
Perception is perception. Reality is reality.
So what you are saying is that the Verizon birds who live inside their locked inside a cage are happy.
For all the talk about consumer freedoms --- the big red devil who nickels and dimes you at every corner and supposedly cripples every phone in existence, gets the highest consumer satisfaction rating in the US.
Perception is perception. Reality is reality.
Please stop going in circles. We are talking about choice and independence of carrier restriction and now you switched the topic to customer satisfaction. Sure, they have the highest satisfaction but that's not what we have been talking about.
I don?t think anyone here thinks it?s overly costly to design it. After that there are extra licensing fees involved and then the most complex logistical issues of manufacturing, packaging and and stocking of two different types of phones for different networks for each different capacity. That it?s something Apple is fond of.
They have yet to make a CDMA phone for countries that don?t have GSM-based networks. They even went with China Unicom over the much larger China Mobile; is it not reasonable to think that was partially due to the Unicom being GSM-based?
Then there is the elephant in the room. If Apple can?t get make enough of the current iPhones now while still not being in all the countries that the 3G is in, why do we think that making another completely different set of iPhones for the largest carrier in the US for Apple?s largest iPhone market to date would help this issue. As far as I can tell the problem was not a shortage of GSM radios.
You have to spend money to make money.
Secondly, Apple is perfectly ready to make a wifi-less iphone for the China market.
Supply constraint happened in this quarter because Apple thought that most people would buy the $99 iphone, but in reality the vast majority of people bought the 3GS. Previously supply constraint happened because of things like the touch screen, not the GSM chipsets.
Secondly, Apple is perfectly ready to make a wifi-less iphone for the China market.
Supply constraint happened in this quarter because Apple thought that most people would buy the $99 iphone, but in reality the vast majority of people bought the 3GS. Previously supply constraint happened because of things like the touch screen, not the GSM chipsets.
So with your stated supply supply constraints of the touchscreen, which would be on every iPhone regardless of network type, the fact that Apple is gearing up to enter the Chinese market and the other logical issues, do you think it?s feasible to expect an iPhone on Verizon at this point?
Comments
Remind me again HOW many years did it take until Verizon FINALLY (perhaps somewhat begrudgingly) offered its peasants I mean subscribers a phone with BlueTooth functionality?
Apple also crippled the bluetooth functionality of the iphone for years because they get a lot of money from iphone "certified" peripherals.
We'll know Monday when Verizon reports; I expect to see their churn go up a bit more (possibly equaling AT&T's) and their new subscribers to be less than AT&T's 2m. During this past year, their churn has already been around 30% higher than it was in 2Q07 (pre-iPhone).
My theory right now is that Verizon is now taking the AT&T/iPhone threat more seriously than ever, as the 3GS (and $99 3G) has increased defections. The passive 2-for-1 BB worked for awhile but grew stale (no more takers). And the Storm and Storm 2 was and are useless in the battle. So Verizon is going even more strongly on the offensive.
AT&T gained 1.385 million postpaid retail subscribers, lost 176K prepaid retail subscribers and gained 817K wholesale (Tracfone) subscribers. On Monday, Verizon is probably going to announce that they gain 1.3 million retail subscribers, 95% of them postpaid.
Essentially a tie with AT&T.
Why can't we just do like RIM and have the iPhone open to all carriers? Exclusivity causes work-arounds. Besides, t-mobile, for example, is how the iPhone works in Europe. There is no reason why anyone can't have an iPhone, regardless of their carrier. (Unless they're on Medicare).
Why? Because Verizon hasn't agreed to Apple's demands for iTunes Store, App Store, no VCast, no Verizon name on phone, iPhone marketing only by Apple, Apple warranty/ repair servicing, handset pricing, Apple Store sales/sign-ups($), etc.
And most importantly, Verizon hasn't given Apple enough of an incentive to make a CDMA handset.
Like the way you use the word "stuffed" as you continue to show up here to poo-poo iPhone and AT&T. Cook clearly stated that channel inventory was much lower than Apple wanted so there was no stuffing going on to supply over 80 countries with 3G and 64 countries with 3GS, many of which are still undersupplied.
Inventory is inventory.
AT&T's 3.2 million activations are actual activations.
Inventory is inventory.
AT&T's 3.2 million activations are actual activations.
So 7.4 (iPhones shipped) - .6 (inventory increase) = 6.8M iPhones sold.
Less 3.2M for US, leaves 3.6M overseas, which is more than 3.2M. Which was what the original poster's point was.
What's your point?
Apple increased channel inventory by 500K iphones for the quarter and we don't know how many iphones were stuffed to the Chinese carrier for late October launch.
It does NOT cost a lot of money to make a CDMA iphone. The chipset manufacturers will provide Apple with all the necessary drivers. That's how the whole world works.
Stuffed? The demand for the iPhone was outstripping supply. I highly doubt that Apple was stuffing AT&T?s channels well beyond what they could sell while limiting many other countries in the process. What is your financial reasoning for that?
As for China, they are using a different device in some regards. The US iPhone is only going back to China through gray markets. I don?t think we know yet if the WiFI radios are not included or if it?s a software disable, but the back of the device would surely be different for the US and China, as well as the box and accessories it comes with.
Not many.
Out of the 2 million new customers, 800K came from wholesale MVNO subscribers (Tracfone). So AT&T gained only 1.2 million retail subscribers.
Verizon is probably going to announce that they gained 1.2-1.3 million retail subscribers in Q3 on Monday (and 95% of them are postpaid). A virtual tie between the two carriers.
Prepaid and postpaid are still paid. If they are still getting their money what is the issue? It?s like someone else saying that Verizon?s smartphone sales don?t count as much as AT&T?s iPhone sales because they are cheaper devices. It?s still a sale and it?s still a device running on their network.
PS: AT&T was only 8M away from Verizon as of the June 2009 results. Will they push ahead or fall back this quarter? Even with more subscribers I have doubts AT&T will be making any strides in their profit margins. The iPhone seems to be costing them a lot on HW and forcing them to improve their network by the billions while still not being able to keep up the device?s network demands. Doesn?t look like a good time to own AT&T stock.
Apple also crippled the bluetooth functionality of the iphone for years because they get a lot of money from iphone "certified" peripherals.
And what's you're point besides possibly derailing the points I made??! Showing me something about Apple that I already know in no way changes the fact that Verizon is NOT the open arms all technology is welcome HERE corporation they are painting themselves out to be.
My point was to simply address the 'perception' that Verizon was the 'all new technologies' loving corporation when that statement has no basis in truth. I never said anything about Apple... in fact I'm often on the 'wrong side' on these boards since my view is that Apple manages the App Store far to strictly for my tastes and I'm not shy about saying it... but none of that changes the facts about what type of company Verizon is compared to the 'mask' they're wearing at the moment.
Dave
Apple also crippled the bluetooth functionality of the iphone for years because they get a lot of money from iphone "certified" peripherals.
I thought the discussion was about how AT&T phones in general can work worldwide while Verizon offer crippled phones (even the ones with GSM capabilities are crippled).
So 7.4 (iPhones shipped) - .6 (inventory increase) = 6.8M iPhones sold.
Less 3.2M for US, leaves 3.6M overseas, which is more than 3.2M. Which was what the original poster's point was.
What's your point?
My point is that the OP said that there is no point for Apple to even talk to Verizon about the iphone. My point is that the AT&T's share against worldwide has been pretty much steady at about 45% and basically everybody is talking about the benefit of the iphone going multiple carrier in the US.
Prepaid and postpaid are still paid. If they are still getting their money what is the issue? It?s like someone else saying that Verizon?s smartphone sales don?t count as much as AT&T?s iPhone sales because they are cheaper devices. It?s still a sale and it?s still a device running on their network.
It's not really about prepaid vs. postpaid. It's really about how Tracfone is doing.
And what's you're point besides possibly derailing the points I made??! Showing me something about Apple that I already know in no way changes the fact that Verizon is NOT the open arms all technology is welcome HERE corporation they are painting themselves out to be.
My point was to simply address the 'perception' that Verizon was the 'all new technologies' loving corporation when that statement has no basis in truth. I never said anything about Apple... in fact I'm often on the 'wrong side' on these boards since my view is Apple manages the App Store far to strictly for my tastes but none of that changes the facts about what type of company Verizon is compared to the 'mask' they're wearing at the moment.
Dave
And my point is that "perception" is perception --- with a lot of bias involved. Objectively, right now you can get a Verizon Blackberry with a true world phone, with wifi, with uncrippled bluetooth and you can install Google Voice on it.
I thought the discussion was about how AT&T phones in general can work worldwide while Verizon offer crippled phones (even the ones with GSM capabilities are crippled).
That's in the past. Verizon no longer cripples their world phones and smart phones.
And you can't get AT&T to unlock your iphone anyway.
That's in the past. Verizon no longer cripples their world phones and smart phones.
And you can't get AT&T to unlock your iphone anyway.
Again, we are not talking about the iPhone. However, If you want an officially unlocked iPhone with AT&T you can get one from eBay but you can't get your Verizon phone to work worldwide unless it is dual system, where the selection is very limited. Can you tell me which phones Verizon sell right now that is not crippled?! Oh wait.. they said November and it is only one phone. I don't have anything against Verizon but I prefer phone makers to dictate features not carriers and I prefer my phone to be software locked not hardware locked (even though I prefer it to be completely unlocked).
It blows me away that there are "numerous reports" suggesting iPhone might move to Verizon. It's simply preposterous to think Apple would create an entirely separate piece of hardware to run on Verzion's network, which is fundamentally incompatible hardware as compared to every other carrier that currently carries the iPhone.
When Verizon launches LTE in 2011, along with T-Mobile and AT&T, sure, iPhone will jump to them. But certainly not before then, and it's a mark of incredible ignorance on the part of these analysts to think otherwise.
1. I agree with you on the "numerous reports" thing. In the end these "reports" are nothing but 1 persons opinion.
2. I think you are completely overestimating the difficulty of a) installing a cdma chip versus a gsm chip or b) adding a cdma chip in addition to the gsm chip to made the cdma version a world phone.
Apple the company who gives there customers hardly any options at all on every single product they sell, even has 2 or more versions of most things (imac, mac mini, etc). There will be a CDMA iphone in less than a year you can bet your life on that.
3. If I were a betting man, and I am. I would bet 5 to 1 that we we will see the iphone on Sprint before Verizon.
4. The iphone was offered to Sprint and Verizon BEFORE ATT, they both passed, they didn't want to give up any of their "power" to a phone manufacturer, it would set a terrible precedent as it has with ATT. In the long run they made the correct decision, and neither of them is going to bow down to Apple, then or now. They have moved on and are in a much better position because of it, on the other hand Apple knows that the US GSM network is shit and even the sheep are starting to realize it.
Again, we are not talking about the iPhone. If you want an officially unlocked iPhone you can get one from eBay. Can you tell me which phones Verizon sell right now that is not crippled?! Oh wait.. they said November and it is only one phone. I don't have anything against Verizon but I prefer phone makers to dictate features not carriers and I prefer my phone to be software locked not hardware locked (even though I prefer it to be completely unlocked).
Birds who live inside a golden cage, is still locked inside a cage.
The whole point with all the FCC talks right now is that Verizon dictating features is still governed by the FCC. Neither Google nor Apple are under any FCC rules --- which means that they can do a lot more damage to the consumer when they are dictating stuff.
2. I think you are completely overestimating the difficulty of a) installing a cdma chip versus a gsm chip or b) adding a cdma chip in addition to the gsm chip to made the cdma version a world phone.
Apple the company who gives there customers hardly any options at all on every single product they sell, even has 2 or more versions of most things (imac, mac mini, etc). There will be a CDMA iphone in less than a year you can bet your life on that.
Actually it is quite simple and cheap to design a CDMA iphone. A former Virgin Mobile executive is saying that it would cost about $5 million to design a CDMA iphone.
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-a...xt-year-2009-9
Birds who live inside a golden cage, is still locked inside a cage.
The whole point with all the FCC talks right now is that Verizon dictating features is still governed by the FCC. Neither Google nor Apple are under any FCC rules --- which means that they can do a lot more damage to the consumer when they are dictating stuff.
You still don't get it. If you want Verizon (carrier) you will be stuck with the features they offer you but if you want AT&T you can get any phone with the features you want and move between any GSM carrier worldwide. AT&T and T-Mobile are facing the same forced unlocking lawsuit Verizon and Sprint had to settle few years back.
Actually it is quite simple and cheap to design a CDMA iphone. A former Virgin Mobile executive is saying that it would cost about $5 million to design a CDMA iphone.
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-a...xt-year-2009-9
I don?t think anyone here thinks it?s overly costly to design it. After that there are extra licensing fees involved and then the most complex logistical issues of manufacturing, packaging and and stocking of two different types of phones for different networks for each different capacity. That it?s something Apple is fond of.
They have yet to make a CDMA phone for countries that don?t have GSM-based networks. They even went with China Unicom over the much larger China Mobile; is it not reasonable to think that was partially due to the Unicom being GSM-based?
Then there is the elephant in the room. If Apple can?t get make enough of the current iPhones now while still not being in all the countries that the 3G is in, why do we think that making another completely different set of iPhones for the largest carrier in the US for Apple?s largest iPhone market to date would help this issue. As far as I can tell the problem was not a shortage of GSM radios.
You still don't get it. If you want Verizon (carrier) you will be stock with the features they offer you but if you want AT&T you can get any phone with the features you want and move between any GSM carrier worldwide. AT&T and T-Mobile are facing the same forced unlocking lawsuit Verizon and Sprint had to settle few years back.
You still don't get it.
For all the talk about consumer freedoms --- the big red devil who nickels and dimes you at every corner and supposedly cripples every phone in existence, gets the highest consumer satisfaction rating in the US.
Perception is perception. Reality is reality.
You still don't get it.
For all the talk about consumer freedoms --- the big red devil who nickels and dimes you at every corner and supposedly cripples every phone in existence, gets the highest consumer satisfaction rating in the US.
Perception is perception. Reality is reality.
So what you are saying is that the Verizon birds who live inside their locked inside a cage are happy.
You still don't get it.
For all the talk about consumer freedoms --- the big red devil who nickels and dimes you at every corner and supposedly cripples every phone in existence, gets the highest consumer satisfaction rating in the US.
Perception is perception. Reality is reality.
Please stop going in circles. We are talking about choice and independence of carrier restriction and now you switched the topic to customer satisfaction. Sure, they have the highest satisfaction but that's not what we have been talking about.
I don?t think anyone here thinks it?s overly costly to design it. After that there are extra licensing fees involved and then the most complex logistical issues of manufacturing, packaging and and stocking of two different types of phones for different networks for each different capacity. That it?s something Apple is fond of.
They have yet to make a CDMA phone for countries that don?t have GSM-based networks. They even went with China Unicom over the much larger China Mobile; is it not reasonable to think that was partially due to the Unicom being GSM-based?
Then there is the elephant in the room. If Apple can?t get make enough of the current iPhones now while still not being in all the countries that the 3G is in, why do we think that making another completely different set of iPhones for the largest carrier in the US for Apple?s largest iPhone market to date would help this issue. As far as I can tell the problem was not a shortage of GSM radios.
You have to spend money to make money.
Secondly, Apple is perfectly ready to make a wifi-less iphone for the China market.
Supply constraint happened in this quarter because Apple thought that most people would buy the $99 iphone, but in reality the vast majority of people bought the 3GS. Previously supply constraint happened because of things like the touch screen, not the GSM chipsets.
You have to spend money to make money.
Secondly, Apple is perfectly ready to make a wifi-less iphone for the China market.
Supply constraint happened in this quarter because Apple thought that most people would buy the $99 iphone, but in reality the vast majority of people bought the 3GS. Previously supply constraint happened because of things like the touch screen, not the GSM chipsets.
So with your stated supply supply constraints of the touchscreen, which would be on every iPhone regardless of network type, the fact that Apple is gearing up to enter the Chinese market and the other logical issues, do you think it?s feasible to expect an iPhone on Verizon at this point?