Overseas iphone carriers do handle iphone tech support and warranty issues. Verizon has a point --- there are 100 apple stores and there are 1000 AT&T Wireless corp stores selling the iphone. The consumer is better off by driving to the local AT&T store that is minutes away than driving for hours (maybe even across stateline to get to the nearest apple store).
Does AT&T or Verizon sell phones and service overseas? So it has nothing to do with this. In the US, Apple keeps warranty and repair service for itself.
By the way, I've used Verizon, T-mobile, and AT&T store support over the past 10 years. Totally useless, as in every case, I wound up needing to go to the much-further away Service Center to get service on the phone.
Oh, come on already. That's obviously false. They traded revenue sharing for subsidies; not backed down. But the rest - iTunes Store, App Store, control of software updates, no carrier branding on iPhone, no carrier services on iPhone, Apple Store/iTunes activations, Apple warranty/repair, Apple marketing - no carrier marketing of iPhone, etc. All still hold true.
What's wierd is that while Apple fanbois makes a wierd amount of sense VZW fanbois are simply wierd. Even for FiOS.
What's wierd is that while Apple fanbois makes a wierd amount of sense VZW fanbois are simply wierd. Even for FiOS.
I have FiOS and I think samab would say I'm an Apple fanboi. So I must make a simply weird amount of sense?
And this is an Apple fanboi site that has a huge amount of Verizon, including FiOS, ads on it. (That is, when it's not having a huge amount of Sprint/Palm ads.)
All things being equal, sure, but you aren?t going to get the same kind of help from an Apple Store employee, whether it be in-store tech support or over-the-phone tech support from a Verizon or AT&T CSR who is expected to deal with dozens of phones.
Apple isn?t doing this in the US. If ever need tech support you?ll know this is a very good thing. People had problems with the Storm and Verizon wasn?t so good about it. People had problem with the Pre and Sprint was sub par about switching out defective units. With the Apple Store or their phone support you can get it done very quickly and easily.
I have always hated Radio Shack for there horrible products and customer service so I can?t feel bad for them as a company, but I have to wonder if the deal with Cingular had Apple specificall stating that no distribution partner could sell the iPhone. They have always been crap.
This is where you say to yourself that Apple is a distribution partner, and you are correct, but they are the hardware vendor. They have a vested interest in the device succeeding. In other countries, Nokia has stores and the sales people have knowledge of the phones functions and how to resolve issues.
WE all know that wasn?t the only reason. Now we are at a place where Verizon is saying they would welcome the iPhone, yet it comes across very desperately, yet Apple doesn?t need Verizon. They couldn?t even keep up with demand for the current replace.
Next year the demand will be even higher; the only pressing issue is having that many iPhones with excessive usage usage on one carrier, and I have doubts that Apple would even choose AT&T for the overflow.
I?d add the GSM radio to the device in the US and go with T-Mobile USA, but that is just me. That should be plenty fo breathing room for AT&T?s network while making a lot of people happy that won?t go to AT&T for legitimate reasons. On top of that, both carriers can have voice and data at the same time.
It all comes to better pay and better training for AT&T employees. You go to a Verizon Wireless corporate store, their employees are paid better and even dress nicer.
Doesn't really matter whether a lot of problems are self-inflicted by RadioShack or not, the point is that Verizon really has a legitimate reason to protect its relationship with their distribution partners (from national chains like RadioShack in the mall down to independent owner-operated third party agent stores). They don't screw with their agent store partners --- and it goes both ways, those agents aren't going to screw with VZW.
I don't hear any desperation at all. I hear the same Verizon position.
Does AT&T or Verizon sell phones and service overseas? So it has nothing to do with this. In the US, Apple keeps warranty and repair service for itself.
So, it's a non-issue for Apple to give oversea carriers the right to provide warranty and tech support for the iphone --- and then it suddenly becomes a deal breaker for Apple in the US because Verizon wants to deal with those tech support directly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005
Oh, come on already. That's obviously false. They traded revenue sharing for subsidies; not backed down. But the rest - iTunes Store, App Store, control of software updates, no carrier branding on iPhone, no carrier services on iPhone, Apple Store/iTunes activations, Apple warranty/repair, Apple marketing - no carrier marketing of iPhone, etc. All still hold true.
Well, Apple is being investigated by the FCC on the app store. Even the big red devil is playing nice with RIM app store and Android app store. Do you think all the carriers around the world aren't thinking about their carrier app store's future? They are all asking the same thing, it's just that Verizon is the first one to publicly say it.
It all comes to better pay and better training for AT&T employees. You go to a Verizon Wireless corporate store, their employees are paid better and even dress nicer.
How do you know this?
Quote:
Doesn't really matter whether a lot of problems are self-inflicted by RadioShack or not, the point is that Verizon really has a legitimate reason to protect its relationship with their distribution partners (from national chains like RadioShack in the mall down to independent owner-operated third party agent stores). They don't screw with their agent store partners --- and it goes both ways, those agents aren't going to screw with VZW.
The problem is that Apple has no control over the quality of service offered from third part store agents the way it does over the quality of service from the Apple Store or AT&T store.
From what I understand of the iPhone in Europe its not exactly as if anyone is free to sell the iPhone. Apple also has some degree of quality control over its distribution and support. But of course Apple does not have hundreds of Apple stores around Europe so it cannot have the same degree of control that it can in the US.
The problem is that Apple has no control over the quality of service offered from third part store agents the way it does over the quality of service from the Apple Store or AT&T store.
From what I understand of the iPhone in Europe its not exactly as if anyone is free to sell the iPhone. Apple also has some degree of quality control over its distribution and support. But of course Apple does not have hundreds of Apple stores around Europe so it cannot have the same degree of control that it can in the US.
You can go to howardforums and talk to people in the at&t and verizon agents/employees subforums.
There is no quality of service in the cell phone service industry, period --- they are rank as low as used car salemen.
So, it's a non-issue for Apple to give oversea carriers the right to provide warranty and tech support for the iphone --- and then it suddenly becomes a deal breaker for Apple in the US because Verizon wants to deal with those tech support directly.
Duh? Apple has 200+ stores in the US, and a servicing infrastructure that it doesn't have overseas. So Apple should just abandon its investment and give it to (and pay) the carrier?
Duh? Apple has 200+ stores in the US, and a servicing infrastructure that it doesn't have overseas. So Apple should just abandon its investment and give it to (and pay) the carrier?
It's two completely different situations.
Apple doesn't have to abandon their investment if they left both AT&T stores and Apple stores handle the iphone tech support jointly.
how much incremental revenue each company stands to gain by "giving in"? And the numbers aren't even relative to each other. That is, Apple or Verizon could have more to gain (in pure dollars) and still not give in if the incremental revenue is a smaller percentage of their current bottom line.
Just thinking out loud hear, let's say that Verizon would gain an incremental 10% subscribers, call it 9 million subscribers and that each subscriber is worth an estimated $2,100 per two year contract net of phone subsidies ($100/month x 24 months - $300). 9 million x $2,100 / 2 = $18.9 billion or $9.45 billion/year
On the other hand, what would 9 million incremental iPhone sales be to Apple? Apple's best sales rate (world wide) has been north of 7 million units in a quarter. So, adding Verizon to their potential customer base would add one really good quarter to their sales and all the of corresponding "upgrade sales" for those units. At $300 a pop, that's a lot of money. If we assume that their respective margins are similar (I have no idea what is actually true but I'm guessing the margin on wireless service is better than the margin on hardware sales -- one is scalable, the other is not), the same margin % on a number that is (for Verizon) 7x higher (over a typical two year upgrade cycle) makes this look more attractive to Verizon. However, Verizon's wireless revenue/profit ($38 billion/year, roughly $10.6 billion in profit ) is also significantly more than Apple's estimated $15 billion/year iPhone revenue (call it $3 billion/year in profit? total guess). So, incrementally, adding the iPhone could add as much as $9.45 billion/year to Verizon's top line and $2.646 billion/year in profit. Said differently, it could add almost 24% more profit to it's bottom line by adding the iPhone. On the other hand, by moving to Verizon, Apple could add $2.7 billion in revenue and $540 million in profit or 18% to it's bottom line.
If the above assumptions are correct, and that's a BIG if, financially speaking, Verizon would stand to gain more (financially) from adding the iPhone than Apple would gain by adding Verizon to the mix.
Of course if any of those estimates are off -- the estimated Apple iPhone profit margin, the Verizon iPhone capture rate, the scalability of Verizon's network and profit margin -- then the analysis would yield different outcomes.
Even with all of that speculation, these decisions very infrequently come down to rational choice. In my experience, it ends up being more about egos and "will". Who refuses to give in? Sad but true. In that scenario, my money is on Jobs.
Apple doesn't have to abandon their investment if they left both AT&T stores and Apple stores handle the iphone tech support jointly.
But they'll have to spend money to train AT&T staff, and pay AT&T when their staff administer/make repairs. Plus, getting people to come to an iPhone store has other rich benefits for Apple.
So tell me (as an AAPL shareholder), for what good reason should Apple throw money down the toilet, when most of the people in the US who own (or will own) iPhones live within an hour of an iPhone store? And when over 90% of the US population is serviced by FedEx/UPS (at a relatively cheap cost to Apple) if they want to just mail it in?
how much incremental revenue each company stands to gain by "giving in"? And the numbers aren't even relative to each other. That is, Apple or Verizon could have more to gain (in pure dollars) and still not give in if the incremental revenue is a smaller percentage of their current bottom line.
There may come a point in time when bringing iPhone to Verizon will serve to inflict great damage on any handset competitors in the US. But in Apple's (and my) view, that time has not yet come as all the reputed "iPhone killers" can't even muster up more than one good quarter of sales before heading off to oblivion. (samab obviously thinks otherwise.)
In your analysis, Apple would fully expect, over a year or two, to sell 20m+ iPhones to Verizon subscribers. They've gone a good portion of the way to 20m at the smaller AT&T already.
But they'll have to spend money to train AT&T staff, and pay AT&T when their staff administer/make repairs. Plus, getting people to come to an iPhone store has other rich benefits for Apple.
So tell me (as an AAPL shareholder), for what good reason should Apple throw money down the toilet, when most of the people in the US who own (or will own) iPhones live within an hour of an iPhone store? And when over 90% of the US population is serviced by FedEx/UPS (at a relatively cheap cost to Apple) if they want to just mail it in?
The carriers have to spend money to train their staff on iphone support issues. It doesn't cost Apple anything.
There may come a point in time when bringing iPhone to Verizon will serve to inflict great damage on any handset competitors in the US. But in Apple's (and my) view, that time has not yet come as all the reputed "iPhone killers" can't even muster up more than one good quarter of sales before heading off to oblivion. (samab obviously thinks otherwise.)
In your analysis, Apple would fully expect, over a year or two, to sell 20m+ iPhones to Verizon subscribers. They've gone a good portion of the way to 20m at the smaller AT&T already.
Fanbois talk about iphone killers.
Real adults talk about being able to have a successful business model that doesn't have to beat the iphone in sales numbers. Palm can live comfortably with a minor hit, doesn't need a home run.
The carriers have to spend money to train their staff on iphone support issues. It doesn't cost Apple anything.
You also have to crub spending to save money. Historically they spend as little as possible on cost centers.
I don?t think any of use care if Verizon gets the iPhone. I want my stock to increase and if that does it then so be it, but we?re stating valid reasons why we think Apple will not go with Verizon. You aren?t saying you think they will, you are stating why you think they should. It sounds like you have a personal and emotional interest in Verizon.
[QUOTE=samab;1509093]Real adults talk about being able to have a successful business model.../QUOTE]
Then we should talk about the Apple and really not say they are causing themselves harm, especially when they couldn?t keep up with GSM demand this summer.
I want my stock to increase and if that does it then so be it, but we?re stating valid reasons why we think Apple will not go with Verizon. You aren?t saying you think they will, you are stating why you think they should. It sounds like you have a personal and emotional interest in Verizon.
Not really.
The disagreement I have with some of you people is the extent of these "problems".
Does it cost a lot of money to design a CDMA iphone? No.
Does it cost a lot of money to manufacture a CDMA iphone? No.
Does it cost a lot of money to stock 2 different version of iphones? No.
And that list of problems goes on and on and on....
You are correct that I never said that I think that Apple will go with Verizon or not. I am not even sayng that Apple should (or not) go with Verizon.
I am merely saying that those problems aren't really that hard to remedy.
The carriers have to spend money to train their staff on iphone support issues. It doesn't cost Apple anything.
And you don't think that money comes out of reduced subsidies from the carriers to the handset manufacturer? What sort of world do you live in that carriers provide that service for free?
And you don't think that money comes out of reduced subsidies from the carriers to the handset manufacturer? What sort of world do you live in that carriers provide that service for free?
It's a circular argument --- because if Apple needs to spend money on iphone support themselves, then they would necessarily charge a higher amount of money on their wholesale price to AT&T. And AT&T would charge more money on the consumer.
That money will either be spent by Apple or AT&T, doesn't matter who spend it --- the consumer is going to pay for it anyway.
The disagreement I have with some of you people is the extent of these "problems".
Does it cost a lot of money to design a CDMA iphone? No.
Does it cost a lot of money to manufacture a CDMA iphone? No.
Does it cost a lot of money to stock 2 different version of iphones? No.
And that list of problems goes on and on and on....
You are correct that I never said that I think that Apple will go with Verizon or not. I am not even sayng that Apple should (or not) go with Verizon.
I am merely saying that those problems aren't really that hard to remedy.
In the short-term (2-3 years), Apple would certainly make a profit if they sold a CDMA iPhone on Verizon, though probably at reduced margins (due to the things I've mentioned in this thread earlier). But if they gave in on all their "demands", they would no longer be following their vision or their now very successful strategy.
Comments
Overseas iphone carriers do handle iphone tech support and warranty issues. Verizon has a point --- there are 100 apple stores and there are 1000 AT&T Wireless corp stores selling the iphone. The consumer is better off by driving to the local AT&T store that is minutes away than driving for hours (maybe even across stateline to get to the nearest apple store).
Does AT&T or Verizon sell phones and service overseas? So it has nothing to do with this. In the US, Apple keeps warranty and repair service for itself.
By the way, I've used Verizon, T-mobile, and AT&T store support over the past 10 years. Totally useless, as in every case, I wound up needing to go to the much-further away Service Center to get service on the phone.
Oh, come on already. That's obviously false. They traded revenue sharing for subsidies; not backed down. But the rest - iTunes Store, App Store, control of software updates, no carrier branding on iPhone, no carrier services on iPhone, Apple Store/iTunes activations, Apple warranty/repair, Apple marketing - no carrier marketing of iPhone, etc. All still hold true.
What's wierd is that while Apple fanbois makes a wierd amount of sense VZW fanbois are simply wierd. Even for FiOS.
What's wierd is that while Apple fanbois makes a wierd amount of sense VZW fanbois are simply wierd. Even for FiOS.
I have FiOS and I think samab would say I'm an Apple fanboi. So I must make a simply weird amount of sense?
And this is an Apple fanboi site that has a huge amount of Verizon, including FiOS, ads on it. (That is, when it's not having a huge amount of Sprint/Palm ads.)
All things being equal, sure, but you aren?t going to get the same kind of help from an Apple Store employee, whether it be in-store tech support or over-the-phone tech support from a Verizon or AT&T CSR who is expected to deal with dozens of phones.
Apple isn?t doing this in the US. If ever need tech support you?ll know this is a very good thing. People had problems with the Storm and Verizon wasn?t so good about it. People had problem with the Pre and Sprint was sub par about switching out defective units. With the Apple Store or their phone support you can get it done very quickly and easily.
I have always hated Radio Shack for there horrible products and customer service so I can?t feel bad for them as a company, but I have to wonder if the deal with Cingular had Apple specificall stating that no distribution partner could sell the iPhone. They have always been crap.
This is where you say to yourself that Apple is a distribution partner, and you are correct, but they are the hardware vendor. They have a vested interest in the device succeeding. In other countries, Nokia has stores and the sales people have knowledge of the phones functions and how to resolve issues.
WE all know that wasn?t the only reason. Now we are at a place where Verizon is saying they would welcome the iPhone, yet it comes across very desperately, yet Apple doesn?t need Verizon. They couldn?t even keep up with demand for the current replace.
Next year the demand will be even higher; the only pressing issue is having that many iPhones with excessive usage usage on one carrier, and I have doubts that Apple would even choose AT&T for the overflow.
I?d add the GSM radio to the device in the US and go with T-Mobile USA, but that is just me. That should be plenty fo breathing room for AT&T?s network while making a lot of people happy that won?t go to AT&T for legitimate reasons. On top of that, both carriers can have voice and data at the same time.
It all comes to better pay and better training for AT&T employees. You go to a Verizon Wireless corporate store, their employees are paid better and even dress nicer.
Doesn't really matter whether a lot of problems are self-inflicted by RadioShack or not, the point is that Verizon really has a legitimate reason to protect its relationship with their distribution partners (from national chains like RadioShack in the mall down to independent owner-operated third party agent stores). They don't screw with their agent store partners --- and it goes both ways, those agents aren't going to screw with VZW.
I don't hear any desperation at all. I hear the same Verizon position.
Does AT&T or Verizon sell phones and service overseas? So it has nothing to do with this. In the US, Apple keeps warranty and repair service for itself.
So, it's a non-issue for Apple to give oversea carriers the right to provide warranty and tech support for the iphone --- and then it suddenly becomes a deal breaker for Apple in the US because Verizon wants to deal with those tech support directly.
Oh, come on already. That's obviously false. They traded revenue sharing for subsidies; not backed down. But the rest - iTunes Store, App Store, control of software updates, no carrier branding on iPhone, no carrier services on iPhone, Apple Store/iTunes activations, Apple warranty/repair, Apple marketing - no carrier marketing of iPhone, etc. All still hold true.
Well, Apple is being investigated by the FCC on the app store. Even the big red devil is playing nice with RIM app store and Android app store. Do you think all the carriers around the world aren't thinking about their carrier app store's future? They are all asking the same thing, it's just that Verizon is the first one to publicly say it.
It all comes to better pay and better training for AT&T employees. You go to a Verizon Wireless corporate store, their employees are paid better and even dress nicer.
How do you know this?
Doesn't really matter whether a lot of problems are self-inflicted by RadioShack or not, the point is that Verizon really has a legitimate reason to protect its relationship with their distribution partners (from national chains like RadioShack in the mall down to independent owner-operated third party agent stores). They don't screw with their agent store partners --- and it goes both ways, those agents aren't going to screw with VZW.
The problem is that Apple has no control over the quality of service offered from third part store agents the way it does over the quality of service from the Apple Store or AT&T store.
From what I understand of the iPhone in Europe its not exactly as if anyone is free to sell the iPhone. Apple also has some degree of quality control over its distribution and support. But of course Apple does not have hundreds of Apple stores around Europe so it cannot have the same degree of control that it can in the US.
How do you know this?
The problem is that Apple has no control over the quality of service offered from third part store agents the way it does over the quality of service from the Apple Store or AT&T store.
From what I understand of the iPhone in Europe its not exactly as if anyone is free to sell the iPhone. Apple also has some degree of quality control over its distribution and support. But of course Apple does not have hundreds of Apple stores around Europe so it cannot have the same degree of control that it can in the US.
You can go to howardforums and talk to people in the at&t and verizon agents/employees subforums.
There is no quality of service in the cell phone service industry, period --- they are rank as low as used car salemen.
So, it's a non-issue for Apple to give oversea carriers the right to provide warranty and tech support for the iphone --- and then it suddenly becomes a deal breaker for Apple in the US because Verizon wants to deal with those tech support directly.
Duh? Apple has 200+ stores in the US, and a servicing infrastructure that it doesn't have overseas. So Apple should just abandon its investment and give it to (and pay) the carrier?
It's two completely different situations.
Duh? Apple has 200+ stores in the US, and a servicing infrastructure that it doesn't have overseas. So Apple should just abandon its investment and give it to (and pay) the carrier?
It's two completely different situations.
Apple doesn't have to abandon their investment if they left both AT&T stores and Apple stores handle the iphone tech support jointly.
Just thinking out loud hear, let's say that Verizon would gain an incremental 10% subscribers, call it 9 million subscribers and that each subscriber is worth an estimated $2,100 per two year contract net of phone subsidies ($100/month x 24 months - $300). 9 million x $2,100 / 2 = $18.9 billion or $9.45 billion/year
On the other hand, what would 9 million incremental iPhone sales be to Apple? Apple's best sales rate (world wide) has been north of 7 million units in a quarter. So, adding Verizon to their potential customer base would add one really good quarter to their sales and all the of corresponding "upgrade sales" for those units. At $300 a pop, that's a lot of money. If we assume that their respective margins are similar (I have no idea what is actually true but I'm guessing the margin on wireless service is better than the margin on hardware sales -- one is scalable, the other is not), the same margin % on a number that is (for Verizon) 7x higher (over a typical two year upgrade cycle) makes this look more attractive to Verizon. However, Verizon's wireless revenue/profit ($38 billion/year, roughly $10.6 billion in profit ) is also significantly more than Apple's estimated $15 billion/year iPhone revenue (call it $3 billion/year in profit? total guess). So, incrementally, adding the iPhone could add as much as $9.45 billion/year to Verizon's top line and $2.646 billion/year in profit. Said differently, it could add almost 24% more profit to it's bottom line by adding the iPhone. On the other hand, by moving to Verizon, Apple could add $2.7 billion in revenue and $540 million in profit or 18% to it's bottom line.
If the above assumptions are correct, and that's a BIG if, financially speaking, Verizon would stand to gain more (financially) from adding the iPhone than Apple would gain by adding Verizon to the mix.
Of course if any of those estimates are off -- the estimated Apple iPhone profit margin, the Verizon iPhone capture rate, the scalability of Verizon's network and profit margin -- then the analysis would yield different outcomes.
Even with all of that speculation, these decisions very infrequently come down to rational choice. In my experience, it ends up being more about egos and "will". Who refuses to give in? Sad but true. In that scenario, my money is on Jobs.
Apple doesn't have to abandon their investment if they left both AT&T stores and Apple stores handle the iphone tech support jointly.
But they'll have to spend money to train AT&T staff, and pay AT&T when their staff administer/make repairs. Plus, getting people to come to an iPhone store has other rich benefits for Apple.
So tell me (as an AAPL shareholder), for what good reason should Apple throw money down the toilet, when most of the people in the US who own (or will own) iPhones live within an hour of an iPhone store? And when over 90% of the US population is serviced by FedEx/UPS (at a relatively cheap cost to Apple) if they want to just mail it in?
how much incremental revenue each company stands to gain by "giving in"? And the numbers aren't even relative to each other. That is, Apple or Verizon could have more to gain (in pure dollars) and still not give in if the incremental revenue is a smaller percentage of their current bottom line.
There may come a point in time when bringing iPhone to Verizon will serve to inflict great damage on any handset competitors in the US. But in Apple's (and my) view, that time has not yet come as all the reputed "iPhone killers" can't even muster up more than one good quarter of sales before heading off to oblivion. (samab obviously thinks otherwise.)
In your analysis, Apple would fully expect, over a year or two, to sell 20m+ iPhones to Verizon subscribers. They've gone a good portion of the way to 20m at the smaller AT&T already.
But they'll have to spend money to train AT&T staff, and pay AT&T when their staff administer/make repairs. Plus, getting people to come to an iPhone store has other rich benefits for Apple.
So tell me (as an AAPL shareholder), for what good reason should Apple throw money down the toilet, when most of the people in the US who own (or will own) iPhones live within an hour of an iPhone store? And when over 90% of the US population is serviced by FedEx/UPS (at a relatively cheap cost to Apple) if they want to just mail it in?
The carriers have to spend money to train their staff on iphone support issues. It doesn't cost Apple anything.
There may come a point in time when bringing iPhone to Verizon will serve to inflict great damage on any handset competitors in the US. But in Apple's (and my) view, that time has not yet come as all the reputed "iPhone killers" can't even muster up more than one good quarter of sales before heading off to oblivion. (samab obviously thinks otherwise.)
In your analysis, Apple would fully expect, over a year or two, to sell 20m+ iPhones to Verizon subscribers. They've gone a good portion of the way to 20m at the smaller AT&T already.
Fanbois talk about iphone killers.
Real adults talk about being able to have a successful business model that doesn't have to beat the iphone in sales numbers. Palm can live comfortably with a minor hit, doesn't need a home run.
The carriers have to spend money to train their staff on iphone support issues. It doesn't cost Apple anything.
You also have to crub spending to save money. Historically they spend as little as possible on cost centers.
I don?t think any of use care if Verizon gets the iPhone. I want my stock to increase and if that does it then so be it, but we?re stating valid reasons why we think Apple will not go with Verizon. You aren?t saying you think they will, you are stating why you think they should. It sounds like you have a personal and emotional interest in Verizon.
[QUOTE=samab;1509093]Real adults talk about being able to have a successful business model.../QUOTE]
Then we should talk about the Apple and really not say they are causing themselves harm, especially when they couldn?t keep up with GSM demand this summer.
I want my stock to increase and if that does it then so be it, but we?re stating valid reasons why we think Apple will not go with Verizon. You aren?t saying you think they will, you are stating why you think they should. It sounds like you have a personal and emotional interest in Verizon.
Not really.
The disagreement I have with some of you people is the extent of these "problems".
Does it cost a lot of money to design a CDMA iphone? No.
Does it cost a lot of money to manufacture a CDMA iphone? No.
Does it cost a lot of money to stock 2 different version of iphones? No.
And that list of problems goes on and on and on....
You are correct that I never said that I think that Apple will go with Verizon or not. I am not even sayng that Apple should (or not) go with Verizon.
I am merely saying that those problems aren't really that hard to remedy.
I am merely saying that those problems aren't really that hard to remedy.
On that notion, Apple could also make a $400 notebook if they wanted to.
The carriers have to spend money to train their staff on iphone support issues. It doesn't cost Apple anything.
And you don't think that money comes out of reduced subsidies from the carriers to the handset manufacturer? What sort of world do you live in that carriers provide that service for free?
And you don't think that money comes out of reduced subsidies from the carriers to the handset manufacturer? What sort of world do you live in that carriers provide that service for free?
It's a circular argument --- because if Apple needs to spend money on iphone support themselves, then they would necessarily charge a higher amount of money on their wholesale price to AT&T. And AT&T would charge more money on the consumer.
That money will either be spent by Apple or AT&T, doesn't matter who spend it --- the consumer is going to pay for it anyway.
Not really.
The disagreement I have with some of you people is the extent of these "problems".
Does it cost a lot of money to design a CDMA iphone? No.
Does it cost a lot of money to manufacture a CDMA iphone? No.
Does it cost a lot of money to stock 2 different version of iphones? No.
And that list of problems goes on and on and on....
You are correct that I never said that I think that Apple will go with Verizon or not. I am not even sayng that Apple should (or not) go with Verizon.
I am merely saying that those problems aren't really that hard to remedy.
In the short-term (2-3 years), Apple would certainly make a profit if they sold a CDMA iPhone on Verizon, though probably at reduced margins (due to the things I've mentioned in this thread earlier). But if they gave in on all their "demands", they would no longer be following their vision or their now very successful strategy.
And that would be truly problematic.