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.
It's not circular because Apple can do it 1) more efficiently because they have the infrastructure and know-how in place and 2) with greater upsell benefits by having people come to Apple Stores. I've already said this.
Even you said that carrier customer service is worse than that at used cars. Why does Apple even want to go there with their brand?
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.
If you look at all the other carriers and all the other handset manufacturers --- they are all having their own app stores.
Apple will have to give in to the demands sooner or later.
If you look at 3G and 3GS --- 3G is available in 80+ countries, 3GS is available in 60+ countries. Why? Because carriers like in Russia are refusing to renew (because they got burned by the 3G iphone sales).
There is nothing wrong with Apple being a niche player (like having 5-6% of the PC market and still make a lot of money). Other carriers will smarten up sooner and later, and Apple will have to give in to those demands anyway.
It's not circular because Apple can do it 1) more efficiently because they have the infrastructure and know-how in place and 2) with greater upsell benefits by having people come to Apple Stores. I've already said this.
Even you said that carrier customer service is worse than that at used cars. Why does Apple even want to go there with their brand?
Is it really that difficult to understand?
There are no free lunches for consumers --- you are also benefiting from having your iphone fixed in your local at&t store which is minutes away from your house.
American population is very spread out --- it benefits more to the consumer by having their tech support close by.
Apple and the consumers don't have to be on the same side on every issue. It benefits Apple to have their apple store to handle iphone tech support and having the ability to sell you other stuff. But that doesn't necessarily benefits you the consumer.
On that notion, Apple could also make a $400 notebook if they wanted to.
Bingo. Whether the Verizon fanbois want to admit or not, AT&T isn't as bad as they would have you believe. And they are constantly adding more capacity.
And as others have pointed out CDMA requires fewer towers, which helps with Verizon's coverage. But that also counts to less total aggregate capacity - Verizon doesn't really have a handset that demands a fraction of the data of an iPhone user, so who's to say how their network would really behave with a truly successful (from an end users perspective) phone. CDMA has one advantage in it's dedicated voice channel - not sure how useful that would be for me since I use data far more then voice on my iPhone.
If you look at all the other carriers and all the other handset manufacturers --- they are all having their own app stores.
Apple will have to give in to the demands sooner or later.
Really? So develop for an app store with 60% of the market, or a sliver of 40% of the market?
I don't think Apple has much to worry about. Not that they should stop innovating (or that they will, it's just not their history). Until there is another device that is not only as popular as the iPhone but even more popular so it can pass it, rantings such as yours are just noise.
CDMA has one advantage in it's dedicated voice channel - not sure how useful that would be for me since I use data far more then voice on my iPhone.
It certainly sounds better than GSM, but I don?t make many calls and I?ve noticed that when I do I?m using on hold using mail or safari or IM (which I can?t do on EVDO Rev.A networks) or talking to someone while using maps or some other internet-based app to assist someone. It?s not a feature I wish to give up.
But if Verizon gets the the iPhone that means less potential network congestion for me, an increase in iPhone sales and an initial boost to the stock price upon announcement, some people shutting the hell up around here about the iPhone not on their preferred network, and a chance to see how Verizon network fares with millions of iPhone users crowding their towards like digital locusts eating up all their available bandwidth.
But if Verizon gets the the iPhone that means less potential network congestion for me, an increase in iPhone sales and an initial boost to the stock price upon announcement, some people shutting the hell up around here about the iPhone not on their preferred network, and a chance to see how Verizon network fares with millions of iPhone users crowding their towards like digital locusts eating up all their available bandwidth.
Which is why I think the biggest secret of all is Verizon doesn't really want the iPhone. I think they are quite content to allow AT&T to get beat up whilst they build out their 4G network. Unfortunately for them, mature 3G is faster then new 4G. And the chipsets, if history is an indicator, will be more energy efficient on a mature standard like 3G - one of the reasons Apple skipped 3G in the original iPhone.
I dunno - the next six to nine months should be interesting indeed!
Unfortunately for them, mature 3G is faster then new 4G. And the chipsets, if history is an indicator, will be more energy efficient on a mature standard like 3G
People see 4G and think it must be better than 3G despite 3G for HSPA barely getting started from a minimum to total capacity standpoint. Up to 42Mb down and 22Mb up for Evolved HSPA (3G) and yet there is no phone HW that can handle those through puts or any company I?m aware of that makes such hardware.
It seems many bought into Verizon?s vaporware that they should hold out for LTE to get built up instead of going to AT&T for the iPhone. ?Apple won?t have to make another iPhone model then? even though CDMA?CDMA2000 will still be the dominate network type and still required for Verizon?s phones for many years to come.
There are no free lunches for consumers --- you are also benefiting from having your iphone fixed in your local at&t store which is minutes away from your house.
American population is very spread out --- it benefits more to the consumer by having their tech support close by.
As I already wrote - attractive, fun stores within an hour, and FedEx/UPS for the rest. Not a bother for 99% of the population to avoid carrier customer service that is worse than used car salesmen.
Quote:
Apple and the consumers don't have to be on the same side on every issue. It benefits Apple to have their apple store to handle iphone tech support and having the ability to sell you other stuff. But that doesn't necessarily benefits you the consumer.
As I already wrote, as an Apple shareholder. Not sure you process anything I write.
My last comment on this thread:
About 6 months ago before the 3GS was released, you wrote here at AI that other handset mfrs were catching up, and that Verizon had nothing to be concerned about. I said Nope, they're not getting any closer, and Verizon churn was growing. Today, 2 qtrs worth of results later, you repeat basically the same line, adding that we should keep giving Verizon the benefit of the doubt. So be it.
IDC estimates that Blackberry+iPhone combined had 61% of the US smartphone market at end of 3Q2008, and it's grown to 74% as of 3Q2009. (What happened to LG, Samsung, HTC, Motorola, Nokia, etc in the US? Losing ground.) Combine that with today's Changewave survey release and AT&T iPhone activations, and it's clear iPhone is responsible for almost all of that gain. RIM growth has slowed as it trades corporate users for consumers, and gets replacement/upgrade sales for the rest.
This fall, lots of mfrs are releasing a flood of smartphones. The NYTimes reports that they're having to work extra hard to stand out in a crowded market. Good luck. Android 2.0 looks good. But early reviews of most of these devices by non-Apple sites still find them to be of second-tier build quality.
But whatever, the race is on. I'll say it again: The handset makers/app store owners are not getting closer, and Verizon churn is growing. See you again in 3 months and we'll see what's happened.
Bingo. Whether the Verizon fanbois want to admit or not, AT&T isn't as bad as they would have you believe. And they are constantly adding more capacity.
And as others have pointed out CDMA requires fewer towers, which helps with Verizon's coverage. But that also counts to less total aggregate capacity - Verizon doesn't really have a handset that demands a fraction of the data of an iPhone user, so who's to say how their network would really behave with a truly successful (from an end users perspective) phone. CDMA has one advantage in it's dedicated voice channel - not sure how useful that would be for me since I use data far more then voice on my iPhone.
The number of towers is really dependent on the spectrum used, not by the technology used. If you deploy in 800 MHz space, you required fewer cell towers because the signal travels further.
The difference between CDMA and HSDPA is that (1) CDMA uses a separate voice channel so that you are going to still able to make phone calls even if the data side is swamped and (2) CDMA uses 1.5 MHz channels on both the data and voice side vs. UMTS/HSDPA uses 5 MHz channels.
What it means is that if a carrier has 12 MHz of space, a UMTS/HSDPA carrier can only use 1 up and 1 down channel (2x5 MHz) and the extra 2 MHz of spectrum can't be used. But a CDMA carrier can have all 12 MHz spectrum use because 8x1.5 MHz = 12 MHz.
Really? So develop for an app store with 60% of the market, or a sliver of 40% of the market?
I don't think Apple has much to worry about. Not that they should stop innovating (or that they will, it's just not their history). Until there is another device that is not only as popular as the iPhone but even more popular so it can pass it, rantings such as yours are just noise.
No, the problem is that AT&T is not just going to stand still much more and let Apple take all the money. Vodafone just launched their app store recently.
Other carriers are going to demand that they get some of these money.
About 6 months ago before the 3GS was released, you wrote here at AI that other handset mfrs were catching up, and that Verizon had nothing to be concerned about. I said Nope, they're not getting any closer, and Verizon churn was growing. Today, 2 qtrs worth of results later, you repeat basically the same line, adding that we should keep giving Verizon the benefit of the doubt. So be it.
IDC estimates that Blackberry+iPhone combined had 61% of the US smartphone market at end of 3Q2008, and it's grown to 74% as of 3Q2009. (What happened to LG, Samsung, HTC, Motorola, Nokia, etc in the US? Losing ground.) Combine that with today's Changewave survey release and AT&T iPhone activations, and it's clear iPhone is responsible for almost all of that gain. RIM growth has slowed as it trades corporate users for consumers, and gets replacement/upgrade sales for the rest.
This fall, lots of mfrs are releasing a flood of smartphones. The NYTimes reports that they're having to work extra hard to stand out in a crowded market. Good luck. Android 2.0 looks good. But early reviews of most of these devices by non-Apple sites still find them to be of second-tier build quality.
But whatever, the race is on. I'll say it again: The handset makers/app store owners are not getting closer, and Verizon churn is growing. See you again in 3 months and we'll see what's happened.
I also said that LG Voyager is a 1/2 a.s.s.ed attempt of a copy cat and the next generation is going to be 3/4 a.s.s.ed iphone copy cat.
Sure, Verizon's churn is growing, but part of the churn comes from swallowing 10-15 million alltel subscribers. And I am saying that this is a full iphone launch quarter --- so this is as good as it gets for AT&T. For AT&T to win by 200K in retail net adds in a full iphone launch quarter --- that's not really a win at all.
Well if everybody is losing ground and the iphone is responsible for 1/2 of the gain --- then the blackberry is responsible for that other 1/2 then.
Verizon share price has held up better than AT&T share price since the iphone launch --- and that's the bottomline, isn't it? This is like GSM fanbois talking about how GSM crushed the big evil Qualcomm CDMA empire. The bottomline is that Qualcomm has become the largest wireless technology company in the world by market cap.
Well I know I just left Verizon (Blackberry Storm) and got me a 3GS. So far I love and wonder why it took me so long to convert. So far 3G at home and where I traveled from(Chicago).
I kind of glad I did wait though because I would have switched service in Feb. and 3GS didn't come out to later.
Comments
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.
It's not circular because Apple can do it 1) more efficiently because they have the infrastructure and know-how in place and 2) with greater upsell benefits by having people come to Apple Stores. I've already said this.
Even you said that carrier customer service is worse than that at used cars. Why does Apple even want to go there with their brand?
Is it really that difficult to understand?
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.
If you look at all the other carriers and all the other handset manufacturers --- they are all having their own app stores.
Apple will have to give in to the demands sooner or later.
If you look at 3G and 3GS --- 3G is available in 80+ countries, 3GS is available in 60+ countries. Why? Because carriers like in Russia are refusing to renew (because they got burned by the 3G iphone sales).
There is nothing wrong with Apple being a niche player (like having 5-6% of the PC market and still make a lot of money). Other carriers will smarten up sooner and later, and Apple will have to give in to those demands anyway.
It's not circular because Apple can do it 1) more efficiently because they have the infrastructure and know-how in place and 2) with greater upsell benefits by having people come to Apple Stores. I've already said this.
Even you said that carrier customer service is worse than that at used cars. Why does Apple even want to go there with their brand?
Is it really that difficult to understand?
There are no free lunches for consumers --- you are also benefiting from having your iphone fixed in your local at&t store which is minutes away from your house.
American population is very spread out --- it benefits more to the consumer by having their tech support close by.
Apple and the consumers don't have to be on the same side on every issue. It benefits Apple to have their apple store to handle iphone tech support and having the ability to sell you other stuff. But that doesn't necessarily benefits you the consumer.
On that notion, Apple could also make a $400 notebook if they wanted to.
Bingo. Whether the Verizon fanbois want to admit or not, AT&T isn't as bad as they would have you believe. And they are constantly adding more capacity.
And as others have pointed out CDMA requires fewer towers, which helps with Verizon's coverage. But that also counts to less total aggregate capacity - Verizon doesn't really have a handset that demands a fraction of the data of an iPhone user, so who's to say how their network would really behave with a truly successful (from an end users perspective) phone. CDMA has one advantage in it's dedicated voice channel - not sure how useful that would be for me since I use data far more then voice on my iPhone.
If you look at all the other carriers and all the other handset manufacturers --- they are all having their own app stores.
Apple will have to give in to the demands sooner or later.
Really? So develop for an app store with 60% of the market, or a sliver of 40% of the market?
I don't think Apple has much to worry about. Not that they should stop innovating (or that they will, it's just not their history). Until there is another device that is not only as popular as the iPhone but even more popular so it can pass it, rantings such as yours are just noise.
CDMA has one advantage in it's dedicated voice channel - not sure how useful that would be for me since I use data far more then voice on my iPhone.
It certainly sounds better than GSM, but I don?t make many calls and I?ve noticed that when I do I?m using on hold using mail or safari or IM (which I can?t do on EVDO Rev.A networks) or talking to someone while using maps or some other internet-based app to assist someone. It?s not a feature I wish to give up.
But if Verizon gets the the iPhone that means less potential network congestion for me, an increase in iPhone sales and an initial boost to the stock price upon announcement, some people shutting the hell up around here about the iPhone not on their preferred network, and a chance to see how Verizon network fares with millions of iPhone users crowding their towards like digital locusts eating up all their available bandwidth.
But if Verizon gets the the iPhone that means less potential network congestion for me, an increase in iPhone sales and an initial boost to the stock price upon announcement, some people shutting the hell up around here about the iPhone not on their preferred network, and a chance to see how Verizon network fares with millions of iPhone users crowding their towards like digital locusts eating up all their available bandwidth.
Which is why I think the biggest secret of all is Verizon doesn't really want the iPhone. I think they are quite content to allow AT&T to get beat up whilst they build out their 4G network. Unfortunately for them, mature 3G is faster then new 4G. And the chipsets, if history is an indicator, will be more energy efficient on a mature standard like 3G - one of the reasons Apple skipped 3G in the original iPhone.
I dunno - the next six to nine months should be interesting indeed!
Unfortunately for them, mature 3G is faster then new 4G. And the chipsets, if history is an indicator, will be more energy efficient on a mature standard like 3G
People see 4G and think it must be better than 3G despite 3G for HSPA barely getting started from a minimum to total capacity standpoint. Up to 42Mb down and 22Mb up for Evolved HSPA (3G) and yet there is no phone HW that can handle those through puts or any company I?m aware of that makes such hardware.
It seems many bought into Verizon?s vaporware that they should hold out for LTE to get built up instead of going to AT&T for the iPhone. ?Apple won?t have to make another iPhone model then? even though CDMA?CDMA2000 will still be the dominate network type and still required for Verizon?s phones for many years to come.
There are no free lunches for consumers --- you are also benefiting from having your iphone fixed in your local at&t store which is minutes away from your house.
American population is very spread out --- it benefits more to the consumer by having their tech support close by.
As I already wrote - attractive, fun stores within an hour, and FedEx/UPS for the rest. Not a bother for 99% of the population to avoid carrier customer service that is worse than used car salesmen.
Apple and the consumers don't have to be on the same side on every issue. It benefits Apple to have their apple store to handle iphone tech support and having the ability to sell you other stuff. But that doesn't necessarily benefits you the consumer.
As I already wrote, as an Apple shareholder. Not sure you process anything I write.
My last comment on this thread:
About 6 months ago before the 3GS was released, you wrote here at AI that other handset mfrs were catching up, and that Verizon had nothing to be concerned about. I said Nope, they're not getting any closer, and Verizon churn was growing. Today, 2 qtrs worth of results later, you repeat basically the same line, adding that we should keep giving Verizon the benefit of the doubt. So be it.
IDC estimates that Blackberry+iPhone combined had 61% of the US smartphone market at end of 3Q2008, and it's grown to 74% as of 3Q2009. (What happened to LG, Samsung, HTC, Motorola, Nokia, etc in the US? Losing ground.) Combine that with today's Changewave survey release and AT&T iPhone activations, and it's clear iPhone is responsible for almost all of that gain. RIM growth has slowed as it trades corporate users for consumers, and gets replacement/upgrade sales for the rest.
This fall, lots of mfrs are releasing a flood of smartphones. The NYTimes reports that they're having to work extra hard to stand out in a crowded market. Good luck. Android 2.0 looks good. But early reviews of most of these devices by non-Apple sites still find them to be of second-tier build quality.
But whatever, the race is on. I'll say it again: The handset makers/app store owners are not getting closer, and Verizon churn is growing. See you again in 3 months and we'll see what's happened.
Bingo. Whether the Verizon fanbois want to admit or not, AT&T isn't as bad as they would have you believe. And they are constantly adding more capacity.
And as others have pointed out CDMA requires fewer towers, which helps with Verizon's coverage. But that also counts to less total aggregate capacity - Verizon doesn't really have a handset that demands a fraction of the data of an iPhone user, so who's to say how their network would really behave with a truly successful (from an end users perspective) phone. CDMA has one advantage in it's dedicated voice channel - not sure how useful that would be for me since I use data far more then voice on my iPhone.
The number of towers is really dependent on the spectrum used, not by the technology used. If you deploy in 800 MHz space, you required fewer cell towers because the signal travels further.
The difference between CDMA and HSDPA is that (1) CDMA uses a separate voice channel so that you are going to still able to make phone calls even if the data side is swamped and (2) CDMA uses 1.5 MHz channels on both the data and voice side vs. UMTS/HSDPA uses 5 MHz channels.
What it means is that if a carrier has 12 MHz of space, a UMTS/HSDPA carrier can only use 1 up and 1 down channel (2x5 MHz) and the extra 2 MHz of spectrum can't be used. But a CDMA carrier can have all 12 MHz spectrum use because 8x1.5 MHz = 12 MHz.
Really? So develop for an app store with 60% of the market, or a sliver of 40% of the market?
I don't think Apple has much to worry about. Not that they should stop innovating (or that they will, it's just not their history). Until there is another device that is not only as popular as the iPhone but even more popular so it can pass it, rantings such as yours are just noise.
No, the problem is that AT&T is not just going to stand still much more and let Apple take all the money. Vodafone just launched their app store recently.
Other carriers are going to demand that they get some of these money.
My last comment on this thread:
About 6 months ago before the 3GS was released, you wrote here at AI that other handset mfrs were catching up, and that Verizon had nothing to be concerned about. I said Nope, they're not getting any closer, and Verizon churn was growing. Today, 2 qtrs worth of results later, you repeat basically the same line, adding that we should keep giving Verizon the benefit of the doubt. So be it.
IDC estimates that Blackberry+iPhone combined had 61% of the US smartphone market at end of 3Q2008, and it's grown to 74% as of 3Q2009. (What happened to LG, Samsung, HTC, Motorola, Nokia, etc in the US? Losing ground.) Combine that with today's Changewave survey release and AT&T iPhone activations, and it's clear iPhone is responsible for almost all of that gain. RIM growth has slowed as it trades corporate users for consumers, and gets replacement/upgrade sales for the rest.
This fall, lots of mfrs are releasing a flood of smartphones. The NYTimes reports that they're having to work extra hard to stand out in a crowded market. Good luck. Android 2.0 looks good. But early reviews of most of these devices by non-Apple sites still find them to be of second-tier build quality.
But whatever, the race is on. I'll say it again: The handset makers/app store owners are not getting closer, and Verizon churn is growing. See you again in 3 months and we'll see what's happened.
I also said that LG Voyager is a 1/2 a.s.s.ed attempt of a copy cat and the next generation is going to be 3/4 a.s.s.ed iphone copy cat.
Sure, Verizon's churn is growing, but part of the churn comes from swallowing 10-15 million alltel subscribers. And I am saying that this is a full iphone launch quarter --- so this is as good as it gets for AT&T. For AT&T to win by 200K in retail net adds in a full iphone launch quarter --- that's not really a win at all.
Well if everybody is losing ground and the iphone is responsible for 1/2 of the gain --- then the blackberry is responsible for that other 1/2 then.
Verizon share price has held up better than AT&T share price since the iphone launch --- and that's the bottomline, isn't it? This is like GSM fanbois talking about how GSM crushed the big evil Qualcomm CDMA empire. The bottomline is that Qualcomm has become the largest wireless technology company in the world by market cap.
I kind of glad I did wait though because I would have switched service in Feb. and 3GS didn't come out to later.