guess you missed that it was a rumor and not an announcement from Jobs and company. that's when something is real. not when AI etc say it might happen
As was the other article that said the iPhone wasn't coming to verizon. Both are nothing more than rumors at this point. What isn't a rumor is the fact that AT&T's exclusive deal is set to expire. What also isn't a rumor is the fact that in other countries, Apple is pursuing deals with multiple carriers. Also, Verizon's CEO has been quoted as saying they would like to carry the iPhone.
Apple could accomplish it with a hybrid model. They could also accomplish it with a model specific to EV-DO. I'm sure if Motorola and RIM can manages to make versions of their phones for both AT&T and Verizon, that Apple can do it as well.
Apple, with a single device, on ONE carrier, in only two years, enjoying skyrocketing demand unabated, with carriers desperate for the device, is already at 30%, with RIM in decline.
The iPhone with 30% market share is only available (officially) on one network, AT&T. Whereas RIM is on all the networks and still only at 40%.
What school did Verizon's marketing people graduate from? Clown School? Everybody knows that you do *not* mention your competition's name in your ads...
What's Apple's excuse? And what about AT&T are Verizon really advertising, it's pretty unfavourable from where I'm sitting. It's a pretty good technique when done right. And people will remember not only AT&T, but the map since visual cues are recalled pretty easily.
Although I have a hard time believing AT&T's network is that bad, why don't people just buy the touch + Verizon phone instead?
Here (in the UK) there's likely to be similar competition among the iPhone carriers (over coverage) as none of them are willing to undercut the other! \
Apple, with a single device, on ONE carrier, in only two years, enjoying skyrocketing demand unabated, with carriers desperate for the device, is already at 30%, with RIM in decline.
The writing is on the wall.
Maybe we shouldn't try to predict the future now that Verizon not only has the Blackberry but also the Droid. Unless Verizon and Apple can play nice the iPhone is going to have a very hard time taking over the Blackberry. And we don't even know yet how well the Droid is going to do.
Lets remember over the last year Blackberry increased by 98% and they iPhone has increased I believe around 400%. Its not hard to increase by 400% when you started with 0% two years ago. The Blackberry has been around a long time so the fact that it still increaed by 98% is impressive. Not saying the iPhone isn't.
I know all you care about is the iPhone being #1, all I care about is strong competition so all products can improve. Lets be honest why the iPhone is a very good phone it can use some improvements. As can the Blackberry and Droid. With strong competition we all win. Not that im sure you care about that.
Apple, with a single device, on ONE carrier, in only two years, enjoying skyrocketing demand unabated, with carriers desperate for the device, is already at 30%, with RIM in decline.
The iPhone with 30% market share is only available (officially) on one network, AT&T. Whereas RIM is on all the networks and still only at 40%.
What school did Verizon's marketing people graduate from? Clown School? Everybody knows that you do *not* mention your competition's name in your ads. You might *imply* who you're talking about, you might say "here's our competition's coverage map" without saying your competition's name, but never mention your competitor's name, because that just improves his name recognition. When people decide to actually go buy cellular service they don't do it immediately after an ad, they do it some time later, and by that time they will have forgotten who is who and often tend to go to the carrier with the best name recognition. "AT&T? Sounds familiar, lots of ads mentioning their name, sounds good to me."
I mean, I'm not a marketing guru, but this is what was taught to me by people who *are* marketing gurus, which makes me wonder about the sanity of the people at Verizon. And BTW, you want the fastest 3G network? Sprint. By a landslide. I've used'em all, and Sprint's 3G network wins hands-down, coverage isn't great but where there *is* coverage it runs at speeds that Verizon and AT&T can only dream about.
I agree with your statement the only problem I have is the fact no one mentions Apple does the same thing with Microsoft. They tries to use some stupid defense that its different when Apple does it. If what you are saying is true and I believe it is then Apple has given MS more free marketing then anyone.
Did the iPhone become the #1 phone on the market yet? Or is that still the Blackberry?
It's not BlackBerry either. Nokia is still number one "phone" manufacturer. Blackberry does have bigger market share than Apple's iPhone. However, it is impressive that the "toy" iPhone with its one carrier model (and presumably lousy one in the US) is gaining very fast on the BB with its wide variety of models and carriers. For me that says something.
I agree with your statement the only problem I have is the fact no one mentions Apple does the same thing with Microsoft.
Good point. A tiny competitor to a giant monopoly might break the general rule. But Verizon and AT&T are roughly the same size and same market share, AT&T might be slightly larger but not by much. I think the traditional rules apply there -- i.e., do *not* do anything that gives your competitor name recognition if it is at all avoidable. Which it is, here, because Verizon's message -- 3G in More Places -- doesn't require naming an actual competitor.
I agree with your statement the only problem I have is the fact no one mentions Apple does the same thing with Microsoft. They tries to use some stupid defense that its different when Apple does it. If what you are saying is true and I believe it is then Apple has given MS more free marketing then anyone.
Who else can Apple compete against in the OS market? Linux?! Windows IS the only other player in that market. How do you market you product if your only source of customers are coming from one and only one competitor (Microsoft)?!
Thats only your opinion. There is no debate the the iPhone is very successful the only problem I have is you attitude that everything else is a failure. Its just makes you look silly.
I had to laugh when I read your posts in this thread. All I could picture is your head spinning around like the exorcist...
Good point. A tiny competitor to a giant monopoly might break the general rule. But Verizon and AT&T are roughly the same size and same market share, AT&T might be slightly larger but not by much. I think the traditional rules apply there -- i.e., do *not* do anything that gives your competitor name recognition if it is at all avoidable. Which it is, here, because Verizon's message -- 3G in More Places -- doesn't require naming an actual competitor.
I don't disagree with you I have been trying to make that point here for a while that attack ads are not the way to go. The only issue I have is people that don't think that applies to Apple of that they are somehow immune from the rule an it wont backfire on them.
That's the problem when you expect everything to be like the iPhone. Different does not mean worse, and I'm sure you'd be the first to complain if another company released something that copied the iPhone almost exactly. You want competition, but you also want competition to be identical to the iPhone, and then complain when it is!
Maybe we shouldn't try to predict the future now that Verizon not only has the Blackberry but also the Droid. Unless Verizon and Apple can play nice the iPhone is going to have a very hard time taking over the Blackberry. And we don't even know yet how well the Droid is going to do.
Why is it that, right after you tell people they shouldn't predict the future, you always go on and predict the future?
Who else can Apple compete against in the OS market? Linux?! Windows IS the only other player in that market. How do you market you product if your only source of customers are coming from one and only one competitor (Microsoft)?!
You market your product by pointing out its benefits and feature. You can do that without trying to bash another company. In reality Apple and Microsoft don't even compete, Apple is really a hardware company and Microsoft a software company.
Maybe this was a battle to try and fight 20 years ago but it doesn't really apply today. The lines are clearly drawn by now with changes in market share shifting a few percent. Even Steve Jobs admitted MS won the PC battle a long time ago.
Microsoft ads are also a waist because users like myself use Microsoft because we have too for business or you like to have more choices then what Apple has to offer.
You market your product by pointing out its benefits and feature. You can do that without trying to bash another company. In reality Apple and Microsoft don't even compete, Apple is really a hardware company and Microsoft a software company.
benefits and features compared to what?! You can't market an OS like a car. Users want an operating system that is secure, fast, reliable, and easy to use. The average user won't get it if the TV ads said things like (got those from Apple's website):
"Snow Leopard is built on a rock-solid UNIX foundation and designed to be simple and intuitive, it’s what makes the Mac innovative, highly secure, compatible, and easy to use. "
"Mac OS X offers a multilayered system of defenses against viruses and other malicious applications, or malware."
This will send the average user running away because they will not understand it. The average user targeted in these ads wants to know what Mac OS X offers compared to what I am using now (Windows). When someone asks me what Mac OS X offers I can't explain the features to him/her without referencing to Windows.
Quote:
Maybe this was a battle to try and fight 20 years ago but it doesn't really apply today. The lines are clearly drawn by now with changes in market share shifting a few percent. Even Steve Jobs admitted MS won the PC battle a long time ago.
Microsoft ads are also a waist because users like myself use Microsoft because we have too for business or you like to have more choices then what Apple has to offer.
I also think that MS ads are waste. I think that MS was pressured from the large PC manufacturers to do something. MS should have marketed Windows instead of HP. The post W7 release ads are much better.
you market your product by pointing out its benefits and feature.
that is merely one tactic. You can also market a product without saying anything at all. There are numerous ways to market a product. Sometimes the entire message is completely subliminal, other times it's direct. Even to someone with no marketing background whatsoever, this should be obvious.
you can do that without trying to bash another company.
yes, you can. You can also bash another company fairly effectively. Apple's been doing it since 2006. In fact that whole 1984 commercial was a direct jab at ibm, and it was masterful.
in reality apple and microsoft don't even compete, apple is really a hardware company and microsoft a software company.
tell that to ballmer. All he has is apple on the mind.
maybe this was a battle to try and fight 20 years ago but it doesn't really apply today. The lines are clearly drawn by now with changes in market share shifting a few percent. Even steve jobs admitted ms won the pc battle a long time ago.
and singlehandedly created the premium end and now rules it, and is profiting like crazy. In a recession. Good thing ms won the pc battle. Despite winning they've been in a steady downward slide for years while apple has done nothing but go from strength to strength, much to the humiliation of its much larger rival.
microsoft ads are also a waist because users like myself use microsoft because we have too for business or you like to have more choices then what apple has to offer.
except that most users aren't users like yourself. Let's stop all ads because you claim they're a waste. Try to think a little bit beyond the few feet that constitute your personal space.
Comments
guess you missed that it was a rumor and not an announcement from Jobs and company. that's when something is real. not when AI etc say it might happen
As was the other article that said the iPhone wasn't coming to verizon. Both are nothing more than rumors at this point. What isn't a rumor is the fact that AT&T's exclusive deal is set to expire. What also isn't a rumor is the fact that in other countries, Apple is pursuing deals with multiple carriers. Also, Verizon's CEO has been quoted as saying they would like to carry the iPhone.
Apple could accomplish it with a hybrid model. They could also accomplish it with a model specific to EV-DO. I'm sure if Motorola and RIM can manages to make versions of their phones for both AT&T and Verizon, that Apple can do it as well.
Or is that still the Blackberry?
http://www.theiphoneblog.com/2009/10...-satisfaction/
Not for long.
Apple, with a single device, on ONE carrier, in only two years, enjoying skyrocketing demand unabated, with carriers desperate for the device, is already at 30%, with RIM in decline.
The iPhone with 30% market share is only available (officially) on one network, AT&T. Whereas RIM is on all the networks and still only at 40%.
The writing is on the wall.
Yay, more free advertising for AT&T.
What school did Verizon's marketing people graduate from? Clown School? Everybody knows that you do *not* mention your competition's name in your ads...
What's Apple's excuse? And what about AT&T are Verizon really advertising, it's pretty unfavourable from where I'm sitting. It's a pretty good technique when done right. And people will remember not only AT&T, but the map since visual cues are recalled pretty easily.
Although I have a hard time believing AT&T's network is that bad, why don't people just buy the touch + Verizon phone instead?
Here (in the UK) there's likely to be similar competition among the iPhone carriers (over coverage) as none of them are willing to undercut the other!
http://www.theiphoneblog.com/2009/10...-satisfaction/
Not for long.
Apple, with a single device, on ONE carrier, in only two years, enjoying skyrocketing demand unabated, with carriers desperate for the device, is already at 30%, with RIM in decline.
The writing is on the wall.
Maybe we shouldn't try to predict the future now that Verizon not only has the Blackberry but also the Droid. Unless Verizon and Apple can play nice the iPhone is going to have a very hard time taking over the Blackberry. And we don't even know yet how well the Droid is going to do.
Lets remember over the last year Blackberry increased by 98% and they iPhone has increased I believe around 400%. Its not hard to increase by 400% when you started with 0% two years ago. The Blackberry has been around a long time so the fact that it still increaed by 98% is impressive. Not saying the iPhone isn't.
I know all you care about is the iPhone being #1, all I care about is strong competition so all products can improve. Lets be honest why the iPhone is a very good phone it can use some improvements. As can the Blackberry and Droid. With strong competition we all win. Not that im sure you care about that.
http://www.theiphoneblog.com/2009/10...-satisfaction/
Not for long.
Apple, with a single device, on ONE carrier, in only two years, enjoying skyrocketing demand unabated, with carriers desperate for the device, is already at 30%, with RIM in decline.
The iPhone with 30% market share is only available (officially) on one network, AT&T. Whereas RIM is on all the networks and still only at 40%.
The writing is on the wall.
One size fits all... who would have thought!
Yay, more free advertising for AT&T.
What school did Verizon's marketing people graduate from? Clown School? Everybody knows that you do *not* mention your competition's name in your ads. You might *imply* who you're talking about, you might say "here's our competition's coverage map" without saying your competition's name, but never mention your competitor's name, because that just improves his name recognition. When people decide to actually go buy cellular service they don't do it immediately after an ad, they do it some time later, and by that time they will have forgotten who is who and often tend to go to the carrier with the best name recognition. "AT&T? Sounds familiar, lots of ads mentioning their name, sounds good to me."
I mean, I'm not a marketing guru, but this is what was taught to me by people who *are* marketing gurus, which makes me wonder about the sanity of the people at Verizon. And BTW, you want the fastest 3G network? Sprint. By a landslide. I've used'em all, and Sprint's 3G network wins hands-down, coverage isn't great but where there *is* coverage it runs at speeds that Verizon and AT&T can only dream about.
I agree with your statement the only problem I have is the fact no one mentions Apple does the same thing with Microsoft. They tries to use some stupid defense that its different when Apple does it. If what you are saying is true and I believe it is then Apple has given MS more free marketing then anyone.
Did the iPhone become the #1 phone on the market yet? Or is that still the Blackberry?
It's not BlackBerry either. Nokia is still number one "phone" manufacturer. Blackberry does have bigger market share than Apple's iPhone. However, it is impressive that the "toy" iPhone with its one carrier model (and presumably lousy one in the US) is gaining very fast on the BB with its wide variety of models and carriers. For me that says something.
I agree with your statement the only problem I have is the fact no one mentions Apple does the same thing with Microsoft.
Good point. A tiny competitor to a giant monopoly might break the general rule. But Verizon and AT&T are roughly the same size and same market share, AT&T might be slightly larger but not by much. I think the traditional rules apply there -- i.e., do *not* do anything that gives your competitor name recognition if it is at all avoidable. Which it is, here, because Verizon's message -- 3G in More Places -- doesn't require naming an actual competitor.
Verizon not only has the Blackberry but also the Droid.
It's no iPhone. Which is the problem.
I agree with your statement the only problem I have is the fact no one mentions Apple does the same thing with Microsoft. They tries to use some stupid defense that its different when Apple does it. If what you are saying is true and I believe it is then Apple has given MS more free marketing then anyone.
Who else can Apple compete against in the OS market? Linux?! Windows IS the only other player in that market. How do you market you product if your only source of customers are coming from one and only one competitor (Microsoft)?!
It's no iPhone. Which is the problem.
Thats only your opinion. There is no debate the the iPhone is very successful the only problem I have is you attitude that everything else is a failure. Its just makes you look silly.
I had to laugh when I read your posts in this thread. All I could picture is your head spinning around like the exorcist...
Good point. A tiny competitor to a giant monopoly might break the general rule. But Verizon and AT&T are roughly the same size and same market share, AT&T might be slightly larger but not by much. I think the traditional rules apply there -- i.e., do *not* do anything that gives your competitor name recognition if it is at all avoidable. Which it is, here, because Verizon's message -- 3G in More Places -- doesn't require naming an actual competitor.
I don't disagree with you I have been trying to make that point here for a while that attack ads are not the way to go. The only issue I have is people that don't think that applies to Apple of that they are somehow immune from the rule an it wont backfire on them.
It's no iPhone. Which is the problem.
That's the problem when you expect everything to be like the iPhone. Different does not mean worse, and I'm sure you'd be the first to complain if another company released something that copied the iPhone almost exactly. You want competition, but you also want competition to be identical to the iPhone, and then complain when it is!
Maybe we shouldn't try to predict the future now that Verizon not only has the Blackberry but also the Droid. Unless Verizon and Apple can play nice the iPhone is going to have a very hard time taking over the Blackberry. And we don't even know yet how well the Droid is going to do.
Why is it that, right after you tell people they shouldn't predict the future, you always go on and predict the future?
Who else can Apple compete against in the OS market? Linux?! Windows IS the only other player in that market. How do you market you product if your only source of customers are coming from one and only one competitor (Microsoft)?!
You market your product by pointing out its benefits and feature. You can do that without trying to bash another company. In reality Apple and Microsoft don't even compete, Apple is really a hardware company and Microsoft a software company.
Maybe this was a battle to try and fight 20 years ago but it doesn't really apply today. The lines are clearly drawn by now with changes in market share shifting a few percent. Even Steve Jobs admitted MS won the PC battle a long time ago.
Microsoft ads are also a waist because users like myself use Microsoft because we have too for business or you like to have more choices then what Apple has to offer.
Why is it that, right after you tell people they shouldn't predict the future, you always go on and predict the future?
In that last post how was I predicting the future? Do you guys text message each other for support or something or do you all live together..LOL.
You market your product by pointing out its benefits and feature. You can do that without trying to bash another company. In reality Apple and Microsoft don't even compete, Apple is really a hardware company and Microsoft a software company.
benefits and features compared to what?! You can't market an OS like a car. Users want an operating system that is secure, fast, reliable, and easy to use. The average user won't get it if the TV ads said things like (got those from Apple's website):
"Snow Leopard is built on a rock-solid UNIX foundation and designed to be simple and intuitive, it’s what makes the Mac innovative, highly secure, compatible, and easy to use. "
"Mac OS X offers a multilayered system of defenses against viruses and other malicious applications, or malware."
This will send the average user running away because they will not understand it. The average user targeted in these ads wants to know what Mac OS X offers compared to what I am using now (Windows). When someone asks me what Mac OS X offers I can't explain the features to him/her without referencing to Windows.
Maybe this was a battle to try and fight 20 years ago but it doesn't really apply today. The lines are clearly drawn by now with changes in market share shifting a few percent. Even Steve Jobs admitted MS won the PC battle a long time ago.
Microsoft ads are also a waist because users like myself use Microsoft because we have too for business or you like to have more choices then what Apple has to offer.
I also think that MS ads are waste. I think that MS was pressured from the large PC manufacturers to do something. MS should have marketed Windows instead of HP. The post W7 release ads are much better.
you market your product by pointing out its benefits and feature.
that is merely one tactic. You can also market a product without saying anything at all. There are numerous ways to market a product. Sometimes the entire message is completely subliminal, other times it's direct. Even to someone with no marketing background whatsoever, this should be obvious.
you can do that without trying to bash another company.
yes, you can. You can also bash another company fairly effectively. Apple's been doing it since 2006. In fact that whole 1984 commercial was a direct jab at ibm, and it was masterful.
in reality apple and microsoft don't even compete, apple is really a hardware company and microsoft a software company.
tell that to ballmer. All he has is apple on the mind.
maybe this was a battle to try and fight 20 years ago but it doesn't really apply today. The lines are clearly drawn by now with changes in market share shifting a few percent. Even steve jobs admitted ms won the pc battle a long time ago.
and singlehandedly created the premium end and now rules it, and is profiting like crazy. In a recession. Good thing ms won the pc battle. Despite winning they've been in a steady downward slide for years while apple has done nothing but go from strength to strength, much to the humiliation of its much larger rival.
microsoft ads are also a waist because users like myself use microsoft because we have too for business or you like to have more choices then what apple has to offer.
except that most users aren't users like yourself. Let's stop all ads because you claim they're a waste. Try to think a little bit beyond the few feet that constitute your personal space.
Why did Verizon reject Apple's offer of the iPhone in the first place?
Let me take care of that for you before you get other, incorrect answers.
The answer is, no one here knows. All we know is that the two companies could not agree on a way to get the iPhone onto Verizon's network.