You do realize Verizon subsidizes the Droids, right? Or do you really think the manufacturers are only getting $200 for each?
Additionally, you also do realize the subsidy is probably a lot higher than what ATT pays for the iPhone because Verizon also gives 2 devices for the price of one.
The only reason ATT hasn't done that to increase the number of data plan customers is because Apple does not allow them to.
AT&T had to file a SEC profit margin warning because of iphone subsidy, Verizon never had to do that with Blackberry BOGO's and Droids. It is the definite proof that Verizon's handset subsidy is less than AT&T.
AT&T had to file a SEC profit margin warning because of iphone subsidy, Verizon never had to do that with Blackberry BOGO's and Droids. It is the definite proof that Verizon's handset subsidy is less than AT&T.
That may true, but your evidence doesn?t support your hypothesis. You failed to adjust the number for profit sharing switching to subsidization which Verizon?s profits never had to adjust for.
It makes sense why Apple went with ATT in the first place. They use UMTS/3G/GSM that is being used all over the world. Allows for economies of scale in manufacturing and distribution. Roaming is possible, but not economic... but that can change too. UMTS also allows for simultaneous use of voice and data. I have not had too many issues with the ATT service.
I completely disagree.
Apple signing with AT&T --- led them to a FAILED experiment of full priced $600 simlocked iphone with a 2 year contract with carrier revenue sharing. It took FOREVER to expand internationally because no carrier except the original 4 carriers took the revenue sharing.
If Apple signed with Verizon originally, Apple could have sold the iphones in 70 countries in 2007.
That may true, but your evidence doesn?t support your hypothesis. You failed to adjust the number for profit sharing switching to subsidization which Verizon?s profits never had to adjust for.
It doesn't matter --- because Verizon Wireless has a much higher profit margin than AT&T Wireless. It's all in the SEC filings.
S... Why is letting Verizon make some money on the iPhone idiotic? Apple let ATT make a bag of cash by making them exclusive partners. Was that fair business??
...
Wake up and smell the coffee! Apple made the exclusive deal with AT&T because Jobs wanted to change the terms of the deal in the US cellphone market. Before the iPhone not only was the technology crap (more specifically the UX), the whole show was dominated by the carriers rather than handset makers, developers, and users. Carriers, especially Verizon, decided what crap they put on your handset, what could not be deleted, ridiculous charges for 'services' which were actually apps, etc.
Verizon had to be left out to hang in the breeze in order to encourage them to change their business practices so the US market wouldn't always remain the worst for users. We will probably learn if that mission was accomplished early in 2011.
Wake up and smell the coffee! Apple made the exclusive deal with AT&T because Jobs wanted to change the terms of the deal in the US cellphone market. Before the iPhone not only was the technology crap (more specifically the UX), the whole show was dominated by the carriers rather than handset makers, developers, and users. Carriers, especially Verizon, decided what crap they put on your handset, what could not be deleted, ridiculous charges for 'services' which were actually apps, etc.
Verizon had to be left out to hang in the breeze in order to encourage them to change their business practices so the US market wouldn't always remain the worst for users. We will probably learn if that mission was accomplished early in 2011.
Whether you are stuck in the Verizon walled garden or the Apple walled garden --- it's still a walled garden. A golden cage is still a cage. I don't see a single difference between buying a $3 a day Verizon Navigator on GIN and a $3 a day AT&T Navigator on iphone itunes app store.
The worldwide launch of the iphone has proven definitively that the grass in NOT greener on the other side of the pond. Many Europeans woke up from their delusions when they got stuck with simlocked iphones, with a 2 year contract, with tiny 250 MB data allowance and without pro-rated ETF.
Umm, their network is not everywhere. How are you going to rule the world like that?
Leave off the "umm" next time will you?
Perhaps not everywhere, but GSM covers more of the globe than BetaMax... I err mean CDMA.
A CDMA iphone means either 2 product lines, or a phone that costs more in the rest of the world where CDMA either never happened, or admitted defeat, longer development time and more possible problems. Americans can choose a GSM network, most of the world can't choose a CDMA one.
If the phone is good enough, a gsm phone can still be bought by folk that are traditionally Verizon customers (they switch). It doesn't matter how good your CDMA phone is, it won't sell in most of europe.
AT&T had to file a SEC profit margin warning because of iphone subsidy, Verizon never had to do that with Blackberry BOGO's and Droids. It is the definite proof that Verizon's handset subsidy is less than AT&T.
That basically is just an indication of how popular the iPhone was compared to the rest of the crap (also, Verizon is a lot bigger than ATT outside of mobile).
To explain, ATT pays Apple the unsubsidized iPhone amount upfront. So if you buy an iPhone in June for $200, ATT pays Apple $600 (or whatever) in June itself. In June, ATT makes a loss of $400 on that iPhone. However, you are bound by a contract to stick with ATT for the next 24 months. That means you pay about $60/mo to them for those 24 months + $30/mo for Data. Over those 24 months, you will shell out ~$2160 to ATT for the iPhone. After a period of 24 months, they end up making a profit (well, not really, its much less, but for illustration) of 2160-400.
So the quarter that the iPhone first started selling in millions, ATT had all these losses they were taking, but the income was spread over a period of 2 years. Hence, the profit warning.
ATT does not need to do this anymore, because there is enough of an existing iPhone subscriber base who are paying the $90/mo that the upfront costs for the new iPhone buyers isn't as significant.
IOW, the main reason Verizon didn't have to issue a profit warning was because it wasn't selling as many Droids as ATT was iPhones.
i wou;ld gather that for all the bs here today . SPRINT or t-mobile may just grab the i-phone .
or maybe the i=phone will go out to market at full price and we choose we to go ???
But verizon's EGO and apple's EGO .. make's this look like it may not ever happen.
For verizon to get the iphone I guess they would have to upfront pay for at least one million iphones. Only then would apple know their gonna be a good partner.
i wou;ld gather that for all the bs here today . stint or t-mobile may just grab the i-phone .
or maybe the i=phone will go out to market at full price and we choose we to go ???
But verizon's EGO and apple's EGO .. make's this look like it may not ever happen.
For verizon to get the iphone I guess they would have to upfront pay for at least one million iphones. Only then would apple know their gonna be a good partner.
9
Even if you could get an iPhone at full cost (I can, come to the uk! Kinda blows the ego argument) to make it work you better get your soldering iron out. The iphone physically cannot work on verizons CDMA network. That's what happens when you pick the losing horse in a technology race.
They could put the logo on the back. No one would see it if the phone is in a case As far as understanding a good thing, wouldn't it be a good thing for someone who lives in an area with no ATT coverage to be able to get an iPhone? It's really that simple when you look at it logically.
Apple would never, ever, ever, in a million years, allow another comany's logo to be emblazoned on their hardware. Did I just say "never" even though you should never say "never"? Yeah, I think I did. Never. If you don't get this to your very core then you are a very clueless individual indeed.
And, by the way, the most popular case for the iPhone 4 is Apple's own bumper, and it doesn't cover the back.
Ditto that: I'm utterly surprised that "Major sticking points in negotiations between Verizon and Apple" wasn't simply the issue of the Verizon logo somewhere (at least once) on the iPhone.
Apple signing with AT&T --- led them to a FAILED experiment of full priced $600 simlocked iphone with a 2 year contract with carrier revenue sharing. It took FOREVER to expand internationally because no carrier except the original 4 carriers took the revenue sharing.
If Apple signed with Verizon originally, Apple could have sold the iphones in 70 countries in 2007.
So I think we get that you're a proponent of Verizon - that much is obvious. However, let's take apart some of the logic you are using here and see if it stands up to scrutiny. Verizon opted out of the iPhone when Apple brought it to them - that has been established by Verizon statements. Apple turned around and brought it to Cingular - just prior to the Cingular buyout of ATT Mobile nee Wireless. ATT went for the opportunity - and Apple offered the iPhone sans subsidy. And the results were:
Quote:
In 2007, Apple reported selling 270,000 iPhones during the new smartphone's first two days of availability. Apple did not accept pre-orders for the iPhone before its June 29, 2007 launch. Instead, thousands lined up outside the company's retail stores, some waiting for days, to get their hands on the smartphone.
The original iPhone was made available in the UK, France, and Germany in November 2007, and Ireland and Austria in the spring of 2008. Following which of course was the updated iPhone 3G. That was a little over 3 years and 3 models ago. Given the demand domestically which tapped out nearly all retail sources, Apple was slow to release internationally until they could offer reasonable supplies to those markets. But not forever. The GSM vs. CDMA opportunity was serendipity, not a failure. GSM is the worldwide market leader by a factor of ten. So 70 countries with minority populations and an aging 20th century technology - not so good.
If you look at the deployment of 4G/LTE you may notice that LTE is in fact enhancements UMTS which is the underpinning GSM technology spec. Which means of course that for at least the data portion of their network Verizon is moving to GSM technology. So bone up a bit and adjust your statement in light of facts, not wishful thinking.
Ditto that: I'm utterly surprised that "Major sticking points in negotiations between Verizon and Apple" wasn't simply the issue of the Verizon logo somewhere (at least once) on the iPhone.
Unless they plan to make it look physically different in a way that is instantly obvious they?ll at least need to note that it?s CDMA. I wonder if they will use a SIM card on this model.
So I think we get that you're a proponent of Verizon - that much is obvious. However, let's take apart some of the logic you are using here and see if it stands up to scrutiny. Verizon opted out of the iPhone when Apple brought it to them - that has been established by Verizon statements. Apple turned around and brought it to Cingular - just prior to the Cingular buyout of ATT Mobile nee Wireless. ATT went for the opportunity - and Apple offered the iPhone sans subsidy. And the results were:
The original iPhone was made available in the UK, France, and Germany in November 2007, and Ireland and Austria in the spring of 2008. Following which of course was the updated iPhone 3G. That was a little over 3 years and 3 models ago. Given the demand domestically which tapped out nearly all retail sources, Apple was slow to release internationally until they could offer reasonable supplies to those markets. But not forever. The GSM vs. CDMA opportunity was serendipity, not a failure. GSM is the worldwide market leader by a factor of ten. So 70 countries with minority populations and an aging 20th century technology - not so good.
If you look at the deployment of 4G/LTE you may notice that LTE is in fact enhancements UMTS which is the underpinning GSM technology spec. Which means of course that for at least the data portion of their network Verizon is moving to GSM technology. So bone up a bit and adjust your statement in light of facts, not wishful thinking.
Cingular saying yes to Apple was BAD for Apple --- because it led to Apple to conclude all the other carriers around the world would accept such terms. But they didn't.
It has nothing to do CDMA vs. GSM. It has to do with business models. Every single cell phone manufacturers make both CDMA and GSM phones. It's not that difficult and it's not that costly to make a second version. Apple could have been in 70 countries in 2007 --- Verizon in the US and 69 other countries with GSM networks. All Apple had to do in 2007 in order to be in 70 countries --- was to accept handset subsidy is the norm and revenue sharing is a business model dead end.
Palm would have died in 2007 --- instead of being rescued first time by private equity and then the second time by HP. Google would had a much more difficult time with getting Android launched.
WCDMA is a CDMA technology, so you might as well bone up to the fact that Qualcomm won --- Qualcomm is the size of Nokia and Ericsson COMBINED.
i wou;ld gather that for all the bs here today . stint or t-mobile may just grab the i-phone .
or maybe the i=phone will go out to market at full price and we choose we to go ???
But verizon's EGO and apple's EGO .. make's this look like it may not ever happen.
For verizon to get the iphone I guess they would have to upfront pay for at least one million iphones. Only then would apple know their gonna be a good partner.
9
...so ATT doesn't pay upfront for iPhones? Some ATT retail store managers are going to be pretty surprised when THAT gets out! And since when does business plan equate to ego?
Everyone else.. (and you know who you are *cough*cough*Blackintosh*
STOP! anthropomorphizing corporate entities. It isn't ego, it is a calculated look at the business plan, what stands to be gained and what stands to be lost in the transaction. Sheesh. Business 101 stuff. If what Apple is bringing to the table isn't net plus enough to interest Verizon (or vice versa) it doesn't happen. It is simple math and future planning. Why burden this with stupid words like "ego", or Apple hates Verizon, or whatever else has been offered along those lines? Especially article headlines that read like this one! Do not assume that because you've seen Wall Street that you understand the complex operations of large corporations.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even trolls. But not everyone is entitled to be heard, or acknowledged as being right. I submit that the old adage about "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people." It's all about intent. Trolls come to disrupt and for the particularly pernicious, to draw attention, like a small child acting up in public, to themselves.
Corporations compete, they sue, countersue, and disagree during negotiations. Occasionally individual egos get caught up in the mix, especially with highly motivated and colorful CEOs, but the vast majority of the issues are in the numbers. Stepping off my soapbox. Sorry for the rant - but not enough to delete it.
That basically is just an indication of how popular the iPhone was compared to the rest of the crap (also, Verizon is a lot bigger than ATT outside of mobile).
IOW, the main reason Verizon didn't have to issue a profit warning was because it wasn't selling as many Droids as ATT was iPhones.
I specifically stated Verizon Wireless vs. AT&T Wireless --- nothing to do with the landline business.
The main reason why AT&T Wireless has to grab that much high-paying iphone subscribers (which required them to massively subsidize the iphone) --- is that AT&T Wireless has so much more prepaid subscribers and Tracfone MVNO subscribers (which has something like a $11 ARPU in 2008).
$100 ARPU iphone subscribers gets canceled out by $11 ARPU Tracfone subscribers.
This is why Verizon Wireless has a higher overall ARPU than AT&T Wireless. This is why Verizon doesn't need to sell the iphone. This is why Verizon doesn't need to sell a lot of Droid's. This is why Verizon doesn't have to massively subsidize Droid's.
This is a typical Apple blunder, where they'll negotiate only after they're utterly desperate. Had they negotiated and signed a contract back in '08 or even '09, Verizon would've not had this kind on arm-twisting rights.
Why did Apple extend the AT&T contract that pushed them into a corner, is beyond me.
Apple can't make enough iPhones to meet demand as it stands now. There are still many countries waiting for the iPhone. These two facts alone should show that Verizon has no real arm-twisting rights.
For now it is sort of like Apple can say the iPhone is their ball and you will either play the game by their rules or they will just take their ball and go play with the kids in the other ballpark who don't have a ball either. In time that may change but not today and by then Apple will probably have a newer and much better ball that everyone wants to play with.
...so ATT doesn't pay upfront for iPhones? Some ATT retail store managers are going to be pretty surprised when THAT gets out! And since when does business plan equate to ego?
Everyone else.. (and you know who you are *cough*cough*Blackintosh*
STOP! anthropomorphizing corporate entities. It isn't ego, it is a calculated look at the business plan, what stands to be gained and what stands to be lost in the transaction. Sheesh. Business 101 stuff. If what Apple is bringing to the table isn't net plus enough to interest Verizon (or vice versa) it doesn't happen. It is simple math and future planning. Why burden this with stupid words like "ego", or Apple hates Verizon, or whatever else has been offered along those lines? Especially article headlines that read like this one! Do not assume that because you've seen Wall Street that you understand the complex operations of large corporations.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even trolls. But not everyone is entitled to be heard, or acknowledged as being right. I submit that the old adage about "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people." It's all about intent. Trolls come to disrupt and for the particularly pernicious, to draw attention, like a small child acting up in public, to themselves.
Corporations compete, they sue, countersue, and disagree during negotiations. Occasionally individual egos get caught up in the mix, especially with highly motivated and colorful CEOs, but the vast majority of the issues are in the numbers. Stepping off my soapbox. Sorry for the rant - but not enough to delete it.
Comments
You do realize Verizon subsidizes the Droids, right? Or do you really think the manufacturers are only getting $200 for each?
Additionally, you also do realize the subsidy is probably a lot higher than what ATT pays for the iPhone because Verizon also gives 2 devices for the price of one.
The only reason ATT hasn't done that to increase the number of data plan customers is because Apple does not allow them to.
AT&T had to file a SEC profit margin warning because of iphone subsidy, Verizon never had to do that with Blackberry BOGO's and Droids. It is the definite proof that Verizon's handset subsidy is less than AT&T.
AT&T had to file a SEC profit margin warning because of iphone subsidy, Verizon never had to do that with Blackberry BOGO's and Droids. It is the definite proof that Verizon's handset subsidy is less than AT&T.
That may true, but your evidence doesn?t support your hypothesis. You failed to adjust the number for profit sharing switching to subsidization which Verizon?s profits never had to adjust for.
It makes sense why Apple went with ATT in the first place. They use UMTS/3G/GSM that is being used all over the world. Allows for economies of scale in manufacturing and distribution. Roaming is possible, but not economic... but that can change too. UMTS also allows for simultaneous use of voice and data. I have not had too many issues with the ATT service.
I completely disagree.
Apple signing with AT&T --- led them to a FAILED experiment of full priced $600 simlocked iphone with a 2 year contract with carrier revenue sharing. It took FOREVER to expand internationally because no carrier except the original 4 carriers took the revenue sharing.
If Apple signed with Verizon originally, Apple could have sold the iphones in 70 countries in 2007.
That may true, but your evidence doesn?t support your hypothesis. You failed to adjust the number for profit sharing switching to subsidization which Verizon?s profits never had to adjust for.
It doesn't matter --- because Verizon Wireless has a much higher profit margin than AT&T Wireless. It's all in the SEC filings.
S... Why is letting Verizon make some money on the iPhone idiotic? Apple let ATT make a bag of cash by making them exclusive partners. Was that fair business??
...
Wake up and smell the coffee! Apple made the exclusive deal with AT&T because Jobs wanted to change the terms of the deal in the US cellphone market. Before the iPhone not only was the technology crap (more specifically the UX), the whole show was dominated by the carriers rather than handset makers, developers, and users. Carriers, especially Verizon, decided what crap they put on your handset, what could not be deleted, ridiculous charges for 'services' which were actually apps, etc.
Verizon had to be left out to hang in the breeze in order to encourage them to change their business practices so the US market wouldn't always remain the worst for users. We will probably learn if that mission was accomplished early in 2011.
Wake up and smell the coffee! Apple made the exclusive deal with AT&T because Jobs wanted to change the terms of the deal in the US cellphone market. Before the iPhone not only was the technology crap (more specifically the UX), the whole show was dominated by the carriers rather than handset makers, developers, and users. Carriers, especially Verizon, decided what crap they put on your handset, what could not be deleted, ridiculous charges for 'services' which were actually apps, etc.
Verizon had to be left out to hang in the breeze in order to encourage them to change their business practices so the US market wouldn't always remain the worst for users. We will probably learn if that mission was accomplished early in 2011.
Whether you are stuck in the Verizon walled garden or the Apple walled garden --- it's still a walled garden. A golden cage is still a cage. I don't see a single difference between buying a $3 a day Verizon Navigator on GIN and a $3 a day AT&T Navigator on iphone itunes app store.
The worldwide launch of the iphone has proven definitively that the grass in NOT greener on the other side of the pond. Many Europeans woke up from their delusions when they got stuck with simlocked iphones, with a 2 year contract, with tiny 250 MB data allowance and without pro-rated ETF.
Umm, their network is not everywhere. How are you going to rule the world like that?
Leave off the "umm" next time will you?
Perhaps not everywhere, but GSM covers more of the globe than BetaMax... I err mean CDMA.
A CDMA iphone means either 2 product lines, or a phone that costs more in the rest of the world where CDMA either never happened, or admitted defeat, longer development time and more possible problems. Americans can choose a GSM network, most of the world can't choose a CDMA one.
If the phone is good enough, a gsm phone can still be bought by folk that are traditionally Verizon customers (they switch). It doesn't matter how good your CDMA phone is, it won't sell in most of europe.
AT&T had to file a SEC profit margin warning because of iphone subsidy, Verizon never had to do that with Blackberry BOGO's and Droids. It is the definite proof that Verizon's handset subsidy is less than AT&T.
That basically is just an indication of how popular the iPhone was compared to the rest of the crap (also, Verizon is a lot bigger than ATT outside of mobile).
To explain, ATT pays Apple the unsubsidized iPhone amount upfront. So if you buy an iPhone in June for $200, ATT pays Apple $600 (or whatever) in June itself. In June, ATT makes a loss of $400 on that iPhone. However, you are bound by a contract to stick with ATT for the next 24 months. That means you pay about $60/mo to them for those 24 months + $30/mo for Data. Over those 24 months, you will shell out ~$2160 to ATT for the iPhone. After a period of 24 months, they end up making a profit (well, not really, its much less, but for illustration) of 2160-400.
So the quarter that the iPhone first started selling in millions, ATT had all these losses they were taking, but the income was spread over a period of 2 years. Hence, the profit warning.
ATT does not need to do this anymore, because there is enough of an existing iPhone subscriber base who are paying the $90/mo that the upfront costs for the new iPhone buyers isn't as significant.
IOW, the main reason Verizon didn't have to issue a profit warning was because it wasn't selling as many Droids as ATT was iPhones.
If Apple signed with Verizon originally, Apple could have sold the iphones in 70 countries in 2007.
That's stupid, because Verizon turned Apple down.
There was no "if Apple signed with Verizon".
or maybe the i=phone will go out to market at full price and we choose we to go ???
But verizon's EGO and apple's EGO .. make's this look like it may not ever happen.
For verizon to get the iphone I guess they would have to upfront pay for at least one million iphones. Only then would apple know their gonna be a good partner.
9
i wou;ld gather that for all the bs here today . stint or t-mobile may just grab the i-phone .
or maybe the i=phone will go out to market at full price and we choose we to go ???
But verizon's EGO and apple's EGO .. make's this look like it may not ever happen.
For verizon to get the iphone I guess they would have to upfront pay for at least one million iphones. Only then would apple know their gonna be a good partner.
9
Even if you could get an iPhone at full cost (I can, come to the uk! Kinda blows the ego argument) to make it work you better get your soldering iron out. The iphone physically cannot work on verizons CDMA network. That's what happens when you pick the losing horse in a technology race.
They could put the logo on the back. No one would see it if the phone is in a case As far as understanding a good thing, wouldn't it be a good thing for someone who lives in an area with no ATT coverage to be able to get an iPhone? It's really that simple when you look at it logically.
Apple would never, ever, ever, in a million years, allow another comany's logo to be emblazoned on their hardware. Did I just say "never" even though you should never say "never"? Yeah, I think I did. Never. If you don't get this to your very core then you are a very clueless individual indeed.
And, by the way, the most popular case for the iPhone 4 is Apple's own bumper, and it doesn't cover the back.
Thompson
I completely disagree.
Apple signing with AT&T --- led them to a FAILED experiment of full priced $600 simlocked iphone with a 2 year contract with carrier revenue sharing. It took FOREVER to expand internationally because no carrier except the original 4 carriers took the revenue sharing.
If Apple signed with Verizon originally, Apple could have sold the iphones in 70 countries in 2007.
So I think we get that you're a proponent of Verizon - that much is obvious. However, let's take apart some of the logic you are using here and see if it stands up to scrutiny. Verizon opted out of the iPhone when Apple brought it to them - that has been established by Verizon statements. Apple turned around and brought it to Cingular - just prior to the Cingular buyout of ATT Mobile nee Wireless. ATT went for the opportunity - and Apple offered the iPhone sans subsidy. And the results were:
In 2007, Apple reported selling 270,000 iPhones during the new smartphone's first two days of availability. Apple did not accept pre-orders for the iPhone before its June 29, 2007 launch. Instead, thousands lined up outside the company's retail stores, some waiting for days, to get their hands on the smartphone.
The original iPhone was made available in the UK, France, and Germany in November 2007, and Ireland and Austria in the spring of 2008. Following which of course was the updated iPhone 3G. That was a little over 3 years and 3 models ago. Given the demand domestically which tapped out nearly all retail sources, Apple was slow to release internationally until they could offer reasonable supplies to those markets. But not forever. The GSM vs. CDMA opportunity was serendipity, not a failure. GSM is the worldwide market leader by a factor of ten. So 70 countries with minority populations and an aging 20th century technology - not so good.
If you look at the deployment of 4G/LTE you may notice that LTE is in fact enhancements UMTS which is the underpinning GSM technology spec. Which means of course that for at least the data portion of their network Verizon is moving to GSM technology. So bone up a bit and adjust your statement in light of facts, not wishful thinking.
Ditto that: I'm utterly surprised that "Major sticking points in negotiations between Verizon and Apple" wasn't simply the issue of the Verizon logo somewhere (at least once) on the iPhone.
Unless they plan to make it look physically different in a way that is instantly obvious they?ll at least need to note that it?s CDMA. I wonder if they will use a SIM card on this model.
So I think we get that you're a proponent of Verizon - that much is obvious. However, let's take apart some of the logic you are using here and see if it stands up to scrutiny. Verizon opted out of the iPhone when Apple brought it to them - that has been established by Verizon statements. Apple turned around and brought it to Cingular - just prior to the Cingular buyout of ATT Mobile nee Wireless. ATT went for the opportunity - and Apple offered the iPhone sans subsidy. And the results were:
The original iPhone was made available in the UK, France, and Germany in November 2007, and Ireland and Austria in the spring of 2008. Following which of course was the updated iPhone 3G. That was a little over 3 years and 3 models ago. Given the demand domestically which tapped out nearly all retail sources, Apple was slow to release internationally until they could offer reasonable supplies to those markets. But not forever. The GSM vs. CDMA opportunity was serendipity, not a failure. GSM is the worldwide market leader by a factor of ten. So 70 countries with minority populations and an aging 20th century technology - not so good.
If you look at the deployment of 4G/LTE you may notice that LTE is in fact enhancements UMTS which is the underpinning GSM technology spec. Which means of course that for at least the data portion of their network Verizon is moving to GSM technology. So bone up a bit and adjust your statement in light of facts, not wishful thinking.
Cingular saying yes to Apple was BAD for Apple --- because it led to Apple to conclude all the other carriers around the world would accept such terms. But they didn't.
It has nothing to do CDMA vs. GSM. It has to do with business models. Every single cell phone manufacturers make both CDMA and GSM phones. It's not that difficult and it's not that costly to make a second version. Apple could have been in 70 countries in 2007 --- Verizon in the US and 69 other countries with GSM networks. All Apple had to do in 2007 in order to be in 70 countries --- was to accept handset subsidy is the norm and revenue sharing is a business model dead end.
Palm would have died in 2007 --- instead of being rescued first time by private equity and then the second time by HP. Google would had a much more difficult time with getting Android launched.
WCDMA is a CDMA technology, so you might as well bone up to the fact that Qualcomm won --- Qualcomm is the size of Nokia and Ericsson COMBINED.
i wou;ld gather that for all the bs here today . stint or t-mobile may just grab the i-phone .
or maybe the i=phone will go out to market at full price and we choose we to go ???
But verizon's EGO and apple's EGO .. make's this look like it may not ever happen.
For verizon to get the iphone I guess they would have to upfront pay for at least one million iphones. Only then would apple know their gonna be a good partner.
9
...so ATT doesn't pay upfront for iPhones? Some ATT retail store managers are going to be pretty surprised when THAT gets out! And since when does business plan equate to ego?
Everyone else.. (and you know who you are *cough*cough*Blackintosh*
STOP! anthropomorphizing corporate entities. It isn't ego, it is a calculated look at the business plan, what stands to be gained and what stands to be lost in the transaction. Sheesh. Business 101 stuff. If what Apple is bringing to the table isn't net plus enough to interest Verizon (or vice versa) it doesn't happen. It is simple math and future planning. Why burden this with stupid words like "ego", or Apple hates Verizon, or whatever else has been offered along those lines? Especially article headlines that read like this one! Do not assume that because you've seen Wall Street that you understand the complex operations of large corporations.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even trolls. But not everyone is entitled to be heard, or acknowledged as being right. I submit that the old adage about "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people." It's all about intent. Trolls come to disrupt and for the particularly pernicious, to draw attention, like a small child acting up in public, to themselves.
Corporations compete, they sue, countersue, and disagree during negotiations. Occasionally individual egos get caught up in the mix, especially with highly motivated and colorful CEOs, but the vast majority of the issues are in the numbers. Stepping off my soapbox. Sorry for the rant - but not enough to delete it.
That basically is just an indication of how popular the iPhone was compared to the rest of the crap (also, Verizon is a lot bigger than ATT outside of mobile).
IOW, the main reason Verizon didn't have to issue a profit warning was because it wasn't selling as many Droids as ATT was iPhones.
I specifically stated Verizon Wireless vs. AT&T Wireless --- nothing to do with the landline business.
The main reason why AT&T Wireless has to grab that much high-paying iphone subscribers (which required them to massively subsidize the iphone) --- is that AT&T Wireless has so much more prepaid subscribers and Tracfone MVNO subscribers (which has something like a $11 ARPU in 2008).
http://www.glgroup.com/News/TracFone...PCS-27077.html
$100 ARPU iphone subscribers gets canceled out by $11 ARPU Tracfone subscribers.
This is why Verizon Wireless has a higher overall ARPU than AT&T Wireless. This is why Verizon doesn't need to sell the iphone. This is why Verizon doesn't need to sell a lot of Droid's. This is why Verizon doesn't have to massively subsidize Droid's.
This is a typical Apple blunder, where they'll negotiate only after they're utterly desperate. Had they negotiated and signed a contract back in '08 or even '09, Verizon would've not had this kind on arm-twisting rights.
Why did Apple extend the AT&T contract that pushed them into a corner, is beyond me.
Apple can't make enough iPhones to meet demand as it stands now. There are still many countries waiting for the iPhone. These two facts alone should show that Verizon has no real arm-twisting rights.
For now it is sort of like Apple can say the iPhone is their ball and you will either play the game by their rules or they will just take their ball and go play with the kids in the other ballpark who don't have a ball either. In time that may change but not today and by then Apple will probably have a newer and much better ball that everyone wants to play with.
...so ATT doesn't pay upfront for iPhones? Some ATT retail store managers are going to be pretty surprised when THAT gets out! And since when does business plan equate to ego?
Everyone else.. (and you know who you are *cough*cough*Blackintosh*
STOP! anthropomorphizing corporate entities. It isn't ego, it is a calculated look at the business plan, what stands to be gained and what stands to be lost in the transaction. Sheesh. Business 101 stuff. If what Apple is bringing to the table isn't net plus enough to interest Verizon (or vice versa) it doesn't happen. It is simple math and future planning. Why burden this with stupid words like "ego", or Apple hates Verizon, or whatever else has been offered along those lines? Especially article headlines that read like this one! Do not assume that because you've seen Wall Street that you understand the complex operations of large corporations.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even trolls. But not everyone is entitled to be heard, or acknowledged as being right. I submit that the old adage about "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people." It's all about intent. Trolls come to disrupt and for the particularly pernicious, to draw attention, like a small child acting up in public, to themselves.
Corporations compete, they sue, countersue, and disagree during negotiations. Occasionally individual egos get caught up in the mix, especially with highly motivated and colorful CEOs, but the vast majority of the issues are in the numbers. Stepping off my soapbox. Sorry for the rant - but not enough to delete it.
DUDE YOU LOST ME ? what trolls ?
ANYWAY
WE WILL SEE WHAT HAPPENS COME 2012
9