iPhone data use measured, carriers want Apple to pay for network upgrades

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 135
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jahonen View Post


    Yeah, Right: http://www.telecomsmarketresearch.co...atistics.shtml. Just one example right there. Others available if you can't find any.



    An a thousand times better? My, how much complaints we'd see on this forum if it were something like the "other countries" with their bitrates, prices and coverage. Now that would be bad wouldn't it?



    T-Mobile UK and Orange merged together in the UK last year.
  • Reply 102 of 135
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vvswarup View Post


    Let's break down the iPhone revenue/cost structure.



    No-contract price of iPhone 4 16GB: $700 (I'm assuming this is correct)

    Price that customer pays (with 2-year contract): $200

    This means that AT&T gives a $500 subsidy.



    Now here is what AT&T charges for just data usage over a 2-year period:



    200MB Plan: [email protected]$15/month for data



    2GB Plan: [email protected]$25/month



    This does not include minutes, texting, and possible overages. I bet that AT&T bets that some customers will exceed the usage limit, getting hit with an overage, which equals more money in AT&T's pocket. On a per-customer basis, AT&T makes a healthy profit on iPhone users.



    It's no secret that carriers make nary a pittance on the handsets. This has always been true. That's why they give out all those BOGO deals and rebates. Carriers make money off of plans.



    More over, how is this any different from any other high end smartphone? They all sell for similar amounts unlocked, so we can make the exact same calculation as to the carrier's recovered costs-- indeed, since so many Android phones are sold as BOGO deals or given away outright, we'd have to assume the carriers take a bigger hit on those.



    There's this mysterious notion that Apple is jacking up the carriers via some obscure subsidy demands, but I can't see where that holds any water given iPhone's pretty much par for the course pricing structure.
  • Reply 103 of 135
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    More over, how is this any different from any other high end smartphone? They all sell for similar amounts unlocked, so we can make the exact same calculation as to the carrier's recovered costs-- indeed, since so many Android phones are sold as BOGO deals or given away outright, we'd have to assume the carriers take a bigger hit on those.



    There's this mysterious notion that Apple is jacking up the carriers via some obscure subsidy demands, but I can't see where that holds any water given iPhone's pretty much par for the course pricing structure.



    Verizon has done a zillion BOGO deals on Blackberries and on Android phones, not a single SEC profit margin warning --- their wireless margin actually went up in recent quarters.
  • Reply 104 of 135
    jahonenjahonen Posts: 364member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    So what? NTT is government owned --- pork barrel projects and bridges to nowhere. A super fast internet that does NOTHING to the Japanese economy --- which just had 2 lost decades.



    And the 2 lost decades would be because of the fast internet then? Or could it have been worse without it?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    Somehow when the 3G iphone came out and wired.com did a speed survey --- the US had the third fastest speed in the whole world. Not bad for a country which was described to be years behind Europe and Asia. The US has higher 3G penetration rate than Europe now and has higher SMS usage than Europe.



    So you picked out the only survey that said so? Ever think of why it said so when other studies say otherwise? The wired survey was conducted at a time, when other countries had hardly any iPhones in use (with maybe the UK as an exception) and then by only using iPhones. Then of those countries, how many used the Wired app to test their speeds? How many even read Wired? I looked at the raw data in that test then and most non-US countries (with maybe the UK as an exception) had a few data points, not thousands or even hundreds. Hardly a test that provides comparable results globally.
  • Reply 105 of 135
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    What are you talking about? The US is 4 years AHEAD of Europe in FTTH deployment.



    http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=172028



    You should get down on your knees and thank god that we are not Europe --- which their regulator just said it's perfectly ok if their carrier to block voip traffic.



    What are you talking about? Europe is way ahead in telecommunication infrastructures...BTW in Europe you don't get charged if someone call you like they do here and you can buy any device and use it on any carriers.
  • Reply 106 of 135
    enohpienohpi Posts: 103member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post


    More and more it looks like Apple is amassing its multi-billionn dollar cash hoard just in case it has to buy one of the wireless carriers. I'm betting it's AT&T.



    Would Apple sell a better selection of Android phones if they ran ATT? They only sell junk like the Backflip now.



    And doesn't ATT sell the Galaxy Tab? Would Apple promote it?
  • Reply 107 of 135
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chronster View Post


    I looked into it, and found why I was under the impression I was under:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...elecoms-iphone

    "iPhone hype hides the heavy subsidies that operators have to pay to Apple, coupled with the company's replacement cycle and the revenue share it demands in some markets. This means it is not the money-spinner many assume."



    So Apple demands heavy subsidies be paid by the carriers, along with a share in the revenue.



    Looks like I wasn't entirely wrong, and the only insult that should be made right now should be directed at you.



    A lot can change in eighteen months, especially allegations that are based on rumours.



    It's quite simple really, it's called business.



    Your network costs X? to run and you have Y customers then X/Y = the average amount you need to charge each customer in order to break even.



    It's up to networks to manage their customers so they can cover their costs, it shouldn't be left to some pie in the sky idealists to offer things that can't be delivered.
  • Reply 108 of 135
    well thankfully I have an unlimited iPhone data plan that I grandfathered from my old contract. I have transferred as little as a few hundred megabytes and as much as 80 gigabytes in a month. it is time for ISPs and data providers to stop lying by advertising services as unlimited. it is an outright lie used to coax customers in on a good deal. damned the fine print. the pitch is unlimited and so it should be! Comcast should have a class action lawsuit from every person that gets such service and receives a phone all from the security department threatening to cut their service for 6 months. this advertising practice should be illegal. AT&T got smart about offering unlimited. but this is a problem I see time and time again. eff these people. and apple pushing consumers to use more with their itune rentals and insisting consumers not get bluray. seems ISP providers aren't gonna let this future become reality by limiting us to just a rationed amount of data. personally I'll take bluray any day over crappy iTunes rentals. apple or the data/ISP providers need to work on a plan to see eye to eye.
  • Reply 109 of 135
    I have zero sympathy for carriers and their networks.



    Phones have been headed in this direction for a long time. The fact that iPhone users are using more data has nothing to do with apple, and everything to do with what people really want to be doing on their phones, but couldn't up to this point because the average phone has sucked. I know that after I got my iphone I was like "finally! somebody got it right." The only bottleneck has been networks, who seem to think it's 1988 instead of 2010. Hello? I want to do more on my phone then just call people!
  • Reply 110 of 135
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post


    If someone is on the cell line 24/7 and is streaming data, essentially taking out on lane of the cell tower highway, should he pay a 'higher rate per gigbyte' than a guy that gets on a few times a month?



    NO. I do not pay a higher rate if I download more then the average guy using my regular computer internet access, therefore I should not pay a higher rate on a phone. The fact that it's a phone and not a computer is irrelevant. Internet is internet.



    Sorry network companies. I do not care that your network sucks and can't do what I want it to do. I am going to be annoyed until I can download whatever the hell I want for one rate. If that rate needs to be higher, ok.



    But I don't want to have to worry about what I download or how much I download. That's like having to check a price list every time I call someone, because it costs more to call a guy 5 states away then 1 state away. Stupid and annoying.
  • Reply 111 of 135
    Oh what a surprise.



    The carriers didn't know data was coming to the Internet. They didn't know about video. The were caught short of capacity and it's a complete surprise to them.



    How funny!



    Meanwhile Comcast, AT&T, and the others try to rent movies to us on their own networks. How incredibly hypocritical they are.



    Give them a big fat ZERO for credibility.
  • Reply 112 of 135
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post


    I think you are wrong



    Think what you will but he is not wrong.

    Quote:

    When an Android OS based smartphone is being used as an internet gateway for other devices, the cell phone carrier can not know it.



    That is not what he wrote.

    Android OS is written by google then given to the carriers for them to adapt for their own networks and devices.

    The carriers could disable tethering before the OS is released to their users.
  • Reply 113 of 135
    Build a super fast and reliable network and charge a la carte for usage. Say 10 cents per megabyte of data or equivalent for voice and let the users decide how and what they use it for.

    Watch the users flock to your network.

    Takes care of the 10% using 90% bandwidth problem nicely too.
  • Reply 114 of 135
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 1,966member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post


    Think what you will but he is not wrong.



    That is not what he wrote.

    Android OS is written by google then given to the carriers for them to adapt for their own networks and devices.

    The carriers could disable tethering before the OS is released to their users.



    No, Google gave the Android OS to cell phone makers like Motorola, Samsung, and HTC. The carriers bought the phones from them. The Android OS is already preloaded. The Android OS fans are so excited about the openness because Goolgle puts no control on the Android OS. The tethering must be one of it.
  • Reply 115 of 135
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,587member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chronster View Post


    We all know how much of a bully Apple can be when it comes to this stuff. It's their way, or the highway.



    If the subsidized cost simply isn't covering the bandwidth, then Apple needs to allow carriers to sell the phone at a price that makes sense for their business!







    umm... no



    Your analogy would make sense if Ford told BP what the cost of gas should be, and it wasn't enough to pay for the cost of getting that gas to the people.



    chronster is a troll constantly posting his moronic BS to this site...
  • Reply 116 of 135
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post


    No, Google gave the Android OS to cell phone makers like Motorola, Samsung, and HTC.



    who in turn add their own code for specific carriers and devices. Then the code is pushed out to users.

    Quote:

    The Android OS fans are so excited about the openness because Goolgle puts no control on the Android OS.



    it's open and the carriers and manufacturers are free to add/remove any features they want, including tethering.
  • Reply 117 of 135
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hohlecow View Post


    Aren't telecom's already charging customers for some form of capped usage (minutes, bytes, messages, etc.)? How do they justify wanting to be paid twice for the same service?



    If their networks can't handle the service, they probably shouldn't be selling it.



    Telcos are some of the greediest bast*rds in the corporate world. Now that data and the Internet and Cloud services are so important, they know they have the upper hand.
  • Reply 118 of 135
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 1,966member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post


    who in turn add their own code for specific carriers and devices. Then the code is pushed out to users.



    it's open and the carriers and manufacturers are free to add/remove any features they want, including tethering.



    You are avoiding the openness issue. Google Android OS makes everything available including tethering. If any cell phone maker or carrier disable the tethering then they are making their Android phone not open. Then they can not claim their phone is running Android. This is definitely a no no for marketing.
  • Reply 119 of 135
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post


    chronster is a troll constantly posting his moronic BS to this site...



    I like chronster. I don?t often agree with him and his quoting of the guardian pretty silly, but I don?t think he?s here to troll, like other posters.
  • Reply 120 of 135
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by andrewhaji View Post


    This is ridiculous. Wireless providers are getting FAR too greedy.



    All corporations are greedy. None of them wants to compete in the marketplace. They would cut their throats for a monopoly like MS. If corporations are a person like the Supreme Courts says, pharmaceuticals will sell poison to their mother just to make a buck.
Sign In or Register to comment.