is a fallacy, since it is based on incomplete data. Android is sold at all carriers. To come to the conclusion that Android cannot compete with the iphone based on how it sells at Verizon is downright retarded.
You just admitted that Android is only in a close race with the iPhone because Android is offered to 100% of all subscribers and the iPhone only to 33% of all subscribers. Nowhere in this article is it said that Android is loosing against the iPhone in the U.S. currently in raw numbers sold. Just that Android is offered to three times as many subscribers (ie, to 100%) as the iPhone is (ie, to 33%) but that Android is nowhere near to selling three times as many devices as the iPhone (in the U.S.), which it should if it had equal appeal.
1) How much did the fact that this was the iPhone 4 launch quarter play into this? You gotta figure the iPhone will be king in the quarter (and probably the subsequent quarter) that it's released. I am not sure about the whole "hit the wall thing". They didn't have enough iPhones to meet latent demand in the launch quarter. That's bound to play out in the stats in the months after.
2) How much did Verizon's plans and policies dissuade customers from signing on? While I'm sure the iPhone played a huge part. I doubt the carrier had no role at all in how things played out. Here's an alternative take:
I don't own an Android or an iPhone and won't comment on the merits of one vis-a-vis the other but will point out that there's a lot of ink being wasted on questionable data here. Asymco themselves preface their whole analysis with the caveat:
Quote:
Assuming the data is accurate, we are going to dive into it but I will state up-front that without confirmation, the conclusions below should be taken with a grain of salt. All statements should be read with a preceding ?if the data is accurate??
I don't own an Android or an iPhone and won't comment on the merits of one vis-a-vis the other but will point out that there's a lot of ink being wasted on questionable data here. Asymco themselves preface their whole analysis with the caveat:
That's an interesting point. I wonder why the company put resources into an analysis of numbers that they can't even confirm to be accurate or inaccurate. I've read that those numbers were "leaked" to them?
In my opinion the combination of: Google's buggy code, the phone manufactures sticking their stupid user interfaces in the android phones, Verizon tenancy to lock down the phones and stick their crapware in them, will kill Android as fast as it gained market share. It is sad too because the Android OS could offer an incredible phone experience if it was allowed to mature without so many people screwing with it....
This.
Apple makes money on the sale of the device, and has a very nice software and content ecosystem to provide them continuing revenue. Apple has a very strong interest in keeping the user experience, app & media buying experience very smooth and friendly. Google doesn't have the power to force the handset makers to keep their mitts off the UI or to let the users get updates directly from Google rather than going through the carriers. Apple relies on Apple for everything but the connection and bandwidth. Google/Android relies on handset manufacturers, carrier software, and carrier connectivity.
If VZW could get out of the way and give people a pure Android experience, they would have better results. But VZW is not wired that way; they want to lock-down and control the handset.
(2) AT&T is highlighting their postpaid ARPU --- because for the precise reason I was talking about, that their ARPU has been going down. Lesson number 1 on SEC filings, check the footnotes --- that's where the real information is located, not the one page press release that highlights all the good points.
That information is also in the AT&T financials information you linked. It's the line right below wireless ARPU.
Quote:
Somehow, this analyst was saying that Verizon is cornered into making a deal with Apple because Android sales are failing.
Not because Android sales are "failing" but not succeeding to the extent that the iPhone is and not driving growth at a rate that VZW is likely happy with. Is that failing? Depends.
Quote:
AT&T needs the iphone because they are simultaneously grabbing high ARPU subscribers (iphone with a 100 dollar ARPU) and low ARPU subscriber (tracfone with 15 dollar ARPU). You average the two out --- and you end up with a total ARPU that lower than Verizon's ARPU.
You CAN average the two out but it is meaningless to the discussion. A point you never seem to get either willfully or because you simply don't grasp the subject. That AT&T wants additional revenue from low margin prepaid phones is completely immaterial to the advantages of having the iPhone in the line up.
The bottom line is that the iPhone has contributed hugely to the AT&T's bottom line and NOT Verizon. This is not a situation that VZW will want to have continue.
Data is the only real growth driver in wireless and the iPhone has been a weapon AT&T has been able to leverage despite all it's other issues.
Will VZW die without the iPhone? Certainly not. Are they doing anywhere close to where they would be doing if they had gotten a CDMA iPhone 4 when AT&T got the their iPhone 4?
Not even close. VZW may not need the iPhone for survival but it sure is in that "WANT REALLY REALLY REALLY BADLY category.
In all fairness, all this chart shows is the spike in sales after the iphone 4 release. Sales always spike in the quarter after the year's new model is released.
A spike is something that goes up then down. New iPhone releases make sales go up and continue going up.
Don't recall arguing against this point so that's a strawman.
You might not recall it, but my original point was your putting analysis in scare quotes. You said it was because of sales figures, I pointed out that the analysis went beyond that to structural analysis of Verizon's sales mix. So yes, you were dismissing that out of hand as well.
Quote:
Att is practically a one OS vender too. Seems to be working just fine for them.
Nope, they're doing a good Android business. As is Verizon. Who doesn't have the iPhone to balance things out. Point of the article. Again.
Quote:
Yeah, I don't agree with it because it based on a logical fallacy. Good one there.
"Logical fallacy" isn't a slur that you can just level because you feel like it, like "dumb fuck." It means something. You failed to demonstrate any logical inconsistency, and instead just changed the subject.
Quote:
No, it said, and to quote, AGAIN:
It did NOT state the additional bounds/constraints you added.
Fair enough, Daniel may have changed the emphasis from the original article. But the context even there still makes it clear that we're talking about Verizon vs. AT&T, not some failure of Android in the market at large.
Quote:
Not sure what you are complaining about. Do you need to see 1000 people buying phones at Sprint vs. 1 to believe that people can buy Android phones from other than Verizon? Because that's the only point I was making
You think you are a step ahead of me, you aren't.
If that's the only point you wanted to make, it's a) trivial, and b) irrelevant to the point being discussed. Nothing in the original article or Daniel's gloss suggest that Android is doomed, or that it is failing in the market place, or that somehow excellent AT&T sales eclipse excellent Android sales on vendors other than Verizon. Not sure why you're so dead set on turning this into "Android is so kicking ass, liars!"
And, again, talking about people you know doesn't add anything to the discussion. I can say "Everyone I know is waiting on an iPhone from Verizon" and it doesn't mean a thing.
Quote:
Notice how I didn't draw any conclusions unlike Horace Dediu of the original article and parrot them line per line, as DED loves to bitch about everyone else doing this when it happens to be negative about Apple.
So yeah, I call his bull shit every time. And until he decides to defend himself, I'll keep calling him out.
Except that, outside of a minor point of emphasis, you haven't actually cited any "bullshit" in the article at hand. Instead, you've mounted a spirited defense of the idea of Android's competitiveness in general, without addressing any of the points regarding Android sales on Verizon vs. iOS sales on AT&T specifically, which, yet again, was the topic of the article.
That information is also in the AT&T financials information you linked. It's the line right below wireless ARPU.
Except that they don't put the "bad" numbers on their press releases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Not because Android sales are "failing" but not succeeding to the extent that the iPhone is and not driving growth at a rate that VZW is likely happy with. Is that failing? Depends.
But there is no difference in growth rate among postpaid subscribers --- since the iphone 4 was launched in Q2, the difference is 1000 postpaid subscribers (out of 70-80 million postpaid subscribers).
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
You CAN average the two out but it is meaningless to the discussion. A point you never seem to get either willfully or because you simply don't grasp the subject. That AT&T wants additional revenue from low margin prepaid phones is completely immaterial to the advantages of having the iPhone in the line up.
The bottom line is that the iPhone has contributed hugely to the AT&T's bottom line and NOT Verizon. This is not a situation that VZW will want to have continue.
Data is the only real growth driver in wireless and the iPhone has been a weapon AT&T has been able to leverage despite all it's other issues.
Will VZW die without the iPhone? Certainly not. Are they doing anywhere close to where they would be doing if they had gotten a CDMA iPhone 4 when AT&T got the their iPhone 4?
Not even close. VZW may not need the iPhone for survival but it sure is in that "WANT REALLY REALLY REALLY BADLY category.
VZW's profit margin and profit went up. They are the only national carrier out of the 4 that has increased profit margin in recent quarters.
In this case, Verizon has a more complete network with better reputation and they sell more dumbphones than AT&T by a highly large margin.
And that's how you make real money.
You don't need to sell an iphone to get that $70-80 ARPU subscriber, you can also sell them a zero dollar feature phone with unlimited voice plan (which brings in the same amount of ARPU as an iphone).
iphone to verizon: probably a shift of AT&T iphone customers to verizon.. good for verizon peanuts for apple so probably apple will not make the move to verizon..
ff
Each Verizon iPhone sold (including those moving from ATT to Verizon) reportedly nets Apple somewhere between $500 and $600 dollars in revenue. Even if that number were to drop to between $400 and $500 per phone in a non-exclusive deal, I don't know that I would characterize the added revenue from a Verizon iPhone as peanuts.
You just admitted that Android is only in a close race with the iPhone because Android is offered to 100% of all subscribers and the iPhone only to 33% of all subscribers. Nowhere in this article is it said that Android is loosing against the iPhone in the U.S. currently in raw numbers sold. Just that Android is offered to three times as many subscribers (ie, to 100%) as the iPhone is (ie, to 33%) but that Android is nowhere near to selling three times as many devices as the iPhone (in the U.S.), which it should if it had equal appeal.
Uh, I freely admitted that based on the available evidence. Hope you aren't thinking you just gave me a revelation, cause you didn't.
Also too, if the iphone is sold on all carriers is is likely that Att's sales will go down since most find Att to be crap, Consumer Reports included. As I already said, we will find out soon enough.
I am not sure why some are trying to turn this into Android v iOS or ATT v Verizon debate. My takeaway from this article and its underlying report is pretty straight-foward: Though Android sales have benefited Verizon, they are still not satisfied with the results. As a result, Verizon would like to offer the iPhone as a handset option.
All this talk about Android being available on all US carriers does nothing but explain why Android sales might be underperforming Verizon's expectations. If anything, this bolsters the rumor that Verizon is seeking a semi-exclusive deal on the iPhone which prevents Sprint and T-Mobile from acquiring the iPhone for their networks.
Bottom line: Verizon wants to be able to offer the best array of handsets which drive post-paid subscriptions.
I am not sure why some are trying to turn this into Android v iOS or ATT v Verizon debate. My takeaway from this article and its underlying report is pretty straight-foward: Though Android sales have benefited Verizon, they are still not satisfied with the results. As a result, Verizon would like to offer the iPhone as a handset option.
How is Verizon not satisfied?
Since the iphone 4 was launched in Q2, Verizon Wireless had 1.249 million postpaid net adds and AT&T Wireless had 1.250 million postpaid net adds. Apple and AT&T threw the kitchen sink at Verizon ---- and AT&T managed to beat Verizon by 1000 postpaid subscribers --- out of 70-80 million postpaid subscribers.
Verizon is not trading profit margins for market share.
The funny thing is that we are in an Apple forum --- which means that all of you know Apple makes a pretty good living with high profit margins and low market share.
You keep trying to argue with data but you have no way of knowing if the data proves that Android has met Verizon's expectation (unless you are a Verizon executive in which case please let us know). Note that I never said Verizon is disappointed in Android sales, only that they might not have met expectations. At any rate, it appears that Verizon would like to add the iPhone to its handset offerings which I think would be a good move for both Verizon and Apple.
You keep trying to argue with data but you have no way of knowing if the data proves that Android has met Verizon's expectation (unless you are a Verizon executive in which case please let us know). Note that I never said Verizon is disappointed in Android sales, only that they might not have met expectations. At any rate, it appears that Verizon would like to add the iPhone to its handset offerings which I think would be a good move for both Verizon and Apple.
Verizon's stated goals have been maintaining and improving profit margins.
These people are not delusional --- they don't expect a second rated Android experience to go and beat Apple's iphone in sales numbers.
These people are not delusional --- they don't expect a second rated Android experience to go and beat Apple's iphone in sales numbers.
You continue to post as if you are an insider privy to what are Verizon's expectations for Android. If you are, please state your affiliation with Verizon.
As for Verizon's stated goals of maintaining and improving profit margins, are you suggesting that a Verizon iPhone would be at odds with these stated goals? Seems to me that a Verizon iPhone would increase postpaid subscriptions and ARPU and also increase churn for ATT. This could allow Verizon to increase their lead in postpaid subscriptions even further, another metric the industry follows. Don't pretend that Verizon does not concern itself with the very metrics used to analyze the industry.
It seems to me that the crux of the article is true - Verizon would like to add the iPhone to its handset arsenal. Do you have any substantive arguments that a Verizon iPhone would disadvantage Verizon?
You seem to be arguing for argument's sake (I have said nothing disrespectful of Verizon or Android) which is why some wonder if you are not a Verizon shill.
Comments
is a fallacy, since it is based on incomplete data. Android is sold at all carriers. To come to the conclusion that Android cannot compete with the iphone based on how it sells at Verizon is downright retarded.
You just admitted that Android is only in a close race with the iPhone because Android is offered to 100% of all subscribers and the iPhone only to 33% of all subscribers. Nowhere in this article is it said that Android is loosing against the iPhone in the U.S. currently in raw numbers sold. Just that Android is offered to three times as many subscribers (ie, to 100%) as the iPhone is (ie, to 33%) but that Android is nowhere near to selling three times as many devices as the iPhone (in the U.S.), which it should if it had equal appeal.
1) How much did the fact that this was the iPhone 4 launch quarter play into this? You gotta figure the iPhone will be king in the quarter (and probably the subsequent quarter) that it's released. I am not sure about the whole "hit the wall thing". They didn't have enough iPhones to meet latent demand in the launch quarter. That's bound to play out in the stats in the months after.
2) How much did Verizon's plans and policies dissuade customers from signing on? While I'm sure the iPhone played a huge part. I doubt the carrier had no role at all in how things played out. Here's an alternative take:
http://www.infosyncworld.com/reviews...oid/11598.html
Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how things play out.
Assuming the data is accurate, we are going to dive into it but I will state up-front that without confirmation, the conclusions below should be taken with a grain of salt. All statements should be read with a preceding ?if the data is accurate??
I don't own an Android or an iPhone and won't comment on the merits of one vis-a-vis the other but will point out that there's a lot of ink being wasted on questionable data here. Asymco themselves preface their whole analysis with the caveat:
That's an interesting point. I wonder why the company put resources into an analysis of numbers that they can't even confirm to be accurate or inaccurate. I've read that those numbers were "leaked" to them?
In my opinion the combination of: Google's buggy code, the phone manufactures sticking their stupid user interfaces in the android phones, Verizon tenancy to lock down the phones and stick their crapware in them, will kill Android as fast as it gained market share. It is sad too because the Android OS could offer an incredible phone experience if it was allowed to mature without so many people screwing with it....
This.
Apple makes money on the sale of the device, and has a very nice software and content ecosystem to provide them continuing revenue. Apple has a very strong interest in keeping the user experience, app & media buying experience very smooth and friendly. Google doesn't have the power to force the handset makers to keep their mitts off the UI or to let the users get updates directly from Google rather than going through the carriers. Apple relies on Apple for everything but the connection and bandwidth. Google/Android relies on handset manufacturers, carrier software, and carrier connectivity.
If VZW could get out of the way and give people a pure Android experience, they would have better results. But VZW is not wired that way; they want to lock-down and control the handset.
- Jasen.
(2) AT&T is highlighting their postpaid ARPU --- because for the precise reason I was talking about, that their ARPU has been going down. Lesson number 1 on SEC filings, check the footnotes --- that's where the real information is located, not the one page press release that highlights all the good points.
That information is also in the AT&T financials information you linked. It's the line right below wireless ARPU.
Somehow, this analyst was saying that Verizon is cornered into making a deal with Apple because Android sales are failing.
Not because Android sales are "failing" but not succeeding to the extent that the iPhone is and not driving growth at a rate that VZW is likely happy with. Is that failing? Depends.
AT&T needs the iphone because they are simultaneously grabbing high ARPU subscribers (iphone with a 100 dollar ARPU) and low ARPU subscriber (tracfone with 15 dollar ARPU). You average the two out --- and you end up with a total ARPU that lower than Verizon's ARPU.
You CAN average the two out but it is meaningless to the discussion. A point you never seem to get either willfully or because you simply don't grasp the subject. That AT&T wants additional revenue from low margin prepaid phones is completely immaterial to the advantages of having the iPhone in the line up.
The bottom line is that the iPhone has contributed hugely to the AT&T's bottom line and NOT Verizon. This is not a situation that VZW will want to have continue.
Data is the only real growth driver in wireless and the iPhone has been a weapon AT&T has been able to leverage despite all it's other issues.
Will VZW die without the iPhone? Certainly not. Are they doing anywhere close to where they would be doing if they had gotten a CDMA iPhone 4 when AT&T got the their iPhone 4?
Not even close. VZW may not need the iPhone for survival but it sure is in that "WANT REALLY REALLY REALLY BADLY category.
In all fairness, all this chart shows is the spike in sales after the iphone 4 release. Sales always spike in the quarter after the year's new model is released.
A spike is something that goes up then down. New iPhone releases make sales go up and continue going up.
Don't recall arguing against this point so that's a strawman.
You might not recall it, but my original point was your putting analysis in scare quotes. You said it was because of sales figures, I pointed out that the analysis went beyond that to structural analysis of Verizon's sales mix. So yes, you were dismissing that out of hand as well.
Att is practically a one OS vender too. Seems to be working just fine for them.
Nope, they're doing a good Android business. As is Verizon. Who doesn't have the iPhone to balance things out. Point of the article. Again.
Yeah, I don't agree with it because it based on a logical fallacy. Good one there.
"Logical fallacy" isn't a slur that you can just level because you feel like it, like "dumb fuck." It means something. You failed to demonstrate any logical inconsistency, and instead just changed the subject.
No, it said, and to quote, AGAIN:
It did NOT state the additional bounds/constraints you added.
Fair enough, Daniel may have changed the emphasis from the original article. But the context even there still makes it clear that we're talking about Verizon vs. AT&T, not some failure of Android in the market at large.
Not sure what you are complaining about. Do you need to see 1000 people buying phones at Sprint vs. 1 to believe that people can buy Android phones from other than Verizon? Because that's the only point I was making
You think you are a step ahead of me, you aren't.
If that's the only point you wanted to make, it's a) trivial, and b) irrelevant to the point being discussed. Nothing in the original article or Daniel's gloss suggest that Android is doomed, or that it is failing in the market place, or that somehow excellent AT&T sales eclipse excellent Android sales on vendors other than Verizon. Not sure why you're so dead set on turning this into "Android is so kicking ass, liars!"
And, again, talking about people you know doesn't add anything to the discussion. I can say "Everyone I know is waiting on an iPhone from Verizon" and it doesn't mean a thing.
Notice how I didn't draw any conclusions unlike Horace Dediu of the original article and parrot them line per line, as DED loves to bitch about everyone else doing this when it happens to be negative about Apple.
So yeah, I call his bull shit every time. And until he decides to defend himself, I'll keep calling him out.
Except that, outside of a minor point of emphasis, you haven't actually cited any "bullshit" in the article at hand. Instead, you've mounted a spirited defense of the idea of Android's competitiveness in general, without addressing any of the points regarding Android sales on Verizon vs. iOS sales on AT&T specifically, which, yet again, was the topic of the article.
That information is also in the AT&T financials information you linked. It's the line right below wireless ARPU.
Except that they don't put the "bad" numbers on their press releases.
Not because Android sales are "failing" but not succeeding to the extent that the iPhone is and not driving growth at a rate that VZW is likely happy with. Is that failing? Depends.
But there is no difference in growth rate among postpaid subscribers --- since the iphone 4 was launched in Q2, the difference is 1000 postpaid subscribers (out of 70-80 million postpaid subscribers).
You CAN average the two out but it is meaningless to the discussion. A point you never seem to get either willfully or because you simply don't grasp the subject. That AT&T wants additional revenue from low margin prepaid phones is completely immaterial to the advantages of having the iPhone in the line up.
The bottom line is that the iPhone has contributed hugely to the AT&T's bottom line and NOT Verizon. This is not a situation that VZW will want to have continue.
Data is the only real growth driver in wireless and the iPhone has been a weapon AT&T has been able to leverage despite all it's other issues.
Will VZW die without the iPhone? Certainly not. Are they doing anywhere close to where they would be doing if they had gotten a CDMA iPhone 4 when AT&T got the their iPhone 4?
Not even close. VZW may not need the iPhone for survival but it sure is in that "WANT REALLY REALLY REALLY BADLY category.
VZW's profit margin and profit went up. They are the only national carrier out of the 4 that has increased profit margin in recent quarters.
In this case, Verizon has a more complete network with better reputation and they sell more dumbphones than AT&T by a highly large margin.
And that's how you make real money.
You don't need to sell an iphone to get that $70-80 ARPU subscriber, you can also sell them a zero dollar feature phone with unlimited voice plan (which brings in the same amount of ARPU as an iphone).
Simple solution for a Blackberry resurrection:
World's 1st AndroidBerry!!
iphone to verizon: probably a shift of AT&T iphone customers to verizon.. good for verizon peanuts for apple so probably apple will not make the move to verizon..
ff
Each Verizon iPhone sold (including those moving from ATT to Verizon) reportedly nets Apple somewhere between $500 and $600 dollars in revenue. Even if that number were to drop to between $400 and $500 per phone in a non-exclusive deal, I don't know that I would characterize the added revenue from a Verizon iPhone as peanuts.
You just admitted that Android is only in a close race with the iPhone because Android is offered to 100% of all subscribers and the iPhone only to 33% of all subscribers. Nowhere in this article is it said that Android is loosing against the iPhone in the U.S. currently in raw numbers sold. Just that Android is offered to three times as many subscribers (ie, to 100%) as the iPhone is (ie, to 33%) but that Android is nowhere near to selling three times as many devices as the iPhone (in the U.S.), which it should if it had equal appeal.
Uh, I freely admitted that based on the available evidence. Hope you aren't thinking you just gave me a revelation, cause you didn't.
Also too, if the iphone is sold on all carriers is is likely that Att's sales will go down since most find Att to be crap, Consumer Reports included. As I already said, we will find out soon enough.
All this talk about Android being available on all US carriers does nothing but explain why Android sales might be underperforming Verizon's expectations. If anything, this bolsters the rumor that Verizon is seeking a semi-exclusive deal on the iPhone which prevents Sprint and T-Mobile from acquiring the iPhone for their networks.
Bottom line: Verizon wants to be able to offer the best array of handsets which drive post-paid subscriptions.
I am not sure why some are trying to turn this into Android v iOS or ATT v Verizon debate. My takeaway from this article and its underlying report is pretty straight-foward: Though Android sales have benefited Verizon, they are still not satisfied with the results. As a result, Verizon would like to offer the iPhone as a handset option.
How is Verizon not satisfied?
Since the iphone 4 was launched in Q2, Verizon Wireless had 1.249 million postpaid net adds and AT&T Wireless had 1.250 million postpaid net adds. Apple and AT&T threw the kitchen sink at Verizon ---- and AT&T managed to beat Verizon by 1000 postpaid subscribers --- out of 70-80 million postpaid subscribers.
Verizon is not trading profit margins for market share.
The funny thing is that we are in an Apple forum --- which means that all of you know Apple makes a pretty good living with high profit margins and low market share.
How is Verizon not satisfied?
I said that was my takeaway.
You keep trying to argue with data but you have no way of knowing if the data proves that Android has met Verizon's expectation (unless you are a Verizon executive in which case please let us know). Note that I never said Verizon is disappointed in Android sales, only that they might not have met expectations. At any rate, it appears that Verizon would like to add the iPhone to its handset offerings which I think would be a good move for both Verizon and Apple.
deleted
I said that was my takeaway.
You keep trying to argue with data but you have no way of knowing if the data proves that Android has met Verizon's expectation (unless you are a Verizon executive in which case please let us know). Note that I never said Verizon is disappointed in Android sales, only that they might not have met expectations. At any rate, it appears that Verizon would like to add the iPhone to its handset offerings which I think would be a good move for both Verizon and Apple.
Verizon's stated goals have been maintaining and improving profit margins.
These people are not delusional --- they don't expect a second rated Android experience to go and beat Apple's iphone in sales numbers.
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/7...wlc=1292361934
These people are not delusional --- they don't expect a second rated Android experience to go and beat Apple's iphone in sales numbers.
You continue to post as if you are an insider privy to what are Verizon's expectations for Android. If you are, please state your affiliation with Verizon.
As for Verizon's stated goals of maintaining and improving profit margins, are you suggesting that a Verizon iPhone would be at odds with these stated goals? Seems to me that a Verizon iPhone would increase postpaid subscriptions and ARPU and also increase churn for ATT. This could allow Verizon to increase their lead in postpaid subscriptions even further, another metric the industry follows. Don't pretend that Verizon does not concern itself with the very metrics used to analyze the industry.
It seems to me that the crux of the article is true - Verizon would like to add the iPhone to its handset arsenal. Do you have any substantive arguments that a Verizon iPhone would disadvantage Verizon?
You seem to be arguing for argument's sake (I have said nothing disrespectful of Verizon or Android) which is why some wonder if you are not a Verizon shill.