Verizon announces 2.2M activations of Apple's iPhone in Q1 2011

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 83
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    In those comparisons while Apple has a small market share - Apple is making a lot more money per computer sold than every other computer manufacturer. While Android has a growing market share - Apple is making a lot more money than every other phone manufacturer.



    Is Verizon making a lot more money than AT&T?



    You with this Tracfone thing again. AT&T has no relationship or affiliation to Tracfone.



    Verizon's profit margin's are among the highest in the industry, yes.



    And considering Most of Verizon's smartphone customers DON'T have iphones yet (and most of ATT's do) yes, it's pretty safe to say that Verizon's doing rather well with profit. ATT might have a slight edge overall, but that's because a significantly higher % of their customer base has a smartphone (before the switch to tiered plans anyway).



    Remember, carriers make MORE money on Android/Winmo/Blacberry(maybe) than they do on iOS customers because they have to pay less for the product, and they can keep a larger portion of the monthly revenue.



    Also, according to the article that ran in wired this month, Carriers also get a cut of all advertising and Application Download profits Android phones on their network generate.
  • Reply 62 of 83
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    Verizon's profit margin's are among the highest in the industry, yes.



    That wasn't my question. My question: does Verizon make a lot more money than AT&T.



    Quote:

    And considering Most of Verizon's smartphone customers DON'T have iphones yet (and most of ATT's do) yes, it's pretty safe to say that Verizon's doing rather well with profit.



    Verizon offers a competitive line of phones. They charge a premium for their service. I see no surprise in them doing well with profits.



    Quote:

    Remember, carriers make MORE money on Android/Winmo/Blacberry(maybe) than they do on iOS customers because they have to pay less for the product, and they can keep a larger portion of the monthly revenue.



    Which is doing wonders for Android/WinMo/RiM revenues and stock prices.



    Quote:

    Also, according to the article that ran in wired this month, Carriers also get a cut of all advertising and Application Download profits Android phones on their network generate.



    I've never heard that, who is sharing their side of the cut? Again this sounds good for the carriers - not so great for the Android platform.
  • Reply 63 of 83
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    That wasn't my question. My question: does Verizon make a lot more money than AT&T.



    Verizon makes a lot more money than AT&T --- which gave them the option to pursue high risk things like early LTE deployments. Where do you think the money needed for really expensive high risk FIOS deployment come from? They are from the wireless profits.



    Secondly, why does it matter whether Verizon makes a lot more money than AT&T? Throughout the 30+ years of Apple history, only the last 7-8 years were really highly profitable with the ipod/iphone/ipad. Are you going to repudiate Apple's business model from 1976-2002?
  • Reply 64 of 83
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post






    I've never heard that, who is sharing their side of the cut? Again this sounds good for the carriers - not so great for the Android platform.



    Google is taking the cut from the 30% they get from purchases (less credit card processing fees). The Developers still get their full cut, so I don't see how this is bad for the android platform.
  • Reply 65 of 83
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,178member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    This isn't smartphone share per se, so it's a bit off topic, but it shows you where Android is going in the future (nowhere).



    With Mac OS-X now at 15% and growing at three times the rest of the market, and iOS growing even faster, Android doesn't really have a chance of being much more than a cheap smartphone alternative for the poor.



    TenoBell, it was meant as a response to the OP, who intimated that the chart demonstrated that Android was going nowhere. I didn't suggest there was a connection. Prof. Peabody (the OP) did whether it was his intent or not.
  • Reply 66 of 83
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    Verizon makes a lot more money than AT&T



    Yes I know you are going to pull numbers from other parts of Verizon and play your shell games to show that Verizon makes more money than AT&T. Simply looking at the quarterly numbers does not support what you wish to believe.



    Quote:

    --- which gave them the option to pursue high risk things like early LTE deployments.



    Its not a risk. Verizon has no choice in deploying LTE.



    Quote:

    Where do you think the money needed for really expensive high risk FIOS deployment come from? They are from the wireless profits.



    FIOS has noting to do with this conversation about Verizon Wireless and AT&T Mobility. You like to obfuscate the conversation by pulling in other divisions and parts of the larger corporation.



    Quote:

    Secondly, why does it matter whether Verizon makes a lot more money than AT&T? Throughout the 30+ years of Apple history, only the last 7-8 years were really highly profitable with the ipod/iphone/ipad. Are you going to repudiate Apple's business model from 1976-2002?



    You brought this up.



    "The ironic thing is that most of you DON'T care about market share. So what if Nokia sells 10x more phones than Apple, Apple makes the most money. So what if brand x sells more PC's than Apple, Apple makes more money."
  • Reply 67 of 83
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    The problem with this in the long run is that it puts pressure on Google to make any real money from Android. This only encourages competitors who desperately need to get a foothold (like Windows Phone) to follow the same practice putting even more pressure on Google's business model.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    Google is taking the cut from the 30% they get from purchases (less credit card processing fees). The Developers still get their full cut, so I don't see how this is bad for the android platform.



  • Reply 68 of 83
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Ah I gotcha' Prof needed to better explain his context.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    TenoBell, it was meant as a response to the OP, who intimated that the chart demonstrated that Android was going nowhere. I didn't suggest there was a connection. Prof. Peabody (the OP) did whether it was his intent or not.



  • Reply 69 of 83
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by noexpectations View Post


    People can easily dump their contracts: Their ATT iPhone won't work on Verizon so they can sell it on eBay or Gazelle and use that money for the ETF.



    I think that the real issue is that once people finally compared ATT and Verizon, they realized that Verizon costs more, is slower, lacks international coverage, and lacks data/voice multitasking.



    If you seriously think that, you don't understand customers.



    The average customer does NOT know they can sell their iphone (or any phone) for more than they paid for it on a site like ebay.



    On top of that, the average customer is unwilling to pay an ETF, EVEN IF they can make up the money by selling their old phone. The average customer complains if something is $10 more, even if it saves them money in the long run (Just look at the issue companies had with unlimited texting plans when they first came out)



    The average customer also could care less about international coverage, because they don't go overseas all that often and Verizon phones will work fine in most popular parts of canada, Mexico, and the Gulf of Mexico vacation spots. On top of that, if you're traveling overseas, it's MUCH cheaper to get a local Sim, which you can't currently do with ATT phones (legally) unless something changed recently.



    The average customer will stay with a company they hate, with a phone they hate, paying more than they should, until the contract is up because most customers don't even know you can change your plan mid contract.
  • Reply 70 of 83
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    The problem with this in the long run is that it puts pressure on Google to make any real money from Android. This only encourages competitors who desperately need to get a foothold (like Windows Phone) to follow the same practice putting even more pressure on Google's business model.







    And again, how is this a bad thing? Windows phone is a LOT less popular with devs than Android is, and not for marketshare reasons. For their App process, update process, and how hard it is to get payments. Also, Microsoft requires absolute control over the phones, without the benefits (look at how horrible their upgrade process is going) which makes them less attractive to carriers, and doesn't win them points with customers.



    Google IS actively looking at trying to improve the profitability of Android. Having pressure to do well is NOT a bad thing. Apple's revenue model with their store created a lot of pressure for Apple to make sure it did well and made everyone money. Does this make it a bad thing?



    As for carriers, it actually gives them something back for the phones that use their network to download/use apps and browse the web. (not a ton, but something). That means that, even if it's on an insignificant level, those customers provide more revenue for their data usage than an iOS user, which carriers can invest into improving backhaul so that they don't buckle under the strain like Att did with the iPhone.
  • Reply 71 of 83
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post






    Its not a risk. Verizon has no choice in deploying LTE.



    Their upgrade path is VERY risky. By the end of this year, they should have over 200 million people covered with LTE,which puts them far ahead if wimax and approaching the people covered by ATT's 3g/"4g(hspda)"



    That's a ton of Fiber, something that will take years to make back in revenue. They wouldn't do this unless they had highly profitable customers. Also look at how fast they grew out their 3g network compared to ATT/Tmobile. Yes, the tech made it faster to roll out, but it was still really risky for them because it's been under three years since 3G really meant anything for most customers.

    Quote:

    FIOS has noting to do with this conversation about Verizon Wireless and AT&T Mobility. You like to obfuscate the conversation by pulling in other divisions and parts of the larger corporation.



    Fios is very, VERY expensive to roll out. A majority of the financing for this rollout came from Wireless (Which is why he brought it up). Plus the Fiber backhaul will help LTE deployment.
  • Reply 72 of 83
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    And again, how is this a bad thing? Windows phone is a LOT less popular with devs than Android is, and not for marketshare reasons. For their App process, update process, and how hard it is to get payments. Also, Microsoft requires absolute control over the phones, without the benefits (look at how horrible their upgrade process is going) which makes them less attractive to carriers, and doesn't win them points with customers.



    This is all true at the moment. Its possible for MS to get its act together and actually pull Windows Phone into a viable platform. In some ways Windows Phone is in a pretty good position to learn from what both Apple and Android are doing right and cut their own path.



    I agree with MS requiring stringent controls over the phone. This is proving a real problem for Android.



    Quote:

    Google IS actively looking at trying to improve the profitability of Android. Having pressure to do well is NOT a bad thing. Apple's revenue model with their store created a lot of pressure for Apple to make sure it did well and made everyone money. Does this make it a bad thing?



    It depends on what the pressure is and what action the company takes. Apple takes its money upfront, while Google is depending on getting paid on the backend. Essentially Google needs Android users to access more of its ads. Is that good pressure?
  • Reply 73 of 83
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    That's a ton of Fiber, something that will take years to make back in revenue. They wouldn't do this unless they had highly profitable customers. Also look at how fast they grew out their 3g network compared to ATT/Tmobile. Yes, the tech made it faster to roll out, but it was still really risky for them because it's been under three years since 3G really meant anything for most customers.



    This isn't anything different from what every other mobile carrier is doing or will have to do to stay competitive. The bigger risk is in not doing it. Verizon has to be very competitive in its LTE roll out because its current 3G tech has no where else to go. AT&T and T-Mobile both have the upgrade path to kill both Verizon and Sprint in 3G data speed.



    Quote:

    Fios is very, VERY expensive to roll out. A majority of the financing for this rollout came from Wireless (Which is why he brought it up). Plus the Fiber backhaul will help LTE deployment.



    Yes Verizon is being very aggressive with building out its fiber back haul. Still doesn't address the initial question.
  • Reply 74 of 83
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    Yes I know you are going to pull numbers from other parts of Verizon and play your shell games to show that Verizon makes more money than AT&T. Simply looking at the quarterly numbers does not support what you wish to believe.



    From their 2010 annual reports --- just their wireless divisions, no shell games:



    Verizon Wireless made $18.7 billion in operating income last year (page 24).



    http://www22.verizon.com/investor/in...quicklinks.pdf



    AT&T Wireless made $15.2 billion in operating income last year (page 34)



    http://www.att.com/Common/about_us/a...T2010_Full.pdf
  • Reply 75 of 83
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Alright good. Its a $3.5 billion difference.



    Apple is making nearly double the revenue on the iPhone of all other mobile manufacturers combined. Which is a considerably different situation than $3.5 billion difference. In that context of how Apple is making a lot more money than its competitors, Verizon is not making a lot more money than AT&T.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    From their 2010 annual reports --- just their wireless divisions, no shell games:



    Verizon Wireless made $18.7 billion in operating income last year (page 24).



    AT&T Wireless made $15.2 billion in operating income last year (page 34)



  • Reply 76 of 83
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    Alright good. Its a $3.5 billion difference.



    Apple is making nearly double the revenue on the iPhone of all other mobile manufacturers combined. Which is a considerably different situation than $3.5 billion difference. In that context of how Apple is making a lot more money than its competitors, Verizon is not making a lot more money than AT&T.



    Who are you to call $3.5 billion as not a lot of money? That's almost half of Steve Jobs' net worth.
  • Reply 77 of 83
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Keep it in context.



    Between two giant corporations who are making and spending billions every quarter, its not a lot of money.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    Who are you to call $3.5 billion as not a lot of money? That's almost half of Steve Jobs' net worth.



  • Reply 78 of 83
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    Who are you to call $3.5 billion as not a lot of money? That's almost half of Steve Jobs' net worth.



    $10 is a lot of money if you are talking about a vending machine soda.

    $50 is a lot of money id you are talking about a hamburger.

    $410 is a lot of money if you are talking about a corkscrew.

    $62 million is not a lot of money if you are talking about Motorola's profit.



    Can you really not see how the context affects the associated value?
  • Reply 79 of 83
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    Keep it in context.



    Between two giant corporations who are making and spending billions every quarter, its not a lot of money.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    $10 is a lot of money if you are talking about a vending machine soda.

    $50 is a lot of money id you are talking about a hamburger.

    $410 is a lot of money if you are talking about a corkscrew.

    $62 million is not a lot of money if you are talking about Motorola's profit.



    Can you really not see how the context affects the associated value?



    Keeping it in context also means that $3.5 billion is approx. 1/4 of the operating income of AT&T's wireless division.
  • Reply 80 of 83
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,178member
    Touche'
Sign In or Register to comment.