Verizon iPhone 4 accounts for 32% of all US iPhone 4 traffic

Posted:
in iPhone edited January 2014
After just four months on the market, the iPhone 4 on Verizon makes up nearly a third of the U.S. iPhone 4 market, according to one analytics firm.



Mobile analytics firm Localytics published a report on on Thursday charting the growth of the Verizon iPhone 4 since it launched in February, as noted by Brad Reed of Network World. The report compiles data from app usage during the last week of the month to reflect each carrier's market share.



As of July 1, Verizon's share of all U.S. iPhone 4 traffic stands at 32 percent, compared to AT&T's 68 percent share. According to the report, the carrier's presence quickly jumped to a 20 percent share shortly after launch before slowing down to modest gains in the spring. Then, in May and June, Verizon's share of U.S. iPhone 4 app usage experienced a spike in growth, growing from 25.9 percent to 32.3 percent.



The firm speculated that adoption on Verizon may have ramped up ahead of the carrier's July 7 transition away from unlimited data plans. The wireless operator had previously warned that unlimited iPhone plans would only be available for a limited time. A leak last month correctly predicted the July 7 change.







Rival carrier AT&T did away with its unlimited data plans last June, though some subscribers reported having been offered an unlimited plan from the company earlier this year as the Verizon iPhone launch loomed.



Verizon announced in April that it had activated 2.2 million iPhone 4 units less than two months after the device's launch, making it the most successful handset launch in the company's history. By way of comparison, AT&T activated 3.6 million iPhones in the first quarter of this year, though that figure also includes a portion of iPhone 3GS models sold. All told, Apple sold 18.65 million iPhones during that period.







Apple is expected to simultaneously launch the iPhone 5 on both Verizon and AT&T. Various reports have suggested that the next-generation handset will be a dual-mode GSM-CDMA device.



Rumors of the iPhone 5 have picked up steam as of late ahead of an expected fall release. On Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that the next-generation device will be thinner and lighter with an 8-megapixel camera.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 32
    Wow 32% in four months. That was fast! Though these numbers might plateau thanks to the new tiered plans.
  • Reply 2 of 32
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,129member
    I get that the carrier tie-in is more percentage-profitable for Apple but to rob themselves of such a larger customer base? I think Apple have got this very wrong.



    They'd be neck & neck with Android with a more conventional sales strategy & earning loads more. Their original plan failed to account for incumbent carrier lock-in.
  • Reply 3 of 32
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,979member
    Imagine if they could talk and surf?
  • Reply 4 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


    Imagine if they could talk and surf?



    It'd be nice if "we" could, but AT&T's service sucks out here. That's why I have Verizon. If it wasn't for that I might've given AT&T a try if it wasn't for that. Whenever apple implements 4G-LTE in a iPhone, that'll be a problem of the past for us Verizon wireless subscribers. Until then!
  • Reply 5 of 32
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by McDave View Post


    I get that the carrier tie-in is more percentage-profitable for Apple but to rob themselves of such a larger customer base? I think Apple have got this very wrong.



    They'd be neck & neck with Android with a more conventional sales strategy & earning loads more. Their original plan failed to account for incumbent carrier lock-in.



    You're simply not thinking about this clearly.
    • Apple started off with very limited supply, they couldn't have shipped many more early iPhones than they did

    • Almost no other carriers use CDMA, the Verizon iPhone had to be specially designed, tested and built

    • Carrier agreements need to be negotiated, it takes time, and people

    People think that Android grew faster than Apple becuase Apple made a mistake, but that's simply incorrect. Android grew faster because it has a different model, Apple didn't want to license their OS so they could never have grown at the same speed - they had to ramp up manufacturing and negotiate contracts.
  • Reply 6 of 32
    shadashshadash Posts: 470member
    Twelve months ago, there sure were a lot of people saying Apple should/would never release a Verizon iPhone. Apparently those people are now MIA. Now its that Apple should/would never release a cheaper iPhone (a la the iPod Mini/Nano/Shuffle). We'll see.
  • Reply 7 of 32
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Darkstar2007 View Post


    It'd be nice if "we" could, but AT&T's service sucks out here. That's why I have Verizon. If it wasn't for that I might've given AT&T a try if it wasn't for that. Whenever apple implements 4G-LTE in a iPhone, that'll be a problem of the past for us Verizon wireless subscribers. Until then!



    I think AT&T might be in trouble in the next 18-38 months when LTE roll out is complete. They'll have to compete with other US carriers who have put much more effort into network building while AT&T rested on being the sole iPhone provider.
  • Reply 8 of 32
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shadash View Post


    Now its that Apple should/would never release a cheaper iPhone (a la the iPod Mini/Nano/Shuffle). We'll see.



    It depends what you mean by a cheaper iPhone. For starters it's close to certain that Apple wouldn't release an iPhone that feels cheap in your hand. The original Shuffle arguably did, but it wasn't generally viewed as a success and the new shuffle was a complete redesign.



    There's the problem of form-factor vs utility. The Nano was a break-out hit because most people didn't need 80GB of music, and if you only needed 4 it was the perfect device. It's much harder to reduce the form-factor of the iPhone substantially without gimping it. Reduce the screen much and you're left with an iPhone-nano that is a feature phone with no apps or web browsing - I'm not sure how they'd brand it.



    Then there is the question of market. A cheaper iPhone for China is easy for Apple to do because China has a unique CDMA standard so there's no risk of grey market imports damaging their other sales. A cheaper iPhone for America or Europe needs to be strongly differentiated from the existing offering - I'll assume you're talking about this case.



    What to do about the 3GS? The 3GS has supply all set up and plant running. Building a new phone from scratch entails organising more of both, and that comes at a cost. Given those sunk costs It's hard to see how Apple can manufacture something cheaper than the 3GS with the same form factor without making the device feel cheap. This is why many of us feel that the 3GS is likely to remain the cheaper iPhone in the west for another product cycle at least.



    A cheaper iPhone that isn't just a 3GS (or variant) requires Apple to either reduce the form factor and hence utility, reduce the build/material quality and hence luxury or cannibalize existing sales. Which of those do you think they'll opt for, or do you have some other suggestion?
  • Reply 9 of 32
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    I think AT&T might be in trouble in the next 18-38 months when LTE roll out is complete. They'll have to compete with other US carriers who have put much more effort into network building while AT&T rested on being the sole iPhone provider.



    Once iPhone became available on other carriers in the UK there was an exodus away from O2 for pretty much exactly that reason.
  • Reply 10 of 32
    saareksaarek Posts: 1,123member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shadash View Post


    Twelve months ago, there sure were a lot of people saying Apple should/would never release a Verizon iPhone. Apparently those people are now MIA. Now its that Apple should/would never release a cheaper iPhone (a la the iPod Mini/Nano/Shuffle). We'll see.



    I was one of those people, in many respects I stick with the same argument.



    iPhone 4's are hard to get worldwide, supply is tight. All of those Verizon phones could have been GSM handhelds which are used by the rest of the planet.



    Supply would have been less constrained, to assist the American market Apple could have released the iPhone to Sprint and T-Mobile.
  • Reply 11 of 32
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by saarek View Post


    iPhone 4's are hard to get worldwide, supply is tight. All of those Verizon phones could have been GSM handhelds which are used by the rest of the planet.



    What are you basing that on? iPhone-4s have had pretty good availability for a while now in my experience. Which markets still have substantial backlogs?
  • Reply 12 of 32
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    I don't buy these figures. I have no idea of the methodology or where the error occurred, but the results are just not plausible.



    The claim that Verizon had 20% of iPhone 4 traffic the week of Feb 10 - the first week the phone was on sale through Verizon. Yet 5 months later, that number has only reached 32%.



    So we're expected to believe that they sold twice as much in the first week as in the following 5 months? Just doesn't seem plausible.
  • Reply 13 of 32
    msimpsonmsimpson Posts: 452member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by McDave View Post


    I get that the carrier tie-in is more percentage-profitable for Apple but to rob themselves of such a larger customer base? I think Apple have got this very wrong.



    They'd be neck & neck with Android with a more conventional sales strategy & earning loads more. Their original plan failed to account for incumbent carrier lock-in.



    Huh? Are you referring to Apple's original exclusive relationship with AT&T? Apple broke the mold on wireless business with the iPhone. They gave AT&T exclusive access to the iPhone, and in turn Apple got total control over the phone and how it worked. It allowed them to build the whole iTunes/App store ecosystem. Before that the carriers controlled what was on the phones on their networks. Those were cellphones - usually branded with the carriers name. Now we have smartphones, thanks to Apple. Verizon had a chance at the original iPhone, but they did not want to give Apple all the control that AT&T did.



    The Android would not exist in its current form without the change to the wireless industry that Apple brought. You can see where Android has suffered because it started out trying to bring out a smartphone under the old cellphone model. Android is a fine smartphone platform, but the first releases have been scattered and uncoordinated resulting in phones of different vendors and carriers being on different releases with different features and different interfaces. Software updates have also been scattered and inconsistent. Google seems to be making moves to try to bring this under control, and Apple needs to open up more, but the whole wireless as we know it now would not exist if AT&T and Apple had not made their original deal.



    And Apple is so profitable with the iPhone, iPad, and iOS ecosystem they have crafted they don't worry about how many competing smartphones are sold, they care about how large of revenue stream each iPhone user generates over the long-term.
  • Reply 14 of 32
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    I don't buy these figures. I have no idea of the methodology or where the error occurred, but the results are just not plausible.



    The methodology appears to be based on a proprietary App usage tracking system which Localytics supply. I imagine that only a minority of Apps in the marketplace are using this and it's entirely possible that this could result in significant mis-sampling.
  • Reply 15 of 32
    saareksaarek Posts: 1,123member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    What are you basing that on? iPhone-4s have had pretty good availability for a while now in my experience. Which markets still have substantial backlogs?



    Not sure which country you're from, but there is an average of one week wait for an iPhone 4 in my area on all networks.
  • Reply 16 of 32
    obamaobama Posts: 62member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


    Imagine if they could talk and surf?



    Buy two iPhones. If you're an Apple buff you should have plenty of money.
  • Reply 17 of 32
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,112member
    It is fantasy IMO.



    Another similar analytics company, Chitka, has the number pegged closer to 10% (seems a bit low to me but closer to reality). At one point, Chitka tracked this number as high as 20% and then AT&T did something; a $49 iPhone 3G S. Since then, the percentage has been dropping steadily.



    I suspect the $49 iPhone 3G S is a very very hot seller.
  • Reply 18 of 32
    srangersranger Posts: 469member
    This actually makes sense to me. Most people on Verizon who have an iPhone are probably first time iPhone users. There did not appear to be a huge number of people dumping AT&T for Verizon who already had an iPhone. As a result, I think the Verizon customers are playing with their "new Toy" more because it is new to them. After the new wears off most people use their smartphone less...



    Of course this is just an opinion and speculation, but I think it is a reasonable explanation...
  • Reply 19 of 32
    island hermitisland hermit Posts: 6,217member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sranger View Post


    This actually makes sense to me. Most people on Verizon who have an iPhone are probably first time iPhone users. There did not appear to be a huge number of people dumping AT&T for Verizon who already had an iPhone. As a result, I think the Verizon customers are playing with their "new Toy" more because it is new to them. After the new wears off most people use their smartphone less...



    Of course this is just an opinion and speculation, but I think it is a reasonable explanation...



    I second that opinion... especially for that first week on Verizon.



    Everyone got their new toy and went crazy with it in that first week... then they settled into a regular usage pattern followed by a surge when people learned that unlimited data would not be available after a certain date.



    Otherwise... 20% in the first week!?... c'mon, you're pulling my leg...
  • Reply 20 of 32
    cameronjcameronj Posts: 2,357member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post


    It is fantasy IMO.



    Another similar analytics company, Chitka, has the number pegged closer to 10% (seems a bit low to me but closer to reality). At one point, Chitka tracked this number as high as 20% and then AT&T did something; a $49 iPhone 3G S. Since then, the percentage has been dropping steadily.



    I suspect the $49 iPhone 3G S is a very very hot seller.



    Actually that's not true - the Chitka numbers are weird. I watched them, and still do, from the first mention of them here. They VERY steadily climbed up to about 20%, about a month ago. Then one day, it went back to 10%, and has been near there ever since. So something in their methodology changed. It had nothing to do with ATT's launch of the 3GS, your timeframes are all whacked.
Sign In or Register to comment.