The monthly average would be higher though. Most smartphone users are paying a fair amount more a month than $60, and those going for this phone would very likely already be using fairly expensive, internet capable phones like the one I bought for my daughter. I think the average could be closer to $80 a month, when including the internet fees, esp. from Verison, whose fees are high.
If this holds true for the rest of the year, and we see 5 million sales (one analyst is expecting 8 million!), the losses for other carriers, and the gains to ATT would be phenomenal.
I was definitely low-balling it for the sake of showing the effect the iPhone already has had while trying not to appear like I'm fudging the numbers in AT&T/Apple's favor.
The 25% for switchers is also half of what I've been reading and I would bet money that Apple has sold well over a million phones so far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wings
USA Today is reporting that a survey conducted by Interpret of Santa Monica found that 51% of iPhone buyers were switchers to ATT, and this survey says 25%. Wonder who is right. (If either one)
I was definitely low-balling it for the sake of showing the effect the iPhone already has had while trying not to appear like I'm fudging the numbers in AT&T/Apple's favor.
The 25% for switchers is also half of what I've been reading and I would bet money that Apple has sold well over a million phones so far.
Yeah, we really need these people to reconcile their numbers. They are talking to different sources. Each source has numbers from their end of the business, which might be different.
One might be monitoring Apple stores, while the others' numbers might be from ATT stores. Different customers.
I would imagine Apple customers would be more likely to buy their phones at an Apple store, if possible (due to the small number of stores), and the non-Apple people would likely go to ATT's stores.
If I were a board member of Verizon, I would be very upset at management. What we have here is a case of hubris leading to a failure of vision. When Apple approached them, they probably thought 'Who is this upstart demanding these unprecedented terms thinking he knows the cell phone business?' With that attitude, they probably prejudged the proposal and failed to truly listen and imagine the implications of what Jobs was pitching. Nothing closes the mind as much as arrogance.
I think this is dead one as to what happened. Too bad Jobs is often thinking beyond the curve, and saw what others could not. ATT being desperate to rebrand themselves and compete saw this as their silver lining. W/ a strong consumer brand seen as the high-end, ATT gets to come along for the ride. Of course they will be forced to comply w/ Jobs will and I'm sure they will be making changes to their network for the better. Which right now that is the only complaint really, the network.
Well what happens when Jobs influence rubs off, and ATT has fixed the issues in their network and service, and as iPhone prices continue dropping as we know they will in the coming years, there will be nothing to stop them.
If I were a board member of Verizon, I would be very upset at management. What we have here is a case of hubris leading to a failure of vision. When Apple approached them, they probably thought 'Who is this upstart demanding these unprecedented terms thinking he knows the cell phone business?' With that attitude, they probably prejudged the proposal and failed to truly listen and imagine the implications of what Jobs was pitching. Nothing closes the mind as much as arrogance.
If you were on the board of Verizon, you'd probably wait more than a couple weeks after a products release before jumping to any conclusions.
Yeah, we really need these people to reconcile their numbers. They are talking to different sources. Each source has numbers from their end of the business, which might be different.
There are some numbers we can speculate on ourselves. Let's take the 10M iPhones Apple plans to sell in/through 2008.
25% switchers at the $60/month plan is $3.6B over a two year contract. Obviously we double that for 50% switchers. From the one survey it will be Verizon losing the most here.
If we assume that Apple is getting 10% ($6) in monthly returns for each iPhone customer from AT&T, and use the lowest figure of $60/month we see Apple generating an extra $1.4B in that same two year period on top of the revenue from the sale of the iPhone and accessories.
USA Today is reporting that a survey conducted by Interpret of Santa Monica found that 51% of iPhone buyers were switchers to ATT, and this survey says 25%. Wonder who is right. (If either one)
The numbers are probably skewed here in CA since appearances are everything and money is no object.
The firm surveyed 1,000 cellphone users July 6-10.
? 51% of buyers were switching to AT&T from another carrier
51% is alot different that the reported 25%....
Well, I can tell you that a survey of this type is accurate to within 3.1% 19 times out of 20, so that if the 1000 surveyed were representative of the national population, it is highly unlikely that the 25% number is accurate.
However, what is more likely, is that the 1000 surveyed for the 51% outcome were from a specific region of the US that, perhaps, is a little more affluent than average, and so more people were willing to let go of current contracts.
What's the real number? Well, you'd have to design a good survey (and not just do an "exit poll" at one or two locations -- which I suspect is how the 25% and 51% statistics were obtained).
I was month-to-month with Sprint for years at a time. I just started a new 2yr contract a couple months ago because I really needed to replace the old phone, it was starting to go bad. It was somewhat unfortunate that I found myself with extra money when the iPhone was released, but I didn't want to buy into a platform that's still effectively in beta.
If I were a board member of Verizon, I would be very upset at management. What we have here is a case of hubris leading to a failure of vision. When Apple approached them, they probably thought 'Who is this upstart demanding these unprecedented terms thinking he knows the cell phone business?' With that attitude, they probably prejudged the proposal and failed to truly listen and imagine the implications of what Jobs was pitching. Nothing closes the mind as much as arrogance.
Its not just Verizon, though.
The way the cellular industry has worked for AGES is that the carriers have all the power, all the control, and when they shout "JUMP!", the cell phone makers are there to ask "How high?".
The one cell phone maker who tried to go against that was Nokia, a few years back, and they were slapped down very hard for it by the carriers, and saw their worldwide marketshare drop for awhile.
So Apple, coming out of the blue, making all those demands, must've looked very funny to Verizon, given what they were used to. Kind of like the mailroom boy telling the CEO to carry his backpack.
ATT was the only large carrier willing to listen, because, well, they were getting beat up going head-to-head with Verizon, and they were going to lose the #1 spot among US carriers. Sprint's in worse shape now than ATT was then, but their problems have been piling only recently... back when Jobs was looking around for a partner, Sprint wasn't imploding as of yet.
I personally love that Apple may be restoring some balance of power between the carriers and the phone makers. The carriers dictate to the phone makers what phones to make, what features to enable or disable, etc. etc., and of course the decisions are all based on what makes money for the carrier... even if that involves making the phone less good from a consumer point of view. \
The phone makers have never been super-happy with that, because they could probably make better phones without the carriers 'backseat designing' and insisting that certain features be removed or watered-down.
I was month-to-month with Sprint for years at a time. I just started a new 2yr contract a couple months ago because I really needed to replace the old phone, it was starting to go bad. It was somewhat unfortunate that I found myself with extra money when the iPhone was released, but I didn't want to buy into a platform that's still effectively in beta.
Ditto. I think the 'iPhone 2' will be a much better phone, personally. 3G, video recording, MMS, more storage capacity, possibly a lower price point, and all the nagging little problems fixed, most likely.
Of course, I'll still have to see where ATT's network is at then, before I'll even consider switching.
So Apple, coming out of the blue, making all those demands, must've looked very funny to Verizon, given what they were used to. Kind of like the mailroom boy telling the CEO to carry his backpack.
I agree completely. It is easy to say in hindsight, after 6 months of iPhone mania and hype that no one could have expected and then an amazing first two weeks of iPhone release that Verizon is run by idiots. But they were in a dominant position back when Apple approached them and it probably seemed crazy for them to risk setting these new precedents when everything was working well for them with the status quo. With vision and guts they could have gone with the iPhone (imagine the juggernaught they would be) but it certainly did not seem so compelling a year ago.
all the above is music (no pun intended) to SJ's ears, strengthens negotiations with other markets, pisses verizon's board to no end, major halo effect, look to higher stock prices. SJ is on top of the world, those switches won't ever go back, and any that switch from at&t will be low end POWER TO THE APPLE.
So you're ok with APple having all the power, but not a celluar carrier.....care to explain why. I'm sure it was Apple who crippled the bluetooth!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
Its not just Verizon, though.
The way the cellular industry has worked for AGES is that the carriers have all the power, all the control, and when they shout "JUMP!", the cell phone makers are there to ask "How high?".
The one cell phone maker who tried to go against that was Nokia, a few years back, and they were slapped down very hard for it by the carriers, and saw their worldwide marketshare drop for awhile.
So Apple, coming out of the blue, making all those demands, must've looked very funny to Verizon, given what they were used to. Kind of like the mailroom boy telling the CEO to carry his backpack.
ATT was the only large carrier willing to listen, because, well, they were getting beat up going head-to-head with Verizon, and they were going to lose the #1 spot among US carriers. Sprint's in worse shape now than ATT was then, but their problems have been piling only recently... back when Jobs was looking around for a partner, Sprint wasn't imploding as of yet.
I personally love that Apple may be restoring some balance of power between the carriers and the phone makers. The carriers dictate to the phone makers what phones to make, what features to enable or disable, etc. etc., and of course the decisions are all based on what makes money for the carrier... even if that involves making the phone less good from a consumer point of view. \
The phone makers have never been super-happy with that, because they could probably make better phones without the carriers 'backseat designing' and insisting that certain features be removed or watered-down.
So you're ok with APple having all the power, but not a celluar carrier.....care to explain why. I'm sure it was Apple who crippled the bluetooth!
I don't know who crippled the bluetooth... could've been Apple, ATT, or both. \
I'm gonna guess it was Apple, though hopefully for good reasons (security, we haven't finished the file browser yet, etc.), and not reasons like why Verizon does it to most of their phones ("So that we can charge you for picture transfers, muhahahaha!!! ).
And I did not say that Apple should have ALL the power, only that there should be a 'balance' of power between the phone makers and the carriers. Because, the carriers routinely run roughshod over the phone makers, often to the detriment of the consumer.
Read up on it, its actually some pretty fascinating stuff.
I guess I'm just use to using a Cingular smartphone with no restrictions. I didn't see any type of restrictions on Cingular's phones, until the iPhone was introduced. Hell, my phone is even unlocked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
I don't know who crippled the bluetooth... could've been Apple, ATT, or both. \
I'm gonna guess it was Apple, though hopefully for good reasons (security, we haven't finished the file browser yet, etc.), and not reasons like why Verizon does it to most of their phones ("So that we can charge you for picture transfers, muhahahaha!!! ).
And I did not say that Apple should have ALL the power, only that there should be a 'balance' of power between the phone makers and the carriers. Because, the carriers routinely run roughshod over the phone makers, often to the detriment of the consumer.
Read up on it, its actually some pretty fascinating stuff.
Comments
The monthly average would be higher though. Most smartphone users are paying a fair amount more a month than $60, and those going for this phone would very likely already be using fairly expensive, internet capable phones like the one I bought for my daughter. I think the average could be closer to $80 a month, when including the internet fees, esp. from Verison, whose fees are high.
If this holds true for the rest of the year, and we see 5 million sales (one analyst is expecting 8 million!), the losses for other carriers, and the gains to ATT would be phenomenal.
I was definitely low-balling it for the sake of showing the effect the iPhone already has had while trying not to appear like I'm fudging the numbers in AT&T/Apple's favor.
The 25% for switchers is also half of what I've been reading and I would bet money that Apple has sold well over a million phones so far.
USA Today is reporting that a survey conducted by Interpret of Santa Monica found that 51% of iPhone buyers were switchers to ATT, and this survey says 25%. Wonder who is right. (If either one)
Of people surveyed:
? 30% are new to Apple products
? 40% have never owned an iPod
? 51% came from other carriers (25% from Verizon)
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireles...2-iphone_N.htm
I was definitely low-balling it for the sake of showing the effect the iPhone already has had while trying not to appear like I'm fudging the numbers in AT&T/Apple's favor.
The 25% for switchers is also half of what I've been reading and I would bet money that Apple has sold well over a million phones so far.
Of people surveyed:
? 30% are new to Apple products
? 40% have never owned an iPod
? 51% came from other carriers (25% from Verizon)
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireles...2-iphone_N.htm
Yeah, we really need these people to reconcile their numbers. They are talking to different sources. Each source has numbers from their end of the business, which might be different.
One might be monitoring Apple stores, while the others' numbers might be from ATT stores. Different customers.
I would imagine Apple customers would be more likely to buy their phones at an Apple store, if possible (due to the small number of stores), and the non-Apple people would likely go to ATT's stores.
If I were a board member of Verizon, I would be very upset at management. What we have here is a case of hubris leading to a failure of vision. When Apple approached them, they probably thought 'Who is this upstart demanding these unprecedented terms thinking he knows the cell phone business?' With that attitude, they probably prejudged the proposal and failed to truly listen and imagine the implications of what Jobs was pitching. Nothing closes the mind as much as arrogance.
I think this is dead one as to what happened. Too bad Jobs is often thinking beyond the curve, and saw what others could not. ATT being desperate to rebrand themselves and compete saw this as their silver lining. W/ a strong consumer brand seen as the high-end, ATT gets to come along for the ride. Of course they will be forced to comply w/ Jobs will and I'm sure they will be making changes to their network for the better. Which right now that is the only complaint really, the network.
Well what happens when Jobs influence rubs off, and ATT has fixed the issues in their network and service, and as iPhone prices continue dropping as we know they will in the coming years, there will be nothing to stop them.
If I were a board member of Verizon, I would be very upset at management. What we have here is a case of hubris leading to a failure of vision. When Apple approached them, they probably thought 'Who is this upstart demanding these unprecedented terms thinking he knows the cell phone business?' With that attitude, they probably prejudged the proposal and failed to truly listen and imagine the implications of what Jobs was pitching. Nothing closes the mind as much as arrogance.
If you were on the board of Verizon, you'd probably wait more than a couple weeks after a products release before jumping to any conclusions.
Yeah, we really need these people to reconcile their numbers. They are talking to different sources. Each source has numbers from their end of the business, which might be different.
There are some numbers we can speculate on ourselves. Let's take the 10M iPhones Apple plans to sell in/through 2008.
25% switchers at the $60/month plan is $3.6B over a two year contract. Obviously we double that for 50% switchers. From the one survey it will be Verizon losing the most here.
If we assume that Apple is getting 10% ($6) in monthly returns for each iPhone customer from AT&T, and use the lowest figure of $60/month we see Apple generating an extra $1.4B in that same two year period on top of the revenue from the sale of the iPhone and accessories.
USA Today is reporting that a survey conducted by Interpret of Santa Monica found that 51% of iPhone buyers were switchers to ATT, and this survey says 25%. Wonder who is right. (If either one)
The numbers are probably skewed here in CA since appearances are everything and money is no object.
The firm surveyed 1,000 cellphone users July 6-10.
? 51% of buyers were switching to AT&T from another carrier
51% is alot different that the reported 25%....
Well, I can tell you that a survey of this type is accurate to within 3.1% 19 times out of 20, so that if the 1000 surveyed were representative of the national population, it is highly unlikely that the 25% number is accurate.
However, what is more likely, is that the 1000 surveyed for the 51% outcome were from a specific region of the US that, perhaps, is a little more affluent than average, and so more people were willing to let go of current contracts.
What's the real number? Well, you'd have to design a good survey (and not just do an "exit poll" at one or two locations -- which I suspect is how the 25% and 51% statistics were obtained).
The numbers are probably skewed here in CA since appearances are everything and money is no object.
Exactly what I was thinking!
An intelligent well rounded review by Shaw. I guess he's been reading these forums lately.
Actually, the USA Today survey sort of differs completely from Wu. The article states that half of iPhone buyers are new to at&t.
(Looks like I was too late; but I think AI should report this too, or at least acknowledge it in their article).
-=|Mgkwho
If I were a board member of Verizon, I would be very upset at management. What we have here is a case of hubris leading to a failure of vision. When Apple approached them, they probably thought 'Who is this upstart demanding these unprecedented terms thinking he knows the cell phone business?' With that attitude, they probably prejudged the proposal and failed to truly listen and imagine the implications of what Jobs was pitching. Nothing closes the mind as much as arrogance.
Its not just Verizon, though.
The way the cellular industry has worked for AGES is that the carriers have all the power, all the control, and when they shout "JUMP!", the cell phone makers are there to ask "How high?".
The one cell phone maker who tried to go against that was Nokia, a few years back, and they were slapped down very hard for it by the carriers, and saw their worldwide marketshare drop for awhile.
So Apple, coming out of the blue, making all those demands, must've looked very funny to Verizon, given what they were used to. Kind of like the mailroom boy telling the CEO to carry his backpack.
ATT was the only large carrier willing to listen, because, well, they were getting beat up going head-to-head with Verizon, and they were going to lose the #1 spot among US carriers. Sprint's in worse shape now than ATT was then, but their problems have been piling only recently... back when Jobs was looking around for a partner, Sprint wasn't imploding as of yet.
I personally love that Apple may be restoring some balance of power between the carriers and the phone makers. The carriers dictate to the phone makers what phones to make, what features to enable or disable, etc. etc., and of course the decisions are all based on what makes money for the carrier... even if that involves making the phone less good from a consumer point of view.
The phone makers have never been super-happy with that, because they could probably make better phones without the carriers 'backseat designing' and insisting that certain features be removed or watered-down.
.
I was month-to-month with Sprint for years at a time. I just started a new 2yr contract a couple months ago because I really needed to replace the old phone, it was starting to go bad. It was somewhat unfortunate that I found myself with extra money when the iPhone was released, but I didn't want to buy into a platform that's still effectively in beta.
Ditto. I think the 'iPhone 2' will be a much better phone, personally. 3G, video recording, MMS, more storage capacity, possibly a lower price point, and all the nagging little problems fixed, most likely.
Of course, I'll still have to see where ATT's network is at then, before I'll even consider switching.
.
So Apple, coming out of the blue, making all those demands, must've looked very funny to Verizon, given what they were used to. Kind of like the mailroom boy telling the CEO to carry his backpack.
I agree completely. It is easy to say in hindsight, after 6 months of iPhone mania and hype that no one could have expected and then an amazing first two weeks of iPhone release that Verizon is run by idiots. But they were in a dominant position back when Apple approached them and it probably seemed crazy for them to risk setting these new precedents when everything was working well for them with the status quo. With vision and guts they could have gone with the iPhone (imagine the juggernaught they would be) but it certainly did not seem so compelling a year ago.
Its not just Verizon, though.
The way the cellular industry has worked for AGES is that the carriers have all the power, all the control, and when they shout "JUMP!", the cell phone makers are there to ask "How high?".
The one cell phone maker who tried to go against that was Nokia, a few years back, and they were slapped down very hard for it by the carriers, and saw their worldwide marketshare drop for awhile.
So Apple, coming out of the blue, making all those demands, must've looked very funny to Verizon, given what they were used to. Kind of like the mailroom boy telling the CEO to carry his backpack.
ATT was the only large carrier willing to listen, because, well, they were getting beat up going head-to-head with Verizon, and they were going to lose the #1 spot among US carriers. Sprint's in worse shape now than ATT was then, but their problems have been piling only recently... back when Jobs was looking around for a partner, Sprint wasn't imploding as of yet.
I personally love that Apple may be restoring some balance of power between the carriers and the phone makers. The carriers dictate to the phone makers what phones to make, what features to enable or disable, etc. etc., and of course the decisions are all based on what makes money for the carrier... even if that involves making the phone less good from a consumer point of view.
The phone makers have never been super-happy with that, because they could probably make better phones without the carriers 'backseat designing' and insisting that certain features be removed or watered-down.
.
So you're ok with APple having all the power, but not a celluar carrier.....care to explain why. I'm sure it was Apple who crippled the bluetooth!
I don't know who crippled the bluetooth... could've been Apple, ATT, or both.
I'm gonna guess it was Apple, though hopefully for good reasons (security, we haven't finished the file browser yet, etc.), and not reasons like why Verizon does it to most of their phones ("So that we can charge you for picture transfers, muhahahaha!!!
And I did not say that Apple should have ALL the power, only that there should be a 'balance' of power between the phone makers and the carriers. Because, the carriers routinely run roughshod over the phone makers, often to the detriment of the consumer.
Read up on it, its actually some pretty fascinating stuff.
.
... those switchers won't ever go back,
Maybe, depending on how the ATT network performs.
.
I don't know who crippled the bluetooth... could've been Apple, ATT, or both.
I'm gonna guess it was Apple, though hopefully for good reasons (security, we haven't finished the file browser yet, etc.), and not reasons like why Verizon does it to most of their phones ("So that we can charge you for picture transfers, muhahahaha!!!
And I did not say that Apple should have ALL the power, only that there should be a 'balance' of power between the phone makers and the carriers. Because, the carriers routinely run roughshod over the phone makers, often to the detriment of the consumer.
Read up on it, its actually some pretty fascinating stuff.
.