Well yes. We are trying to predict the future here. Even a proponent of the pessimistic viewpoint - not meeting the projected unit sales - must use "hopefully". No one can predict the future with such assuredness. We'd be more confident if we had Apple's market research and market strategy in hand, but alas we don't.
The "proponents of the pessimistic viewpoint" are fully invested in the iPhone not doing well. The idea is to shame Apple into offering features on the phone that they feel Apple should have offered in the first place. The market is to punish Apple which will subsequently scramble to add subsequent features. They seem to fully believe this viewpoint no matter the information to the contrary. So they don't speak in maybe and possibly only definitely.
Quote:
A 2-year deal with an option to go to 5-years is something new to me. Anyways, if at the end of 2-years, do you think Apple will still decide to have an exclusive carrier? The answer could very well be yes.
I never really believed that 5 year deal rumor. Five years is a long time in technology years. The way the mobile phone market runs is completely counter to Apple's business culture and I doubt Apple really approves of their business practice. The way the mobile phone market works is more akin to Microsoft's business model. I think Apple is using these partners as a starting foundation for the iPhone and has a broader vision beyond them.
Quote:
All this including the unlimited data for approximately 23 pounds or 46 dollars. That's a good deal. Wouldn't mind seeing that in the USA at all.
I think its a good deal for certain situations. My mobile is my primary phone. I would go over this limit quickly in the long run cost me more than a contract plan.
The "proponents of the pessimistic viewpoint" are fully invested in the iPhone not doing well. The idea is to shame Apple into offering features on the phone that they feel Apple should have offered in the first place. The market is to punish Apple which will subsequently scramble to add subsequent features. They seem to fully believe this viewpoint no matter the information to the contrary.
Sigh. Big boys don't cry, Teno.
First, it's laughable that guys like Mel or myself want the iPhone to do poorly, considering that we're stockholders.
Secondly, I know you're constantly upset by the fact that very few ppl buy into your "Everything's GREAT in Europe" spin, but reality is reality, and its been contradicting you, so you really can't expect much popular support. But I guess you can whine about the lack of same.
Apple goofed on the Euro iPhone's feature set, and in conjunction with the poor pricing, the result has been a lackluster European launnch. What more needs be said? \
If you do not like said reality, I am sorry, but there is little I can do to change it. But Apple can, by addressing the issues in question (price, feature set).
Ironically, a little 'tough love' here actually makes Apple stronger... the sooner they react, the more competitive they'll be. Its actually the notion that everything's 'hunky dory' as is that's a threat to Apple's well-being.
So Teno, do you work for Microsoft or Nokia? Just kidding.
If you've been listening to our Euro friends, there doesn't seem to be any 'perhaps' about it.
Quote:
An iPhone nano is all but guaranteed.
Why? Because they made an iPOD Nano? Please. Two different markets, two different devices. Is an iMac Nano a sure thing then? Nothing is guaranteed.
Apple just doesn't appear to be into making many different models of the iPhone... for example, we won't be getting a 3G iPhone until the Asian launch, i.e. when it becomes absolutely necessary.
Quote:
Well, opinions is all we have in absense of data. My bet is that Apple will have sold 2 to 2.5m units in Q4 07. If that doesn't happen, I'd better sell the stock now, because it'll drop a lot.
I'd say more like slightly under 2m in Q4, with the lion's share of sales coming from the US, of course.
Quote:
Well, Apple has setup the iPhone to be very iPod-ish with the way it positions the product. It's a luxury item where sales pickup during the holiday season
It's not really a luxury item. It may seem like that compared to cheap flip phones, but when you compare it to its true competition, smartphones from the likes of RIM, Nokia, Palm, etc., it's retail price is actually quite mainstream.
The problem is that Apple and ATT don't subsidize the price to the customer, while other phone makers do. Even then though, the iPhone isn't priced particularly out of line with many other smartphones, at least in the US.
Quote:
We'll know how serious Apple is with the iPhone. A storage increase is possible in Q1 08. It'll be interesting to see if they release a 16 GB iPhone for $499 in the next couple of months.
A storage increase would be nice, but is a minor hardware revision, really, and wouldn't address the larger hardware-related issues (3G, true GPS).
Quote:
And everyone and their brother thinks a 3G version will come in Summer 08.
Pretty much what I already said... 3G iPhone in mid-to-late '08, for the Asian launch.
Quote:
I'm not sold on churn as being an indicator of good service. It's more a byproduct of a level playing field of equally bad or good players.
That really doesn't make any sense.
Quote:
Customer loyalty, I buy into that, but I think it is at best mediocre in the wireless business. The satisfaction rates are at best mediocre.
Satisfaction rates overall are mediocre, but that does not mean that all carriers are the same. For example, we see people leaving Sprint at double the percentage rate that they are leaving Verizon, nationally. If Sprint and Verizon were equally mediocre, on average, you'd expect those rates to be much closer.
The only counter-argument I've ever heard to the above fact is that Verizon's marketing is somehow far superior to Sprint's, and it may be, but I find it humorous that anyone would think that ads alone could convince most ppl to stay with a service that does not work for them.
Quote:
I was with Sprint for several years and had no problem leaving. I'm on Verizon now, and I'll have no problem leaving it too.
The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it only describes the experience of that one person, not the market as a whole.
Quote:
The trade is simple. Apple could have sold into a larger market by releasing the iPhone on more carriers, but with less share of the service revenue; or, go with one carrier and a larger share of the revenue. They went with the latter. Branding (niche and exclusive status), what you've said about partnering, whatever, that sounds like a happy choice to me.
It is a 'happy choice' in the short term, while Apple's trying to get the iPhone off the ground. But in the medium- or long-term, going single carrier holds iPhone sales back.
Quote:
Really? I figure by price alone it's in a niche. In the USA, it's 400 dollars. In the UK it's 270 pounds.
Honestly, in the US its not that expensive at all for a smartphone. The UK is different though, with fiercer competition.
Quote:
You don't think that is by choice? A happy choice?
LOL. 'Happy Choice' sounds like a chain of Chinese food restaurants.
Anyways, in the short-term its a good trade-off, in the longer term, its definitely not.
Quote:
A 2-year deal with an option to go to 5-years is something new to me. Anyways, if at the end of 2-years, do you think Apple will still decide to have an exclusive carrier? The answer could very well be yes.
These articles have already been pointed out. The thought was that Orange back pedaled after the first months sales were 70,000. The article I posted quotes Orange CEO did project 50 to 100 from the beginning but of course they hope it would be 100.
The precise quote from the Orange CEO appears to be as follows:
Didier Lombard, chief executive of Orange, made the comments Tuesday during an interview with Europe 1 radio. He said his firm's sales target "is a little under 100,000" units sold between Wednesday evening -- when the Apple handset will make its debut in France -- and December 31st.
How that got spun into "50 to 100,000" is beyond me, but I guess if I missed my sales goal, I'd try to spin too.
In any case, you seemed to think it important to point out that you had an article from Nov 28th pointing out the spin goal. I merely pointed out that even earlier articles quoted the 100,000 figure, not the spin number.
Quote:
This was mostly a goal to earn bragging rights
There's a lot of different ways to interpret it, actually.
Quote:
Being in NYC call reception between them is not a huge differentiating factor.
NYC is far from the entire country. Though NYC residents sometimes forget that.
Quote:
But they all still have pros and cons which pretty much equals them out.
If that were true, then churn/customer loyalty rates between carriers would be largely the same. But they're not, they vary widely actually.
Quote:
I don't think so. The mobile phone co's are going to invest the most money and infrastructure in areas where people have the most money. Namely New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago. Those are the areas where Apple targets its stores, its computers, and the iPhone.
The combined population of the areas you mention is less than 10% of the country. In addition, ATT isn't even that good in some of those areas. Its obvious that the single carrier strategy is more about getting the iPhone established, rather than allowing consumers to select the best carrier in their area. Which holds iPhone sales back. Once the iPhone is established, carrier exclusivity becomes a ball-and-chain.
Thus, I'm quite confident that Apple's exclusivity deal with ATT won't run the full optional five years. That'd be silly, especially considering that competitors would be free to sell their 'iPhone clones' to the entire US market, while Apple would be stuck selling to the 27% or so of the market that ATT controls.
Just like the USA is not the entire world. Though USA residents sometimes forget that.
I actually agree with that... Americans are indeed very "USA-centric". Though in our defense, its a very big country, with a lot going on. If we had a Euro-type setup, i.e. many smaller nations packed side-by-side, I'm sure we'd be different.
I wouldn't complain too much. After all, without us, you'd never get any new episodes of Jerry Springer, which you Brits seem so addicted to.
I actually agree with that... Americans are indeed very "USA-centric". Though in our defense, its a very big country, with a lot going on. If we had a Euro-type setup, i.e. many smaller nations packed side-by-side, I'm sure we'd be different.
I wouldn't complain too much. After all, without us, you'd never get any new episodes of Jerry Springer, which you Brits seem so addicted to.
I wouldn't complain too much. After all, without us, you'd never get any new episodes of[I
Jerry Springer[/I], which you Brits seem so addicted to.
I'm not sure it's been on TV here for years actually though we did turn it into a satirical musical which managed to upset fundie Christians. That was a delicious idea. Well done Stewart Lee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Europeans aren't Euro-centric?
That's news.
By comparison, not really, and I say that as someone who almost went insane living in Pensylvania for months having to put up with US TV News and newspapers that seemed to be missing the international news section.
Secondly, I know you're constantly upset by the fact that very few ppl buy into your "Everything's GREAT in Europe" spin, but reality is reality, and its been contradicting you, so you really can't expect much popular support. But I guess you can whine about the lack of same.
Not upset at all I just don't agree. I don't see the majority of people agreeing with you. Most seem to take a wait and see approach. From the evidence I see the iPhone is about right in line with most other mobile phone sales at a higher price. Not exceptionally better but not poor either.
Quote:
Apple goofed on the Euro iPhone's feature set, and in conjunction with the poor pricing, the result has been a lackluster European launnch. What more needs be said?
This is based on your narrow definition of poor sales. Looking at it from newly signed subscribers and increased profit point of view (which is the primary reason for all of this) iPhone sales are fine.
Quote:
Ironically, a little 'tough love' here actually makes Apple stronger... the sooner they react, the more competitive they'll be. Its actually the notion that everything's 'hunky dory' as is that's a threat to Apple's well-being.
No one is saying everything is hunky dory. Just because Apple has built incredible attention around the iPhone does not mean they can rest they must continue to innovate. During the US launch Jobs said they were already working on the next iPhone.
But if you really feel "tough love" from some unknown people in an anonymous internet forum will sway a billion dollar company with thousands of smart employees. I won't try to break that delusion.
Quote:
How that got spun into "50 to 100,000" is beyond me, but I guess if I missed my sales goal, I'd try to spin too.
The 50 to 100 spin is what Lombard told CNN/Money during the France launch.
Orange CEO Didier Lombard was bullish on the prospects of the iPhone, saying earlier in the week that they were targeting sales of between 50,000 and 100,000 by the end of the year.
Perhaps you can subscribe to the conspiracy that Lombard knew they wouldn't hit 100 so he purposefully planted the 50 to 100 story, so that when they actually did not hit 100 in 4 weeks, he had a convenient spin story all set up. That way this all clearly shows iPhone sales suck, Lombard, Jobs and Teno are all spin masters. I think that makes perfect sense in some reality other than the current one.
Quote:
NYC is far from the entire country. Though NYC residents sometimes forget that.
The same goes for your example as well, its not the case in many places around the US. My example could be applied to most any major metropolitan areas around the country.
Quote:
If that were true, then churn/customer loyalty rates between carriers would be largely the same. But they're not, they vary widely actually.
You keep picking around the notion of churn rates without giving any real information about it. ATT is said to have higher churn than Verizon but remains larger customer base than Verizon. Which means ATT looses more but also gains more. In the end what does it really mean?
Quote:
The combined population of the areas you mention is less than 10% of the country. In addition, ATT isn't even that good in some of those areas.
They are smaller in raw population numbers. But these areas have much higher income, education, and job averages than most of the rest of the country. The iPhone will sell much better in San Francisco than some rural area in North Carolina. Or just about any rural area anywhere.
I've used my iPhone in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, and Atlanta. ATT coverage is a little better in some than others but it mostly works fine in all of them.
If you've been listening to our Euro friends, there doesn't seem to be any 'perhaps' about it
He's saying the perhaps is based on what Apple and their partners want. Is Apple selling the number of phones they want and making the amount of profit they want. Are Apple's partners gaining the amount of new subscribers that they want. Its not based on some arbitrary sales numbers you feel would make the iPhone a success.
He's saying the perhaps is based on what Apple and their partners want.
Since you are not him, and his response was a one word "Perhaps" with no explanation attached, I'm going to say that you're unqualified to know what he really meant, and ignore your response here. Thanks.
Nah. If you weren't upset, you wouldn't be taking the regular sniffy cheapshots you do at me, Mel, Aegis, and anyone else who disagrees with you.
Buck up Teno... being wrong isn't the end of the world, y'know. You'll get other stuff right.
Quote:
This is based on your narrow definition of poor sales.
Sure. Like setting a goal of "slightly under 100,000 iPhones" in France, and missing it by nearly 30%. Or the unofficial reports out of the UK that show O2 missing its projections by large amounts.
Yep, not meeting sales goals is certainly a "narrow definition" all right.
Quote:
No one is saying everything is hunky dory.
Actually, you have been, by spinning non-stop about the iPhone even before its US launch. It's been quite something to see.
Quote:
Just because Apple has built incredible attention around the iPhone does not mean they can rest they must continue to innovate. During the US launch Jobs said they were already working on the next iPhone.
We actually agree here. But the problem is, where is the next iPhone? They need it ASAP, not mid-to-late '08.
Quote:
But if you really feel "tough love" from some unknown people in an anonymous internet forum will sway a billion dollar company with thousands of smart employees. I won't try to break that delusion.
I dunno... I think ppl were saying the very same thing right before Jobs decided to cough up the $100 credit to early iPhone adopters. Apparently what we think does matter, at least a little bit. And even if it didn't, I wouldn't have a problem telling it like it is, rather than spinning that Apple is infallible at the drop of a hat.
Quote:
The 50 to 100 spin is what Lombard told CNN/Money during the France launch.
And yet we have direct quotes from reputable news sources on the very day he said it that have him setting a goal of "slightly under 100,000" iPhones sold. Hey, his words, not mine.
If you don't like it, take it up with Reuters and all the others, not me.
Quote:
The same goes for your example as well, its not the case in many places around the US. My example could be applied to most any major metropolitan areas around the country.
You want to think so, but it really can't be. In fact, looking at the latest Consumer Reports and JD Powers surveys, ATT consistently lost to both Verizon and even T-Mobile, both by region (JD Powers) and in most of the large metropolitan areas surveyed (Consumer Reports).
All carriers are not the same. Why should they be? Their native networks are not the same, the technologies used are not always the same, and roaming agreements only go so far.
Quote:
You keep picking around the notion of churn rates without giving any real information about it.
Sigh. Teno, you argue so much on wireless issues that I sometimes forget that you really don't know much about them. To break it down:
Churn rates vary quarter to quarter, but Verizon's churn is usually close to 1%, which means that about 1% of their customers leave every month, which is a very low rate in the wireless industry.
ATT's churn has been averaging around 1.6% in recent months, overall. But ATT sometimes likes to give the postpaid-only number, which is lower (like around 1.3-1.4%), since that takes the high-churn prepaid customers out of the equation. Still, if you measured Verizon's churn the same way, it'd come out around 0.9%.
Why is that a big deal? Well, because with carriers the size of ATT and Verizon, the difference between a 1.4% churn rate and 0.9% is approximately one million more customers leaving you, every quarter.
Going on with the major carriers, Alltel's churn is quite similar to ATT's.
Sprint and T-Mobile have churn numbers in the 2 to 3% range, i.e. very bad. T-Mobile actually has the best customer service in the industry, and is good in metro areas, but they just don't have very good coverage. Outside of metro areas or major highways, you're more likely to have poor or no service with them, plus they have almost no 3G deployed as of yet.
Sprint on the other hand, is having major network problems, and their customer service is legendarily horrible. Their churn has been getting worse recently, and they're having a hard time attracting new customers, to the point where their number of postpaid customers is actually shrinking.
Not "said". They actually do have a higher churn rate than Verizon, by a significant margin. That's simply the stats reported by ATT and Verizon, quarter after quarter. Unless you'd care to try to spin that too? lol
Quote:
but [ATT] remains larger customer base than Verizon. Which means ATT looses more but also gains more. In the end what does it really mean?
ATT got their larger customer base via large acquisitions. For example, Cingular bought the old ATT Wireless for $41 billion back in 2004, which brought 21 million more customers on board (the resulting company just recently got rebranded 'ATT Mobility'... yeah, I know, confusing).
Recently they just bought Dobson, which will give them nearly 2 million more customers.
The funny thing is, even with their huge acquisitions, they're barely keeping ahead of Verizon. Back when the ATT-Cingular merger happened (late '04), the combined company had roughly 5.5 million more customers than Verizon. That lead dwindled to around 2 to 2.5 million customers in recent quarters, largely on the strength of Verizon's better churn rate/better customer retention.
It's not that Verizon is great everywhere... no one is (which is an argument against carrier exclusivity). But they do seem to be good in more areas than ATT is, based on national surveys and customer loyalty statistics.
However, the point would not be to replace ATT with Verizon. Rather it would be to have the iPhone available to both (and to T-Mobile, Sprint, Alltel, US Cellular, etc), so that any customer, anywhere, could get an iPhone and still pick the best carrier for their area and needs.
Simple, n'est pas?
Quote:
They are smaller in raw population numbers. But these areas have much higher income, education, and job averages than most of the rest of the country. The iPhone will sell much better in San Francisco than some rural area in North Carolina. Or just about any rural area anywhere.
For how long do you think Apple can maintain a strong sales pace by selling to only a relatively small slice of the population? Eventually all the big-city yuppies who care enough to want one will have one already, and again, that's only going to be in the particular big cities where ATT service is actually good. Gotta love those 30-day return policies that wireless carriers have.
It's kind of like opening an indie film in New York and LA only... fine for opening weekend and maybe a bit beyond, but you best get that thing on a whole lot more screens ASAP if you want to keep doing any real business.
Finally, don't count out North Carolina. Raleigh-Durham is a great area.
Quote:
I've used my iPhone in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, and Atlanta. ATT coverage is a little better in some than others but it mostly works fine in all of them.
Tell that to my brother... he lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, but recently dumped ATT for Verizon, because he couldn't stand the inconsistent call quality with ATT. I guess your anecdotes cancel one another out. \
The fact is, Teno, the US is a huge area to cover geographically, even if you were to concentrate primarily on the more densely-populated areas and major highways. The big carriers spend around $6 billion per year on their networks alone and STILL can't provide good coverage everywhere. So in the face of that enormous challenge, why would you assume that all carriers are good almost everywhere?
Just doesn't make sense, especially in light of the low satisfaction scores that are pervasive within the industry, as THT pointed out. It's not that all carriers suck (they don't), but simply that its really tough to meet consumer expectations, which are for wireless to be landline quality and landline reliability, EVERYWHERE, in a very vast country.
Nah. If you weren't upset, you wouldn't be taking the regular sniffy cheapshots you do at me, Mel, Aegis, and anyone else who disagrees with you.
Actually it amazes me how we can look at the same information and see completely different results. All you guys want to see in the data is failure with little room for how it could be success.
Quote:
Yep, not meeting sales goals is certainly a "narrow definition" all right.
Not meeting its sales projections does not automatically mean failure. None of the news reports about Orange has called its iPhone sales a failure.
Quote:
And yet we have direct quotes from reputable news sources on the very day he said it that have him setting a goal of "slightly under 100,000" iPhones sold. Hey, his words, not mine.
Between 50 and 100 of course he hoped for 100. I don't see what the big deal is.
Quote:
I dunno... I think ppl were saying the very same thing right before Jobs decided to cough up the $100 credit to early iPhone adopters. Apparently what we think does matter, at least a little bit.
If it were only the people on internet chat boards that complained would Apple have given the credit?
Quote:
Why is that a big deal? Well, because with carriers the size of ATT and Verizon, the difference between a 1.4% churn rate and 0.9% is approximately one million more customers leaving you, every quarter.
OK I see what you are saying. But how does this compare to the number of customers they add each quarter? All of ATT new customers are not through acquisitions.
Quote:
ATT got their larger customer base via large acquisitions.
As though Verizon hasn't played the acquisition for growth game.
Verizon started from the Bell Atlantic and NYNEX merger to form Bell Atlantic Corporation and grew through acquisitions of:
-General Telephone and Electronics (GTE)
-The Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania
-New Jersey Bell Telephone Company
-The Diamond State Telephone Company
-The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company
-The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Maryland
-The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia
-The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of West Virginia
-Bell Atlantic—Delaware, Inc.
-Bell Atlantic—Maryland, Inc.
-Bell Atlantic—New Jersey, Inc.
-Bell Atlantic—Pennsylvania, Inc.
-Bell Atlantic—Virginia, Inc.
-Bell Atlantic—Washington, D.C., Inc.
-Bell Atlantic—West Virginia, In
Verizon's latest acquisitions were of Key Communications - West Virginia Wireless, Ramcell in Oregon and Kentucky, and Rural Cellular Unicel.
Not upset at all I just don't agree. I don't see the majority of people agreeing with you. Most seem to take a wait and see approach. From the evidence I see the iPhone is about right in line with most other mobile phone sales at a higher price. Not exceptionally better but not poor either.
That isn't true as we've proven already with N95 sales figures and Viewty figures for Europe. USA is doing better but Apple have no real competition there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
This is based on your narrow definition of poor sales. Looking at it from newly signed subscribers and increased profit point of view (which is the primary reason for all of this) iPhone sales are fine.
But that's not how Jobs framed success when announcing the iPhone. He announced it as 1% marketshare, not profit, not new subscribers. It's just as well US sales are doing well as they'll not get there with European sales.
Actually it amazes me how we can look at the same information and see completely different results. All you guys want to see in the data is failure with little room for how it could be success.
I guess that's what happens when you miss sales goals. Silly us.
Quote:
Not meeting its sales projections does not automatically mean failure. None of the news reports about Orange has called its iPhone sales a failure.
Long-term, its not a failure. Short-term, yeah, it kinda is. Man up and face it... I'm sure Apple is.
Quote:
Between 50 and 100 of course he hoped for 100. I don't see what the big deal is.
His actual quote was "slightly under 100,000", a goal which they missed by a substantial margin. But this has been explained to you already, so I guess you're being willfully obtuse here.
Quote:
If it were only the people on internet chat boards that complained would Apple have given the credit?
Obviously, all the sites and all the ppl who emailed Apple and Jobs played a role. I think the more important question is, if everyone had just knuckled under and went "Apple knows best", would they have given the credit? Hell no. \
Quote:
OK I see what you are saying.
Wow, finally.
Quote:
But how does this compare to the number of customers they add each quarter? All of ATT new customers are not through acquisitions.
Net adds per quarter for ATT tend to be around 4 to 4.5 million customers. They lose around 3 million customers a quarter, for net adds of 1 to 1.5 million, on average. Holiday quarters are better.
Do you start to see how churn rates are actually a pretty big deal? \
Quote:
As though Verizon hasn't played the acquisition for growth game.
Verizon started from the Bell Atlantic and NYNEX merger to form Bell Atlantic Corporation and grew through acquisitions of:
-General Telephone and Electronics (GTE)
-The Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania
-New Jersey Bell Telephone Company
-The Diamond State Telephone Company
-The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company
-The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Maryland
-The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia
-The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of West Virginia
-Bell Atlantic—Delaware, Inc.
-Bell Atlantic—Maryland, Inc.
-Bell Atlantic—New Jersey, Inc.
-Bell Atlantic—Pennsylvania, Inc.
-Bell Atlantic—Virginia, Inc.
-Bell Atlantic—Washington, D.C., Inc.
-Bell Atlantic—West Virginia, In
Verizon's latest acquisitions were of Key Communications - West Virginia Wireless, Ramcell in Oregon and Kentucky, and Rural Cellular Unicel.
Verizon's acquistions after its formation have been small potatoes, certainly nothing on the scope of Cingular's acquisition of 21 million ATTW customers.
There was of course the 'beeg' merger back in 2000, the one that actually FORMED Verizon (which is most of the companies and assets you list, actually), but since then their growth has primarily been 'organic', from net adding more customers than anyone else.
ATT can't say the same, they've definitely been acquisition-fueled, i.e. they BUY their customers in large part. Which is a big part of why they were particularly desperate to do the iPhone deal with Apple, actually.
But hey, don't take my word for it, look it up. You'll find that Verizon has out-net-added ATT by at least 3 million customers since the ATTW-Cingular merger of late '04. And they were doing it before the merger too, only I'm unsure of by exactly how much off the top of my head.
It's good that you're trying to catch up on the wireless history though.
Finally, don't count out North Carolina. Raleigh-Durham is a great area..
Nothing against N.C. Just simple fact that people don't make as much money there as people in the major cities.
Quote:
Tell that to my brother... he lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, but recently dumped ATT for Verizon, because he couldn't stand the inconsistent call quality with ATT. I guess your anecdotes cancel one another out.
I don't live in S.F. so I cannot certainly cannot discount your brothers claims. All I can say is I didn't have any problems. The place where I had some inconsistent service has been in L.A.
Quote:
So in the face of that enormous challenge, why would you assume that all carriers are good almost everywhere?
I did not say they were all good in every part of the US. But they do all spend large amounts of money for spectrum and towers in the largest metropolitan cities.
Quote:
It's not that all carriers suck (they don't), but simply that its really tough to meet consumer expectations, which are for wireless to be landline quality and landline reliability, EVERYWHERE, in a very vast country.
Signal coverage isn't often the main factor. For many its price.
That isn't true as we've proven already with N95 sales figures and Viewty figures for Europe. USA is doing better but Apple have no real competition there.
That may prove true when ever we see the iPhone's total Euro sales.
Quote:
But that's not how Jobs framed success when announcing the iPhone. He announced it as 1% marketshare, not profit, not new subscribers. It's just as well US sales are doing well as they'll not get there with European sales.
We still have yet to see iPhone European marketshare. Well Apple products in general sell better in the US than the rest of the world, so that's no surprise.
ATT can't say the same, they've definitely been acquisition-fueled, i.e. they BUY their customers in large part.
The Cingular/ATT merger was basically akin to Bell Atlantic/NYNEX merger for Verizon. Dobson has been their next largest merger. What other large acquisitions have they made?
That isn't true as we've proven already with N95 sales figures and Viewty figures for Europe. USA is doing better but Apple have no real competition there.
True, but Teno tends to ignore information he doesn't like.
Quote:
But that's not how Jobs framed success when announcing the iPhone. He announced it as 1% marketshare, not profit, not new subscribers.
Yup. Jobs' publicly announced goal was 1% worldwide marketshare, or 10 million iPhones sold in '08.
Quote:
It's just as well US sales are doing well as they'll not get there with European sales.
That's exactly the problem. US sales alone won't meet Jobs' goal (even as good as they are), so the iPhone needs to do reasonably well in Europe and Asia. And so far, not so good on that front. \
Which is why most reasonable ppl would like to see the pricing and feature-set issues addressed sooner rather than later.
Comments
Well yes. We are trying to predict the future here. Even a proponent of the pessimistic viewpoint - not meeting the projected unit sales - must use "hopefully". No one can predict the future with such assuredness. We'd be more confident if we had Apple's market research and market strategy in hand, but alas we don't.
The "proponents of the pessimistic viewpoint" are fully invested in the iPhone not doing well. The idea is to shame Apple into offering features on the phone that they feel Apple should have offered in the first place. The market is to punish Apple which will subsequently scramble to add subsequent features. They seem to fully believe this viewpoint no matter the information to the contrary. So they don't speak in maybe and possibly only definitely.
A 2-year deal with an option to go to 5-years is something new to me. Anyways, if at the end of 2-years, do you think Apple will still decide to have an exclusive carrier? The answer could very well be yes.
I never really believed that 5 year deal rumor. Five years is a long time in technology years. The way the mobile phone market runs is completely counter to Apple's business culture and I doubt Apple really approves of their business practice. The way the mobile phone market works is more akin to Microsoft's business model. I think Apple is using these partners as a starting foundation for the iPhone and has a broader vision beyond them.
All this including the unlimited data for approximately 23 pounds or 46 dollars. That's a good deal. Wouldn't mind seeing that in the USA at all.
I think its a good deal for certain situations. My mobile is my primary phone. I would go over this limit quickly in the long run cost me more than a contract plan.
The "proponents of the pessimistic viewpoint" are fully invested in the iPhone not doing well. The idea is to shame Apple into offering features on the phone that they feel Apple should have offered in the first place. The market is to punish Apple which will subsequently scramble to add subsequent features. They seem to fully believe this viewpoint no matter the information to the contrary.
Sigh. Big boys don't cry, Teno.
First, it's laughable that guys like Mel or myself want the iPhone to do poorly, considering that we're stockholders.
Secondly, I know you're constantly upset by the fact that very few ppl buy into your "Everything's GREAT in Europe" spin, but reality is reality, and its been contradicting you, so you really can't expect much popular support. But I guess you can whine about the lack of same.
Apple goofed on the Euro iPhone's feature set, and in conjunction with the poor pricing, the result has been a lackluster European launnch. What more needs be said?
If you do not like said reality, I am sorry, but there is little I can do to change it. But Apple can, by addressing the issues in question (price, feature set).
Ironically, a little 'tough love' here actually makes Apple stronger... the sooner they react, the more competitive they'll be. Its actually the notion that everything's 'hunky dory' as is that's a threat to Apple's well-being.
So Teno, do you work for Microsoft or Nokia? Just kidding.
.
Perhaps.
If you've been listening to our Euro friends, there doesn't seem to be any 'perhaps' about it.
An iPhone nano is all but guaranteed.
Why? Because they made an iPOD Nano? Please. Two different markets, two different devices. Is an iMac Nano a sure thing then? Nothing is guaranteed.
Apple just doesn't appear to be into making many different models of the iPhone... for example, we won't be getting a 3G iPhone until the Asian launch, i.e. when it becomes absolutely necessary.
Well, opinions is all we have in absense of data. My bet is that Apple will have sold 2 to 2.5m units in Q4 07. If that doesn't happen, I'd better sell the stock now, because it'll drop a lot.
I'd say more like slightly under 2m in Q4, with the lion's share of sales coming from the US, of course.
Well, Apple has setup the iPhone to be very iPod-ish with the way it positions the product. It's a luxury item where sales pickup during the holiday season
It's not really a luxury item. It may seem like that compared to cheap flip phones, but when you compare it to its true competition, smartphones from the likes of RIM, Nokia, Palm, etc., it's retail price is actually quite mainstream.
The problem is that Apple and ATT don't subsidize the price to the customer, while other phone makers do. Even then though, the iPhone isn't priced particularly out of line with many other smartphones, at least in the US.
We'll know how serious Apple is with the iPhone. A storage increase is possible in Q1 08. It'll be interesting to see if they release a 16 GB iPhone for $499 in the next couple of months.
A storage increase would be nice, but is a minor hardware revision, really, and wouldn't address the larger hardware-related issues (3G, true GPS).
And everyone and their brother thinks a 3G version will come in Summer 08.
Pretty much what I already said... 3G iPhone in mid-to-late '08, for the Asian launch.
I'm not sold on churn as being an indicator of good service. It's more a byproduct of a level playing field of equally bad or good players.
That really doesn't make any sense.
Customer loyalty, I buy into that, but I think it is at best mediocre in the wireless business. The satisfaction rates are at best mediocre.
Satisfaction rates overall are mediocre, but that does not mean that all carriers are the same. For example, we see people leaving Sprint at double the percentage rate that they are leaving Verizon, nationally. If Sprint and Verizon were equally mediocre, on average, you'd expect those rates to be much closer.
The only counter-argument I've ever heard to the above fact is that Verizon's marketing is somehow far superior to Sprint's, and it may be, but I find it humorous that anyone would think that ads alone could convince most ppl to stay with a service that does not work for them.
I was with Sprint for several years and had no problem leaving. I'm on Verizon now, and I'll have no problem leaving it too.
The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it only describes the experience of that one person, not the market as a whole.
The trade is simple. Apple could have sold into a larger market by releasing the iPhone on more carriers, but with less share of the service revenue; or, go with one carrier and a larger share of the revenue. They went with the latter. Branding (niche and exclusive status), what you've said about partnering, whatever, that sounds like a happy choice to me.
It is a 'happy choice' in the short term, while Apple's trying to get the iPhone off the ground. But in the medium- or long-term, going single carrier holds iPhone sales back.
Really? I figure by price alone it's in a niche. In the USA, it's 400 dollars. In the UK it's 270 pounds.
Honestly, in the US its not that expensive at all for a smartphone. The UK is different though, with fiercer competition.
You don't think that is by choice? A happy choice?
LOL. 'Happy Choice' sounds like a chain of Chinese food restaurants.
Anyways, in the short-term its a good trade-off, in the longer term, its definitely not.
A 2-year deal with an option to go to 5-years is something new to me. Anyways, if at the end of 2-years, do you think Apple will still decide to have an exclusive carrier? The answer could very well be yes.
I really, really doubt it.
.
These articles have already been pointed out. The thought was that Orange back pedaled after the first months sales were 70,000. The article I posted quotes Orange CEO did project 50 to 100 from the beginning but of course they hope it would be 100.
The precise quote from the Orange CEO appears to be as follows:
Didier Lombard, chief executive of Orange, made the comments Tuesday during an interview with Europe 1 radio. He said his firm's sales target "is a little under 100,000" units sold between Wednesday evening -- when the Apple handset will make its debut in France -- and December 31st.
How that got spun into "50 to 100,000" is beyond me, but I guess if I missed my sales goal, I'd try to spin too.
In any case, you seemed to think it important to point out that you had an article from Nov 28th pointing out the spin goal. I merely pointed out that even earlier articles quoted the 100,000 figure, not the spin number.
This was mostly a goal to earn bragging rights
There's a lot of different ways to interpret it, actually.
Being in NYC call reception between them is not a huge differentiating factor.
NYC is far from the entire country. Though NYC residents sometimes forget that.
But they all still have pros and cons which pretty much equals them out.
If that were true, then churn/customer loyalty rates between carriers would be largely the same. But they're not, they vary widely actually.
I don't think so. The mobile phone co's are going to invest the most money and infrastructure in areas where people have the most money. Namely New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago. Those are the areas where Apple targets its stores, its computers, and the iPhone.
The combined population of the areas you mention is less than 10% of the country. In addition, ATT isn't even that good in some of those areas. Its obvious that the single carrier strategy is more about getting the iPhone established, rather than allowing consumers to select the best carrier in their area. Which holds iPhone sales back. Once the iPhone is established, carrier exclusivity becomes a ball-and-chain.
Thus, I'm quite confident that Apple's exclusivity deal with ATT won't run the full optional five years. That'd be silly, especially considering that competitors would be free to sell their 'iPhone clones' to the entire US market, while Apple would be stuck selling to the 27% or so of the market that ATT controls.
.
NYC is far from the entire country. Though NYC residents sometimes forget that.
Just like the USA is not the entire world. Though USA residents sometimes forget that.
Just like the USA is not the entire world. Though USA residents sometimes forget that.
I actually agree with that... Americans are indeed very "USA-centric". Though in our defense, its a very big country, with a lot going on. If we had a Euro-type setup, i.e. many smaller nations packed side-by-side, I'm sure we'd be different.
I wouldn't complain too much. After all, without us, you'd never get any new episodes of Jerry Springer, which you Brits seem so addicted to.
.
I actually agree with that... Americans are indeed very "USA-centric". Though in our defense, its a very big country, with a lot going on. If we had a Euro-type setup, i.e. many smaller nations packed side-by-side, I'm sure we'd be different.
I wouldn't complain too much. After all, without us, you'd never get any new episodes of Jerry Springer, which you Brits seem so addicted to.
.
Europeans aren't Euro-centric?
That's news.
Though, come to think of it, so does America's. Its just all under one roof.
.
I wouldn't complain too much. After all, without us, you'd never get any new episodes of[I
Jerry Springer[/I], which you Brits seem so addicted to.
I'm not sure it's been on TV here for years actually though we did turn it into a satirical musical which managed to upset fundie Christians. That was a delicious idea. Well done Stewart Lee.
Europeans aren't Euro-centric?
That's news.
By comparison, not really, and I say that as someone who almost went insane living in Pensylvania for months having to put up with US TV News and newspapers that seemed to be missing the international news section.
Secondly, I know you're constantly upset by the fact that very few ppl buy into your "Everything's GREAT in Europe" spin, but reality is reality, and its been contradicting you, so you really can't expect much popular support. But I guess you can whine about the lack of same.
Not upset at all I just don't agree. I don't see the majority of people agreeing with you. Most seem to take a wait and see approach. From the evidence I see the iPhone is about right in line with most other mobile phone sales at a higher price. Not exceptionally better but not poor either.
Apple goofed on the Euro iPhone's feature set, and in conjunction with the poor pricing, the result has been a lackluster European launnch. What more needs be said?
This is based on your narrow definition of poor sales. Looking at it from newly signed subscribers and increased profit point of view (which is the primary reason for all of this) iPhone sales are fine.
Ironically, a little 'tough love' here actually makes Apple stronger... the sooner they react, the more competitive they'll be. Its actually the notion that everything's 'hunky dory' as is that's a threat to Apple's well-being.
No one is saying everything is hunky dory. Just because Apple has built incredible attention around the iPhone does not mean they can rest they must continue to innovate. During the US launch Jobs said they were already working on the next iPhone.
But if you really feel "tough love" from some unknown people in an anonymous internet forum will sway a billion dollar company with thousands of smart employees. I won't try to break that delusion.
How that got spun into "50 to 100,000" is beyond me, but I guess if I missed my sales goal, I'd try to spin too.
The 50 to 100 spin is what Lombard told CNN/Money during the France launch.
Orange CEO Didier Lombard was bullish on the prospects of the iPhone, saying earlier in the week that they were targeting sales of between 50,000 and 100,000 by the end of the year.
Perhaps you can subscribe to the conspiracy that Lombard knew they wouldn't hit 100 so he purposefully planted the 50 to 100 story, so that when they actually did not hit 100 in 4 weeks, he had a convenient spin story all set up. That way this all clearly shows iPhone sales suck, Lombard, Jobs and Teno are all spin masters. I think that makes perfect sense in some reality other than the current one.
NYC is far from the entire country. Though NYC residents sometimes forget that.
The same goes for your example as well, its not the case in many places around the US. My example could be applied to most any major metropolitan areas around the country.
If that were true, then churn/customer loyalty rates between carriers would be largely the same. But they're not, they vary widely actually.
You keep picking around the notion of churn rates without giving any real information about it. ATT is said to have higher churn than Verizon but remains larger customer base than Verizon. Which means ATT looses more but also gains more. In the end what does it really mean?
The combined population of the areas you mention is less than 10% of the country. In addition, ATT isn't even that good in some of those areas.
They are smaller in raw population numbers. But these areas have much higher income, education, and job averages than most of the rest of the country. The iPhone will sell much better in San Francisco than some rural area in North Carolina. Or just about any rural area anywhere.
I've used my iPhone in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, and Atlanta. ATT coverage is a little better in some than others but it mostly works fine in all of them.
If you've been listening to our Euro friends, there doesn't seem to be any 'perhaps' about it
He's saying the perhaps is based on what Apple and their partners want. Is Apple selling the number of phones they want and making the amount of profit they want. Are Apple's partners gaining the amount of new subscribers that they want. Its not based on some arbitrary sales numbers you feel would make the iPhone a success.
He's saying the perhaps is based on what Apple and their partners want.
Since you are not him, and his response was a one word "Perhaps" with no explanation attached, I'm going to say that you're unqualified to know what he really meant, and ignore your response here. Thanks.
.
Not upset at all I just don't agree.
Nah. If you weren't upset, you wouldn't be taking the regular sniffy cheapshots you do at me, Mel, Aegis, and anyone else who disagrees with you.
Buck up Teno... being wrong isn't the end of the world, y'know. You'll get other stuff right.
This is based on your narrow definition of poor sales.
Sure. Like setting a goal of "slightly under 100,000 iPhones" in France, and missing it by nearly 30%. Or the unofficial reports out of the UK that show O2 missing its projections by large amounts.
Yep, not meeting sales goals is certainly a "narrow definition" all right.
No one is saying everything is hunky dory.
Actually, you have been, by spinning non-stop about the iPhone even before its US launch. It's been quite something to see.
Just because Apple has built incredible attention around the iPhone does not mean they can rest they must continue to innovate. During the US launch Jobs said they were already working on the next iPhone.
We actually agree here. But the problem is, where is the next iPhone? They need it ASAP, not mid-to-late '08.
But if you really feel "tough love" from some unknown people in an anonymous internet forum will sway a billion dollar company with thousands of smart employees. I won't try to break that delusion.
I dunno... I think ppl were saying the very same thing right before Jobs decided to cough up the $100 credit to early iPhone adopters. Apparently what we think does matter, at least a little bit. And even if it didn't, I wouldn't have a problem telling it like it is, rather than spinning that Apple is infallible at the drop of a hat.
The 50 to 100 spin is what Lombard told CNN/Money during the France launch.
And yet we have direct quotes from reputable news sources on the very day he said it that have him setting a goal of "slightly under 100,000" iPhones sold. Hey, his words, not mine.
If you don't like it, take it up with Reuters and all the others, not me.
The same goes for your example as well, its not the case in many places around the US. My example could be applied to most any major metropolitan areas around the country.
You want to think so, but it really can't be. In fact, looking at the latest Consumer Reports and JD Powers surveys, ATT consistently lost to both Verizon and even T-Mobile, both by region (JD Powers) and in most of the large metropolitan areas surveyed (Consumer Reports).
All carriers are not the same. Why should they be? Their native networks are not the same, the technologies used are not always the same, and roaming agreements only go so far.
You keep picking around the notion of churn rates without giving any real information about it.
Sigh. Teno, you argue so much on wireless issues that I sometimes forget that you really don't know much about them. To break it down:
Churn rates vary quarter to quarter, but Verizon's churn is usually close to 1%, which means that about 1% of their customers leave every month, which is a very low rate in the wireless industry.
ATT's churn has been averaging around 1.6% in recent months, overall. But ATT sometimes likes to give the postpaid-only number, which is lower (like around 1.3-1.4%), since that takes the high-churn prepaid customers out of the equation. Still, if you measured Verizon's churn the same way, it'd come out around 0.9%.
Why is that a big deal? Well, because with carriers the size of ATT and Verizon, the difference between a 1.4% churn rate and 0.9% is approximately one million more customers leaving you, every quarter.
Going on with the major carriers, Alltel's churn is quite similar to ATT's.
Sprint and T-Mobile have churn numbers in the 2 to 3% range, i.e. very bad. T-Mobile actually has the best customer service in the industry, and is good in metro areas, but they just don't have very good coverage. Outside of metro areas or major highways, you're more likely to have poor or no service with them, plus they have almost no 3G deployed as of yet.
Sprint on the other hand, is having major network problems, and their customer service is legendarily horrible. Their churn has been getting worse recently, and they're having a hard time attracting new customers, to the point where their number of postpaid customers is actually shrinking.
A nifty little chart on this can be found here:
http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/...ate/2007-11-09
ATT is said to have higher churn than Verizon
Not "said". They actually do have a higher churn rate than Verizon, by a significant margin. That's simply the stats reported by ATT and Verizon, quarter after quarter. Unless you'd care to try to spin that too? lol
but [ATT] remains larger customer base than Verizon. Which means ATT looses more but also gains more. In the end what does it really mean?
ATT got their larger customer base via large acquisitions. For example, Cingular bought the old ATT Wireless for $41 billion back in 2004, which brought 21 million more customers on board (the resulting company just recently got rebranded 'ATT Mobility'... yeah, I know, confusing).
Recently they just bought Dobson, which will give them nearly 2 million more customers.
The funny thing is, even with their huge acquisitions, they're barely keeping ahead of Verizon. Back when the ATT-Cingular merger happened (late '04), the combined company had roughly 5.5 million more customers than Verizon. That lead dwindled to around 2 to 2.5 million customers in recent quarters, largely on the strength of Verizon's better churn rate/better customer retention.
It's not that Verizon is great everywhere... no one is (which is an argument against carrier exclusivity). But they do seem to be good in more areas than ATT is, based on national surveys and customer loyalty statistics.
However, the point would not be to replace ATT with Verizon. Rather it would be to have the iPhone available to both (and to T-Mobile, Sprint, Alltel, US Cellular, etc), so that any customer, anywhere, could get an iPhone and still pick the best carrier for their area and needs.
Simple, n'est pas?
They are smaller in raw population numbers. But these areas have much higher income, education, and job averages than most of the rest of the country. The iPhone will sell much better in San Francisco than some rural area in North Carolina. Or just about any rural area anywhere.
For how long do you think Apple can maintain a strong sales pace by selling to only a relatively small slice of the population? Eventually all the big-city yuppies who care enough to want one will have one already, and again, that's only going to be in the particular big cities where ATT service is actually good. Gotta love those 30-day return policies that wireless carriers have.
It's kind of like opening an indie film in New York and LA only... fine for opening weekend and maybe a bit beyond, but you best get that thing on a whole lot more screens ASAP if you want to keep doing any real business.
Finally, don't count out North Carolina. Raleigh-Durham is a great area.
I've used my iPhone in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, and Atlanta. ATT coverage is a little better in some than others but it mostly works fine in all of them.
Tell that to my brother... he lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, but recently dumped ATT for Verizon, because he couldn't stand the inconsistent call quality with ATT. I guess your anecdotes cancel one another out.
The fact is, Teno, the US is a huge area to cover geographically, even if you were to concentrate primarily on the more densely-populated areas and major highways. The big carriers spend around $6 billion per year on their networks alone and STILL can't provide good coverage everywhere. So in the face of that enormous challenge, why would you assume that all carriers are good almost everywhere?
Just doesn't make sense, especially in light of the low satisfaction scores that are pervasive within the industry, as THT pointed out. It's not that all carriers suck (they don't), but simply that its really tough to meet consumer expectations, which are for wireless to be landline quality and landline reliability, EVERYWHERE, in a very vast country.
.
Nah. If you weren't upset, you wouldn't be taking the regular sniffy cheapshots you do at me, Mel, Aegis, and anyone else who disagrees with you.
Actually it amazes me how we can look at the same information and see completely different results. All you guys want to see in the data is failure with little room for how it could be success.
Yep, not meeting sales goals is certainly a "narrow definition" all right.
Not meeting its sales projections does not automatically mean failure. None of the news reports about Orange has called its iPhone sales a failure.
And yet we have direct quotes from reputable news sources on the very day he said it that have him setting a goal of "slightly under 100,000" iPhones sold. Hey, his words, not mine.
Between 50 and 100 of course he hoped for 100. I don't see what the big deal is.
I dunno... I think ppl were saying the very same thing right before Jobs decided to cough up the $100 credit to early iPhone adopters. Apparently what we think does matter, at least a little bit.
If it were only the people on internet chat boards that complained would Apple have given the credit?
Why is that a big deal? Well, because with carriers the size of ATT and Verizon, the difference between a 1.4% churn rate and 0.9% is approximately one million more customers leaving you, every quarter.
OK I see what you are saying. But how does this compare to the number of customers they add each quarter? All of ATT new customers are not through acquisitions.
ATT got their larger customer base via large acquisitions.
As though Verizon hasn't played the acquisition for growth game.
Verizon started from the Bell Atlantic and NYNEX merger to form Bell Atlantic Corporation and grew through acquisitions of:
-General Telephone and Electronics (GTE)
-The Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania
-New Jersey Bell Telephone Company
-The Diamond State Telephone Company
-The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company
-The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Maryland
-The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia
-The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of West Virginia
-Bell Atlantic—Delaware, Inc.
-Bell Atlantic—Maryland, Inc.
-Bell Atlantic—New Jersey, Inc.
-Bell Atlantic—Pennsylvania, Inc.
-Bell Atlantic—Virginia, Inc.
-Bell Atlantic—Washington, D.C., Inc.
-Bell Atlantic—West Virginia, In
Verizon's latest acquisitions were of Key Communications - West Virginia Wireless, Ramcell in Oregon and Kentucky, and Rural Cellular Unicel.
Not upset at all I just don't agree. I don't see the majority of people agreeing with you. Most seem to take a wait and see approach. From the evidence I see the iPhone is about right in line with most other mobile phone sales at a higher price. Not exceptionally better but not poor either.
That isn't true as we've proven already with N95 sales figures and Viewty figures for Europe. USA is doing better but Apple have no real competition there.
This is based on your narrow definition of poor sales. Looking at it from newly signed subscribers and increased profit point of view (which is the primary reason for all of this) iPhone sales are fine.
But that's not how Jobs framed success when announcing the iPhone. He announced it as 1% marketshare, not profit, not new subscribers. It's just as well US sales are doing well as they'll not get there with European sales.
Actually it amazes me how we can look at the same information and see completely different results. All you guys want to see in the data is failure with little room for how it could be success.
I guess that's what happens when you miss sales goals. Silly us.
Not meeting its sales projections does not automatically mean failure. None of the news reports about Orange has called its iPhone sales a failure.
Long-term, its not a failure. Short-term, yeah, it kinda is. Man up and face it... I'm sure Apple is.
Between 50 and 100 of course he hoped for 100. I don't see what the big deal is.
His actual quote was "slightly under 100,000", a goal which they missed by a substantial margin. But this has been explained to you already, so I guess you're being willfully obtuse here.
If it were only the people on internet chat boards that complained would Apple have given the credit?
Obviously, all the sites and all the ppl who emailed Apple and Jobs played a role. I think the more important question is, if everyone had just knuckled under and went "Apple knows best", would they have given the credit? Hell no.
OK I see what you are saying.
Wow, finally.
But how does this compare to the number of customers they add each quarter? All of ATT new customers are not through acquisitions.
Net adds per quarter for ATT tend to be around 4 to 4.5 million customers. They lose around 3 million customers a quarter, for net adds of 1 to 1.5 million, on average. Holiday quarters are better.
Do you start to see how churn rates are actually a pretty big deal?
As though Verizon hasn't played the acquisition for growth game.
Verizon started from the Bell Atlantic and NYNEX merger to form Bell Atlantic Corporation and grew through acquisitions of:
-General Telephone and Electronics (GTE)
-The Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania
-New Jersey Bell Telephone Company
-The Diamond State Telephone Company
-The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company
-The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Maryland
-The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia
-The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of West Virginia
-Bell Atlantic—Delaware, Inc.
-Bell Atlantic—Maryland, Inc.
-Bell Atlantic—New Jersey, Inc.
-Bell Atlantic—Pennsylvania, Inc.
-Bell Atlantic—Virginia, Inc.
-Bell Atlantic—Washington, D.C., Inc.
-Bell Atlantic—West Virginia, In
Verizon's latest acquisitions were of Key Communications - West Virginia Wireless, Ramcell in Oregon and Kentucky, and Rural Cellular Unicel.
Verizon's acquistions after its formation have been small potatoes, certainly nothing on the scope of Cingular's acquisition of 21 million ATTW customers.
There was of course the 'beeg' merger back in 2000, the one that actually FORMED Verizon (which is most of the companies and assets you list, actually), but since then their growth has primarily been 'organic', from net adding more customers than anyone else.
ATT can't say the same, they've definitely been acquisition-fueled, i.e. they BUY their customers in large part. Which is a big part of why they were particularly desperate to do the iPhone deal with Apple, actually.
But hey, don't take my word for it, look it up. You'll find that Verizon has out-net-added ATT by at least 3 million customers since the ATTW-Cingular merger of late '04. And they were doing it before the merger too, only I'm unsure of by exactly how much off the top of my head.
It's good that you're trying to catch up on the wireless history though.
.
Finally, don't count out North Carolina. Raleigh-Durham is a great area..
Nothing against N.C. Just simple fact that people don't make as much money there as people in the major cities.
Tell that to my brother... he lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, but recently dumped ATT for Verizon, because he couldn't stand the inconsistent call quality with ATT. I guess your anecdotes cancel one another out.
I don't live in S.F. so I cannot certainly cannot discount your brothers claims. All I can say is I didn't have any problems. The place where I had some inconsistent service has been in L.A.
So in the face of that enormous challenge, why would you assume that all carriers are good almost everywhere?
I did not say they were all good in every part of the US. But they do all spend large amounts of money for spectrum and towers in the largest metropolitan cities.
It's not that all carriers suck (they don't), but simply that its really tough to meet consumer expectations, which are for wireless to be landline quality and landline reliability, EVERYWHERE, in a very vast country.
Signal coverage isn't often the main factor. For many its price.
That isn't true as we've proven already with N95 sales figures and Viewty figures for Europe. USA is doing better but Apple have no real competition there.
That may prove true when ever we see the iPhone's total Euro sales.
But that's not how Jobs framed success when announcing the iPhone. He announced it as 1% marketshare, not profit, not new subscribers. It's just as well US sales are doing well as they'll not get there with European sales.
We still have yet to see iPhone European marketshare. Well Apple products in general sell better in the US than the rest of the world, so that's no surprise.
ATT can't say the same, they've definitely been acquisition-fueled, i.e. they BUY their customers in large part.
The Cingular/ATT merger was basically akin to Bell Atlantic/NYNEX merger for Verizon. Dobson has been their next largest merger. What other large acquisitions have they made?
That isn't true as we've proven already with N95 sales figures and Viewty figures for Europe. USA is doing better but Apple have no real competition there.
True, but Teno tends to ignore information he doesn't like.
But that's not how Jobs framed success when announcing the iPhone. He announced it as 1% marketshare, not profit, not new subscribers.
Yup. Jobs' publicly announced goal was 1% worldwide marketshare, or 10 million iPhones sold in '08.
It's just as well US sales are doing well as they'll not get there with European sales.
That's exactly the problem. US sales alone won't meet Jobs' goal (even as good as they are), so the iPhone needs to do reasonably well in Europe and Asia. And so far, not so good on that front.
Which is why most reasonable ppl would like to see the pricing and feature-set issues addressed sooner rather than later.
.