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.
ATT is actually semi-dreadful in the SF Bay Area. They're well known here for garbled calls, and more than their fair share of drops.
Quote:
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.
But not in every metropolitan city. All carriers rely on roaming partners to varying extents to have a presence in many of their markets, in part or in whole. And even where they do spend the bucks, the results often vary.
Quote:
Signal coverage isn't often the main factor. For many its price.
If that were true, T-Mobile would be #1, or at least they'd be out-adding everyone in customers. But they're the smallest of the national carriers, actually, and while their net adds are good, Verizon always beats them, and ATT usually does so. Also, ATT and Verizon have very similar pricing on their voice plans, actually. So yeah, things like call quality, coverage, 3G deployment, customer service, billing issues, etc. matter a great deal.
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?
You asked me why ATT has more customers than Verizon, and I answered truthfully: it was due to some pretty huge acquisitions. If you wish a breakdown of said acquisitions, just look in the same place you found the listing of Verizon's founding companies from.
Again (and perhaps you didn't understand the first time)... since 2000, when it was formed, Verizon's growth has been mostly organic, via net adding a lot of customers. ATT's growth in that time frame, on the other hand, has largely been acquisition-based.
ATT is trying to change that, as buying customers is quite expensive. Hence, the iPhone deal.
Apple probably won't break down their iPhone sales so this argument will probably rage on for a while.
IPhone's European sales have been pretty negatively reported since the first launch figures started trickling in. And then everyone started chiming in with their reasons for 'missed targets". High price, expensive contracts, no 3G, no GPS etc. Bottom line ends up with "Apple goofed", "dropped the ball", "underestimated" etc etc.
The thing is there is nothing new here. We heard all these criticisms of the IPhone over a year ago when Steve Jobs introduced it. Anyone who new anything about the cell phone markets here in Europe and over in Asia new that it was going to be a tougher sell.
Do you guys really believe that there is no one at Apple or it's carrier partners (even the carriers it didn't partner with!) that has some kind of idea about the markets outside the US. I don't.
I disagree with the idea that the (temporary) success or failure of the iPhone in Europe can be judged by whether or not it reached targets announced by the carriers. These figures themselves are subject to some doubt.... and they weren't announced by Apple.
Here's a question for you guys who are disappointed with iPhone's Euro figures.
What figure (that implies success) would you expect to see from the combined sales in the UK, France and Germany for the last quarter of 2007?
Some data that might be useful:
US sales:- 1 million in 74 days (13.5k per day)
Population percentages compared to US:- UK 20%; France 20%; Germany 27%
Number of days on sale:- UK and Germany 53 days. France 33 days
Other smart phone sales in Europe:- RIM 470K Windows Mobile 760K
NOTE. Those smart phone sales are for Q3 2007 and are for EMEA (I cant' find a European breakdown) That's all of Europe, east and west, Middle East and Africa.
SOURCE. Canalys.
NOTE 2. I have missed out the 800lb gorilla, Symbian ( and therefore Nokia)
NOTE 3. T-Mobile in Germany fecked up the iPhone launch with plans that were 40% higher than all the other iPhone reates. They recently slached those costs.
My point is. that some people were disappointed with iPhone's US sales only to subsequently find that iPhone had sold better than ALL the Windows Mobile powered smart phones. Could the same thing be happening (or nearly in Europe?
True, but Teno tends to ignore information he doesn't like.
I don't take speculation and rumor to be fact just because it supports what I want. The official iPhone numbers are still missing from Europe.
Quote:
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.
At this points this is all speculation. Right now we don't yet know how many iPhones have sold in the US let alone in Europe.
Quote:
But not in every metropolitan city. All carriers rely on roaming partners to varying extents to have a presence in many of their markets, in part or in whole.
Coverage maps are always dense around the major cities. Before you say those maps are meaningless. Unless you've tried every carrier in every market how do you know?
Quote:
If that were true, T-Mobile would be #1, or at least they'd be out-adding everyone in customers.
Who adds the most customers is not the only benchmark of success. Even though Verizon and ATT are the largest does not mean that everyone wants to use them. Sprint and T-Mobile have loyal customers also. I know plenty people who like T-Mobile because of its price.
As you walk through life you encounter people who use all of the carriers. I cannot say that I know more people who use one carrier or the other. The churn rates are just switching of chairs. I know people who have tried all of the major carriers. Just as many people hate Verizon as people hate ATT.
Quote:
You asked me why ATT has more customers than Verizon, and I answered truthfully: it was due to some pretty huge acquisitions.
Verizon has also made key mergers and acquisitions in its time. All of those over time have added up to millions of new customers. I do see that Verizons lower tunrover rate helps maintain its marketshare.
Quote:
Again (and perhaps you didn't understand the first time)... since 2000, when it was formed, Verizon's growth has been mostly organic, via net adding a lot of customers. ATT's growth in that time frame, on the other hand, has largely been acquisition-based.
Yes I understood that. Outside of the ATT/Cingular merger and Dobson what other huge acquisitions have they made?
My point is. that some people were disappointed with iPhone's US sales only to subsequently find that iPhone had sold better than ALL the Windows Mobile powered smart phones. Could the same thing be happening (or nearly in Europe?
Quite possibly but WinMo, Palm and RIM are the low hanging fruit. They've very small niches. As you said yourself, in Europe, Symbian is the 800lb gorilla.
Symbian shipped 20.4 million smartphones in Q3 2007, mostly in Europe. That's twice as many smartphones as Apple sold iPods in the same period to put it in perspective.
Quite possibly but WinMo, Palm and RIM are the low hanging fruit. They've very small niches. As you said yourself, in Europe, Symbian is the 800lb gorilla.
Agreed. But sorry to labour the point ..... WinMo Palm and Rim have been in the market for a number of years, sell multiple models, through multiple carriers in many more countries. If Apple can shake down some of the low hanging fruit in just a few months it's a pretty good start.
Just saw a story from Net Applications iPhone browser use jumped 89% from November thru December. At the end of December world wide iPhone browser use was at .17%. Beating all other mobile browsers and nipping at the lower PC browser numbers.
At the end of December iPhone browser share for US was .27%, UK .11%, France .1%
Quote:
WinMo Palm and Rim have been in the market for a number of years, sell multiple models, through multiple carriers in many more countries. If Apple can shake down some of the low hanging fruit in just a few months it's a pretty good start.
Symbian shipped 20.4 million smartphones in Q3 2007, mostly in Europe..
Actually that's not totally accurate. Just under half off those were sold in EMUA, maybe a little less than 10 million. That's in 90 days in ALL of Europe, middle east and Africa. How would that equate to just 33 days in France alone? My rough guess.... about 360K. Could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time!
"We previously mentioned that the iPhone has shown disappointing sales figures in the UK, but it seems that even ?laggard? iPhones sales on UK?s O2 network are still outselling rivals. In fact, all three European markets are reportedly seeing sales of the iPhone outpacing those of its closest, and highly subsidized, competitors.."
I still take this as speculation until official numbers are released.
"We previously mentioned that the iPhone has shown disappointing sales figures in the UK, but it seems that even ?laggard? iPhones sales on UK?s O2 network are still outselling rivals. In fact, all three European markets are reportedly seeing sales of the iPhone outpacing those of its closest, and highly subsidized, competitors.."
I still take this as speculation until official numbers are released.
And as I pointed out the last time you quoted that, those are year old phones that have been superseded by newer models. But, Nokia's figures say otherwise anyway with 1.5 million N95 sales in it's first full quarter (not it's first quarter, it's first FULL quarter). Apple sold 1.1m iPhones in it's first quarter. Figures from Nokia and Canalsys.
And as I pointed out the last time you quoted that, those are year old phones that have been superseded by newer models.
What are the new versions of the Touch and the LG Prada? The report doesn't specify if they are talking about the old N95 or the newer with 8GB of memory.
Quote:
But, Nokia's figures say otherwise anyway with 1.5 million N95 sales in it's first full quarter (not it's first quarter, it's first FULL quarter). Apple sold 1.1m iPhones in it's first quarter. Figures from Nokia and Canalsys.
The N95 should outsell the iPhone. The N95 first quarter was on multiple carriers in multiple countries. The iPhone first quarter was in one country on one carrier and only sold 400,000 less.
And as I pointed out the last time you quoted that, those are year old phones that have been superseded by newer models. But, Nokia's figures say otherwise anyway with 1.5 million N95 sales in it's first full quarter (not it's first quarter, it's first FULL quarter). Apple sold 1.1m iPhones in it's first quarter. Figures from Nokia and Canalsys.
I've been trying to stay out. Oh well, just this one.
Apple's first quarter was just with ATT. What would be the total number of customers in the European launch that the phone could sell to?
I don't take speculation and rumor to be fact just because it supports what I want. The official iPhone numbers are still missing from Europe.
Actually, they're not entirely. We have numbers from Orange in France that don't look very good, and support the unofficial numbers which state that the Euro iPhone launch was indeed lackluster. But that dose of reality doesn't fit in with your spin, so you disregard it. Tsk.
Quote:
At this points this is all speculation. Right now we don't yet know how many iPhones have sold in the US let alone in Europe.
Holding on to the dream, eh, Teno?
Quote:
Coverage maps are always dense around the major cities. Before you say those maps are meaningless. Unless you've tried every carrier in every market how do you know?
LOL. Don't tell me you fell for the oldest one in the book Teno. Coverage maps are widely known in the industry to be BS. It's just a given.
Look Teno, even you, a wireless industry newbie, can figure this one out. Carrier coverage maps are... err... shall we say, "very optimistic". The idea is that prospective customers looking at them will go, "Oh lookie, I'm covered by that carrier, I should give them a try." Well, maybe they're covered, maybe they're covered marginally, or maybe they're covered extremely poorly... you don't know until you actually try the service.
A good example is an experience I had in '05, when I travelled to a town in Southern Oregon. My coverage map said I had native coverage there, but I didn't, I was actually roaming on analog on another carrier. I still got service, but my battery life went to hell, since analog sucks way more power. \
I went back in late '07, and I did finally have native network digital coverage there, so the map was right... two years later.
Other friends of mine have had similar experiences on other carriers, including, yup, ATT. It's pretty common.
The coverage maps, from any carrier, are extremely hit-or-miss, with the possible exception of T-Mobile's 'street level' coverage maps, and I've heard mixed results regarding even those. \
Quote:
Who adds the most customers is not the only benchmark of success. Even though Verizon and ATT are the largest does not mean that everyone wants to use them. Sprint and T-Mobile have loyal customers also. I know plenty people who like T-Mobile because of its price.
You stated that price was a big concern in choosing a carrier. I simply stated that if that were the overriding concern, T-Mobile would be out-adding everyone. They're not, not even close. Therefore, other factors, such as call quality, coverage, customer service, billing, 3G coverage, etc play a role. Stating that all carriers have their loyal customers does not contradict that... they obviously do.
What you're saying actually supports a different point I've made, which is that no carrier is good everywhere. Because, by the same token, no carrier is bad everywhere. Even the worst-rated carriers will have some areas where they provide good service, and in those areas, yes, they will have loyal customers.
Which is not to say that T-Mobile or Sprint totally suck, even with their high churn... although Sprint is definitely having a great many problems of late, to the point where their CEO was recently forced to resign.
Quote:
The churn rates are just switching of chairs. I know people who have tried all of the major carriers. Just as many people hate Verizon as people hate ATT.
Maybe VZW has as many haters as ATT, that's possible, though anecdotal. What we do know, from churn figures, is that quarter after quarter, Verizon loses customers at a considerably slower rate than ATT, i.e., Verizon has significantly higher customer loyalty than ATT. That's simply a fact, and its been true for several years now, i.e. is not a one quarter statistical blip.
Quote:
Verizon has also made key mergers and acquisitions in its time. All of those over time have added up to millions of new customers.
As you've been told, the only really big merger Verizon did was the one that actually FORMED them, back in 2000. Since then, if you were total up the number of new customers brought in by acquisitions, ATT would far outpace VZW in that department, obviously due to the huge acquisition of ATT Wireless by Cingular. That's not really arguable, its just what happened.
Quote:
I do see that Verizons lower tunrover rate helps maintain its marketshare.
Great. Though actually Verizon's low churn has increased its marketshare, and narrowed the gap in total customers with ATT considerably. In fact, Verizon actually has MORE postpaid (i.e under contract) customers than ATT. But ATT has more prepaid customers than VZW, so they're a couple million ahead overall.
Quote:
Yes I understood that. Outside of the ATT/Cingular merger and Dobson what other huge acquisitions have they made?
As I told you elsewhere, look it up. You found the founding companies of VZW pretty easily.
In any case, why would you need more acquisitions to prove my point? Its pretty obvious that since VZW's founding, ATT has gotten a lot more customers through acquisitions than VZW has... the ATT-Cingular merger was enormous, inarguably so.
What figure (that implies success) would you expect to see from the combined sales in the UK, France and Germany for the last quarter of 2007?
I'd like to see them hit their Euro sales goals, for starters. So far, they appear to be missing them.
Additionally, given Apple's publicly stated goal of selling 10 million iPhones in '08, and that roughly half of that will likely be US sales, plus the fact that the Asian launch won't occur until the middle or later part of the year... I would say Apple needs to sell around 3 to 3.5 million iPhones in Europe in '08 to be sure of making their worldwide sales goal.
Extrapolating November/December Euro sales to see what the sales pace is would be misleading, however. Remember than in the US, the launch pace was something like 90k phones/day, but the in Q3 we saw that slow to 13k phones per day... a sevenfold slowdown. Still a good pace though.
That said, a good launch does serve a nice springboard to (hopefully) solid future sales. By the same token, a lackluster launch may hurt future sales, as potential Euro customers look on and go, "My, that certainly landed with a resounding thud." \
So, to answer your question, in the short-term I'd like to see them hit their Euro sales goals. So far in France, they've already missed them, by a good margin. For Q1, I'd like to see them sell around 800K iPhones, for all Euro areas combined. For November/December, I'd like to see them sell at a pace considerably higher than that, as launch pace is always going to be a lot higher than steady-state sales.
Quote:
My point is. that some people were disappointed with iPhone's US sales only to subsequently find that iPhone had sold better than ALL the Windows Mobile powered smart phones. Could the same thing be happening (or nearly in Europe?
I'm reasonably happy with US sales, but not because they exceed Windows Mobile sales, since Windows Mobile is something of a joke. Microsoft has been in the market for several years, with all their tremendous resources to call upon, yet their worldwide marketshare in smartphones is around 5 to 6%. Not very impressive for big daddy Microsoft. \
As someone else mentioned, I believe Symbian is actually the 800 lb gorilla in the room, if we're talking software. Not in the US so much, but their worldwide sales are quite a goal to shoot for.
The N95 should outsell the iPhone. The N95 first quarter was on multiple carriers in multiple countries. The iPhone first quarter was in one country on one carrier and only sold 400,000 less.
Wow... you seem to be agreeing that going multicarrier (in the US) would improve iPhone sales. Amazing, we actually agree on something.
I've been trying to stay out. Oh well, just this one.
Apple's first quarter was just with ATT. What would be the total number of customers in the European launch that the phone could sell to?
Combined populations of the UK (61m), Germany (82m), and France (61m) are 204 million, or a bit less than 70% of the US's population. However, cellphone penetration rates are higher in Europe than the US, significantly so:
Western Europe is on pace to have a 100% mobile phone penetration rate in 2007 according to research firm Analysys. For comparison, the US is expected to have 65% penetration by the end of the year. Many countries already have penetration rates above 100% as consumers start to use multiple phones.
Basically, a higher percentage of ppl in the Euro area have cellphones than do in the US, and a higher percentage of ppl in Europe use multiple carriers than do in the US.
That said, that article is from mid-'05, and US penetration rates have actually turned out to be higher than 65 percent, actually more like 80 percent. But it is true that Europe's penetration rate is still much higher than the US's. In fact, much more recent articles put Europe's current penetration rate at close to 110 percent (!), which is due to some some customers being multicarrier.
Given that Europe's mobile penetration rate is about a third higher than that of the US, which cancels out most of the population disparity, the total wireless market size of the UK + Germany + France would be around 90 percent of the US market's size, give or take a little.
That's not taking things like average revenue per user into account, in other words, more like number of lines of service/phones in service than how much moolah everyone's making.
Combined populations of the UK (61m), Germany (82m), and France (61m) are 204 million, or a bit less than 70% of the US's population. However, cellphone penetration rates are higher in Europe than the US, significantly so:
Western Europe is on pace to have a 100% mobile phone penetration rate in 2007 according to research firm Analysys. For comparison, the US is expected to have 65% penetration by the end of the year. Many countries already have penetration rates above 100% as consumers start to use multiple phones.
Basically, a higher percentage of ppl in the Euro area have cellphones than do in the US, and a higher percentage of ppl in Europe use multiple carriers than do in the US.
That said, that article is from mid-'05, and US penetration rates have actually turned out to be higher than 65 percent, actually more like 80 percent. But it is true that Europe is around 100 percent penetration, and actually exceed that in some countries, due to some some customers being multicarrier.
Given that Europe's mobile penetration rate is about a quarter higher that of the US, which cancels out some of the population disparity, the total wireless market size of the UK + Germany + France would be around 85 percent of the US market's size, give or take a little.
That's not taking things like average revenue per user into account, in other words, more like number of lines of service/phones in service than how much moolah everyone's making.
.
That's not what I meant. I know the population sizes.
What I was talking about was the number of people who could have bought the phone in the first quarter, and used it.
In the US, we just have ATT, with about 60 million customers average over that first quarter. What was the comparable number of people that the carriers in Europe have? Forgetting, for the moment, the people buying them to use outside of the carrier, because we had plenty of that here as well, though, in both places, it's a minority.
If there were more people able to buy the phone, then the numbers are even worse than they seem. If there are fewer people, then the numbers are better.
You may have known population sizes, but I doubt you knew specifics about the penetration rate disparity.
It can be hard to go with the method you suggest, since some will argue that the iPhone is so gosh-darn-terrific that some people will pay the early termination fee and jump carriers to get it. In that scenario, its really market size vs market size, though of course, I'm sure most carrier migration occurs with ppl whose contracts are ending with another carrier, not those who pay a big ETF through the nose. But we have heard some pretty big whoppers on the spin side of this discussion, haven't we?
What you can do, as you said, is look up the size of the launch carriers Apple used in Europe, combine them, and compare that to ATT's size. Or did you have something else beyond that in mind too?
You stated that price was a big concern in choosing a carrier. I simply stated that if that were the overriding concern, T-Mobile would be out-adding everyone. They're not, not even close. Therefore, other factors, such as call quality, coverage, customer service, billing, 3G coverage, etc play a role. Stating that all carriers have their loyal customers does not contradict that... they obviously do.
For many consumers price is a bigger concern than coverage and 3G. Lets look at it this way. Verizon and ATT have the largest number of business customers. Narrow down to only consumers and I'm sure the marketshare numbers will shift, the leads are not as dramatic. Narrow it down to specific markets and the numbers completely change. For example looking at the 25 and under age group, I seriously doubt Verizon nor ATT lead, I would bet T-Mobile and Sprint are very successful in that group.
Quote:
As I told you elsewhere, look it up. You found the founding companies of VZW pretty easily.
That's my point I cannot find these huge ATT acquisitions you speak of. What I find is that both have made key acquisitions that have added customers and bandwidth.
Quote:
I'd like to see them hit their Euro sales goals, for starters. So far, they appear to be missing them.
Orange France hitting 100,000 sales in the second week of January 08 instead of the last week of December 07. This is your rational that iPhone sales are slow?
Quote:
Wow... you seem to be agreeing that going multicarrier (in the US) would improve iPhone sales. Amazing, we actually agree on something.
Well more carriers certainly improves the odds, where have you ever seen me say they wouldn't? 1.1 million in the first quarter is a good number. If Apple had sold the phone through multiple US carriers the iPhone experience would be inconsistent and more expensive than it currently is.
It is much better for Apple to establish the iPhone and its expectations. Then expand it to carriers that agree to its terms.
If you've been listening to our Euro friends, there doesn't seem to be any 'perhaps' about it.
As already been discussed, Apple's intentions are different from what we or others want. What exactly they are, we don't exactly know other than 10 million units. Will the current pricing structure in Europe help them get to 10m units in 2008? Perhaps. They also have a lot of markets to go.
I'm talking from the perspective of Apple's market positioning of the device. If they want to maintain the device there has to be a major upgrade at least once every year, if not 8 months. If they don't change the device, and want to maintain certain sales rates, then price will have to be reduced. Or, as mentioned, the device upgraded. For the markets they have yet to enter, the current iPhone will have to be decreased just due to the passage of time (though they don't really do this much) and the continuing evolution of tech devices.
It'll happen. Right now? Probably not. 2 months from now? Perhaps.
Quote:
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.
In a way yes. It could very well be that Apple doesn't intend on entering the mid-range phone market (~$200) and will stick to a fairly high cost, and necessarilly, high end device. But like the iPod nano, and iPhone nano will greatly increase the market in which Apple can sell iPhones into purely due to cost drivers, both in phone and carrier costs.
They are many many good reasons to do this. If they don't, then Apple isn't planning on much for the cell phone market. Merely, a niche product. I don't think Apple is intending to do this; hence, I think an iPhone "nano" will hit the market.
As for why we don't know what Apple is planning in regards to "Apple just doesn't appear to be into making many different models of the iPhone," you're asking for too much. Apple never talks about future products and keeps all future product information so secret that it has a coterie industry of Apple rumorology or kremlinology or whatever.
As for why Apple is only shipping one iPhone model today, as opposed to an EDGE model, an UMTS/HSPA model, an EVDO model, a cheaper model, well, I can only speculate that since this is their first foray into the cell phone business, and they want to keep their supplier contracts, manufacturing, inventory, software, QA, and marketing to a minimum. In January 2009, we will see if they will have more then one model, and I think they will.
Quote:
I'd say more like slightly under 2m in Q4, with the lion's share of sales coming from the US, of course.
With the iPhone only in the UK & Germany for 2 months and France for 1 month, yeah, ~%80 of Q4 07 iPhone sales will be from the USA.
Quote:
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.
From AT&T:
Code:
$ 99 RIM Blackberry Curve/8300/8700
$149 RIM Blackberry Pearl
$299 RIM Blackberry 8800
$199 Moto Q9g
$ 99 Samsung Blackjack II
$149 Palm Treo 680
$199 Palm Treo 750
$299 HTC Kaiser / ATT Tilt
Voice and data plans certainly vary. And the iPhone service plan is certainly a good deal. However, at $399, it's a pretty big sticker shock. That upfront cost is certainly huge in my mind, as compared to $199 (say the Q9) with the leftover money paying for 3 months of service. The iPhone is the most expensive phone on AT&T's list!
As for Nokia, they don't appear to like dealing with American carriers short of el cheapo phones, and all of the high end phones are European imports or US band capable but late to market, and are sold unlocked at $400 to $800. If a theory of having a lot of features packed in a cell phone device sold unlocked will sell millions is true, one wonders why Nokia essentially has very small marketshare in the USA.
Dollars to donuts, if AT&T offers the US 3G N95-8GB for a subsidized price of $299 with 2 year contract, it'll sell a whole lot more just because of it being in AT&T stores, it being at half the unlocked price, and it having much lower sticker shock.
If you look at the situation in Europe, where N95's, Viewtys, Pradas, W960s, P1s, etc, are subsidized to near free, (also sold unlocked), one wonders why the iPhone even sold at all. If Apple sells 300k iPhones compared to LG's 300k Viewtys, which is the more impressive achievement? Then I'd ask, what are Apple's intentions with the iPhone? What is in their strategic interests? There are lots of reasons for not going full bore into certain markets.
Quote:
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). ... Pretty much what I already said... 3G iPhone in mid-to-late '08, for the Asian launch.
Major revisions, minor revisions, software revisions. I said both and all. And all serve to maintain the iPhone's marketibility and sales.
Quote:
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.
If all companies are equally good in terms of service (and most other things), or near equally good with some geographic and temporal variations, the churn rate could be just as high as it is now with companies that are at best mediocre.
Edit: Expounding a bit. I would imagine that there are two driving factors in churn rate: loyalty and competition. A level playing field where companies are equally would increase churn rates because there isn't a discernable winner in the market. If the carrier company is good, it'll breed loyalty and decrease churn rates. I'm not sure how those two factors would interplay in a field where all companies are good, without much variation between each other in terms of customer satisfaction. There's always going to be better deal at one point in time favoring one company over the other. In reality, I don't think parity can last very long in an open market anyways. In the end, there will one alpha company.
Quote:
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.
True. It could also be true that Sprint is seen as a dying company due to a mistaken merger with Nextel and are suffering the consequences (perception turns into reality). I can't believe there are that many differences. Everytime I visit a carrier store, it's like a visit to Hell, er, I mean the DMV. Overall, my comment was more towards a bigger pictures. Regional, city, store differences are balanced out across the USA. Success is then about management strategy, marketing campaigns, and chaotic movements in the consuming populace.
Quote:
The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it only describes the experience of that one person, not the market as a whole.
True, but the perception is reinforced by market surveys saying wireless carriers suck, er, aren't great, one of the keys to business is reducing churn rates with the figure seen in a negative light, and a general consumer wish to blow up the current US wireless carrier business. In the grand scheme of things, the carriers aren't that far apart. Even the quality of reception varies from phone to phone, even among the same type of phones, customer service store to store and call to call.
Quote:
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. ... Anyways, in the short-term its a good trade-off, in the longer term, its definitely not.
And we know even less about Apple's long term plans. I take short term to mean 2008. Anyways, be mindful about what Apple wants (and what they consider good business) is different from what you think.
Quote:
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.
You have to be kidding me. In the T-Mobile UK website, I can get a Nokia N95 free with an 18month contract at $90/month or a SE W880 free with an 18 month contract at $30/month. Apple is certainly positioning the iPhone a little bit differently than the other phone manufacturers are, and considering the upfront cost, I think they want a niche, not a mass market.
Quote:
I really, really doubt it.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple will continue with its exclusive carrier strategy for the foreseeable future.
Comments
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.
ATT is actually semi-dreadful in the SF Bay Area. They're well known here for garbled calls, and more than their fair share of drops.
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.
But not in every metropolitan city. All carriers rely on roaming partners to varying extents to have a presence in many of their markets, in part or in whole. And even where they do spend the bucks, the results often vary.
Signal coverage isn't often the main factor. For many its price.
If that were true, T-Mobile would be #1, or at least they'd be out-adding everyone in customers. But they're the smallest of the national carriers, actually, and while their net adds are good, Verizon always beats them, and ATT usually does so. Also, ATT and Verizon have very similar pricing on their voice plans, actually. So yeah, things like call quality, coverage, 3G deployment, customer service, billing issues, etc. matter a great deal.
.
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?
You asked me why ATT has more customers than Verizon, and I answered truthfully: it was due to some pretty huge acquisitions. If you wish a breakdown of said acquisitions, just look in the same place you found the listing of Verizon's founding companies from.
Again (and perhaps you didn't understand the first time)... since 2000, when it was formed, Verizon's growth has been mostly organic, via net adding a lot of customers. ATT's growth in that time frame, on the other hand, has largely been acquisition-based.
ATT is trying to change that, as buying customers is quite expensive. Hence, the iPhone deal.
.
IPhone's European sales have been pretty negatively reported since the first launch figures started trickling in. And then everyone started chiming in with their reasons for 'missed targets". High price, expensive contracts, no 3G, no GPS etc. Bottom line ends up with "Apple goofed", "dropped the ball", "underestimated" etc etc.
The thing is there is nothing new here. We heard all these criticisms of the IPhone over a year ago when Steve Jobs introduced it. Anyone who new anything about the cell phone markets here in Europe and over in Asia new that it was going to be a tougher sell.
Do you guys really believe that there is no one at Apple or it's carrier partners (even the carriers it didn't partner with!) that has some kind of idea about the markets outside the US. I don't.
I disagree with the idea that the (temporary) success or failure of the iPhone in Europe can be judged by whether or not it reached targets announced by the carriers. These figures themselves are subject to some doubt.... and they weren't announced by Apple.
Here's a question for you guys who are disappointed with iPhone's Euro figures.
What figure (that implies success) would you expect to see from the combined sales in the UK, France and Germany for the last quarter of 2007?
Some data that might be useful:
US sales:- 1 million in 74 days (13.5k per day)
Population percentages compared to US:- UK 20%; France 20%; Germany 27%
Number of days on sale:- UK and Germany 53 days. France 33 days
Other smart phone sales in Europe:- RIM 470K Windows Mobile 760K
NOTE. Those smart phone sales are for Q3 2007 and are for EMEA (I cant' find a European breakdown) That's all of Europe, east and west, Middle East and Africa.
SOURCE. Canalys.
NOTE 2. I have missed out the 800lb gorilla, Symbian ( and therefore Nokia)
NOTE 3. T-Mobile in Germany fecked up the iPhone launch with plans that were 40% higher than all the other iPhone reates. They recently slached those costs.
My point is. that some people were disappointed with iPhone's US sales only to subsequently find that iPhone had sold better than ALL the Windows Mobile powered smart phones. Could the same thing be happening (or nearly in Europe?
True, but Teno tends to ignore information he doesn't like.
I don't take speculation and rumor to be fact just because it supports what I want. The official iPhone numbers are still missing from Europe.
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.
At this points this is all speculation. Right now we don't yet know how many iPhones have sold in the US let alone in Europe.
But not in every metropolitan city. All carriers rely on roaming partners to varying extents to have a presence in many of their markets, in part or in whole.
Coverage maps are always dense around the major cities. Before you say those maps are meaningless. Unless you've tried every carrier in every market how do you know?
If that were true, T-Mobile would be #1, or at least they'd be out-adding everyone in customers.
Who adds the most customers is not the only benchmark of success. Even though Verizon and ATT are the largest does not mean that everyone wants to use them. Sprint and T-Mobile have loyal customers also. I know plenty people who like T-Mobile because of its price.
As you walk through life you encounter people who use all of the carriers. I cannot say that I know more people who use one carrier or the other. The churn rates are just switching of chairs. I know people who have tried all of the major carriers. Just as many people hate Verizon as people hate ATT.
You asked me why ATT has more customers than Verizon, and I answered truthfully: it was due to some pretty huge acquisitions.
Verizon has also made key mergers and acquisitions in its time. All of those over time have added up to millions of new customers. I do see that Verizons lower tunrover rate helps maintain its marketshare.
Again (and perhaps you didn't understand the first time)... since 2000, when it was formed, Verizon's growth has been mostly organic, via net adding a lot of customers. ATT's growth in that time frame, on the other hand, has largely been acquisition-based.
Yes I understood that. Outside of the ATT/Cingular merger and Dobson what other huge acquisitions have they made?
My point is. that some people were disappointed with iPhone's US sales only to subsequently find that iPhone had sold better than ALL the Windows Mobile powered smart phones. Could the same thing be happening (or nearly in Europe?
Quite possibly but WinMo, Palm and RIM are the low hanging fruit. They've very small niches. As you said yourself, in Europe, Symbian is the 800lb gorilla.
Symbian shipped 20.4 million smartphones in Q3 2007, mostly in Europe. That's twice as many smartphones as Apple sold iPods in the same period to put it in perspective.
Quite possibly but WinMo, Palm and RIM are the low hanging fruit. They've very small niches. As you said yourself, in Europe, Symbian is the 800lb gorilla.
Agreed. But sorry to labour the point ..... WinMo Palm and Rim have been in the market for a number of years, sell multiple models, through multiple carriers in many more countries. If Apple can shake down some of the low hanging fruit in just a few months it's a pretty good start.
At the end of December iPhone browser share for US was .27%, UK .11%, France .1%
WinMo Palm and Rim have been in the market for a number of years, sell multiple models, through multiple carriers in many more countries. If Apple can shake down some of the low hanging fruit in just a few months it's a pretty good start.
I think this is a good point.
Symbian shipped 20.4 million smartphones in Q3 2007, mostly in Europe..
Actually that's not totally accurate. Just under half off those were sold in EMUA, maybe a little less than 10 million. That's in 90 days in ALL of Europe, middle east and Africa. How would that equate to just 33 days in France alone? My rough guess.... about 360K. Could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time!
"We previously mentioned that the iPhone has shown disappointing sales figures in the UK, but it seems that even ?laggard? iPhones sales on UK?s O2 network are still outselling rivals. In fact, all three European markets are reportedly seeing sales of the iPhone outpacing those of its closest, and highly subsidized, competitors.."
I still take this as speculation until official numbers are released.
Apple iPhone outsells LG Prada, HTC Touch, Nokia N95 in Europe
"We previously mentioned that the iPhone has shown disappointing sales figures in the UK, but it seems that even ?laggard? iPhones sales on UK?s O2 network are still outselling rivals. In fact, all three European markets are reportedly seeing sales of the iPhone outpacing those of its closest, and highly subsidized, competitors.."
I still take this as speculation until official numbers are released.
And as I pointed out the last time you quoted that, those are year old phones that have been superseded by newer models. But, Nokia's figures say otherwise anyway with 1.5 million N95 sales in it's first full quarter (not it's first quarter, it's first FULL quarter). Apple sold 1.1m iPhones in it's first quarter. Figures from Nokia and Canalsys.
And as I pointed out the last time you quoted that, those are year old phones that have been superseded by newer models.
What are the new versions of the Touch and the LG Prada? The report doesn't specify if they are talking about the old N95 or the newer with 8GB of memory.
But, Nokia's figures say otherwise anyway with 1.5 million N95 sales in it's first full quarter (not it's first quarter, it's first FULL quarter). Apple sold 1.1m iPhones in it's first quarter. Figures from Nokia and Canalsys.
The N95 should outsell the iPhone. The N95 first quarter was on multiple carriers in multiple countries. The iPhone first quarter was in one country on one carrier and only sold 400,000 less.
And as I pointed out the last time you quoted that, those are year old phones that have been superseded by newer models. But, Nokia's figures say otherwise anyway with 1.5 million N95 sales in it's first full quarter (not it's first quarter, it's first FULL quarter). Apple sold 1.1m iPhones in it's first quarter. Figures from Nokia and Canalsys.
I've been trying to stay out. Oh well, just this one.
Apple's first quarter was just with ATT. What would be the total number of customers in the European launch that the phone could sell to?
I don't take speculation and rumor to be fact just because it supports what I want. The official iPhone numbers are still missing from Europe.
Actually, they're not entirely. We have numbers from Orange in France that don't look very good, and support the unofficial numbers which state that the Euro iPhone launch was indeed lackluster. But that dose of reality doesn't fit in with your spin, so you disregard it. Tsk.
At this points this is all speculation. Right now we don't yet know how many iPhones have sold in the US let alone in Europe.
Holding on to the dream, eh, Teno?
Coverage maps are always dense around the major cities. Before you say those maps are meaningless. Unless you've tried every carrier in every market how do you know?
LOL. Don't tell me you fell for the oldest one in the book Teno. Coverage maps are widely known in the industry to be BS. It's just a given.
Look Teno, even you, a wireless industry newbie, can figure this one out. Carrier coverage maps are... err... shall we say, "very optimistic". The idea is that prospective customers looking at them will go, "Oh lookie, I'm covered by that carrier, I should give them a try." Well, maybe they're covered, maybe they're covered marginally, or maybe they're covered extremely poorly... you don't know until you actually try the service.
A good example is an experience I had in '05, when I travelled to a town in Southern Oregon. My coverage map said I had native coverage there, but I didn't, I was actually roaming on analog on another carrier. I still got service, but my battery life went to hell, since analog sucks way more power.
I went back in late '07, and I did finally have native network digital coverage there, so the map was right... two years later.
Other friends of mine have had similar experiences on other carriers, including, yup, ATT. It's pretty common.
The coverage maps, from any carrier, are extremely hit-or-miss, with the possible exception of T-Mobile's 'street level' coverage maps, and I've heard mixed results regarding even those.
Who adds the most customers is not the only benchmark of success. Even though Verizon and ATT are the largest does not mean that everyone wants to use them. Sprint and T-Mobile have loyal customers also. I know plenty people who like T-Mobile because of its price.
You stated that price was a big concern in choosing a carrier. I simply stated that if that were the overriding concern, T-Mobile would be out-adding everyone. They're not, not even close. Therefore, other factors, such as call quality, coverage, customer service, billing, 3G coverage, etc play a role. Stating that all carriers have their loyal customers does not contradict that... they obviously do.
What you're saying actually supports a different point I've made, which is that no carrier is good everywhere. Because, by the same token, no carrier is bad everywhere. Even the worst-rated carriers will have some areas where they provide good service, and in those areas, yes, they will have loyal customers.
Which is not to say that T-Mobile or Sprint totally suck, even with their high churn... although Sprint is definitely having a great many problems of late, to the point where their CEO was recently forced to resign.
The churn rates are just switching of chairs. I know people who have tried all of the major carriers. Just as many people hate Verizon as people hate ATT.
Maybe VZW has as many haters as ATT, that's possible, though anecdotal. What we do know, from churn figures, is that quarter after quarter, Verizon loses customers at a considerably slower rate than ATT, i.e., Verizon has significantly higher customer loyalty than ATT. That's simply a fact, and its been true for several years now, i.e. is not a one quarter statistical blip.
Verizon has also made key mergers and acquisitions in its time. All of those over time have added up to millions of new customers.
As you've been told, the only really big merger Verizon did was the one that actually FORMED them, back in 2000. Since then, if you were total up the number of new customers brought in by acquisitions, ATT would far outpace VZW in that department, obviously due to the huge acquisition of ATT Wireless by Cingular. That's not really arguable, its just what happened.
I do see that Verizons lower tunrover rate helps maintain its marketshare.
Great. Though actually Verizon's low churn has increased its marketshare, and narrowed the gap in total customers with ATT considerably. In fact, Verizon actually has MORE postpaid (i.e under contract) customers than ATT. But ATT has more prepaid customers than VZW, so they're a couple million ahead overall.
Yes I understood that. Outside of the ATT/Cingular merger and Dobson what other huge acquisitions have they made?
As I told you elsewhere, look it up. You found the founding companies of VZW pretty easily.
In any case, why would you need more acquisitions to prove my point? Its pretty obvious that since VZW's founding, ATT has gotten a lot more customers through acquisitions than VZW has... the ATT-Cingular merger was enormous, inarguably so.
.
What figure (that implies success) would you expect to see from the combined sales in the UK, France and Germany for the last quarter of 2007?
I'd like to see them hit their Euro sales goals, for starters. So far, they appear to be missing them.
Additionally, given Apple's publicly stated goal of selling 10 million iPhones in '08, and that roughly half of that will likely be US sales, plus the fact that the Asian launch won't occur until the middle or later part of the year... I would say Apple needs to sell around 3 to 3.5 million iPhones in Europe in '08 to be sure of making their worldwide sales goal.
Extrapolating November/December Euro sales to see what the sales pace is would be misleading, however. Remember than in the US, the launch pace was something like 90k phones/day, but the in Q3 we saw that slow to 13k phones per day... a sevenfold slowdown. Still a good pace though.
That said, a good launch does serve a nice springboard to (hopefully) solid future sales. By the same token, a lackluster launch may hurt future sales, as potential Euro customers look on and go, "My, that certainly landed with a resounding thud."
So, to answer your question, in the short-term I'd like to see them hit their Euro sales goals. So far in France, they've already missed them, by a good margin. For Q1, I'd like to see them sell around 800K iPhones, for all Euro areas combined. For November/December, I'd like to see them sell at a pace considerably higher than that, as launch pace is always going to be a lot higher than steady-state sales.
My point is. that some people were disappointed with iPhone's US sales only to subsequently find that iPhone had sold better than ALL the Windows Mobile powered smart phones. Could the same thing be happening (or nearly in Europe?
I'm reasonably happy with US sales, but not because they exceed Windows Mobile sales, since Windows Mobile is something of a joke. Microsoft has been in the market for several years, with all their tremendous resources to call upon, yet their worldwide marketshare in smartphones is around 5 to 6%. Not very impressive for big daddy Microsoft.
As someone else mentioned, I believe Symbian is actually the 800 lb gorilla in the room, if we're talking software. Not in the US so much, but their worldwide sales are quite a goal to shoot for.
.
The N95 should outsell the iPhone. The N95 first quarter was on multiple carriers in multiple countries. The iPhone first quarter was in one country on one carrier and only sold 400,000 less.
Wow... you seem to be agreeing that going multicarrier (in the US) would improve iPhone sales. Amazing, we actually agree on something.
.
I've been trying to stay out. Oh well, just this one.
Apple's first quarter was just with ATT. What would be the total number of customers in the European launch that the phone could sell to?
Combined populations of the UK (61m), Germany (82m), and France (61m) are 204 million, or a bit less than 70% of the US's population. However, cellphone penetration rates are higher in Europe than the US, significantly so:
Western Europe is on pace to have a 100% mobile phone penetration rate in 2007 according to research firm Analysys. For comparison, the US is expected to have 65% penetration by the end of the year. Many countries already have penetration rates above 100% as consumers start to use multiple phones.
http://www.mobiletracker.net/archive...le-penetration
Basically, a higher percentage of ppl in the Euro area have cellphones than do in the US, and a higher percentage of ppl in Europe use multiple carriers than do in the US.
That said, that article is from mid-'05, and US penetration rates have actually turned out to be higher than 65 percent, actually more like 80 percent. But it is true that Europe's penetration rate is still much higher than the US's. In fact, much more recent articles put Europe's current penetration rate at close to 110 percent (!), which is due to some some customers being multicarrier.
http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/newslog...ry,Europe.aspx
Given that Europe's mobile penetration rate is about a third higher than that of the US, which cancels out most of the population disparity, the total wireless market size of the UK + Germany + France would be around 90 percent of the US market's size, give or take a little.
That's not taking things like average revenue per user into account, in other words, more like number of lines of service/phones in service than how much moolah everyone's making.
.
Combined populations of the UK (61m), Germany (82m), and France (61m) are 204 million, or a bit less than 70% of the US's population. However, cellphone penetration rates are higher in Europe than the US, significantly so:
Western Europe is on pace to have a 100% mobile phone penetration rate in 2007 according to research firm Analysys. For comparison, the US is expected to have 65% penetration by the end of the year. Many countries already have penetration rates above 100% as consumers start to use multiple phones.
http://www.mobiletracker.net/archive...le-penetration
Basically, a higher percentage of ppl in the Euro area have cellphones than do in the US, and a higher percentage of ppl in Europe use multiple carriers than do in the US.
That said, that article is from mid-'05, and US penetration rates have actually turned out to be higher than 65 percent, actually more like 80 percent. But it is true that Europe is around 100 percent penetration, and actually exceed that in some countries, due to some some customers being multicarrier.
Given that Europe's mobile penetration rate is about a quarter higher that of the US, which cancels out some of the population disparity, the total wireless market size of the UK + Germany + France would be around 85 percent of the US market's size, give or take a little.
That's not taking things like average revenue per user into account, in other words, more like number of lines of service/phones in service than how much moolah everyone's making.
.
That's not what I meant. I know the population sizes.
What I was talking about was the number of people who could have bought the phone in the first quarter, and used it.
In the US, we just have ATT, with about 60 million customers average over that first quarter. What was the comparable number of people that the carriers in Europe have? Forgetting, for the moment, the people buying them to use outside of the carrier, because we had plenty of that here as well, though, in both places, it's a minority.
If there were more people able to buy the phone, then the numbers are even worse than they seem. If there are fewer people, then the numbers are better.
Get it?
It can be hard to go with the method you suggest, since some will argue that the iPhone is so gosh-darn-terrific that some people will pay the early termination fee and jump carriers to get it. In that scenario, its really market size vs market size, though of course, I'm sure most carrier migration occurs with ppl whose contracts are ending with another carrier, not those who pay a big ETF through the nose. But we have heard some pretty big whoppers on the spin side of this discussion, haven't we?
What you can do, as you said, is look up the size of the launch carriers Apple used in Europe, combine them, and compare that to ATT's size. Or did you have something else beyond that in mind too?
.
You stated that price was a big concern in choosing a carrier. I simply stated that if that were the overriding concern, T-Mobile would be out-adding everyone. They're not, not even close. Therefore, other factors, such as call quality, coverage, customer service, billing, 3G coverage, etc play a role. Stating that all carriers have their loyal customers does not contradict that... they obviously do.
For many consumers price is a bigger concern than coverage and 3G. Lets look at it this way. Verizon and ATT have the largest number of business customers. Narrow down to only consumers and I'm sure the marketshare numbers will shift, the leads are not as dramatic. Narrow it down to specific markets and the numbers completely change. For example looking at the 25 and under age group, I seriously doubt Verizon nor ATT lead, I would bet T-Mobile and Sprint are very successful in that group.
As I told you elsewhere, look it up. You found the founding companies of VZW pretty easily.
That's my point I cannot find these huge ATT acquisitions you speak of. What I find is that both have made key acquisitions that have added customers and bandwidth.
I'd like to see them hit their Euro sales goals, for starters. So far, they appear to be missing them.
Orange France hitting 100,000 sales in the second week of January 08 instead of the last week of December 07. This is your rational that iPhone sales are slow?
Wow... you seem to be agreeing that going multicarrier (in the US) would improve iPhone sales. Amazing, we actually agree on something.
Well more carriers certainly improves the odds, where have you ever seen me say they wouldn't? 1.1 million in the first quarter is a good number. If Apple had sold the phone through multiple US carriers the iPhone experience would be inconsistent and more expensive than it currently is.
It is much better for Apple to establish the iPhone and its expectations. Then expand it to carriers that agree to its terms.
If you've been listening to our Euro friends, there doesn't seem to be any 'perhaps' about it.
As already been discussed, Apple's intentions are different from what we or others want. What exactly they are, we don't exactly know other than 10 million units. Will the current pricing structure in Europe help them get to 10m units in 2008? Perhaps. They also have a lot of markets to go.
I'm talking from the perspective of Apple's market positioning of the device. If they want to maintain the device there has to be a major upgrade at least once every year, if not 8 months. If they don't change the device, and want to maintain certain sales rates, then price will have to be reduced. Or, as mentioned, the device upgraded. For the markets they have yet to enter, the current iPhone will have to be decreased just due to the passage of time (though they don't really do this much) and the continuing evolution of tech devices.
It'll happen. Right now? Probably not. 2 months from now? Perhaps.
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.
In a way yes. It could very well be that Apple doesn't intend on entering the mid-range phone market (~$200) and will stick to a fairly high cost, and necessarilly, high end device. But like the iPod nano, and iPhone nano will greatly increase the market in which Apple can sell iPhones into purely due to cost drivers, both in phone and carrier costs.
They are many many good reasons to do this. If they don't, then Apple isn't planning on much for the cell phone market. Merely, a niche product. I don't think Apple is intending to do this; hence, I think an iPhone "nano" will hit the market.
As for why we don't know what Apple is planning in regards to "Apple just doesn't appear to be into making many different models of the iPhone," you're asking for too much. Apple never talks about future products and keeps all future product information so secret that it has a coterie industry of Apple rumorology or kremlinology or whatever.
As for why Apple is only shipping one iPhone model today, as opposed to an EDGE model, an UMTS/HSPA model, an EVDO model, a cheaper model, well, I can only speculate that since this is their first foray into the cell phone business, and they want to keep their supplier contracts, manufacturing, inventory, software, QA, and marketing to a minimum. In January 2009, we will see if they will have more then one model, and I think they will.
I'd say more like slightly under 2m in Q4, with the lion's share of sales coming from the US, of course.
With the iPhone only in the UK & Germany for 2 months and France for 1 month, yeah, ~%80 of Q4 07 iPhone sales will be from the USA.
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.
From AT&T:
$ 99 RIM Blackberry Curve/8300/8700
$149 RIM Blackberry Pearl
$299 RIM Blackberry 8800
$199 Moto Q9g
$ 99 Samsung Blackjack II
$149 Palm Treo 680
$199 Palm Treo 750
$299 HTC Kaiser / ATT Tilt
Voice and data plans certainly vary. And the iPhone service plan is certainly a good deal. However, at $399, it's a pretty big sticker shock. That upfront cost is certainly huge in my mind, as compared to $199 (say the Q9) with the leftover money paying for 3 months of service. The iPhone is the most expensive phone on AT&T's list!
As for Nokia, they don't appear to like dealing with American carriers short of el cheapo phones, and all of the high end phones are European imports or US band capable but late to market, and are sold unlocked at $400 to $800. If a theory of having a lot of features packed in a cell phone device sold unlocked will sell millions is true, one wonders why Nokia essentially has very small marketshare in the USA.
Dollars to donuts, if AT&T offers the US 3G N95-8GB for a subsidized price of $299 with 2 year contract, it'll sell a whole lot more just because of it being in AT&T stores, it being at half the unlocked price, and it having much lower sticker shock.
If you look at the situation in Europe, where N95's, Viewtys, Pradas, W960s, P1s, etc, are subsidized to near free, (also sold unlocked), one wonders why the iPhone even sold at all. If Apple sells 300k iPhones compared to LG's 300k Viewtys, which is the more impressive achievement? Then I'd ask, what are Apple's intentions with the iPhone? What is in their strategic interests? There are lots of reasons for not going full bore into certain markets.
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). ... Pretty much what I already said... 3G iPhone in mid-to-late '08, for the Asian launch.
Major revisions, minor revisions, software revisions. I said both and all. And all serve to maintain the iPhone's marketibility and sales.
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.
If all companies are equally good in terms of service (and most other things), or near equally good with some geographic and temporal variations, the churn rate could be just as high as it is now with companies that are at best mediocre.
Edit: Expounding a bit. I would imagine that there are two driving factors in churn rate: loyalty and competition. A level playing field where companies are equally would increase churn rates because there isn't a discernable winner in the market. If the carrier company is good, it'll breed loyalty and decrease churn rates. I'm not sure how those two factors would interplay in a field where all companies are good, without much variation between each other in terms of customer satisfaction. There's always going to be better deal at one point in time favoring one company over the other. In reality, I don't think parity can last very long in an open market anyways. In the end, there will one alpha company.
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.
True. It could also be true that Sprint is seen as a dying company due to a mistaken merger with Nextel and are suffering the consequences (perception turns into reality). I can't believe there are that many differences. Everytime I visit a carrier store, it's like a visit to Hell, er, I mean the DMV. Overall, my comment was more towards a bigger pictures. Regional, city, store differences are balanced out across the USA. Success is then about management strategy, marketing campaigns, and chaotic movements in the consuming populace.
The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it only describes the experience of that one person, not the market as a whole.
True, but the perception is reinforced by market surveys saying wireless carriers suck, er, aren't great, one of the keys to business is reducing churn rates with the figure seen in a negative light, and a general consumer wish to blow up the current US wireless carrier business. In the grand scheme of things, the carriers aren't that far apart. Even the quality of reception varies from phone to phone, even among the same type of phones, customer service store to store and call to call.
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. ... Anyways, in the short-term its a good trade-off, in the longer term, its definitely not.
And we know even less about Apple's long term plans. I take short term to mean 2008. Anyways, be mindful about what Apple wants (and what they consider good business) is different from what you think.
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 have to be kidding me. In the T-Mobile UK website, I can get a Nokia N95 free with an 18month contract at $90/month or a SE W880 free with an 18 month contract at $30/month. Apple is certainly positioning the iPhone a little bit differently than the other phone manufacturers are, and considering the upfront cost, I think they want a niche, not a mass market.
I really, really doubt it.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple will continue with its exclusive carrier strategy for the foreseeable future.