So, Apple gives AT&T a few hundred million dolars, and makes the phone available to EVERYONE!
It stops or at least slows down Black-market, Hacked phones sales, and increases sales of the iPhone by a number that is scary. Even scarier if it's a 3G phone.
I think we'll all agree, this is one time Steve wishes he hadn't signed such a long contract. Someone (AT&T) actually pulled a "Steve Jobs" by getting this contract … it's win-win for them and not so for Apple?
Yes Apple is selling iPhones, but how many would they sell, if they were available at just about every cell phone company?
So, Apple gives AT&T a few hundred million dolars, and makes the phone available to EVERYONE!
It stops or at least slows down Black-market, Hacked phones sales, and increases sales of the iPhone by a number that is scary. Even scarier if it's a 3G phone.
I think we'll all agree, this is one time Steve wishes he hadn't signed such a long contract. Someone (AT&T) actually pulled a "Steve Jobs" by getting this contract ? it's win-win for them and not so for Apple?
Yes Apple is selling iPhones, but how many would they sell, if they were available at just about every cell phone company?
Skip
Nice points. I think Apple made a dumb move with AT&T.
Considering that China Telecom (not sure of the proper name) did not leap at this wonderful deal and arguably they have about the largest potential phone market on the planet. But once again, this is all speculation.
Steve Jobs said this speculation was wrong because they hadn't yet made an offer to a Chinese carrier for the iPhone.
Quote:
They get paid no matter what. AT&T can build a 4G network and it really will not matter if people churn (go to other networks). The only winners in this war are the equipment guys, which Apple happens to be.
I don't know why you keep brining ATT into this. Unlocked phones anywhere but the US have nothing to do with ATT because they only offer service in the US.
The churn rate does not necessarily mean ATT is only loosing customers. They are gaining more than they are loosing.
Quote:
In London you see quite a lot of people using an iPhone - even though O2 reportedly only sold some 70.000+. I would guess the unlocked figure is at least as high if not higher.
O2 signed 190,000 to iPhone contracts. I've made this point also. The carrier sign ups only reveal demand for the iPhone on that carrier. It does not reveal the total demand for the iPhone in general.
Quote:
Yes Apple is selling iPhones, but how many would they sell, if they were available at just about every cell phone company?
The business model Apple is using for the iPhone isn't about selling as many iPhones as they can. If it were why would Apple place a limit on the number of iPhones one person can buy, or limit iPhone sales to credit cards instead of cash.
Apple wants to have total control of the iPhone experience and its development.
Quote:
Nice points. I think Apple made a dumb move with AT&T.
What difference would it have really made to sell unlocked phones in the US? The only other alternative is T-Mobile and they have around 29 million subscribers vs ATT 70 million subscribers.
Steve Jobs said this speculation was wrong because they hadn't yet made an offer to a Chinese carrier for the iPhone.
I don't know why you keep brining ATT into this. Any locked phones anywhere but the US have nothing to do with ATT because they only offer service in the US.
A high churn rate does not necessarily mean ATT is only loosing customers. They can still be gaining more than they are loosing.
O2 signed 190,000 to iPhone contracts. I've made this point also. The carrier sign ups only reveal demand for the iPhone on that carrier. It does not reveal the total demand for the iPhone in general.
Sorry to ask but, what position are you trying to argue?
Also, do you think O2 would have signed those contracts if buyers had other opportunities, or AT&T would have sold as many?
In the US, there's not much of an alternative carrier, that alternative has less coverage and a rep for worse customer service. Elsewhere, I think it's first a matter of whether it's available "white market", and maybe second, whether you agree with the available plans.
If I'm reading this statement correctly, what kind of crack are you smoking? AT&T notoriously has the worst rated customer service. Maybe Sprint is worse (big deal).
1.5 iPhones x $399.00 (suggested price of US iPhone) = $598,500,000 = Smiling Steve Jobs
By the way, I am more than sure that Apple saw this unlocking, locking issue coming on the horizon.
You're missing two crucial points. First, the number of unlocked iPhones has to be way above anything Apple initially calculated for. Secondly, Apple looses monthly revenue from each iPhone not activated on one of their partners' network.
I, for one, am not surprised at all by the high number of unlocked iPhones, but I do not think Apple (or AT&T for that matter) expected that as many as 1-in-4 iPhones would be unlocked. (I think that number is closer to 30-35% myself).
My guess is that Apple and AT&T sat at the negotiating table and estimated that perhaps as many as 10% would be unlocked, as a certain number is inevitable, and wouldn't really hurt either company. But I think both companies are sincerely surprised by what has happened, and that we'll see more aggressive locking attempts in the near future.
The situation is out of hand, and I think it's going to be up to Apple to fix it. Clearly Apple has an exclusive relationship with AT&T which requires Apple to take steps to prevent AT&T from loosing revenue, and AT&T is likely putting pressure on Apple to enforce their end of the deal. But, as I point out below, given the agreement between the companies, Apple wins when they keep the iPhone locked, so that will grease the wheels, so to speak.
I say-and have said since the iPhone rumor stage-that this arrangement is plain wrong. I suggested that that the carrier, in this case AT&T, earn the iPhone activation by offering exclusive features, for example.
But that's not the reality. Apple has an exclusive with AT&T and I fully expect to see Apple make it harder and harder to unlock the iPhone starting as soon as 1.1.4.
That said, Apple has a reason to keep iPhones locked. They earn monthly revenue stream from each legitimately activated iPhone. Estimates are that Apple earns as much as $10/ from each handset, so Apple actually doesn't smile, necessarily, when they sell an iPhone that is destined to be unlocked.
It's this arrangement with partner networks that ensures that Apple take steps to keep the iPhone locked.
For the record, I think locking handsets is total bullshi*, and asked that the iPhone ship unlocked long before the iPhone shipped (when iPhone rumors were very young). That didn't happen and I think that a locked iPhone hurts everyone involved from Apple to AT&T to customers to shareholders.
And if Apple and AT&T think 25% of iPhones running around unlocked is bad, wait for the 3G iPhone. I would toss out an unlocking estimate of 50-60% in that case. Apple clearly has a problem on their hands, and as I've said from the beginning, it's their fault: they should have shipped the iPhone unlocked from the beginning. As a shareholder, I hope Apple proves me wrong on this.
You're missing two crucial points. First, the number of unlocked iPhones has to be way above anything Apple initially calculated for. Secondly, Apple looses monthly revenue from each iPhone not activated on one of their partners' network.
I, for one, am not surprised at all by the high number of unlocked iPhones, but I do not think Apple (or AT&T for that matter) expected that as many as 1-in-4 iPhones would be unlocked. (I think that number is closer to 30-35% myself).
My guess is that Apple and AT&T sat at the negotiating table and estimated that perhaps as many as 10% would be unlocked, as a certain number is inevitable, and wouldn't really hurt either company. But I think both companies are sincerely surprised by what has happened, and that we'll see more aggressive locking attempts in the near future.
The situation is out of hand, and I think it's going to be up to Apple to fix it. Clearly Apple has an exclusive relationship with AT&T which requires Apple to take steps to prevent AT&T from loosing revenue, and AT&T is likely putting pressure on Apple to enforce their end of the deal. But, as I point out below, given the agreement between the companies, Apple wins when they keep the iPhone locked, so that will grease the wheels, so to speak.
I say-and have said since the iPhone rumor stage-that this arrangement is plain wrong. I suggested that that the carrier, in this case AT&T, earn the iPhone activation by offering exclusive features, for example.
But that's not the reality. Apple has an exclusive with AT&T and I fully expect to see Apple make it harder and harder to unlock the iPhone starting as soon as 1.1.4.
That said, Apple has a reason to keep iPhones locked. They earn monthly revenue stream from each legitimately activated iPhone. Estimates are that Apple earns as much as $10/ from each handset, so Apple actually doesn't smile, necessarily, when they sell an iPhone that is destined to be unlocked.
It's this arrangement with partner networks that ensures that Apple take steps to keep the iPhone locked.
For the record, I think locking handsets is total bullshi*, and asked that the iPhone ship unlocked long before the iPhone shipped (when iPhone rumors were very young). That didn't happen and I think that a locked iPhone hurts everyone involved from Apple to AT&T to customers to shareholders.
And if Apple and AT&T think 25% of iPhones running around unlocked is bad, wait for the 3G iPhone. I would toss out an unlocking estimate of 50-60% in that case. Apple clearly has a problem on their hands, and as I've said from the beginning, it's their fault: they should have shipped the iPhone unlocked from the beginning. As a shareholder, I hope Apple proves me wrong on this.
Nice post cherrypop. Great realization of the situation. Pretty soon a few Apple apologists will show up claiming how wonderful the locking of phones is and the great benefits that customers get with a locked phone. Locked phones, locked platform, locked OS's are not a benefit to anyone but the creators of these devices and software. Yup. Apple is in deep kemchi here for sure. They have an option to "really" lock out $399 to $499 guaranteed for each iPhone or a gamble with AT&T signing up customers (this goes for the other partners as well). Also, let's not forget the other phone guys are not going to just sit back. Nokia's TS UI phone is pretty nice as well and offers a ton more "real" phone features that users have been asking for.
Sorry to ask but, what position are you trying to argue?
The position of truth, not a position of hyperbole.
Quote:
Also, do you think O2 would have signed those contracts if buyers had other opportunities, or AT&T would have sold as many?
I don't know how popular O2 is in the UK. The only alternative in the US is T-Mobile and they don't seem as popular as ATT.
Quote:
If I'm reading this statement correctly, what kind of crack are you smoking? AT&T notoriously has the worst rated customer service. Maybe Sprint is worse (big deal).
With 70 million subscribers ATT is doing something right.
Also, let's not forget the other phone guys are not going to just sit back. Nokia's TS UI phone is pretty nice as well and offers a ton more "real" phone features that users have been asking for.
Very good point. Another reason, clearly, why Apple looses when shipping a locked handset.
A one year exclusive with AT&T might have made sense, but the rumored (as it's never been formerly announced that I know of) 5 to 8 years will really give other handset makers an advantage.
The argument from the beginning has been that Apple needed to partner with a carrier "to learn the business." I think that might have applied to the mobile business in the 80's and 90's, but not anymore, as unlocked handsets are the norm in markets where networks are the most advanced.
Very good point. Another reason, clearly, why Apple looses when shipping a locked handset.
A one year exclusive with AT&T might have made sense, but the rumored (as it's never been formerly announced that I know of) 5 to 8 years will really give other handset makers an advantage.
The argument from the beginning has been that Apple needed to partner with a carrier "to learn the business." I think that might have applied to the mobile business in the 80's and 90's, but not anymore, as unlocked handsets are the norm in markets where networks are the most advanced.
Exactly. Apple is setting a dangerous precedent with this forced locking issue.
Exactly. Apple is setting a dangerous precedent with this forced locking issue.
While I agree that is does set a precedence, they are also breaking the precedence that cell phones should be subsidized devices with only features sanctioned by the carrier. Furthermore, I don't think it will be hard to sell the iPhone as an unlocked device through any electronics retailer once the contractual period is.
Exactly. Apple is setting a dangerous precedent with this forced locking issue.
iphone sales are iphone sales. unlocked phones show proof there is a much larger demand out there. When iphone lock contracts run out down the road, the iphone will literally be everywhere... legally and legit.
people want iphones so bad they go through the trouble of aftermarket unlocking. do you see this type of deman for sidekicks or blackberries (where people go through all that trouble just for a phone)? No, you don't.
You're missing a crucial point. The vast majority of unlocked phones would never have been legitimate sales if unlocking weren't an option as many are going abroad. Only a small percentage of unlocked handsets are in use in official iPhone countries, and of these, although some may have wanted the iPhone 'at any cost', surely they would just pay the official price anyway? Even in official countries, those with the iPhone unlocked are those unwilling to pay the official price or to be locked in to an 18 month agreement - they would have simply purchased a different phone if they couldn't have unlocked an iPhone.
So unlocking IS win-win for Apple. Better receive a lower amount for a phone that will then be unlocked than receive nothing because the purchaser decided to buy something actually available in their country, or something cheaper in an official iPhone country.
No, I didn't miss the point. I just didn't address that point. I was replying to nvidia who didn't see what the financial analysts were afraid of. I pointed out that 1.3 billion dollars in potentially lost revenue would make any financial analyst look up and take notice.
Now as far as the rest of the discussion. In another thread I wondered who first presented the idea that Apple should get ongoing monthly fees for every iPhone account. Apple or ATT? Was Apple squeezing ATT for more money at the cost of cutting their customer base? Or did ATT offer ongoing fees as a way to bribe Apple to stay out of the gray market? Who benefits by the locking/unlocking of the iPhones?
My guess is that Apple and AT&T sat at the negotiating table and estimated that perhaps as many as 10% would be unlocked, as a certain number is inevitable, and wouldn't really hurt either company.
The situation is out of hand, and I think it's going to be up to Apple to fix it. Clearly Apple has an exclusive relationship with AT&T which requires Apple to take steps to prevent AT&T from loosing revenue, and AT&T is likely putting pressure on Apple to enforce their end of the deal. But, as I point out below, given the agreement between the companies, Apple wins when they keep the iPhone locked, so that will grease the wheels, so to speak.
But that's not the reality. Apple has an exclusive with AT&T and I fully expect to see Apple make it harder and harder to unlock the iPhone starting as soon as 1.1.4.
And if Apple and AT&T think 25% of iPhones running around unlocked is bad, wait for the 3G iPhone. I would toss out an unlocking estimate of 50-60% in that case.
These aren't good points. This is nothing but speculation, conjecture, and assumption based on no supporting facts.
There is no evidence ATT is putting pressure on Apple to stop phone unlocking. Why would they? The far majority of unlocked phones are in other countries.
What would Apple do in 1.1.4 that they have not already done? Why would they suddenly take some drastic action that they have not already taken?
Most of the unlocked phones are in countries that have no official support for the iPhone. In that case your only option to use one is unlocked.
Windows has how much of the market? Doesn't mean they necessarily do it right.
There is no way to dominate 90% of a free market unless you did somethings very much right. Windows provided solutions that the market needed and no other OS available was able to provide.
In the case of AT&T. They added 10 million new customers in one year. You don't add that many new customers unless you are doing something right. AT&T now has over one third of the 253 million mobile phone users in the US.
These aren't good points. This is nothing but speculation, conjecture, and assumption based on no supporting facts.
There is no evidence ATT is putting pressure on Apple to stop phone unlocking. Why would they? The far majority of unlocked phones are in other countries.
What would Apple do in 1.1.4 that they have not already done? Why would they suddenly take some drastic action that they have not already taken?
Most of the unlocked phones are in countries that have no official support for the iPhone. In that case your only option to use one is unlocked.
Your unlocking projection is ridiculous.
You have a good point. Considering that they broke the security in the SECPAC, I am not sure what else they can do, and as you state there is no evidence that Apple is going to even try. If they can still make money on iPhones without annoying their partners, I am sure this is the path they will go.
Comments
and countries like singapore it is selling 1.5th (s$800 upwards) of its price ($399) and LOT OTHERS are making money on these...
i wonder when apple will set iPhone free like what he did with music
It stops or at least slows down Black-market, Hacked phones sales, and increases sales of the iPhone by a number that is scary. Even scarier if it's a 3G phone.
I think we'll all agree, this is one time Steve wishes he hadn't signed such a long contract. Someone (AT&T) actually pulled a "Steve Jobs" by getting this contract … it's win-win for them and not so for Apple?
Yes Apple is selling iPhones, but how many would they sell, if they were available at just about every cell phone company?
Skip
So, Apple gives AT&T a few hundred million dolars, and makes the phone available to EVERYONE!
It stops or at least slows down Black-market, Hacked phones sales, and increases sales of the iPhone by a number that is scary. Even scarier if it's a 3G phone.
I think we'll all agree, this is one time Steve wishes he hadn't signed such a long contract. Someone (AT&T) actually pulled a "Steve Jobs" by getting this contract ? it's win-win for them and not so for Apple?
Yes Apple is selling iPhones, but how many would they sell, if they were available at just about every cell phone company?
Skip
Nice points. I think Apple made a dumb move with AT&T.
Considering that China Telecom (not sure of the proper name) did not leap at this wonderful deal and arguably they have about the largest potential phone market on the planet. But once again, this is all speculation.
Steve Jobs said this speculation was wrong because they hadn't yet made an offer to a Chinese carrier for the iPhone.
They get paid no matter what. AT&T can build a 4G network and it really will not matter if people churn (go to other networks). The only winners in this war are the equipment guys, which Apple happens to be.
I don't know why you keep brining ATT into this. Unlocked phones anywhere but the US have nothing to do with ATT because they only offer service in the US.
The churn rate does not necessarily mean ATT is only loosing customers. They are gaining more than they are loosing.
In London you see quite a lot of people using an iPhone - even though O2 reportedly only sold some 70.000+. I would guess the unlocked figure is at least as high if not higher.
O2 signed 190,000 to iPhone contracts. I've made this point also. The carrier sign ups only reveal demand for the iPhone on that carrier. It does not reveal the total demand for the iPhone in general.
Yes Apple is selling iPhones, but how many would they sell, if they were available at just about every cell phone company?
The business model Apple is using for the iPhone isn't about selling as many iPhones as they can. If it were why would Apple place a limit on the number of iPhones one person can buy, or limit iPhone sales to credit cards instead of cash.
Apple wants to have total control of the iPhone experience and its development.
Nice points. I think Apple made a dumb move with AT&T.
What difference would it have really made to sell unlocked phones in the US? The only other alternative is T-Mobile and they have around 29 million subscribers vs ATT 70 million subscribers.
Steve Jobs said this speculation was wrong because they hadn't yet made an offer to a Chinese carrier for the iPhone.
I don't know why you keep brining ATT into this. Any locked phones anywhere but the US have nothing to do with ATT because they only offer service in the US.
A high churn rate does not necessarily mean ATT is only loosing customers. They can still be gaining more than they are loosing.
O2 signed 190,000 to iPhone contracts. I've made this point also. The carrier sign ups only reveal demand for the iPhone on that carrier. It does not reveal the total demand for the iPhone in general.
Sorry to ask but, what position are you trying to argue?
Also, do you think O2 would have signed those contracts if buyers had other opportunities, or AT&T would have sold as many?
In the US, there's not much of an alternative carrier, that alternative has less coverage and a rep for worse customer service. Elsewhere, I think it's first a matter of whether it's available "white market", and maybe second, whether you agree with the available plans.
If I'm reading this statement correctly, what kind of crack are you smoking? AT&T notoriously has the worst rated customer service. Maybe Sprint is worse (big deal).
Just a rough calculation:
1.5 iPhones x $399.00 (suggested price of US iPhone) = $598,500,000 = Smiling Steve Jobs
By the way, I am more than sure that Apple saw this unlocking, locking issue coming on the horizon.
You're missing two crucial points. First, the number of unlocked iPhones has to be way above anything Apple initially calculated for. Secondly, Apple looses monthly revenue from each iPhone not activated on one of their partners' network.
I, for one, am not surprised at all by the high number of unlocked iPhones, but I do not think Apple (or AT&T for that matter) expected that as many as 1-in-4 iPhones would be unlocked. (I think that number is closer to 30-35% myself).
My guess is that Apple and AT&T sat at the negotiating table and estimated that perhaps as many as 10% would be unlocked, as a certain number is inevitable, and wouldn't really hurt either company. But I think both companies are sincerely surprised by what has happened, and that we'll see more aggressive locking attempts in the near future.
The situation is out of hand, and I think it's going to be up to Apple to fix it. Clearly Apple has an exclusive relationship with AT&T which requires Apple to take steps to prevent AT&T from loosing revenue, and AT&T is likely putting pressure on Apple to enforce their end of the deal. But, as I point out below, given the agreement between the companies, Apple wins when they keep the iPhone locked, so that will grease the wheels, so to speak.
I say-and have said since the iPhone rumor stage-that this arrangement is plain wrong. I suggested that that the carrier, in this case AT&T, earn the iPhone activation by offering exclusive features, for example.
But that's not the reality. Apple has an exclusive with AT&T and I fully expect to see Apple make it harder and harder to unlock the iPhone starting as soon as 1.1.4.
That said, Apple has a reason to keep iPhones locked. They earn monthly revenue stream from each legitimately activated iPhone. Estimates are that Apple earns as much as $10/ from each handset, so Apple actually doesn't smile, necessarily, when they sell an iPhone that is destined to be unlocked.
It's this arrangement with partner networks that ensures that Apple take steps to keep the iPhone locked.
For the record, I think locking handsets is total bullshi*, and asked that the iPhone ship unlocked long before the iPhone shipped (when iPhone rumors were very young). That didn't happen and I think that a locked iPhone hurts everyone involved from Apple to AT&T to customers to shareholders.
And if Apple and AT&T think 25% of iPhones running around unlocked is bad, wait for the 3G iPhone. I would toss out an unlocking estimate of 50-60% in that case. Apple clearly has a problem on their hands, and as I've said from the beginning, it's their fault: they should have shipped the iPhone unlocked from the beginning. As a shareholder, I hope Apple proves me wrong on this.
You're missing two crucial points. First, the number of unlocked iPhones has to be way above anything Apple initially calculated for. Secondly, Apple looses monthly revenue from each iPhone not activated on one of their partners' network.
I, for one, am not surprised at all by the high number of unlocked iPhones, but I do not think Apple (or AT&T for that matter) expected that as many as 1-in-4 iPhones would be unlocked. (I think that number is closer to 30-35% myself).
My guess is that Apple and AT&T sat at the negotiating table and estimated that perhaps as many as 10% would be unlocked, as a certain number is inevitable, and wouldn't really hurt either company. But I think both companies are sincerely surprised by what has happened, and that we'll see more aggressive locking attempts in the near future.
The situation is out of hand, and I think it's going to be up to Apple to fix it. Clearly Apple has an exclusive relationship with AT&T which requires Apple to take steps to prevent AT&T from loosing revenue, and AT&T is likely putting pressure on Apple to enforce their end of the deal. But, as I point out below, given the agreement between the companies, Apple wins when they keep the iPhone locked, so that will grease the wheels, so to speak.
I say-and have said since the iPhone rumor stage-that this arrangement is plain wrong. I suggested that that the carrier, in this case AT&T, earn the iPhone activation by offering exclusive features, for example.
But that's not the reality. Apple has an exclusive with AT&T and I fully expect to see Apple make it harder and harder to unlock the iPhone starting as soon as 1.1.4.
That said, Apple has a reason to keep iPhones locked. They earn monthly revenue stream from each legitimately activated iPhone. Estimates are that Apple earns as much as $10/ from each handset, so Apple actually doesn't smile, necessarily, when they sell an iPhone that is destined to be unlocked.
It's this arrangement with partner networks that ensures that Apple take steps to keep the iPhone locked.
For the record, I think locking handsets is total bullshi*, and asked that the iPhone ship unlocked long before the iPhone shipped (when iPhone rumors were very young). That didn't happen and I think that a locked iPhone hurts everyone involved from Apple to AT&T to customers to shareholders.
And if Apple and AT&T think 25% of iPhones running around unlocked is bad, wait for the 3G iPhone. I would toss out an unlocking estimate of 50-60% in that case. Apple clearly has a problem on their hands, and as I've said from the beginning, it's their fault: they should have shipped the iPhone unlocked from the beginning. As a shareholder, I hope Apple proves me wrong on this.
Nice post cherrypop. Great realization of the situation. Pretty soon a few Apple apologists will show up claiming how wonderful the locking of phones is and the great benefits that customers get with a locked phone. Locked phones, locked platform, locked OS's are not a benefit to anyone but the creators of these devices and software. Yup. Apple is in deep kemchi here for sure. They have an option to "really" lock out $399 to $499 guaranteed for each iPhone or a gamble with AT&T signing up customers (this goes for the other partners as well). Also, let's not forget the other phone guys are not going to just sit back. Nokia's TS UI phone is pretty nice as well and offers a ton more "real" phone features that users have been asking for.
Sorry to ask but, what position are you trying to argue?
The position of truth, not a position of hyperbole.
Also, do you think O2 would have signed those contracts if buyers had other opportunities, or AT&T would have sold as many?
I don't know how popular O2 is in the UK. The only alternative in the US is T-Mobile and they don't seem as popular as ATT.
If I'm reading this statement correctly, what kind of crack are you smoking? AT&T notoriously has the worst rated customer service. Maybe Sprint is worse (big deal).
With 70 million subscribers ATT is doing something right.
The position of truth, not a position of hyperbole.
Insert, circular argument.
Also, let's not forget the other phone guys are not going to just sit back. Nokia's TS UI phone is pretty nice as well and offers a ton more "real" phone features that users have been asking for.
Very good point. Another reason, clearly, why Apple looses when shipping a locked handset.
A one year exclusive with AT&T might have made sense, but the rumored (as it's never been formerly announced that I know of) 5 to 8 years will really give other handset makers an advantage.
The argument from the beginning has been that Apple needed to partner with a carrier "to learn the business." I think that might have applied to the mobile business in the 80's and 90's, but not anymore, as unlocked handsets are the norm in markets where networks are the most advanced.
With 70 million subscribers ATT is doing something right.
Windows has how much of the market? Doesn't mean they necessarily do it right.
Windows has how much of the market? Doesn't mean they necessarily do it right.
I had problems with Cingular from years past but have been an extremely satisfied customer since getting my iPhone 6 months ago.
Very good point. Another reason, clearly, why Apple looses when shipping a locked handset.
A one year exclusive with AT&T might have made sense, but the rumored (as it's never been formerly announced that I know of) 5 to 8 years will really give other handset makers an advantage.
The argument from the beginning has been that Apple needed to partner with a carrier "to learn the business." I think that might have applied to the mobile business in the 80's and 90's, but not anymore, as unlocked handsets are the norm in markets where networks are the most advanced.
Exactly. Apple is setting a dangerous precedent with this forced locking issue.
Exactly. Apple is setting a dangerous precedent with this forced locking issue.
While I agree that is does set a precedence, they are also breaking the precedence that cell phones should be subsidized devices with only features sanctioned by the carrier. Furthermore, I don't think it will be hard to sell the iPhone as an unlocked device through any electronics retailer once the contractual period is.
Exactly. Apple is setting a dangerous precedent with this forced locking issue.
iphone sales are iphone sales. unlocked phones show proof there is a much larger demand out there. When iphone lock contracts run out down the road, the iphone will literally be everywhere... legally and legit.
people want iphones so bad they go through the trouble of aftermarket unlocking. do you see this type of deman for sidekicks or blackberries (where people go through all that trouble just for a phone)? No, you don't.
You're missing a crucial point. The vast majority of unlocked phones would never have been legitimate sales if unlocking weren't an option as many are going abroad. Only a small percentage of unlocked handsets are in use in official iPhone countries, and of these, although some may have wanted the iPhone 'at any cost', surely they would just pay the official price anyway? Even in official countries, those with the iPhone unlocked are those unwilling to pay the official price or to be locked in to an 18 month agreement - they would have simply purchased a different phone if they couldn't have unlocked an iPhone.
So unlocking IS win-win for Apple. Better receive a lower amount for a phone that will then be unlocked than receive nothing because the purchaser decided to buy something actually available in their country, or something cheaper in an official iPhone country.
No, I didn't miss the point. I just didn't address that point. I was replying to nvidia who didn't see what the financial analysts were afraid of. I pointed out that 1.3 billion dollars in potentially lost revenue would make any financial analyst look up and take notice.
Now as far as the rest of the discussion. In another thread I wondered who first presented the idea that Apple should get ongoing monthly fees for every iPhone account. Apple or ATT? Was Apple squeezing ATT for more money at the cost of cutting their customer base? Or did ATT offer ongoing fees as a way to bribe Apple to stay out of the gray market? Who benefits by the locking/unlocking of the iPhones?
My guess is that Apple and AT&T sat at the negotiating table and estimated that perhaps as many as 10% would be unlocked, as a certain number is inevitable, and wouldn't really hurt either company.
The situation is out of hand, and I think it's going to be up to Apple to fix it. Clearly Apple has an exclusive relationship with AT&T which requires Apple to take steps to prevent AT&T from loosing revenue, and AT&T is likely putting pressure on Apple to enforce their end of the deal. But, as I point out below, given the agreement between the companies, Apple wins when they keep the iPhone locked, so that will grease the wheels, so to speak.
But that's not the reality. Apple has an exclusive with AT&T and I fully expect to see Apple make it harder and harder to unlock the iPhone starting as soon as 1.1.4.
And if Apple and AT&T think 25% of iPhones running around unlocked is bad, wait for the 3G iPhone. I would toss out an unlocking estimate of 50-60% in that case.
These aren't good points. This is nothing but speculation, conjecture, and assumption based on no supporting facts.
There is no evidence ATT is putting pressure on Apple to stop phone unlocking. Why would they? The far majority of unlocked phones are in other countries.
What would Apple do in 1.1.4 that they have not already done? Why would they suddenly take some drastic action that they have not already taken?
Most of the unlocked phones are in countries that have no official support for the iPhone. In that case your only option to use one is unlocked.
Your unlocking projection is ridiculous.
Insert, circular argument.
I don't see the circle.
Windows has how much of the market? Doesn't mean they necessarily do it right.
There is no way to dominate 90% of a free market unless you did somethings very much right. Windows provided solutions that the market needed and no other OS available was able to provide.
In the case of AT&T. They added 10 million new customers in one year. You don't add that many new customers unless you are doing something right. AT&T now has over one third of the 253 million mobile phone users in the US.
These aren't good points. This is nothing but speculation, conjecture, and assumption based on no supporting facts.
There is no evidence ATT is putting pressure on Apple to stop phone unlocking. Why would they? The far majority of unlocked phones are in other countries.
What would Apple do in 1.1.4 that they have not already done? Why would they suddenly take some drastic action that they have not already taken?
Most of the unlocked phones are in countries that have no official support for the iPhone. In that case your only option to use one is unlocked.
Your unlocking projection is ridiculous.
You have a good point. Considering that they broke the security in the SECPAC, I am not sure what else they can do, and as you state there is no evidence that Apple is going to even try. If they can still make money on iPhones without annoying their partners, I am sure this is the path they will go.