I don't understand how people conclude that iphone is doing well in the US --- the US ain't doing well if 50% of the sales have gone to China, Russia and the rest of the world.
It doesn't really make much difference. An iPhone sale is an iPhone sale for Apple no matter where its used. An unlocked phone in China or Russia does not effect AT&T because they don't provide service in China or Russia. Unlocked phones going to T-Mobile would effect AT&T but that does not appear to be a big problem.
Lets say AT&T did sign only 900,00 iPhone users. 900,000 user of a $450 phone with a $90 contract. In exactly what context is that a bad number?
And Apple doesn't really want a lot of unlocked iPhones, because they then don't get the monthly carrier kickbacks from the revenue sharing deals.
Apple is staunchly protecting its revenue sharing deals. That is why they currently sell unlocked phones in France and are reported to sell unlocked phones in Australia, Italy, and Belgium.
It doesn't really make much difference. An iPhone sale is an iPhone sale for Apple no matter where its used. An unlocked phone in China or Russia does not effect AT&T because they don't provide service in China or Russia. Unlocked phones going to T-Mobile would effect AT&T but that does not appear to be a big problem.
Lets say AT&T did sign only 900,00 iPhone users. 900,000 user of a $450 phone with a $90 contract. In exactly what context is that a bad number?
It only makes a difference when we actually look at American sales as actually American sales --- otherwise it loses all meanings.
It's a bad number for AT&T that only 40% of them are new subscribers and probably upward of $18 a month goes to Apple, not AT&T. It's a $72 contract, not $90.
It is so bad that AT&T doesn't give out activation numbers anymore. All that distraction --- Verizon managed to get more net adds in Q1 than AT&T.
Apple is staunchly protecting its revenue sharing deals. That is why they currently sell unlocked phones in France and are reported to sell unlocked phones in Australia, Italy, and Belgium.
How many of the French iphones were bought for 749 euro (i.e. totally unlocked iphone)?
Orange said 5%. The French iphone plans are not that great either --- which shows that all the French consumer laws are useless.
Nobody actually said that Australia and Italy will have unlocked iphones. All the rumors actually said is that the iphone will be available to multiple carriers in Australia and Italy --- which can mean that they will be locked to multiple carriers in Australia and Italy.
I'm sure that exact same argument was used against ppl who said the following:
"I don't think the G4 Cube will sell well."
"That new AppleTV gizmo just doesn't seem very compelling."
"You know what? I think iPod sales may be due to plateau soon."
Sometimes, boardroom info is overrated. We, the buying public, ultimately determine what fails and succeeds, by voting with our pocketbooks. And sometimes (just sometimes, mind you), despite the best efforts of all the marketers and product people, we have a better take on what is or isn't going to work, because we're not inside the bubble.
After all, if boardroom info and being a marketing guru really WAS the hand of God, instead of an advantage, NO products would fail, and all the suits would be happy and dancing a merry jig in the streets, eh?
Of course mistakes can be made between knowing the demographics and creating & selling the product successfully. Products fail all of the time, execution isn't perfect, or interpreting the demographics isn't done correctly. It doesn't negate the fact that they knew the demographics, what people wanted, knew what they were trying to do, and had good reasons for going where they want to go. They had a leg to stand on. It also doesn't negate the statement that people who make proclamations of some products success in absentia of actual data don't really know what they are talking about. They are at best making a guess, and sometimes they turn out right. That's luck.
You don't invest tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in product development and business development based on luck and hunches. I don't think you would. There are people who do, but they aint wandering around on the Internet.
Quote:
Not exactly. For example, Italy's 3G penetration rates are over double American ones:
3G penetration rates in Italy are already at 29%, Spain and UK are at about 18%. Even the USA is getting well along into 3G, with 13% having migrated to 3G.
Now add to that that, with the iPhone, we're talking the high-end segment of the market, where 3G is more expected (and more likely to be use) than the market as a whole.
3G statistics are indeed random. I wonder how long you searched to even find that piece of info. I've seen USA/European subscriber rates vary from 10% to 30% in the last 6 months. The only commonality I've seen is that Korea/Japan are highest (40 to 50%), Spain/Italy (30$) next, and USA/UK/Germany/France varying between 10 to 25%.
Quote:
Going with EDGE first with the iPhone was mostly correct in the US, but not really in Europe, and certainly wouldn't be in Asia, specifically Japan and Korea, whose 3G penetration rates are among the highest in the world.
Well, ideally, a company would be able to release a specific product suited to a specific market at the right time for the right price using the right business model. They could be like Nokia with lots and lots of handsets. But obviously not. Nokia isn't even this fictional company as they have their "failures". Apple has their business plan and built a cell phone to a specific set of form factor, battery performance, profit margin, schedule, usability, and business plan constraints. You live with what you can do, and do it well.
There's always going to be someone, even not considering the Internet peanut gallery, who will think you've done something wrong. It's at best a guess if you don't have the data or the development/production/business plan. Even in the USA, Apple's plan is rife with questions as they are only selling to 30% of the market (through AT&T, but not T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint, Alltel, etc) in the USA. Was that mistake? In an idealized world sure, but unfortunately we do not, and there are a lot things that must be decided and managed.
Quote:
I'd agree that price is an issue, but it's far from the only one. Price alone won't turn things around long-term in Europe, not with the iPhone's current feature set. Fortunately, help appears to be only two months away or so.
Price is the dominant factor. If they don't have the right business plan, the features won't matter. We're not talking about pathological differences between the features sets of these devices either. They'll be relatively close depending on the specialty of the device.
Quote:
The lunacy is that Apple did know this, and yet still thought they'd run roughshod over it anyway, with what was basically the US 2.5G model. After all, Euro sales are underwhelming, why, again?
Underwhelming is what you think. "Conquering the European market" is what you think Apple is doing. Don't be surprised to hear people say that you don't know what Apple is planning or what they are planning on doing. Until you really know the business plan, or Apple reports as such, all you are doing is creating a strawman to knock down and look smart.
Quote:
Look, while I believe that Stevie J is the closest thing the industry has to a reliable techno-visionary, at least at the CEO level (and certainly much better than Gates the Fraud, who initially missed the Internet ), NO ONE is Nostradamus in this industry. Apple's slipped on banana peels before, and it'll do it again. That's not so important. What is important is how they respond to it.
You should give Gates his due respect. You don't survive as a titan of the business for almost 30 years as a fraud. He also deserves much more respect for his post-retirement work as well.
Quote:
So part of Apple's problem in Europe is simple xenophobia? In a market that has THAT many different cultures, languages, traditions? Um... okay.
Sure, it's only natural. I don't really see it as being a controversial statement at all. Generally, people favor things in a tiered way: family, friends, neighborhood, school, city, state, country, continent, hemisphere. It's a very natural human response to not like what you don't know. Companies counteract that by producing strong brands such as Nokia, Mercedes, or Samsung, making this foreign thing feel trustworthy and familiar. Any international company must take this into consideration.
Since Apple is a tried and true American company, specifically, a California Bay Area company, it has its image and the perceptions that run with it. It also has a brand image that's different from its geography, and it is perceived differently in the USA, Europe and the rest of the world. So my question to you would be, if Apple was a company in say northern Italy with as strong a brand as they have in the USA, how do you think it would be treated by Europeans as compared to now?
Quote:
I think perhaps in highly homogenous Japan, you could make that argument, but not so much in Europe. After all, do the Germans, French, Italians, Spanish, Flemish, etc. really love the Finland (home of Nokia) so much? No, but they certainly buy their phones in epic numbers, because their phones are good, for the most part.
That's certainly a brand argument where Nokia has developed a very strong brand; almost throughout the world except for in the USA. How well does Siemens do in Finland? What about Samsung/LG/SE in Finland?
It only makes a difference when we actually look at American sales as actually American sales --- otherwise it loses all meanings.
It's a bad number for AT&T that only 40% of them are new subscribers and probably upward of $18 a month goes to Apple, not AT&T. It's a $72 contract, not $90.
It is so bad that AT&T doesn't give out activation numbers anymore. All that distraction --- Verizon managed to get more net adds in Q1 than AT&T.
You are the one who brought up 50% of iPhone's going to China and Russia. I'm saying Russia and China have no impact on AT&T whatsoever.
You are still just quoting percentages and not giving any context to why those numbers are bad and what would be better. The iPhone is far above the average price americans pay for phones or contracts. What other phone sells more at that price point?
We don't know how much AT&T is paying in the revenue sharing. I've seen reports widely go from $5 to $30. Here you say $18. Where did you get that number from?
Yes Verizon did add 200,000 more subscribers than AT&T over the quarter. For Verizon that number is 200,000 less than last year. Both companies are doing well and nearly tied in revenue. Verizon reported 11.7 billion in wireless revenue, AT&T 11.8 billion. AT&T wireless revenue increased 18.1%, data revenues are up 57.3% over last year.
AT&T will need to aggressively roll out network improvements to maintain its lead. If Apple executes iPhone 2.0 properly it will weigh heavy on AT&T competitors. Verizon still has no one phone directly comparable to the iPhone.
How many of the French iphones were bought for 749 euro (i.e. totally unlocked iphone)?
Of course very few people but that is the point. Its an economic disinsensitive to get them to sign with a carrier.
Quote:
Nobody actually said that Australia and Italy will have unlocked iphones. All the rumors actually said is that the iphone will be available to multiple carriers in Australia and Italy --- which can mean that they will be locked to multiple carriers in Australia and Italy.
How do you lock a phone to multiple carriers who all use the same mobile network standard?
From what I've read the phone will be sold to the carriers at an unlocked price. The carriers will be free to subsidize the phone at whatever price they want.
Worrying so much that you obsess that the "Euro chauvinists are out to get ya" is both paranoid and strange.
How the hell do you get that out of anything I've said? Are you, perhaps, a crazy person?
Quote:
So's trying to rake someone over the grill over the subtext of the word "roughshod". I really don't like being accused of things over nothing.
"Accused of things"? In a post explaining why I'm paranoid? WTF?
Quote:
Now, if you'll excuse me, Klaus, Francois, Bjorn and I are in the middle of meeting to plot the overthrow of Apple. Thanks.
OK, here's an accusation: you don't know how to read, you're oddly thin-skinned for someone who doesn't mind dishing it on the internet, and you have no coherent defense for your completely speculative theories on why Apple was wrong to intro the 2G iPhone in Europe.
That's what we're talking about right? I have an opinion, I tried to convey it reasonably, and you get all wooga-wooga, for reasons unknown. Fucking irritating, dude.
You are the one who brought up 50% of iPhone's going to China and Russia. I'm saying Russia and China have no impact on AT&T whatsoever.
You are still just quoting percentages and not giving any context to why those numbers are bad and what would be better. The iPhone is far above the average price americans pay for phones or contracts. What other phone sells more at that price point?
We don't know how much AT&T is paying in the revenue sharing. I've seen reports widely go from $5 to $30. Here you say $18. Where did you get that number from?
Yes Verizon did add 200,000 more subscribers than AT&T over the quarter. For Verizon that number is 200,000 less than last year. Both companies are doing well and nearly tied in revenue. Verizon reported 11.7 billion in wireless revenue, AT&T 11.8 billion. AT&T wireless revenue increased 18.1%, data revenues are up 57.3% over last year.
AT&T will need to aggressively roll out network improvements to maintain its lead. If Apple executes iPhone 2.0 properly it will weigh heavy on AT&T competitors. Verizon still has no one phone directly comparable to the iPhone.
I didn't say American iphones exporting to China and Russia are affecting AT&T. I said that it affects US sales data for the iphone. I said US sales aren't US sales if a big bunch of them are going overseas --- did I say anything about AT&T in that statement.
What Verizon does or does not do --- affects AT&T. AT&T reported that 4% of their subscribers are taking the $99 unlimited voice plan --- which in numeric term is bigger than their iphone subscriber base. Plenty of people are willing to pay for high monthly plans for voice which takes less bandwidth than the iphone.
Of course very few people but that is the point. Its an economic disinsensitive to get them to sign with a carrier.
How do you lock a phone to multiple carriers who all use the same mobile network standard?
From what I've read the phone will be sold to the carriers at an unlocked price. The carriers will be free to subsidize the phone at whatever price they want.
What point is that? A theoretical point that has no effect to the real world just to win an argument in a internet forum.
How does any carrier lock a GSM phone? They all use the same GSM network standard.
Carrier A will simlock the iphone to carrier's A network. Carrier B will simlock the iphone to carrier's B network. You can't just take a AT&T iphone and put in a O2 UK SIM card --- even though O2 offers the iphone in the UK.
How do you lock a phone to multiple carriers who all use the same mobile network standard?
From a technical point of view, do you know what you are talking about here? It does not look like it. If you want, I can either explain it to you or you can Google it.
You mentioned back a few posts about 3G draining the battery, power hungry apps (paraphrase), yada, yada, yada. Once again, this comes from someone that has no practical experience with a 3G device. I will gladly clue you in. I have a Nokia N82. A HSDPA phone. It shows constantly that it is connected to 3G. Does this mean that I am using 3G or that it is connected to a 3G network? Hint: It is connected waiting to do something. Now if I make a VoIP call, it will then initiate a SIP connection and 3G will come into active play. Thus it will then make tax the battery. Sooooo your continued comments about battery life, yada, yada, yada, are a bit uniformed and misleading.
How the hell do you get that out of anything I've said? Are you, perhaps, a crazy person?
"Accused of things"? In a post explaining why I'm paranoid? WTF?
OK, here's an accusation: you don't know how to read, you're oddly thin-skinned for someone who doesn't mind dishing it on the internet, and you have no coherent defense for your completely speculative theories on why Apple was wrong to intro the 2G iPhone in Europe.
That's what we're talking about right? I have an opinion, I tried to convey it reasonably, and you get all wooga-wooga, for reasons unknown. Fucking irritating, dude.
Addabox, received your private message. Apology accepted.
It's okay to be hardcore, but the 'Spanish Inquisition' aspect was what wasn't appreciated. At least you you were big enough to admit you went too far (a fair number of ppl on AI aren't), and its appreciated.
What point is that? A theoretical point that has no effect to the real world just to win an argument in a internet forum.
Is this a trick question?
Quote:
Carrier A will simlock the iphone to carrier's A network. Carrier B will simlock the iphone to carrier's B network. You can't just take a AT&T iphone and put in a O2 UK SIM card --- even though O2 offers the iphone in the UK.
This seems like a waste of effort. People can easily switch sim cards. Apple would have to deal with stocking phones with sim cards for each carrier.
From a technical point of view, do you know what you are talking about here? It does not look like it. If you want, I can either explain it to you or you can Google it.
You mentioned back a few posts about 3G draining the battery, power hungry apps (paraphrase), yada, yada, yada. Once again, this comes from someone that has no practical experience with a 3G device. I will gladly clue you in. I have a Nokia N82. A HSDPA phone. It shows constantly that it is connected to 3G. Does this mean that I am using 3G or that it is connected to a 3G network? Hint: It is connected waiting to do something. Now if I make a VoIP call, it will then initiate a SIP connection and 3G will come into active play. Thus it will then make tax the battery. Sooooo your continued comments about battery life, yada, yada, yada, are a bit uniformed and misleading.
The iPhone is designed to be used liberally and frequently for data. That is the reason it comes with an unlimited data contract. The iPhone ships with 7 apps that require a data connection and their are over 1,500 web apps that require a data connection.
It would defeat the design and purpose for most of the iPhone apps if the user did not use the data connection.
The iPhone is designed to be used liberally and frequently for data. That is the reason it comes with an unlimited data contract. The iPhone ships with 7 apps that require a data connection and their are over 1,500 web apps that require a data connection.
It would defeat the design and purpose for most of the iPhone apps if the user did not use the data connection.
What if I don't want to use web apps but want native apps. Apple gets to dictate how I will use my device.
This seems like a waste of effort. People can easily switch sim cards. Apple would have to deal with stocking phones with sim cards for each carrier.
As I said earlier --- you said that it's technically impossible to simlock a GSM phone --- but that's how 3 billion GSM phones have been sold.
Apple doesn't have physical stores in Australia. The carriers have to insert their own sim cards into the iphones. That's how billion of GSM phones are sold --- the carriers insert their own sim cards.
You made it sound like you have never touched a GSM phone before and doesn't know how the world works.
As I said earlier --- you said that it's technically impossible to simlock a GSM phone --- but that's how 3 billion GSM phones have been sold.
I didn't make a declarative statement, I asked a question: How do you lock a phone to multiple carriers who all use the same mobile network standard?
The answer is you can try, but you can't really.
Quote:
Apple doesn't have physical stores in Australia. The carriers have to insert their own sim cards into the iphones. That's how billion of GSM phones are sold --- the carriers insert their own sim cards.
As far as been reported the iPhone ships with a sim card. France doesn't have Apple store's either. Does O2 insert its own sim cards?
I didn't make a declarative statement, I asked a question: How do you lock a phone to multiple carriers who all use the same mobile network standard?
The answer is you can try, but you can't really.
As far as been reported the iPhone ships with a sim card. France doesn't have Apple store's either. Does O2 insert its own sim cards?
Billions of GSM phones have been sold with this "time-consuming" method of simlocked phones with carrier's sim cards inserted. Most of those GSM phones come with a box that would have the carrier's name on it, a firmware that is specific with the carrier, a piece of paper that describe the terms and conditions of the carrier.
It's not that "you can try, but you can't really" --- billions of GSM phones have been sold that way.
It's not that "you can try, but you can't really" --- billions of GSM phones have been sold that way.
I'm not disagreeing with you. But at the same time I'm saying no phone is permanently locked. You are behaving as though people can not simply change the sim card.
Comments
I don't understand how people conclude that iphone is doing well in the US --- the US ain't doing well if 50% of the sales have gone to China, Russia and the rest of the world.
It doesn't really make much difference. An iPhone sale is an iPhone sale for Apple no matter where its used. An unlocked phone in China or Russia does not effect AT&T because they don't provide service in China or Russia. Unlocked phones going to T-Mobile would effect AT&T but that does not appear to be a big problem.
Lets say AT&T did sign only 900,00 iPhone users. 900,000 user of a $450 phone with a $90 contract. In exactly what context is that a bad number?
And Apple doesn't really want a lot of unlocked iPhones, because they then don't get the monthly carrier kickbacks from the revenue sharing deals.
Apple is staunchly protecting its revenue sharing deals. That is why they currently sell unlocked phones in France and are reported to sell unlocked phones in Australia, Italy, and Belgium.
It doesn't really make much difference. An iPhone sale is an iPhone sale for Apple no matter where its used. An unlocked phone in China or Russia does not effect AT&T because they don't provide service in China or Russia. Unlocked phones going to T-Mobile would effect AT&T but that does not appear to be a big problem.
Lets say AT&T did sign only 900,00 iPhone users. 900,000 user of a $450 phone with a $90 contract. In exactly what context is that a bad number?
It only makes a difference when we actually look at American sales as actually American sales --- otherwise it loses all meanings.
It's a bad number for AT&T that only 40% of them are new subscribers and probably upward of $18 a month goes to Apple, not AT&T. It's a $72 contract, not $90.
It is so bad that AT&T doesn't give out activation numbers anymore. All that distraction --- Verizon managed to get more net adds in Q1 than AT&T.
Apple is staunchly protecting its revenue sharing deals. That is why they currently sell unlocked phones in France and are reported to sell unlocked phones in Australia, Italy, and Belgium.
How many of the French iphones were bought for 749 euro (i.e. totally unlocked iphone)?
Orange said 5%. The French iphone plans are not that great either --- which shows that all the French consumer laws are useless.
Nobody actually said that Australia and Italy will have unlocked iphones. All the rumors actually said is that the iphone will be available to multiple carriers in Australia and Italy --- which can mean that they will be locked to multiple carriers in Australia and Italy.
I'm sure that exact same argument was used against ppl who said the following:
"I don't think the G4 Cube will sell well."
"That new AppleTV gizmo just doesn't seem very compelling."
"You know what? I think iPod sales may be due to plateau soon."
Sometimes, boardroom info is overrated. We, the buying public, ultimately determine what fails and succeeds, by voting with our pocketbooks. And sometimes (just sometimes, mind you), despite the best efforts of all the marketers and product people, we have a better take on what is or isn't going to work, because we're not inside the bubble.
After all, if boardroom info and being a marketing guru really WAS the hand of God, instead of an advantage, NO products would fail, and all the suits would be happy and dancing a merry jig in the streets, eh?
Of course mistakes can be made between knowing the demographics and creating & selling the product successfully. Products fail all of the time, execution isn't perfect, or interpreting the demographics isn't done correctly. It doesn't negate the fact that they knew the demographics, what people wanted, knew what they were trying to do, and had good reasons for going where they want to go. They had a leg to stand on. It also doesn't negate the statement that people who make proclamations of some products success in absentia of actual data don't really know what they are talking about. They are at best making a guess, and sometimes they turn out right. That's luck.
You don't invest tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in product development and business development based on luck and hunches. I don't think you would. There are people who do, but they aint wandering around on the Internet.
Not exactly. For example, Italy's 3G penetration rates are over double American ones:
3G penetration rates in Italy are already at 29%, Spain and UK are at about 18%. Even the USA is getting well along into 3G, with 13% having migrated to 3G.
http://3g4g.blogspot.com/2007/09/random-statistics.html
Now add to that that, with the iPhone, we're talking the high-end segment of the market, where 3G is more expected (and more likely to be use) than the market as a whole.
3G statistics are indeed random. I wonder how long you searched to even find that piece of info. I've seen USA/European subscriber rates vary from 10% to 30% in the last 6 months. The only commonality I've seen is that Korea/Japan are highest (40 to 50%), Spain/Italy (30$) next, and USA/UK/Germany/France varying between 10 to 25%.
Going with EDGE first with the iPhone was mostly correct in the US, but not really in Europe, and certainly wouldn't be in Asia, specifically Japan and Korea, whose 3G penetration rates are among the highest in the world.
Well, ideally, a company would be able to release a specific product suited to a specific market at the right time for the right price using the right business model. They could be like Nokia with lots and lots of handsets. But obviously not. Nokia isn't even this fictional company as they have their "failures". Apple has their business plan and built a cell phone to a specific set of form factor, battery performance, profit margin, schedule, usability, and business plan constraints. You live with what you can do, and do it well.
There's always going to be someone, even not considering the Internet peanut gallery, who will think you've done something wrong. It's at best a guess if you don't have the data or the development/production/business plan. Even in the USA, Apple's plan is rife with questions as they are only selling to 30% of the market (through AT&T, but not T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint, Alltel, etc) in the USA. Was that mistake? In an idealized world sure, but unfortunately we do not, and there are a lot things that must be decided and managed.
I'd agree that price is an issue, but it's far from the only one. Price alone won't turn things around long-term in Europe, not with the iPhone's current feature set. Fortunately, help appears to be only two months away or so.
Price is the dominant factor. If they don't have the right business plan, the features won't matter. We're not talking about pathological differences between the features sets of these devices either. They'll be relatively close depending on the specialty of the device.
The lunacy is that Apple did know this, and yet still thought they'd run roughshod over it anyway, with what was basically the US 2.5G model. After all, Euro sales are underwhelming, why, again?
Underwhelming is what you think. "Conquering the European market" is what you think Apple is doing. Don't be surprised to hear people say that you don't know what Apple is planning or what they are planning on doing. Until you really know the business plan, or Apple reports as such, all you are doing is creating a strawman to knock down and look smart.
Look, while I believe that Stevie J is the closest thing the industry has to a reliable techno-visionary, at least at the CEO level (and certainly much better than Gates the Fraud, who initially missed the Internet
You should give Gates his due respect. You don't survive as a titan of the business for almost 30 years as a fraud. He also deserves much more respect for his post-retirement work as well.
So part of Apple's problem in Europe is simple xenophobia? In a market that has THAT many different cultures, languages, traditions? Um... okay.
Sure, it's only natural. I don't really see it as being a controversial statement at all. Generally, people favor things in a tiered way: family, friends, neighborhood, school, city, state, country, continent, hemisphere. It's a very natural human response to not like what you don't know. Companies counteract that by producing strong brands such as Nokia, Mercedes, or Samsung, making this foreign thing feel trustworthy and familiar. Any international company must take this into consideration.
Since Apple is a tried and true American company, specifically, a California Bay Area company, it has its image and the perceptions that run with it. It also has a brand image that's different from its geography, and it is perceived differently in the USA, Europe and the rest of the world. So my question to you would be, if Apple was a company in say northern Italy with as strong a brand as they have in the USA, how do you think it would be treated by Europeans as compared to now?
I think perhaps in highly homogenous Japan, you could make that argument, but not so much in Europe. After all, do the Germans, French, Italians, Spanish, Flemish, etc. really love the Finland (home of Nokia) so much? No, but they certainly buy their phones in epic numbers, because their phones are good, for the most part.
That's certainly a brand argument where Nokia has developed a very strong brand; almost throughout the world except for in the USA. How well does Siemens do in Finland? What about Samsung/LG/SE in Finland?
It only makes a difference when we actually look at American sales as actually American sales --- otherwise it loses all meanings.
It's a bad number for AT&T that only 40% of them are new subscribers and probably upward of $18 a month goes to Apple, not AT&T. It's a $72 contract, not $90.
It is so bad that AT&T doesn't give out activation numbers anymore. All that distraction --- Verizon managed to get more net adds in Q1 than AT&T.
You are the one who brought up 50% of iPhone's going to China and Russia. I'm saying Russia and China have no impact on AT&T whatsoever.
You are still just quoting percentages and not giving any context to why those numbers are bad and what would be better. The iPhone is far above the average price americans pay for phones or contracts. What other phone sells more at that price point?
We don't know how much AT&T is paying in the revenue sharing. I've seen reports widely go from $5 to $30. Here you say $18. Where did you get that number from?
Yes Verizon did add 200,000 more subscribers than AT&T over the quarter. For Verizon that number is 200,000 less than last year. Both companies are doing well and nearly tied in revenue. Verizon reported 11.7 billion in wireless revenue, AT&T 11.8 billion. AT&T wireless revenue increased 18.1%, data revenues are up 57.3% over last year.
AT&T will need to aggressively roll out network improvements to maintain its lead. If Apple executes iPhone 2.0 properly it will weigh heavy on AT&T competitors. Verizon still has no one phone directly comparable to the iPhone.
How many of the French iphones were bought for 749 euro (i.e. totally unlocked iphone)?
Of course very few people but that is the point. Its an economic disinsensitive to get them to sign with a carrier.
Nobody actually said that Australia and Italy will have unlocked iphones. All the rumors actually said is that the iphone will be available to multiple carriers in Australia and Italy --- which can mean that they will be locked to multiple carriers in Australia and Italy.
How do you lock a phone to multiple carriers who all use the same mobile network standard?
From what I've read the phone will be sold to the carriers at an unlocked price. The carriers will be free to subsidize the phone at whatever price they want.
Worrying so much that you obsess that the "Euro chauvinists are out to get ya" is both paranoid and strange.
How the hell do you get that out of anything I've said? Are you, perhaps, a crazy person?
So's trying to rake someone over the grill over the subtext of the word "roughshod". I really don't like being accused of things over nothing.
"Accused of things"? In a post explaining why I'm paranoid? WTF?
Now, if you'll excuse me, Klaus, Francois, Bjorn and I are in the middle of meeting to plot the overthrow of Apple. Thanks.
OK, here's an accusation: you don't know how to read, you're oddly thin-skinned for someone who doesn't mind dishing it on the internet, and you have no coherent defense for your completely speculative theories on why Apple was wrong to intro the 2G iPhone in Europe.
That's what we're talking about right? I have an opinion, I tried to convey it reasonably, and you get all wooga-wooga, for reasons unknown. Fucking irritating, dude.
You are the one who brought up 50% of iPhone's going to China and Russia. I'm saying Russia and China have no impact on AT&T whatsoever.
You are still just quoting percentages and not giving any context to why those numbers are bad and what would be better. The iPhone is far above the average price americans pay for phones or contracts. What other phone sells more at that price point?
We don't know how much AT&T is paying in the revenue sharing. I've seen reports widely go from $5 to $30. Here you say $18. Where did you get that number from?
Yes Verizon did add 200,000 more subscribers than AT&T over the quarter. For Verizon that number is 200,000 less than last year. Both companies are doing well and nearly tied in revenue. Verizon reported 11.7 billion in wireless revenue, AT&T 11.8 billion. AT&T wireless revenue increased 18.1%, data revenues are up 57.3% over last year.
AT&T will need to aggressively roll out network improvements to maintain its lead. If Apple executes iPhone 2.0 properly it will weigh heavy on AT&T competitors. Verizon still has no one phone directly comparable to the iPhone.
I didn't say American iphones exporting to China and Russia are affecting AT&T. I said that it affects US sales data for the iphone. I said US sales aren't US sales if a big bunch of them are going overseas --- did I say anything about AT&T in that statement.
What Verizon does or does not do --- affects AT&T. AT&T reported that 4% of their subscribers are taking the $99 unlimited voice plan --- which in numeric term is bigger than their iphone subscriber base. Plenty of people are willing to pay for high monthly plans for voice which takes less bandwidth than the iphone.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0...ing-prices/?hp
$18 comes from Munster --- which everybody here uses his numbers when they served their purposes.
Notice that they have approx. the same revenue but AT&T had to do it with 4 million subscribers.
Of course very few people but that is the point. Its an economic disinsensitive to get them to sign with a carrier.
How do you lock a phone to multiple carriers who all use the same mobile network standard?
From what I've read the phone will be sold to the carriers at an unlocked price. The carriers will be free to subsidize the phone at whatever price they want.
What point is that? A theoretical point that has no effect to the real world just to win an argument in a internet forum.
How does any carrier lock a GSM phone? They all use the same GSM network standard.
Carrier A will simlock the iphone to carrier's A network. Carrier B will simlock the iphone to carrier's B network. You can't just take a AT&T iphone and put in a O2 UK SIM card --- even though O2 offers the iphone in the UK.
How do you lock a phone to multiple carriers who all use the same mobile network standard?
From a technical point of view, do you know what you are talking about here? It does not look like it. If you want, I can either explain it to you or you can Google it.
You mentioned back a few posts about 3G draining the battery, power hungry apps (paraphrase), yada, yada, yada. Once again, this comes from someone that has no practical experience with a 3G device. I will gladly clue you in. I have a Nokia N82. A HSDPA phone. It shows constantly that it is connected to 3G. Does this mean that I am using 3G or that it is connected to a 3G network? Hint: It is connected waiting to do something. Now if I make a VoIP call, it will then initiate a SIP connection and 3G will come into active play. Thus it will then make tax the battery. Sooooo your continued comments about battery life, yada, yada, yada, are a bit uniformed and misleading.
Anyway, carry on with the Apple love-fest.
How the hell do you get that out of anything I've said? Are you, perhaps, a crazy person?
"Accused of things"? In a post explaining why I'm paranoid? WTF?
OK, here's an accusation: you don't know how to read, you're oddly thin-skinned for someone who doesn't mind dishing it on the internet, and you have no coherent defense for your completely speculative theories on why Apple was wrong to intro the 2G iPhone in Europe.
That's what we're talking about right? I have an opinion, I tried to convey it reasonably, and you get all wooga-wooga, for reasons unknown. Fucking irritating, dude.
Addabox, received your private message. Apology accepted.
It's okay to be hardcore, but the 'Spanish Inquisition' aspect was what wasn't appreciated. At least you you were big enough to admit you went too far (a fair number of ppl on AI aren't), and its appreciated.
NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!
.
What point is that? A theoretical point that has no effect to the real world just to win an argument in a internet forum.
Is this a trick question?
Carrier A will simlock the iphone to carrier's A network. Carrier B will simlock the iphone to carrier's B network. You can't just take a AT&T iphone and put in a O2 UK SIM card --- even though O2 offers the iphone in the UK.
This seems like a waste of effort. People can easily switch sim cards. Apple would have to deal with stocking phones with sim cards for each carrier.
From a technical point of view, do you know what you are talking about here? It does not look like it. If you want, I can either explain it to you or you can Google it.
You mentioned back a few posts about 3G draining the battery, power hungry apps (paraphrase), yada, yada, yada. Once again, this comes from someone that has no practical experience with a 3G device. I will gladly clue you in. I have a Nokia N82. A HSDPA phone. It shows constantly that it is connected to 3G. Does this mean that I am using 3G or that it is connected to a 3G network? Hint: It is connected waiting to do something. Now if I make a VoIP call, it will then initiate a SIP connection and 3G will come into active play. Thus it will then make tax the battery. Sooooo your continued comments about battery life, yada, yada, yada, are a bit uniformed and misleading.
The iPhone is designed to be used liberally and frequently for data. That is the reason it comes with an unlimited data contract. The iPhone ships with 7 apps that require a data connection and their are over 1,500 web apps that require a data connection.
It would defeat the design and purpose for most of the iPhone apps if the user did not use the data connection.
The iPhone is designed to be used liberally and frequently for data. That is the reason it comes with an unlimited data contract. The iPhone ships with 7 apps that require a data connection and their are over 1,500 web apps that require a data connection.
It would defeat the design and purpose for most of the iPhone apps if the user did not use the data connection.
What if I don't want to use web apps but want native apps. Apple gets to dictate how I will use my device.
What if I don't want to use web apps but want native apps. Apple gets to dictate how I will use my device.
This isn't much of a hypothetical since we know native apps are coming next month.
At the same time not everything needs to be a native app. Many services and functions work perfectly fine as a web app.
This seems like a waste of effort. People can easily switch sim cards. Apple would have to deal with stocking phones with sim cards for each carrier.
As I said earlier --- you said that it's technically impossible to simlock a GSM phone --- but that's how 3 billion GSM phones have been sold.
Apple doesn't have physical stores in Australia. The carriers have to insert their own sim cards into the iphones. That's how billion of GSM phones are sold --- the carriers insert their own sim cards.
You made it sound like you have never touched a GSM phone before and doesn't know how the world works.
As I said earlier --- you said that it's technically impossible to simlock a GSM phone --- but that's how 3 billion GSM phones have been sold.
I didn't make a declarative statement, I asked a question: How do you lock a phone to multiple carriers who all use the same mobile network standard?
The answer is you can try, but you can't really.
Apple doesn't have physical stores in Australia. The carriers have to insert their own sim cards into the iphones. That's how billion of GSM phones are sold --- the carriers insert their own sim cards.
As far as been reported the iPhone ships with a sim card. France doesn't have Apple store's either. Does O2 insert its own sim cards?
I didn't make a declarative statement, I asked a question: How do you lock a phone to multiple carriers who all use the same mobile network standard?
The answer is you can try, but you can't really.
As far as been reported the iPhone ships with a sim card. France doesn't have Apple store's either. Does O2 insert its own sim cards?
Billions of GSM phones have been sold with this "time-consuming" method of simlocked phones with carrier's sim cards inserted. Most of those GSM phones come with a box that would have the carrier's name on it, a firmware that is specific with the carrier, a piece of paper that describe the terms and conditions of the carrier.
It's not that "you can try, but you can't really" --- billions of GSM phones have been sold that way.
It's not that "you can try, but you can't really" --- billions of GSM phones have been sold that way.
I'm not disagreeing with you. But at the same time I'm saying no phone is permanently locked. You are behaving as though people can not simply change the sim card.