It doesn't really. The expression should be that they were offering the wrong product at the wrong price. It was the right product at the right price for the US, but not for Europe.
Right, but Apple has sold something like 350,000 in Europe since the iPhones introduction. That's good for Apple's bottom line, and unless someone can convince me that selling that phone when it was available is somehow going to hurt the sales of subsequent models, I still can't figure out why Apple would have been wise to leave that money on the table.
Projections were high, but not insanely so, and everybody knew that a 2G phone was just a stop-gap in Europe (well, everybody by Sapporobaby, who is apparently convinced Apple was dead set on forcing Europe to stoop to their primitive technology as a matter of insane hubris), so.....
I just don't think any of this was particularly dumbfounding to Apple. Sure, they would have liked to sell more, and, sure, they're having to make some adjustments to their distribution schemes as they go along, but that's how business works.
Apple's global target for the year 2008 is 9M. If that includes the global launch of iPhone 2 - they are probably on track to hit it. Especially since iPhone2 will be sold using the more traditional subsidy model - which will bring the retail price in line with other vendors.
Lets play "compare and contrast"
Nokia's two-year target for the N-Gage was 9M units.
After two years they had sold 1.3M. 1.3M is quite impressive sales for what has been called the worst-designed piece of consumer electronics ever.
I suspect the audience did not have sufficiently high-taste to appreciate it.
It doesn't really. The expression should be that they were offering the wrong product at the wrong price. It was the right product at the right price for the US, but not for Europe.
Thanks mrochester. You are correct. Wrong product, wrong price, wrong market.
Apple's global target for the year 2008 is 9M. If that includes the global launch of iPhone 2 - they are probably on track to hit it. Especially since iPhone2 will be sold using the more traditional subsidy model - which will bring the retail price in line with other vendors.
Lets play "compare and contrast"
Nokia's two-year target for the N-Gage was 9M units.
After two years they had sold 1.3M. 1.3M is quite impressive sales for what has been called the worst-designed piece of consumer electronics ever.
I suspect the audience did not have sufficiently high-taste to appreciate it.
C.
I'm still trying to figure this out myself. What is the purpose of this thing? All the newest Nokia's have this N-Gage crap installed. I looked at it for about 3 seconds. Maybe it is just me but I really can't get excited about gaming on a phone. If I need to workout, I break out the Wii Fitness or Wii Olympics. Instant heart attack.
It looks like there is a [backlit display] at the end of the tunnel for Sapporobaby.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArsTechnica
It sounds like Nokia is going to spend less time on hardware design, new distinct handset models, and so forth ... , in favor of more and better software.
Can't wait to see what they come up with. Better start saving my pennies though. I think Apple and Nokia are both in my future and in my pocket.
As an aside, the GPS included is quite cool. Also with the new N96 (think this model) the FM transmitter is a handy feature. Ah, if only Apple would do something so simple. Hell I would settle for A2DP support.
The iphone didn't do too well in the US either --- if you just look at the activation numbers.
If AT&T did 900K and O2 did 200K --- and the US has 5x the population of UK --- then you will know that the US numbers are not that great to begin with.
Comparing population sizes does give any context to whether sales are good or not. Generally good sales are measured by profits.
You have said this many times but still have given any solid context. The iPhone sells at a premium far above what the average American pays for mobile phone service. What other phone that sells for $450 with a $90 contract sold better than the iPhone over Christmas?
Looking at the large gains in Apple's revenues and profits, how can you call the iPhone anything but a success.
Comparing population sizes does give any context to whether sales are good or not. Generally good sales are measured by profits.
You have said this many times but still have given any solid context. The iPhone sells at a premium far above what the average American pays for mobile phone service. What other phone that sells for $450 with a $90 contract sold better than the iPhone over Christmas?
Looking at the large gains in Apple's revenues and profits, how can you call the iPhone anything but a success.
Samab's post uses activation numbers as proof of poor slaes. I find this to be illogical accounting.
I personally know many users on T-Mobile, though they may have to jump ship to AT&T to get 3G access in a month or two.
Oh come now Tenobell. remember when I mentioned moving the goal posts? Game, set, match.
There is no moving goal posts you are speaking in generalizations. You said the iPhone is an iPod with a phone. There are several iPods.
Quote:
You know as well as everyone here that we are talking about the iPod Touch. Minus the all the other iPods and leaving only the Touch, the iPhone is nothing more than a Touch with telephone capabilities. Thus you have proven my point for once and for all. Check and mate.
To sum up, the iPhone is nothing more than a Touch with a phone. Discussion concluded on this point.
You are still making a flawed argument in attempting to discredit the iPhone comparing it to the Touch. The Touch is also clearly beyond a simple PMP. It will soon be a business class PDA, that will have over 200,000 developers and thousands of web based applications.
Their is no other device like the Touch, it is in a class of its own.
Samab's post uses activation numbers as proof of poor slaes. I find this to be illogical accounting.
I personally know many users on T-Mobile, though they may have to jump ship to AT&T to get 3G access in a month or two.
I find Tenobell's and Samab's methods a bit wrong because they do not take into account the iPhones that are not locked to any contract, such as mine, or the pay as you go contracts. I guess the best measure, or one sure fire measure would be to count total sales of all iPhone, and count the activation, and revenue share as separate.
Nice article.Can't wait to see what they come up with. Better start saving my pennies though. I think Apple and Nokia are both in my future and in my pocket.
That article clearly shows that Nokia understands the importance of software and the advantage Apple has. Where they stand right now Nokia is pretty far behind Apple from a software platform standpoint. Symbian is nowhere near the sophistication of OS X. Nokia has no team of engineers developing software for desktop class OS, apps, and API's that are scalable to their mobile devices the way Apple does.
I find Tenobell's and Samab's methods a bit wrong because they do not take into account the iPhones that are not locked to any contract, such as mine, or the pay as you go contracts. I guess the best measure, or one sure fire measure would be to count total sales of all iPhone, and count the activation, and revenue share as separate..
The iPhones not locked to a contract don't matter. The phone had to be purchased, in the end its still a sale for Apple.
That article clearly shows that Nokia understands the importance of software and the advantage Apple has. Where they stand right now Nokia is pretty far behind Apple from a software platform standpoint. Symbian is nowhere near the sophistication of OS X. Nokia has no team of engineers developing software for desktop class OS, apps, and API's that are scalable to their mobile devices the way Apple does.
Now you are recycling defeated arguments. No one said Nokia was doing this, and if they do or don't I could not care less. Right now, today, at this moment, from a TELEPHONY stand point, they are beating Apple. Period. Nokia's phones have real, usable telephony features. Not saying that Apple can not add them, or that Nokia can't decide to develop a more sophisticated OS, but their phones work better. Another moving of the goal post moment.
Where in on the last Nokia development meeting where your comment:
Quote:
Nokia has no team of engineers developing software for desktop class OS, apps, and API's that are scalable to their mobile devices the way Apple does.
was discussed? I am not talking about what will be, but what is now. Right now, the iPhone, and you proved this your via post, is nothing more than an iPod Touch with a rudimentary phone. For me, I know the limitations that come with iPhone 1.0 and adjust to it. I have a Nokia N82 that picks up the slack of the iPhone and I drive on. Improvise, adapt, overcome.
There is no moving goal posts you are speaking in generalizations. You said the iPhone is an iPod with a phone. There are several iPods.
You are still making a flawed argument in attempting to discredit the iPhone comparing it to the Touch. The Touch is also clearly beyond a simple PMP. It will soon be a business class PDA, that will have over 200,000 developers and thousands of web based applications.
Their is no other device like the Touch, it is in a class of its own.
Yes there are several iPods, but which one closely matches the iPhone? You know this but in a failing argument, you turned to semantics. As you pointed out, remove the phone from an iPhone, or even the sim card, and you have an iPod Touch. WHich goes to prove my point again that the iPhone is nothing more than an iPod Touch with phone.
Comparing population sizes does give any context to whether sales are good or not. Generally good sales are measured by profits.
You have said this many times but still have given any solid context. The iPhone sells at a premium far above what the average American pays for mobile phone service. What other phone that sells for $450 with a $90 contract sold better than the iPhone over Christmas?
Looking at the large gains in Apple's revenues and profits, how can you call the iPhone anything but a success.
From the carrier's point of view --- they are not in the business of selling handsets, they are in the business of selling mobile phone service. Ask any sales people at a Verizon or AT&T store --- they don't get extra commissions for selling you a $400 phone, but they get extra commissions for selling you a high price contract plan. Plenty of people have switched to the $99 unlimited voice plans since Verizon and AT&T adopted it.
Go and read the transcripts for both AT&T and Verizon quarterly earnings conference calls --- they are all talking about the pick-up rate for the $99 unlimited voice plan. And AT&T doesn't even talk about iphone activations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Samab's post uses activation numbers as proof of poor slaes. I find this to be illogical accounting.
I personally know many users on T-Mobile, though they may have to jump ship to AT&T to get 3G access in a month or two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby
I find Tenobell's and Samab's methods a bit wrong because they do not take into account the iPhones that are not locked to any contract, such as mine, or the pay as you go contracts. I guess the best measure, or one sure fire measure would be to count total sales of all iPhone, and count the activation, and revenue share as separate.
Just my guess.
If T-Mobile USA really attracted a big percentage of iphone users, they would have said so publicly --- it's good PR. Many of the "have nots" carriers (i.e. China Mobile and a swiss carrier) have talked publicly about how many iphones are on their network.
AT&T does know how many iphones have been jailbroken to be used as pay as you go iphones. They don't talk about it, but they would know by IMEI.
Anyway --- those numbers can't be too large to affect my estimates because the iphones in China and Russia has to come from the US (because the US iphone price is lower than the European iphone price). 400,000 iphones in China don't come out of thin air. Samething for similar levels of iphones in Russia.
Yes there are several iPods, but which one closely matches the iPhone? You know this but in a failing argument, you turned to semantics. As you pointed out, remove the phone from an iPhone, or even the sim card, and you have an iPod Touch. WHich goes to prove my point again that the iPhone is nothing more than an iPod Touch with phone.
I think you're backing yourself into a corner with this one and you might consider just letting it go.
Referring to the iPhone as "just an iPod with a phone tacked on" is clearly meant to denigrate the former.
Changing that to "just an iPod Touch with a phone", and calling the distinction "semantics" is totally incoherent.
If Apple brings out a tablet based on its touch interface, will that be "just" a big iPod? If Apple makes a full blown desktop with a touch screen, will that be "just" a big and powerful iPod?
Again, the Touch and the iPhone are powerful mobile computing devices, and Moore's Law bodes tremendous upside for such. "Telephony", as a measure of worthiness, completely misses the point.
I think it's pretty clear, now, that for this class of device, "telephony" will reflect on the platform exactly as "email" reflects on a laptop: that is, an app that is more or less robust. A sticking point for some, but nobodies idea of a defining feature.
I think you're backing yourself into a corner with this one and you might consider just letting it go.
Referring to the iPhone as "just an iPod with a phone tacked on" is clearly meant to denigrate the former.
Changing that to "just an iPod Touch with a phone", and calling the distinction "semantics" is totally incoherent.
If Apple brings out a tablet based on its touch interface, will that be "just" a big iPod? If Apple makes a full blown desktop with a touch screen, will that be "just" a big and powerful iPod?
Again, the Touch and the iPhone are powerful mobile computing devices, and Moore's Law bodes tremendous upside for such. "Telephony", as a measure of worthiness, completely misses the point.
I think it's pretty clear, now, that for this class of device, "telephony" will reflect on the platform exactly as "email" reflects on a laptop: that is, an app that is more or less robust. A sticking point for some, but nobodies idea of a defining feature.
Being that we are both from the US, we have things called opinions, and my opinion is that the iPhone is more an iPod than phone based on a lack (my opinion again) of telephony features is my opinion. No corners here, just plenty of opinions. You have yours, I have mine, Tenobell has his, and I respect them all. I just don't have to agree with them and neither of you have produced a compelling enough argument to convince me otherwise but I do appreciate the lively debate. With that, I will say thanks.
From the carrier's point of view --- they are not in the business of selling handsets, they are in the business of selling mobile phone service. Ask any sales people at a Verizon or AT&T store --- they don't get extra commissions for selling you a $400 phone, but they get extra commissions for selling you a high price contract plan. Plenty of people have switched to the $99 unlimited voice plans since Verizon and AT&T adopted it.
I'm not sure what the point of this is. Without the phone their isn't much you can do with the service.
Quote:
Go and read the transcripts for both AT&T and Verizon quarterly earnings conference calls --- they are all talking about the pick-up rate for the $99 unlimited voice plan. And AT&T doesn't even talk about iphone activations.
I'm not sure of your point here either. By your estimation AT&T is required to breakout iPhone activations every quarter otherwise its a sign of failure?
I'm not sure what the point of this is. Without the phone their isn't much you can do with the service.
I'm not sure of your point here either. By your estimation AT&T is required to breakout iPhone activations every quarter otherwise its a sign of failure?
Without the iphone, AT&T gets to keep 100% of their revenue --- and they have been happy with the $99 unlimited voice plan pick up rate. Who cares about the $90+ iphone ARPU if they have to ship $10-15 back to Apple every month.
It's only a failure --- if AT&T suddenly doesn't talk about iPhone activations. Verizon Wireless doesn't break out what phone model sells how many units --- they just said that VZW is beating the crap out of AT&T's postpaid net adds. AT&T didn't have to give out iphone activations in previous quarters --- they gave those numbers out because the numbers were good. They stopped giving out numbers when the numbers aren't so good.
Comments
It doesn't really. The expression should be that they were offering the wrong product at the wrong price. It was the right product at the right price for the US, but not for Europe.
Right, but Apple has sold something like 350,000 in Europe since the iPhones introduction. That's good for Apple's bottom line, and unless someone can convince me that selling that phone when it was available is somehow going to hurt the sales of subsequent models, I still can't figure out why Apple would have been wise to leave that money on the table.
Projections were high, but not insanely so, and everybody knew that a 2G phone was just a stop-gap in Europe (well, everybody by Sapporobaby, who is apparently convinced Apple was dead set on forcing Europe to stoop to their primitive technology as a matter of insane hubris), so.....
I just don't think any of this was particularly dumbfounding to Apple. Sure, they would have liked to sell more, and, sure, they're having to make some adjustments to their distribution schemes as they go along, but that's how business works.
Lets play "compare and contrast"
Nokia's two-year target for the N-Gage was 9M units.
After two years they had sold 1.3M. 1.3M is quite impressive sales for what has been called the worst-designed piece of consumer electronics ever.
I suspect the audience did not have sufficiently high-taste to appreciate it.
C.
It doesn't really. The expression should be that they were offering the wrong product at the wrong price. It was the right product at the right price for the US, but not for Europe.
Thanks mrochester. You are correct. Wrong product, wrong price, wrong market.
Apple's global target for the year 2008 is 9M. If that includes the global launch of iPhone 2 - they are probably on track to hit it. Especially since iPhone2 will be sold using the more traditional subsidy model - which will bring the retail price in line with other vendors.
Lets play "compare and contrast"
Nokia's two-year target for the N-Gage was 9M units.
After two years they had sold 1.3M. 1.3M is quite impressive sales for what has been called the worst-designed piece of consumer electronics ever.
I suspect the audience did not have sufficiently high-taste to appreciate it.
C.
I'm still trying to figure this out myself. What is the purpose of this thing? All the newest Nokia's have this N-Gage crap installed. I looked at it for about 3 seconds. Maybe it is just me but I really can't get excited about gaming on a phone. If I need to workout, I break out the Wii Fitness or Wii Olympics. Instant heart attack.
It sounds like Nokia is going to spend less time on hardware design, new distinct handset models, and so forth ... , in favor of more and better software.
It looks like there is a [backlit display] at the end of the tunnel for Sapporobaby.
Nice article.
Can't wait to see what they come up with. Better start saving my pennies though. I think Apple and Nokia are both in my future and in my pocket.
As an aside, the GPS included is quite cool. Also with the new N96 (think this model) the FM transmitter is a handy feature. Ah, if only Apple would do something so simple. Hell I would settle for A2DP support.
The iphone didn't do too well in the US either --- if you just look at the activation numbers.
If AT&T did 900K and O2 did 200K --- and the US has 5x the population of UK --- then you will know that the US numbers are not that great to begin with.
Comparing population sizes does give any context to whether sales are good or not. Generally good sales are measured by profits.
You have said this many times but still have given any solid context. The iPhone sells at a premium far above what the average American pays for mobile phone service. What other phone that sells for $450 with a $90 contract sold better than the iPhone over Christmas?
Looking at the large gains in Apple's revenues and profits, how can you call the iPhone anything but a success.
Comparing population sizes does give any context to whether sales are good or not. Generally good sales are measured by profits.
You have said this many times but still have given any solid context. The iPhone sells at a premium far above what the average American pays for mobile phone service. What other phone that sells for $450 with a $90 contract sold better than the iPhone over Christmas?
Looking at the large gains in Apple's revenues and profits, how can you call the iPhone anything but a success.
Samab's post uses activation numbers as proof of poor slaes. I find this to be illogical accounting.
I personally know many users on T-Mobile, though they may have to jump ship to AT&T to get 3G access in a month or two.
Oh come now Tenobell.
There is no moving goal posts you are speaking in generalizations. You said the iPhone is an iPod with a phone. There are several iPods.
You know as well as everyone here that we are talking about the iPod Touch. Minus the all the other iPods and leaving only the Touch, the iPhone is nothing more than a Touch with telephone capabilities. Thus you have proven my point for once and for all. Check and mate.
To sum up, the iPhone is nothing more than a Touch with a phone. Discussion concluded on this point.
You are still making a flawed argument in attempting to discredit the iPhone comparing it to the Touch. The Touch is also clearly beyond a simple PMP. It will soon be a business class PDA, that will have over 200,000 developers and thousands of web based applications.
Their is no other device like the Touch, it is in a class of its own.
Samab's post uses activation numbers as proof of poor slaes. I find this to be illogical accounting.
I personally know many users on T-Mobile, though they may have to jump ship to AT&T to get 3G access in a month or two.
I find Tenobell's and Samab's methods a bit wrong because they do not take into account the iPhones that are not locked to any contract, such as mine, or the pay as you go contracts. I guess the best measure, or one sure fire measure would be to count total sales of all iPhone, and count the activation, and revenue share as separate.
Just my guess.
Nice article.Can't wait to see what they come up with. Better start saving my pennies though. I think Apple and Nokia are both in my future and in my pocket.
That article clearly shows that Nokia understands the importance of software and the advantage Apple has. Where they stand right now Nokia is pretty far behind Apple from a software platform standpoint. Symbian is nowhere near the sophistication of OS X. Nokia has no team of engineers developing software for desktop class OS, apps, and API's that are scalable to their mobile devices the way Apple does.
I find Tenobell's and Samab's methods a bit wrong because they do not take into account the iPhones that are not locked to any contract, such as mine, or the pay as you go contracts. I guess the best measure, or one sure fire measure would be to count total sales of all iPhone, and count the activation, and revenue share as separate..
The iPhones not locked to a contract don't matter. The phone had to be purchased, in the end its still a sale for Apple.
That article clearly shows that Nokia understands the importance of software and the advantage Apple has. Where they stand right now Nokia is pretty far behind Apple from a software platform standpoint. Symbian is nowhere near the sophistication of OS X. Nokia has no team of engineers developing software for desktop class OS, apps, and API's that are scalable to their mobile devices the way Apple does.
Now you are recycling defeated arguments. No one said Nokia was doing this, and if they do or don't I could not care less. Right now, today, at this moment, from a TELEPHONY stand point, they are beating Apple. Period. Nokia's phones have real, usable telephony features. Not saying that Apple can not add them, or that Nokia can't decide to develop a more sophisticated OS, but their phones work better. Another moving of the goal post moment.
Where in on the last Nokia development meeting where your comment:
Nokia has no team of engineers developing software for desktop class OS, apps, and API's that are scalable to their mobile devices the way Apple does.
was discussed? I am not talking about what will be, but what is now. Right now, the iPhone, and you proved this your via post, is nothing more than an iPod Touch with a rudimentary phone. For me, I know the limitations that come with iPhone 1.0 and adjust to it. I have a Nokia N82 that picks up the slack of the iPhone and I drive on. Improvise, adapt, overcome.
The iPhones not locked to a contract don't matter. The phone had to be purchased, in the end its still a sale for Apple.
Didn't I say this in post #241?
There is no moving goal posts you are speaking in generalizations. You said the iPhone is an iPod with a phone. There are several iPods.
You are still making a flawed argument in attempting to discredit the iPhone comparing it to the Touch. The Touch is also clearly beyond a simple PMP. It will soon be a business class PDA, that will have over 200,000 developers and thousands of web based applications.
Their is no other device like the Touch, it is in a class of its own.
Yes there are several iPods, but which one closely matches the iPhone? You know this but in a failing argument, you turned to semantics. As you pointed out, remove the phone from an iPhone, or even the sim card, and you have an iPod Touch. WHich goes to prove my point again that the iPhone is nothing more than an iPod Touch with phone.
Comparing population sizes does give any context to whether sales are good or not. Generally good sales are measured by profits.
You have said this many times but still have given any solid context. The iPhone sells at a premium far above what the average American pays for mobile phone service. What other phone that sells for $450 with a $90 contract sold better than the iPhone over Christmas?
Looking at the large gains in Apple's revenues and profits, how can you call the iPhone anything but a success.
From the carrier's point of view --- they are not in the business of selling handsets, they are in the business of selling mobile phone service. Ask any sales people at a Verizon or AT&T store --- they don't get extra commissions for selling you a $400 phone, but they get extra commissions for selling you a high price contract plan. Plenty of people have switched to the $99 unlimited voice plans since Verizon and AT&T adopted it.
Go and read the transcripts for both AT&T and Verizon quarterly earnings conference calls --- they are all talking about the pick-up rate for the $99 unlimited voice plan. And AT&T doesn't even talk about iphone activations.
Samab's post uses activation numbers as proof of poor slaes. I find this to be illogical accounting.
I personally know many users on T-Mobile, though they may have to jump ship to AT&T to get 3G access in a month or two.
I find Tenobell's and Samab's methods a bit wrong because they do not take into account the iPhones that are not locked to any contract, such as mine, or the pay as you go contracts. I guess the best measure, or one sure fire measure would be to count total sales of all iPhone, and count the activation, and revenue share as separate.
Just my guess.
If T-Mobile USA really attracted a big percentage of iphone users, they would have said so publicly --- it's good PR. Many of the "have nots" carriers (i.e. China Mobile and a swiss carrier) have talked publicly about how many iphones are on their network.
AT&T does know how many iphones have been jailbroken to be used as pay as you go iphones. They don't talk about it, but they would know by IMEI.
Anyway --- those numbers can't be too large to affect my estimates because the iphones in China and Russia has to come from the US (because the US iphone price is lower than the European iphone price). 400,000 iphones in China don't come out of thin air. Samething for similar levels of iphones in Russia.
Yes there are several iPods, but which one closely matches the iPhone? You know this but in a failing argument, you turned to semantics. As you pointed out, remove the phone from an iPhone, or even the sim card, and you have an iPod Touch. WHich goes to prove my point again that the iPhone is nothing more than an iPod Touch with phone.
I think you're backing yourself into a corner with this one and you might consider just letting it go.
Referring to the iPhone as "just an iPod with a phone tacked on" is clearly meant to denigrate the former.
Changing that to "just an iPod Touch with a phone", and calling the distinction "semantics" is totally incoherent.
If Apple brings out a tablet based on its touch interface, will that be "just" a big iPod? If Apple makes a full blown desktop with a touch screen, will that be "just" a big and powerful iPod?
Again, the Touch and the iPhone are powerful mobile computing devices, and Moore's Law bodes tremendous upside for such. "Telephony", as a measure of worthiness, completely misses the point.
I think it's pretty clear, now, that for this class of device, "telephony" will reflect on the platform exactly as "email" reflects on a laptop: that is, an app that is more or less robust. A sticking point for some, but nobodies idea of a defining feature.
I think you're backing yourself into a corner with this one and you might consider just letting it go.
Referring to the iPhone as "just an iPod with a phone tacked on" is clearly meant to denigrate the former.
Changing that to "just an iPod Touch with a phone", and calling the distinction "semantics" is totally incoherent.
If Apple brings out a tablet based on its touch interface, will that be "just" a big iPod? If Apple makes a full blown desktop with a touch screen, will that be "just" a big and powerful iPod?
Again, the Touch and the iPhone are powerful mobile computing devices, and Moore's Law bodes tremendous upside for such. "Telephony", as a measure of worthiness, completely misses the point.
I think it's pretty clear, now, that for this class of device, "telephony" will reflect on the platform exactly as "email" reflects on a laptop: that is, an app that is more or less robust. A sticking point for some, but nobodies idea of a defining feature.
Being that we are both from the US, we have things called opinions, and my opinion is that the iPhone is more an iPod than phone based on a lack (my opinion again) of telephony features is my opinion. No corners here, just plenty of opinions. You have yours, I have mine, Tenobell has his, and I respect them all. I just don't have to agree with them and neither of you have produced a compelling enough argument to convince me otherwise but I do appreciate the lively debate. With that, I will say thanks.
From the carrier's point of view --- they are not in the business of selling handsets, they are in the business of selling mobile phone service. Ask any sales people at a Verizon or AT&T store --- they don't get extra commissions for selling you a $400 phone, but they get extra commissions for selling you a high price contract plan. Plenty of people have switched to the $99 unlimited voice plans since Verizon and AT&T adopted it.
I'm not sure what the point of this is. Without the phone their isn't much you can do with the service.
Go and read the transcripts for both AT&T and Verizon quarterly earnings conference calls --- they are all talking about the pick-up rate for the $99 unlimited voice plan. And AT&T doesn't even talk about iphone activations.
I'm not sure of your point here either. By your estimation AT&T is required to breakout iPhone activations every quarter otherwise its a sign of failure?
I'm not sure what the point of this is. Without the phone their isn't much you can do with the service.
I'm not sure of your point here either. By your estimation AT&T is required to breakout iPhone activations every quarter otherwise its a sign of failure?
Without the iphone, AT&T gets to keep 100% of their revenue --- and they have been happy with the $99 unlimited voice plan pick up rate. Who cares about the $90+ iphone ARPU if they have to ship $10-15 back to Apple every month.
It's only a failure --- if AT&T suddenly doesn't talk about iPhone activations. Verizon Wireless doesn't break out what phone model sells how many units --- they just said that VZW is beating the crap out of AT&T's postpaid net adds. AT&T didn't have to give out iphone activations in previous quarters --- they gave those numbers out because the numbers were good. They stopped giving out numbers when the numbers aren't so good.