How much higher is the ARPU --- when you take out the revenue share??? AT&T said the ARPU for the iphone is in the mid 90's but if the revenue share is $18 (Munster) --- then you are back to mid $70's.
We don't know what the revenue share is. I've seen estimates that it is $9.
Even if it were as high as $18, we don't know if it is taken before the $90 number, or after.
Quote:
How is iphone doing well for AT&T --- when they refuse to give activation numbers now. Extrapolate the numbers and AT&T activated only 310-325K iphones in the first quarter.
It's doing well because half of the iPhone buyers are coming from other networks, more than a few from Verison. Can that be said about the Voyager? I don't think so.
After we've gone around many time about this you still give no context as to why selling 325K is a low number for a phone that sells for $499 and averages $100 in service fees. What other phone is selling better at these prices? The LG Voyager doesn't count because the price is not comparable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It's doing well because half of the iPhone buyers are coming from other networks, more than a few from Verison. Can that be said about the Voyager? I don't think so.
It is a very low number for AT&T because only 40% of that comes from new subscribers. And it's not $100, it's closer to $85.
AT&T got the iphone so that they can try to get as much of high quality postpaid net adds as possible.
It didn't do the job because Verizon Wireless didn't blink and got more postpaid net adds than AT&T.
It is a very low number for AT&T because only 40% of that comes from new subscribers. And it's not $100, it's closer to $85.
AT&T got the iphone so that they can try to get as much of high quality postpaid net adds as possible.
It didn't do the job because Verizon Wireless didn't blink and got more postpaid net adds than AT&T.
One thing has nothing to do with the other.
Verison doesn't get many subscribers because of their phones. they get about as many as AT&T does for their phones,other than for the iPhone, which add to that considerably. That's the difference.
Both networks get, and lose, subscribers all the time. Churn is a problem in all cell companies around the world. AT&T has been adding subscribers, on average, at a greater rate than Verison has for a while now.
It's not closer to $85, it's around $95 and a bit higher, according to AT&T. Compared to $50 for all phones.
Let it go guys..... this samab person has a Verizon obsession, for whatever reason. Perhaps he is an employee, or an analyst covering the company, or whatever......
AT&T was willing to pay a king's ransom because they thought the jesus phone would do wonders to their postpaid net adds. Verizon wasn't willing because they knew any decent copycat korean phone would basically negate the iphone effect.
Verizon wasn't willing because they knew any decent copycat korean phone would basically negate the iphone effect.
How many copycat, decent or otherwise, phones are out there? I know Meizu had a laundry list of features that they touted as gospel, but continually fell off as they actually tried to make the device. A year and a half since the iPhone was announced and Meizu posted photoshoped images and still no device.
Honestly, I really don't know what your main argument is here. You seem to keep shifting your focus. Are you saying that the iPhone is a failure for both Apple and AT&T? Are you saying that if another phone sold more than the iPhone that AT&T is not profiting from the deal with Apple or that Apple should stop making the device?
As Melgross pointed out, the number of people moving to AT&T specifically for the iPhone and the number of people moving from a standard phone with a lower monthly charge to a smartphone with a higher monthly charge is abnormally high? Do you have any data that suggests the LG Voyager is doing the same thing for Verizon?
As Melgross pointed out, the number of people moving to AT&T specifically for the iPhone and the number of people moving from a standard phone with a lower monthly charge to a smartphone with a higher monthly charge is abnormally high? Do you have any data that suggests the LG Voyager is doing the same thing for Verizon?
You have to remember that 900K activation in the christmas quarter at 40% new subscribers is 360K net adds.
That's it folks --- out of 2.7 million net adds in the AT&T's christmas quarter net adds, the iphone contributed 360K (a 13% contribution).
The number of existing AT&T subscribers switching to the $99 unlimited voice plan is actually larger than the number of existing AT&T subscribers switching to the iphone plan. And the carrier who started the $99 unlimited voice plan (Verizon) has attracted even more people to switch to the $99 unlimited voice plan.
Most of the Verizon phones are 3G with idiotic things like mobile tv --- that's why Verizon's data ARPU is higher than AT&T's data ARPU.
You have to remember that 900K activation in the christmas quarter at 40% new subscribers is 360K net adds.
That's it folks --- out of 2.7 million net adds in the AT&T's christmas quarter net adds, the iphone contributed 360K (a 13% contribution).
The number of existing AT&T subscribers switching to the $99 unlimited voice plan is actually larger than the number of existing AT&T subscribers switching to the iphone plan. And the carrier who started the $99 unlimited voice plan (Verizon) has attracted even more people to switch to the $99 unlimited voice plan.
Most of the Verizon phones are 3G with idiotic things like mobile tv --- that's why Verizon's data ARPU is higher than AT&T's data ARPU.
I'm still not following your train of thought here. What does, your suggested, 360k iPhone contracts have to do with the number of people signing up for unlimited voice? Why are you connecting them? AT&T had 71.4M customers as of January 2008. With that many customers and unlimited voice plans I would expect that the number of people on that plan are much more than the number of iPhone users on AT&T's network. Less than 0.5% percent of AT&T's entire subscriber base has to signup for unlimited calls to equal 360k.
And are saying that the iPhone on the AT&T bringing in 13% of all their new subscribers for an entire season is subpar? That is a single cell phone credited with bringing in 360,000 new people to a carrier. Also, don't forget that the unlimited/unlimited data plan is only $20 but it is requirement for all iPhone's on AT&T's network.
It took 4.75 months for AT&T to get 500K iphone activations.
Extrapolate the numbers --- since Verizon launched the LG Voyager in mid Nov 2007, Verizon (which gets to keep all its Voyager customers becuase it's a CDMA phone) has outsold AT&T's iphone activation number.
Who the f**k cares? Seriously, how is that relevant to anything? This isn't a forum for cellular carrier fanboys! The LG Voyager is a pile of shit and yes I've used one many times. Even sub-par crap like that sells well on Verizon because they have starved their customers of decent mobile phones since their inception. I would know since I've had service with them for years in different states. Besides, the "Voyager" isn't really a smartphone, It's sold subsidized on contract, and it doesn't require a ~$75+/month unlimited data contract. The iPhone is still only 2G, it costs at least $400, and requires an expensive data plan. If the new iPhone launches with 3G/HSDPA and GPS, the iTunes app store opens, and it's sold subsidized @ $250-$299, it is definitely going to attract a lot of users. That said, AT&T has a long way to go to catch up to Verizon in coverage areas, especially 3G.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
AT&T was willing to pay a king's ransom because they thought the jesus phone would do wonders to their postpaid net adds. Verizon wasn't willing because they knew any decent copycat korean phone would basically negate the iphone effect.
I think I'm seeing a pattern here... Are you a Verizon employee or do you just like to **** their ****? AT&T was willing to concede a lot to get the iPhone because they saw the incredible potential Apple has to completely change the market, just as they did with the iPod. And mark my words, they certainly will! I'm going to copy your post and make note of it so I can bring it up 2 years from now, and we'll all laugh at how stupid you sounded ---- Just like the reactions on here when the original iPod was announced.
AT&T was willing to pay a king's ransom because they thought the jesus phone would do wonders to their postpaid net adds. Verizon wasn't willing because they knew any decent copycat korean phone would basically negate the iphone effect.
Except that you're wrong again.
AT&T is making a much greater profit on these phones than anyone else makes on most of their phones, perhaps more than anyone with anyone else's phone. You've been quoting incorrect numbers for those profits, as you know. Therefore, AT&T hasn't paid to get the phone, because even with the fee Apple imposes, their profits are still almost twice anything else. That's just good business.
For the past few months, people have been waiting for the 3G version of this phone. Perhaps you are not aware of the large number of people who are doing that?
I intend to buy three after it comes out, and many people interviewed have said the same thing.
To expect sales levels of expensive phones, even the iPhone to continue to stay steady when an expected large upgrade is expected, is foolish.
By using terms like "the Jesus phone", you only damage the seriousness of your argument, because it shows that you are not serious, but that you have some sort of prejudice against it from the start.
You have to remember that 900K activation in the christmas quarter at 40% new subscribers is 360K net adds.
That's it folks --- out of 2.7 million net adds in the AT&T's christmas quarter net adds, the iphone contributed 360K (a 13% contribution).
The number of existing AT&T subscribers switching to the $99 unlimited voice plan is actually larger than the number of existing AT&T subscribers switching to the iphone plan. And the carrier who started the $99 unlimited voice plan (Verizon) has attracted even more people to switch to the $99 unlimited voice plan.
Most of the Verizon phones are 3G with idiotic things like mobile tv --- that's why Verizon's data ARPU is higher than AT&T's data ARPU.
And for those adds, AT&T is earning as much money as twice the number of other phones.
Or they can sell you a zero dollar cheap phone and you get the $99 unlimited voice plan.
It's easier to make money that way.
It's certainly easier to move more product that way but someone has to pay for the device. Ideal profit requires a good balance between the perceived value and actual cost.
Comments
How much higher is the ARPU --- when you take out the revenue share??? AT&T said the ARPU for the iphone is in the mid 90's but if the revenue share is $18 (Munster) --- then you are back to mid $70's.
We don't know what the revenue share is. I've seen estimates that it is $9.
Even if it were as high as $18, we don't know if it is taken before the $90 number, or after.
How is iphone doing well for AT&T --- when they refuse to give activation numbers now. Extrapolate the numbers and AT&T activated only 310-325K iphones in the first quarter.
It's doing well because half of the iPhone buyers are coming from other networks, more than a few from Verison. Can that be said about the Voyager? I don't think so.
After we've gone around many time about this you still give no context as to why selling 325K is a low number for a phone that sells for $499 and averages $100 in service fees. What other phone is selling better at these prices? The LG Voyager doesn't count because the price is not comparable.
It's doing well because half of the iPhone buyers are coming from other networks, more than a few from Verison. Can that be said about the Voyager? I don't think so.
It is a very low number for AT&T because only 40% of that comes from new subscribers. And it's not $100, it's closer to $85.
AT&T got the iphone so that they can try to get as much of high quality postpaid net adds as possible.
It didn't do the job because Verizon Wireless didn't blink and got more postpaid net adds than AT&T.
It is a very low number for AT&T because only 40% of that comes from new subscribers. And it's not $100, it's closer to $85.
AT&T got the iphone so that they can try to get as much of high quality postpaid net adds as possible.
It didn't do the job because Verizon Wireless didn't blink and got more postpaid net adds than AT&T.
One thing has nothing to do with the other.
Verison doesn't get many subscribers because of their phones. they get about as many as AT&T does for their phones,other than for the iPhone, which add to that considerably. That's the difference.
Both networks get, and lose, subscribers all the time. Churn is a problem in all cell companies around the world. AT&T has been adding subscribers, on average, at a greater rate than Verison has for a while now.
It's not closer to $85, it's around $95 and a bit higher, according to AT&T. Compared to $50 for all phones.
Scott Moritz strikes again? Or some of his old buddies like Jim "the Gamer" Kramer that are still at thestreet[Walkers].com?
ummmm....yeah. can anybody tell me when was the last time Apple had an actual product delay where a date was announced and then reneged upon? anybody?
Is it just me? i can't remember any for oh, 10 years...
One thing has nothing to do with the other.
It has everything to do with the other thing.
AT&T was willing to pay a king's ransom because they thought the jesus phone would do wonders to their postpaid net adds. Verizon wasn't willing because they knew any decent copycat korean phone would basically negate the iphone effect.
ummmm....yeah. can anybody tell me when was the last time Apple had an actual product delay where a date was announced and then reneged upon? anybody?
Is it just me? i can't remember any for oh, 10 years...
I believe Apple stated that they planned to release Leopard at last years WWDC and moved it back to October.
ummmm....yeah. can anybody tell me when was the last time Apple had an actual product delay where a date was announced and then reneged upon? anybody?
Is it just me? i can't remember any for oh, 10 years...
Leopard was delayed.
Verizon wasn't willing because they knew any decent copycat korean phone would basically negate the iphone effect.
How many copycat, decent or otherwise, phones are out there? I know Meizu had a laundry list of features that they touted as gospel, but continually fell off as they actually tried to make the device. A year and a half since the iPhone was announced and Meizu posted photoshoped images and still no device.
Honestly, I really don't know what your main argument is here. You seem to keep shifting your focus. Are you saying that the iPhone is a failure for both Apple and AT&T? Are you saying that if another phone sold more than the iPhone that AT&T is not profiting from the deal with Apple or that Apple should stop making the device?
As Melgross pointed out, the number of people moving to AT&T specifically for the iPhone and the number of people moving from a standard phone with a lower monthly charge to a smartphone with a higher monthly charge is abnormally high? Do you have any data that suggests the LG Voyager is doing the same thing for Verizon?
As Melgross pointed out, the number of people moving to AT&T specifically for the iPhone and the number of people moving from a standard phone with a lower monthly charge to a smartphone with a higher monthly charge is abnormally high? Do you have any data that suggests the LG Voyager is doing the same thing for Verizon?
You have to remember that 900K activation in the christmas quarter at 40% new subscribers is 360K net adds.
That's it folks --- out of 2.7 million net adds in the AT&T's christmas quarter net adds, the iphone contributed 360K (a 13% contribution).
The number of existing AT&T subscribers switching to the $99 unlimited voice plan is actually larger than the number of existing AT&T subscribers switching to the iphone plan. And the carrier who started the $99 unlimited voice plan (Verizon) has attracted even more people to switch to the $99 unlimited voice plan.
Most of the Verizon phones are 3G with idiotic things like mobile tv --- that's why Verizon's data ARPU is higher than AT&T's data ARPU.
Leopard was delayed.
please stop feeding the troll...
You have to remember that 900K activation in the christmas quarter at 40% new subscribers is 360K net adds.
That's it folks --- out of 2.7 million net adds in the AT&T's christmas quarter net adds, the iphone contributed 360K (a 13% contribution).
The number of existing AT&T subscribers switching to the $99 unlimited voice plan is actually larger than the number of existing AT&T subscribers switching to the iphone plan. And the carrier who started the $99 unlimited voice plan (Verizon) has attracted even more people to switch to the $99 unlimited voice plan.
Most of the Verizon phones are 3G with idiotic things like mobile tv --- that's why Verizon's data ARPU is higher than AT&T's data ARPU.
I'm still not following your train of thought here. What does, your suggested, 360k iPhone contracts have to do with the number of people signing up for unlimited voice? Why are you connecting them? AT&T had 71.4M customers as of January 2008. With that many customers and unlimited voice plans I would expect that the number of people on that plan are much more than the number of iPhone users on AT&T's network. Less than 0.5% percent of AT&T's entire subscriber base has to signup for unlimited calls to equal 360k.
And are saying that the iPhone on the AT&T bringing in 13% of all their new subscribers for an entire season is subpar? That is a single cell phone credited with bringing in 360,000 new people to a carrier. Also, don't forget that the unlimited/unlimited data plan is only $20 but it is requirement for all iPhone's on AT&T's network.
It took 4.75 months for AT&T to get 500K iphone activations.
Extrapolate the numbers --- since Verizon launched the LG Voyager in mid Nov 2007, Verizon (which gets to keep all its Voyager customers becuase it's a CDMA phone) has outsold AT&T's iphone activation number.
Who the f**k cares? Seriously, how is that relevant to anything? This isn't a forum for cellular carrier fanboys! The LG Voyager is a pile of shit and yes I've used one many times. Even sub-par crap like that sells well on Verizon because they have starved their customers of decent mobile phones since their inception. I would know since I've had service with them for years in different states. Besides, the "Voyager" isn't really a smartphone, It's sold subsidized on contract, and it doesn't require a ~$75+/month unlimited data contract. The iPhone is still only 2G, it costs at least $400, and requires an expensive data plan. If the new iPhone launches with 3G/HSDPA and GPS, the iTunes app store opens, and it's sold subsidized @ $250-$299, it is definitely going to attract a lot of users. That said, AT&T has a long way to go to catch up to Verizon in coverage areas, especially 3G.
AT&T was willing to pay a king's ransom because they thought the jesus phone would do wonders to their postpaid net adds. Verizon wasn't willing because they knew any decent copycat korean phone would basically negate the iphone effect.
I think I'm seeing a pattern here... Are you a Verizon employee or do you just like to **** their ****? AT&T was willing to concede a lot to get the iPhone because they saw the incredible potential Apple has to completely change the market, just as they did with the iPod. And mark my words, they certainly will! I'm going to copy your post and make note of it so I can bring it up 2 years from now, and we'll all laugh at how stupid you sounded ---- Just like the reactions on here when the original iPod was announced.
"MP3 player? That POS will be a flop!"
"Only 5 Gigs? for $400? My 'Rio' is way better"
...
...
Who the f**k cares?
Here, here! Cheers on that one!
It has everything to do with the other thing.
AT&T was willing to pay a king's ransom because they thought the jesus phone would do wonders to their postpaid net adds. Verizon wasn't willing because they knew any decent copycat korean phone would basically negate the iphone effect.
Except that you're wrong again.
AT&T is making a much greater profit on these phones than anyone else makes on most of their phones, perhaps more than anyone with anyone else's phone. You've been quoting incorrect numbers for those profits, as you know. Therefore, AT&T hasn't paid to get the phone, because even with the fee Apple imposes, their profits are still almost twice anything else. That's just good business.
For the past few months, people have been waiting for the 3G version of this phone. Perhaps you are not aware of the large number of people who are doing that?
I intend to buy three after it comes out, and many people interviewed have said the same thing.
To expect sales levels of expensive phones, even the iPhone to continue to stay steady when an expected large upgrade is expected, is foolish.
By using terms like "the Jesus phone", you only damage the seriousness of your argument, because it shows that you are not serious, but that you have some sort of prejudice against it from the start.
You have to remember that 900K activation in the christmas quarter at 40% new subscribers is 360K net adds.
That's it folks --- out of 2.7 million net adds in the AT&T's christmas quarter net adds, the iphone contributed 360K (a 13% contribution).
The number of existing AT&T subscribers switching to the $99 unlimited voice plan is actually larger than the number of existing AT&T subscribers switching to the iphone plan. And the carrier who started the $99 unlimited voice plan (Verizon) has attracted even more people to switch to the $99 unlimited voice plan.
Most of the Verizon phones are 3G with idiotic things like mobile tv --- that's why Verizon's data ARPU is higher than AT&T's data ARPU.
And for those adds, AT&T is earning as much money as twice the number of other phones.
Profit is what it's all about.
I have nothing else to say.
And for those adds, AT&T is earning as much money as twice the number of other phones.
Profit is what it's all about.
Or they can sell you a zero dollar cheap phone and you get the $99 unlimited voice plan.
It's easier to make money that way.
Or they can sell you a zero dollar cheap phone and you get the $99 unlimited voice plan.
It's easier to make money that way.
It's certainly easier to move more product that way but someone has to pay for the device. Ideal profit requires a good balance between the perceived value and actual cost.