So you're saying that Apple wanted Verizon but couldn't get them? That it had nothing to do with the fact with what the Verizon VP stated about Apple's demands being too much for them?
Could it be that Apple went with the carrier that would make them the most money knowing that what ever carrier they went with would bring a great many new subscribers to that carrier?
Apple couldn't get Verizon to accept Apple's demand, but Verizon was Apple's first choice.
The simplist explanations are often the correct one.
Otherwise, we will be spinning conspiracy theories after conspiracy theories --- that AT&T was Apple's "real" first choice and Verizon was a "head fake" to get AT&T to the negotiating table.
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). And the company that does the iphone activation --- their price drop 40% in one day.
Companies do make mistakes --- like RadioShack ditching Verizon and started selling Cingular cell phones a few years ago (greater commission with Cingular). But what a mistake that was for RadioShack.
I can also say that even those iphone numbers were caused by the $200 price drop within 100 days of the launch.
Secondly --- Verizon Wireless' ARPU is higher than AT&T Wireless. More subscribers at Verizon Wireless are taking the $99 unlimited voice minute plans. VZW can get more money from LG Voyager users having the Get It Now deck so they can buy Guitar Hero game for $12 or get a daily VZ Navigator usage for $3.
That's the whole point, isn't it? Verizon charges $200 for a "iphone killer" and AT&T is hinting to drop the price of the iphone v2 to similar price levels.
World of difference my friend, world of difference. More than 2.5 million iPhones roam these shores, and they're equipped with software nothing like you'd find on any primitive VZW offering. Best yet, with the App Store and iPhone 2.0 software on the way, along with whatever additional hardware improvements Apple may opt for besides the much touted 3G, there can be no fair comparison. Everything else is nonsense. Software matters - I thought we would know that here, Mac OS X versus Windows after all!
World of difference my friend, world of difference. More than 2.5 million iPhones roam these shores, and they're equipped with software nothing like you'd find on any primitive VZW offering. Best yet, with the App Store and iPhone 2.0 software on the way, along with whatever additional hardware improvements Apple may opt for besides the much touted 3G, there can be no fair comparison. Everything else is nonsense. Software matters - I thought we would know that here, Mac OS X versus Windows after all!
You can already buy ringtones, music, games, apps and turn-by-turn navigation on the LG Voyager.
You can play guitar hero on the Voyager right now --- it costs $12 on the Verizon Get It Now store.
Apple couldn't get Verizon to accept Apple's demand, but Verizon was Apple's first choice. The simplist explanations are often the correct one.
We don't know that. The evidence points to AT&T not being the carrier first approached. There is no proof that Verizon was the first. Your decision to look at things with simplicity would onlybe valid here if there were two carriers in the US. But Occam's Razor does have validity, but looking at Apple's past approaches to things AT&T is the "best" choice for Apple:
Stated Reason: It allowed Apple to initiate profit sharing (which it would it couldn't ever do with Verizon)
Stated Reason: It allowed Apple to open up its own call center for iPhone support and allow the device to be serviced by Apple staff (Verizon stated it didn't want to take a back seat to HW and service support)
Deduced Reason: It allowed Apple to have one device instead of two (less R&D equals more net profit per unit)
Potential Reason: It allowed Apple to add other services and pricing structures, like Visual Voicemail and $20 unlimited data plan (can you see Verizon doing both of those)
Potential Reason: It allowed Apple to include their OS on the device with carrier meddling (as Verizon is notorious for altering firmware installations to promote their pay services)
Quote:
Otherwise, we will be spinning conspiracy theories after conspiracy theories --- that AT&T was Apple's "real" first choice and Verizon was a "head fake" to get AT&T to the negotiating table.
Again, we know now that a Verizon VP stated that AT&T was not the first. Do you think he really knows who Apple went to first or who Apple thought was the "best" choice? The logical assettion would not to take Jim Gerace's word as canon. We have plenty of evidence of high level employees making assertions about Apple's products (especially from carriers) that turn out to be completely wrong.
Quote:
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).
I do remember your numbers. But you think a single, highend model cellphone with a required data plan being responsible for 13% of all new activations is low, while I think that is high. Does Verizon have a similar device responsible for their new activations?
Quote:
Companies do make mistakes --- like RadioShack ditching Verizon and started selling Cingular cell phones a few years ago (greater commission with Cingular). But what a mistake that was for RadioShack.
Yes, they do make mistakes, but I see no mistake with Apple going GSM over a dual CDMA/GSM product or having two products for each network type. If you wish to argue that Apple going locked then you'll have a foundation as speed at which the hackers unlocked each new version and the number being shipped over seas does seem to have taken Apple by surprise with their no cash and small unit limits.
BTW, I am not aware of the Radio Shack situation. Could you explain it or link to an unbiased article?
You can already buy ringtones, music, games, apps and turn-by-turn navigation on the LG Voyager.
You can play guitar hero on the Voyager right now --- it costs $12 on the Verizon Get It Now store.
You can do read emails, surf the internet, play movies and music, burn CDs, etc on all personal computers, but that doesn't mean that one isn't more stable and have a better user interface over other offerings.
Yes, you can't take anyone's PR words as the truth --- which means that you can't take Apple's words of those stated, implied, deduced reasons... as the truth as well.
Why do I trust Verizon's words on these issues? Because everything that Verizon said before the iphone launch came true ---- part of the Verizon's official reason of turning down the iphone was that it can't justify not letting their independent agents not sell the iphone and may cause problems with their own sales staff with commissions.
Look at Hofo's agent's and employee's threads on these issues AT THE TIME OF THE LAUNCH. AT&T independent agents were pissed that they couldn't sell the iphone and some were actively dissing the iphone and try to sell potential customers another phone. Employees were scared that they don't even get a commission with the itunes activation.
There were no monday morning quarterbacks. Verizon said those things BEFORE the iphone launch, BEFORE Apple even disclosed the pricing, the activation procedures, the at&t corporate store selling only....
You can do read emails, surf the internet, play movies and music, burn CDs, etc on all personal computers, but that doesn't mean that one isn't more stable and have a better user interface over other offerings.
But the problem is that the iphone does NONE of those things.
Just having a nice user interface that does nothing --- is still nothing.
There's this as well: the merging of the computer and phone experience into one extended ecology.
Sure, Verizon will sell me all kinds of stuff, through their store, and then make it as difficult as possible to move that stuff on and off my phone.
The iPhone is partaking in the iTunes/Mac OS ecosystem, so the same mechanisms that I use to buy music, rent movies, edit photos, etc. on my laptop or desktop transfer over to the iPhone. I can stop treating my cell phone like some special little world of its own, messing around with expensive add ons like "V Cast", and start treating it like a portable computing device that extends the functionality of my larger computers.
Verizon doesn't want to be relegated to "network provider", they want to be the whole thing. Even if Apple approached Verizon first, I can't imagine that Verizon was going to give up much on that point, and I know for sure Apple wasn't going to go along with having the iPhone turned into a portal for Verizon's media services.
Huh? The iPhone doesn't allow you to surf the internet, view emails, listen to music or watch movies?
No, I was talking about buying ringtones over-the-air, buying music over-the-air, buying apps, buying games, getting turn-by-turn navigation that the LG Voyager can do right now.
There's this as well: the merging of the computer and phone experience into one extended ecology.
Sure, Verizon will sell me all kinds of stuff, through their store, and then make it as difficult as possible to move that stuff on and off my phone.
The iPhone is partaking in the iTunes/Mac OS ecosystem, so the same mechanisms that I use to buy music, rent movies, edit photos, etc. on my laptop or desktop transfer over to the iPhone. I can stop treating my cell phone like some special little world of its own, messing around with expensive add ons like "V Cast", and start treating it like a portable computing device that extends the functionality of my larger computers.
Verizon doesn't want to be relegated to "network provider", they want to be the whole thing. Even if Apple approached Verizon first, I can't imagine that Verizon was going to give up much on that point, and I know for sure Apple wasn't going to go along with having the iPhone turned into a portal for Verizon's media services.
The problem is that 90% of us use windows --- in which itunes for windows is the most unstable and unsecured app on earth. iTunes has basically replaced Internet Explorer as the most unsecured app in the windows world.
The problem is that 90% of us use windows --- in which itunes for windows is the most unstable and unsecured app on earth. iTunes has basically replaced Internet Explorer as the most unsecured app in the windows world.
if you make such a claim youlll need to have some evidence to make it up. That has not been my experience in any way.
We know about the QT issue when using QT in a webpage, but that isn't iTunes.
PS: Hyperbolic terms like "most <blank> in the world" will not help your side of this debate.
No, I was talking about buying ringtones over-the-air, buying music over-the-air, buying apps, buying games, getting turn-by-turn navigation that the LG Voyager can do right now.
Besides the fact that all of those could be remedied with v2.0's App Store, you are making your argument based on very specific items that the LG Voyager has and that new develoment platform hasnot. I can pick an assortment of things that the Vogager can't do but that wouldn't make for a good argument.
BTW, the iPhone can download songs over-the-air when connected to WiFi.
Besides the fact that all of those could be remedied with v2.0's App Store, you are making your argument based on very specific items that the LG Voyager has and that new develoment platform hasnot. I can pick an assortment of things that the Vogager can't do but that wouldn't make for a good argument.
BTW, the iPhone can download songs over-the-air when connected to WiFi.
Basically any 3G Verizon phone can do those things --- which means that 35 million Verizon users can do those things.
You did supply a link about apps that had security issues, but the basis of the very brief article seems to rate items based on the fact they fixed the issues. That mean that apps with undisclosed security issues that aren't updated aren't making the list. We've seen this type logic and had this discussion before. Apple usually breaks down the specifics of the vulnerabilities fixed more than MS does so some anti-Apple pundits like to use that as a way of saying that Apple is less secure.
BTW, you have supplied no link that iTunes is the most "unstable app on earth."
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
No, I was talking about buying ringtones over-the-air, buying music over-the-air, buying apps, buying games, getting turn-by-turn navigation that the LG Voyager can do right now. [...] Basically any 3G Verizon phone can do those things --- which means that 35 million Verizon users can do those things.
As previously stated by Addabox, Verizon wants to have their own environment which the iPhone wouldn't possibly comply. This means that potentially all phones on Verizon's network will have access to their higher private network services. This is great for them, no body says differently, but saying that a one year old platform is bad because these option won't be available for another month while overlooking all the benefits that the iPhone has over other devices is nothing but a slithery marketing tactic.
There is no one device that fits everyone's needs. If the LG Voyager is the choice for you then go for it. There are legitimate reasons to complain about the iPhone and Apple and iTunes and OS X and AppleTV or Steve Jobs or anything else associated with Apple, but I haven't read one argument that addresses those issues.
Why do y'all bother with this bitter Verizon employee who is on an internet hate campaign against Apple, iphone, and AT&T.
Honestly, I have nothing better to do on days the stock market is closed. Also, I really, really enjoy learning how to debate more effectively. Practice makes perfect, as they say.
i think one of the big things att likes is the low cost of getting a NEW customer. it's a saturated market, new customers usually comes with huge incentives. the iphone is the incentive.
Honestly, I have nothing better to do on days the stock market is closed. Also, I really, really enjoy learning how to debate for effectively. Practice makes perfect, as they say.
There is debating and there is beating your head against a wall.
Comments
So you're saying that Apple wanted Verizon but couldn't get them? That it had nothing to do with the fact with what the Verizon VP stated about Apple's demands being too much for them?
Could it be that Apple went with the carrier that would make them the most money knowing that what ever carrier they went with would bring a great many new subscribers to that carrier?
Apple couldn't get Verizon to accept Apple's demand, but Verizon was Apple's first choice.
The simplist explanations are often the correct one.
Otherwise, we will be spinning conspiracy theories after conspiracy theories --- that AT&T was Apple's "real" first choice and Verizon was a "head fake" to get AT&T to the negotiating table.
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). And the company that does the iphone activation --- their price drop 40% in one day.
http://www.forbes.com/technology/200...markets45.html
Companies do make mistakes --- like RadioShack ditching Verizon and started selling Cingular cell phones a few years ago (greater commission with Cingular). But what a mistake that was for RadioShack.
It does compare --- because AT&T's CFO is hinting at iphone subsidies in the future.
http://techland.blogs.fortune.cnn.co...phone-subsidy/
I can also say that even those iphone numbers were caused by the $200 price drop within 100 days of the launch.
Secondly --- Verizon Wireless' ARPU is higher than AT&T Wireless. More subscribers at Verizon Wireless are taking the $99 unlimited voice minute plans. VZW can get more money from LG Voyager users having the Get It Now deck so they can buy Guitar Hero game for $12 or get a daily VZ Navigator usage for $3.
That's the whole point, isn't it? Verizon charges $200 for a "iphone killer" and AT&T is hinting to drop the price of the iphone v2 to similar price levels.
World of difference my friend, world of difference. More than 2.5 million iPhones roam these shores, and they're equipped with software nothing like you'd find on any primitive VZW offering. Best yet, with the App Store and iPhone 2.0 software on the way, along with whatever additional hardware improvements Apple may opt for besides the much touted 3G, there can be no fair comparison. Everything else is nonsense. Software matters - I thought we would know that here, Mac OS X versus Windows after all!
World of difference my friend, world of difference. More than 2.5 million iPhones roam these shores, and they're equipped with software nothing like you'd find on any primitive VZW offering. Best yet, with the App Store and iPhone 2.0 software on the way, along with whatever additional hardware improvements Apple may opt for besides the much touted 3G, there can be no fair comparison. Everything else is nonsense. Software matters - I thought we would know that here, Mac OS X versus Windows after all!
You can already buy ringtones, music, games, apps and turn-by-turn navigation on the LG Voyager.
You can play guitar hero on the Voyager right now --- it costs $12 on the Verizon Get It Now store.
Apple couldn't get Verizon to accept Apple's demand, but Verizon was Apple's first choice. The simplist explanations are often the correct one.
We don't know that. The evidence points to AT&T not being the carrier first approached. There is no proof that Verizon was the first. Your decision to look at things with simplicity would onlybe valid here if there were two carriers in the US. But Occam's Razor does have validity, but looking at Apple's past approaches to things AT&T is the "best" choice for Apple:
Otherwise, we will be spinning conspiracy theories after conspiracy theories --- that AT&T was Apple's "real" first choice and Verizon was a "head fake" to get AT&T to the negotiating table.
Again, we know now that a Verizon VP stated that AT&T was not the first. Do you think he really knows who Apple went to first or who Apple thought was the "best" choice? The logical assettion would not to take Jim Gerace's word as canon. We have plenty of evidence of high level employees making assertions about Apple's products (especially from carriers) that turn out to be completely wrong.
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).
I do remember your numbers. But you think a single, highend model cellphone with a required data plan being responsible for 13% of all new activations is low, while I think that is high. Does Verizon have a similar device responsible for their new activations?
Companies do make mistakes --- like RadioShack ditching Verizon and started selling Cingular cell phones a few years ago (greater commission with Cingular). But what a mistake that was for RadioShack.
Yes, they do make mistakes, but I see no mistake with Apple going GSM over a dual CDMA/GSM product or having two products for each network type. If you wish to argue that Apple going locked then you'll have a foundation as speed at which the hackers unlocked each new version and the number being shipped over seas does seem to have taken Apple by surprise with their no cash and small unit limits.
BTW, I am not aware of the Radio Shack situation. Could you explain it or link to an unbiased article?
You can already buy ringtones, music, games, apps and turn-by-turn navigation on the LG Voyager.
You can play guitar hero on the Voyager right now --- it costs $12 on the Verizon Get It Now store.
You can do read emails, surf the internet, play movies and music, burn CDs, etc on all personal computers, but that doesn't mean that one isn't more stable and have a better user interface over other offerings.
Why do I trust Verizon's words on these issues? Because everything that Verizon said before the iphone launch came true ---- part of the Verizon's official reason of turning down the iphone was that it can't justify not letting their independent agents not sell the iphone and may cause problems with their own sales staff with commissions.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
Look at Hofo's agent's and employee's threads on these issues AT THE TIME OF THE LAUNCH. AT&T independent agents were pissed that they couldn't sell the iphone and some were actively dissing the iphone and try to sell potential customers another phone. Employees were scared that they don't even get a commission with the itunes activation.
http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=1187621
http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=1187868
There were no monday morning quarterbacks. Verizon said those things BEFORE the iphone launch, BEFORE Apple even disclosed the pricing, the activation procedures, the at&t corporate store selling only....
You can do read emails, surf the internet, play movies and music, burn CDs, etc on all personal computers, but that doesn't mean that one isn't more stable and have a better user interface over other offerings.
But the problem is that the iphone does NONE of those things.
Just having a nice user interface that does nothing --- is still nothing.
Sure, Verizon will sell me all kinds of stuff, through their store, and then make it as difficult as possible to move that stuff on and off my phone.
The iPhone is partaking in the iTunes/Mac OS ecosystem, so the same mechanisms that I use to buy music, rent movies, edit photos, etc. on my laptop or desktop transfer over to the iPhone. I can stop treating my cell phone like some special little world of its own, messing around with expensive add ons like "V Cast", and start treating it like a portable computing device that extends the functionality of my larger computers.
Verizon doesn't want to be relegated to "network provider", they want to be the whole thing. Even if Apple approached Verizon first, I can't imagine that Verizon was going to give up much on that point, and I know for sure Apple wasn't going to go along with having the iPhone turned into a portal for Verizon's media services.
But the problem is that the iphone does NONE of those things.
Just having a nice user interface that does nothing --- is still nothing.
Huh? The iPhone doesn't allow you to surf the internet, view emails, listen to music or watch movies?
Huh? The iPhone doesn't allow you to surf the internet, view emails, listen to music or watch movies?
No, I was talking about buying ringtones over-the-air, buying music over-the-air, buying apps, buying games, getting turn-by-turn navigation that the LG Voyager can do right now.
There's this as well: the merging of the computer and phone experience into one extended ecology.
Sure, Verizon will sell me all kinds of stuff, through their store, and then make it as difficult as possible to move that stuff on and off my phone.
The iPhone is partaking in the iTunes/Mac OS ecosystem, so the same mechanisms that I use to buy music, rent movies, edit photos, etc. on my laptop or desktop transfer over to the iPhone. I can stop treating my cell phone like some special little world of its own, messing around with expensive add ons like "V Cast", and start treating it like a portable computing device that extends the functionality of my larger computers.
Verizon doesn't want to be relegated to "network provider", they want to be the whole thing. Even if Apple approached Verizon first, I can't imagine that Verizon was going to give up much on that point, and I know for sure Apple wasn't going to go along with having the iPhone turned into a portal for Verizon's media services.
The problem is that 90% of us use windows --- in which itunes for windows is the most unstable and unsecured app on earth. iTunes has basically replaced Internet Explorer as the most unsecured app in the windows world.
The problem is that 90% of us use windows --- in which itunes for windows is the most unstable and unsecured app on earth. iTunes has basically replaced Internet Explorer as the most unsecured app in the windows world.
if you make such a claim youlll need to have some evidence to make it up. That has not been my experience in any way.
We know about the QT issue when using QT in a webpage, but that isn't iTunes.
PS: Hyperbolic terms like "most <blank> in the world" will not help your side of this debate.
if you make such a claim youlll need to have some evidence to make it up. That has not been my experience in any way.
We know about the QT issue when using QT in a webpage, but that isn't iTunes.
PS: Hyperbolic terms like 'most' <blank> in the world will not help your side of this debate.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Top-1...07-70055.shtml
No, I was talking about buying ringtones over-the-air, buying music over-the-air, buying apps, buying games, getting turn-by-turn navigation that the LG Voyager can do right now.
Besides the fact that all of those could be remedied with v2.0's App Store, you are making your argument based on very specific items that the LG Voyager has and that new develoment platform hasnot. I can pick an assortment of things that the Vogager can't do but that wouldn't make for a good argument.
BTW, the iPhone can download songs over-the-air when connected to WiFi.
Besides the fact that all of those could be remedied with v2.0's App Store, you are making your argument based on very specific items that the LG Voyager has and that new develoment platform hasnot. I can pick an assortment of things that the Vogager can't do but that wouldn't make for a good argument.
BTW, the iPhone can download songs over-the-air when connected to WiFi.
Basically any 3G Verizon phone can do those things --- which means that 35 million Verizon users can do those things.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Top-1...07-70055.shtml
You did supply a link about apps that had security issues, but the basis of the very brief article seems to rate items based on the fact they fixed the issues. That mean that apps with undisclosed security issues that aren't updated aren't making the list. We've seen this type logic and had this discussion before. Apple usually breaks down the specifics of the vulnerabilities fixed more than MS does so some anti-Apple pundits like to use that as a way of saying that Apple is less secure.
BTW, you have supplied no link that iTunes is the most "unstable app on earth."
No, I was talking about buying ringtones over-the-air, buying music over-the-air, buying apps, buying games, getting turn-by-turn navigation that the LG Voyager can do right now. [...] Basically any 3G Verizon phone can do those things --- which means that 35 million Verizon users can do those things.
As previously stated by Addabox, Verizon wants to have their own environment which the iPhone wouldn't possibly comply. This means that potentially all phones on Verizon's network will have access to their higher private network services. This is great for them, no body says differently, but saying that a one year old platform is bad because these option won't be available for another month while overlooking all the benefits that the iPhone has over other devices is nothing but a slithery marketing tactic.
There is no one device that fits everyone's needs. If the LG Voyager is the choice for you then go for it. There are legitimate reasons to complain about the iPhone and Apple and iTunes and OS X and AppleTV or Steve Jobs or anything else associated with Apple, but I haven't read one argument that addresses those issues.
Why do y'all bother with this bitter Verizon employee who is on an internet hate campaign against Apple, iphone, and AT&T.
Honestly, I have nothing better to do on days the stock market is closed. Also, I really, really enjoy learning how to debate more effectively. Practice makes perfect, as they say.
Honestly, I have nothing better to do on days the stock market is closed. Also, I really, really enjoy learning how to debate for effectively. Practice makes perfect, as they say.
There is debating and there is beating your head against a wall.