I think it's much easier to scale up than scale down.
At the core of the Mac OS X --- is the Mach microkernel. It is no different than paying for a VxWorks or QNX kernel and then build stuff on top of that.
No, it's most definitely not. The kernel is not the OS. Darwin is the base OS. Then Apple builds plenty more on top of that.
You can easily scale a system down, as Apple has done to OS X for the iPhone, by removing all the things the device doesn't need.
But going the other way is almost impossible. If the structure of the OS isn't designed to be scaled up that much, which the phone OS's aren't, it simply can't be done.
As they attempt to add API's at random, the OS becomes a mess, as Symbian currently is. It becomes increasingly unreliable, and "cranky".
This is why Nokia is basing its netbooks on a Linux derived OS rather than Symbian, They know it won't work.
Tech forum moderator is the ultimate geek. We aren't the general population.
I said not entirely true.
But the general populace does buy compact flour. bulbs for the reasons I gave. At least, that's what the surveys, and articles in places such as Consumer Reports show.
Scaling down the Mac OS X for the iphone was difficult and time consuming --- so much so that Leopard was delayed.
And the point is, what?
I'm not saying it's easy. After all, they also have to write new API's, as well as design an entirely new GUI, etc. The hardware is also different. An entirely new chip and capabilities.
The fact that ir was done shows that it can be done.
You keep sliding the point of the conversation without directly addressing the previous point.
Verizon turned down the iPhone before they really understood what they were turning down. They definitely would not turn it down today.
My previous point is that Vodafone did want they original iPhone because they did understand what it was and what it could do for them. Which is why they do sell it now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
So that's why Verizon (Vodafone) got the iPhone and AT&T didn't?
Sure, because mobile Safari is a better user experience than your typical crappy 'minibrowser'. But what do you think those usage stats are like now that the iPhone has 3G? Quite a bit better, you'd think. It's all about user experience, and 3G definitely helps there... mobile Safari + 3G > mobile Safari + crap-slow GPRS or slow EDGE.
Which would you rather use? Even Jobs himself said of the 2.5G iPhone, "You wish it was faster." Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Yes exactly, mobile Safari is the direct interface, and is where the internet is used. The bandwidth is the road that the information travels on. While its always better to have a faster road. The road isn't the part that is directly used.
Quote:
In any case, water under the bridge. 3G iPhone is here, 2.5G iPhone is now a footnote.
Their are still over 6 million 2.5G iPhones in the world. I see people happily using them every day.
Verizon turned down the iPhone before they really understood what they were turning down. They definitely would not turn it down today.
I disagree.
The main objection that Verizon has stated publicly is that the iphone deal hurts Verizon's distribution partners --- be it independent third party agents or large partners like circuit city. And we still face this problem with all the recent talk about whether walmart is selling the iphone or not.
It's not like the iphone is hurting Verizon's net adds.
The main objection that Verizon has stated publicly is that the iphone deal hurts Verizon's distribution partners --- be it independent third party agents or large partners like circuit city. And we still face this problem with all the recent talk about whether walmart is selling the iphone or not.
In the beginning, only Apple and AT&T were selling iPhones, but now, that's changed. The same thing would have been true for Verizon. I don't think that was a major reason.
Quote:
It's not like the iphone is hurting Verizon's net adds.
You don't know that. The reports on that disagree. Over 40% of AT&T's iPhone pickups are from other carriers. The estimates have been saying that most are from Verizon, then T-Mobile, and lastly, from Sprint.
In the beginning, only Apple and AT&T were selling iPhones, but now, that's changed. The same thing would have been true for Verizon. I don't think that was a major reason.
You don't know that. The reports on that disagree. Over 40% of AT&T's iPhone pickups are from other carriers. The estimates have been saying that most are from Verizon, then T-Mobile, and lastly, from Sprint.
When small independent 3rd party AT&T agents can't sell the iphone --- what do they do? They badmouthed the iphone and then attempts to sell you a blackberry which they have in stock.
The last distribution partner that left Verizon was RadioShack --- and see how that turned out. RadioShack's stock crashed, CEO resigned for fudging his resume, had to close 700 stores nationwide.... You take care of your distribution partners and they take care of you.
Verizon has beaten AT&T basically every quarter in retail net adds since the first generation of iphone was launched. It's public record in their SEC filings. No need to read "estimates".
When small independent 3rd party AT&T agents can't sell the iphone --- what do they do? They badmouthed the iphone and then attempts to sell you a blackberry which they have in stock.
What does that have to do with anything? No company can sell something they're out of. Are you saying that it was a mistake for AT&T to agree to have the iPhone because of some minor thing such as that? AT&T wants the iPhone to be sold everywhere. That opposes what you just said.
The last distribution partner that left Verizon was RadioShack --- and see how that turned out. RadioShack's stock crashed, CEO resigned for fudging his resume, had to close 700 stores nationwide.... You take care of your distribution partners and they take care of you.
Oh please! Radio Shack has so many problems because of changing markets and customer desires that moving from Verizon had nothing to do with it. Radio Shack has been having problems for years.
Quote:
Verizon has beaten AT&T basically every quarter in retail net adds since the first generation of iphone was launched. It's public record in their SEC filings. No need to read "estimates".
That means nothing. Their adds have dropped, and that of AT&T has risen since the iPhone's debut.
I guarantee you. Once AT&T contract is up and Verizon is launching its LTE network. Verizon will jockey for the iPhone. They would be stupid not to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
I disagree.
The main objection that Verizon has stated publicly is that the iphone deal hurts Verizon's distribution partners --- be it independent third party agents or large partners like circuit city. And we still face this problem with all the recent talk about whether walmart is selling the iphone or not.
It's not like the iphone is hurting Verizon's net adds.
What does that have to do with anything? No company can sell something they're out of. Are you saying that it was a mistake for AT&T to agree to have the iPhone because of some minor thing such as that? AT&T wants the iPhone to be sold everywhere. That opposes what you just said.
That means nothing. Their adds have dropped, and that of AT&T has risen since the iPhone's debut.
No I am not saying it was a mistake on AT&T's part. I am saying that Verizon made that disclosure BEFORE the original iphone was launched. A lot of people stated at the time that it was just sour grapes for Verizon to say that.
Guess what --- this distribution issue turned out to be a genuine business issue. Whether you agree with Verizon about the importance of protecting their distribution partners --- that's another thing.
That means everything. Verizon has maintained its profit margin and net adds have remained stable. AT&T had to issue a profit warning in order to buy market share.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I guarantee you. Once AT&T contract is up and Verizon is launching its LTE network. Verizon will jockey for the iPhone. They would be stupid not to.
The original iphone deal that Verizon rejected is so much different than what the 3G iphone deal is now --- revenue sharing, no handset subsidy, no carrier tech support... Of course, Verizon is going to the negotiating table --- it would be stupid for Verizon not to go to the negotiating table.
If you look at the international 3G iphone deals --- no revenue sharing, a few carriers are doing tech support instead of Apple, handset susbidy at the discretion of the carriers...
No I am not saying it was a mistake on AT&T's part. I am saying that Verizon made that disclosure BEFORE the original iphone was launched. A lot of people stated at the time that it was just sour grapes for Verizon to say that.
Guess what --- this distribution issue turned out to be a genuine business issue. Whether you agree with Verizon about the importance of protecting their distribution partners --- that's another thing.
I was skeptical of your claim, but it turns out a Verizon VP did say that distribution was an issue. It wasn't the only issue. I don't think a lot of people noticed the distribution, most of the derivative stories focused on other things in the story. It looks like USA Today did the original story:
No I am not saying it was a mistake on AT&T's part. I am saying that Verizon made that disclosure BEFORE the original iphone was launched. A lot of people stated at the time that it was just sour grapes for Verizon to say that.
Guess what --- this distribution issue turned out to be a genuine business issue. Whether you agree with Verizon about the importance of protecting their distribution partners --- that's another thing.
That means everything. Verizon has maintained its profit margin and net adds have remained stable. AT&T had to issue a profit warning in order to buy market share.
The distribution issue may be an issue with them, but it doesn't meant it's a real business issue. It's not one that makes sense to me, nor, apparently, to AT&T, which is, by the way doing VERY well in wireless. It's the landline business that's having problems and is responsible for any margin shrinkage.
The original iphone deal that Verizon rejected is so much different than what the 3G iphone deal is now --- revenue sharing, no handset subsidy, no carrier tech support... Of course, Verizon is going to the negotiating table --- it would be stupid for Verizon not to go to the negotiating table.
If you look at the international 3G iphone deals --- no revenue sharing, a few carriers are doing tech support instead of Apple, handset susbidy at the discretion of the carriers...
But you see, I pointed out that the original distribution plans had changed. It no doubt would have changed had Verizon taken it up instead.
I was skeptical of your claim, but it turns out a Verizon VP did say that distribution was an issue. It wasn't the only issue. I don't think a lot of people noticed the distribution, most of the derivative stories focused on other things in the story. It looks like USA Today did the original story:
It wasn't the main issue. Apple's meddling with the customer was more important. No company likes that, and Verizon is pretty arrogant too. Apple's not the only one. AT&T had more foresight than did Verizon.
I was skeptical of your claim, but it turns out a Verizon VP did say that distribution was an issue.
What makes the point even more important was the timing of the original interview --- late January 2007. It was 2 weeks after Steve Jobs' keynote speech, no detail about distribution was ever announced at the keynote and the launch was still 5 months away.
It was no sour grapes.
It is a legitimate business issue --- whether you would value this issue as highly as Verizon had valued, that's a different matter. Another issue stated in that article was the consumer support issue --- which also turned out to be legitimate because several carriers worldwide are doing tech support for the iphone instead of Apple.
It's the landline business that's having problems and is responsible for any margin shrinkage.
But you see, I pointed out that the original distribution plans had changed. It no doubt would have changed had Verizon taken it up instead.
They had to make a $900 million charge for the iphone subsidy --- that affects the profit margin. Don't forget that every landline company ---- including Verizon --- are losing customers, so I don't accept your argument about it being landline.
No, the deal would not have changed had Verizon taken it up. What Apple needed to see was a massive failure of the original business plans --- price drop within 100 days, more than half of their iphones were exported to China and Russia, European carriers were stuck with excessive 2G iphone inventory, and carriers left and right were balking at the negotiating table for the 3G iphone....
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
The distribution issue may be an issue with them, but it doesn't meant it's a real business issue. It's not one that makes sense to me, nor, apparently, to AT&T, which is, by the way doing VERY well in wireless.
It doesn't have to make sense to you. Like it or not, Verizon Wireless is the best run wireless carrier in the US, with the best network, with the highest ARPU, with the highest data ARPU, with the best profit margin, with the best churn rate.... --- if this issue is important to Verizon, who are we to question their judgement.
They had to make a $900 million charge for the iphone subsidy --- that affects the profit margin. Don't forget that every landline company ---- including Verizon --- are losing customers, so I don't accept your argument about it being landline.
It's not my argument. It's their own reporting. They lost 2.2% of their landline customers. They have to report all subsidies, as does Verizon, Sprint, etc. If you look, you will find subsidies listed on their balance sheets as well. But, AT&T also told of increased profits because of the iPhone.
No, the deal would not have changed had Verizon taken it up. What Apple needed to see was a massive failure of the original business plans --- price drop within 100 days, more than half of their iphones were exported to China and Russia, European carriers were stuck with excessive 2G iphone inventory, and carriers left and right were balking at the negotiating table for the 3G iphone....
Now you're making up numbers. More than HALF the phones were exported to China and Russia?
You have to show proof of those numbers.
Also, you don't seem to know about what happened with Apples exports. Which carriers abroad had *2G* phones?
Quote:
It doesn't have to make sense to you. Like it or not, Verizon Wireless is the best run wireless carrier in the US, with the best network, with the highest ARPU, with the highest data ARPU, with the best profit margin, with the best churn rate.... --- if this issue is important to Verizon, who are we to question their judgement.
Considering that Apple by far in a better circumstance than is verizon viz a viz their own industry, why would you question any deals THEY make, and any who want to do those deals with them?
However well Verizon is doing, they would be doing better had they made the deal.
This was my original point with which you disagreed, that Verizon would not turn down the iPhone now.
Their would still need to be many issues worked out. Verizon charges extra for many of the iPhones native functions. That would certainly be a point of contention between Apple and Verizon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
The original iphone deal that Verizon rejected is so much different than what the 3G iphone deal is now --- revenue sharing, no handset subsidy, no carrier tech support... Of course, Verizon is going to the negotiating table --- it would be stupid for Verizon not to go to the negotiating table.
If you look at the international 3G iphone deals --- no revenue sharing, a few carriers are doing tech support instead of Apple, handset susbidy at the discretion of the carriers...
They have to report all subsidies, as does Verizon, Sprint, etc. If you look, you will find subsidies listed on their balance sheets as well. But, AT&T also told of increased profits because of the iPhone.
Now you're making up numbers. More than HALF the phones were exported to China and Russia?
Considering that Apple by far in a better circumstance than is verizon viz a viz their own industry, why would you question any deals THEY make, and any who want to do those deals with them?
However well Verizon is doing, they would be doing better had they made the deal.
Everybody has to report subsidies --- as cost of acquisition. But AT&T is the only carrier that made a special profit warning on the iphone subsidy. I believe concrete SEC filings in numbers and cents rather than a vague PR statement saying thqt their profits have increased due to the iphone.
2 million iphone sold in the US in Q4 2007, AT&T activated 900K. Don't really care what precise number goes to China and Russia --- only care that less than 1/2 of them ended up with AT&T.
What is good for Apple is not necessarily good for AT&T. I would not question Apple's decision of their demands. I only question why you question Verizon's judgement as opposed to AT&T's judgement.
Comments
I disagree with you on the OS issue.
I think it's much easier to scale up than scale down.
At the core of the Mac OS X --- is the Mach microkernel. It is no different than paying for a VxWorks or QNX kernel and then build stuff on top of that.
No, it's most definitely not. The kernel is not the OS. Darwin is the base OS. Then Apple builds plenty more on top of that.
You can easily scale a system down, as Apple has done to OS X for the iPhone, by removing all the things the device doesn't need.
But going the other way is almost impossible. If the structure of the OS isn't designed to be scaled up that much, which the phone OS's aren't, it simply can't be done.
As they attempt to add API's at random, the OS becomes a mess, as Symbian currently is. It becomes increasingly unreliable, and "cranky".
This is why Nokia is basing its netbooks on a Linux derived OS rather than Symbian, They know it won't work.
Tech forum moderator is the ultimate geek. We aren't the general population.
I said not entirely true.
But the general populace does buy compact flour. bulbs for the reasons I gave. At least, that's what the surveys, and articles in places such as Consumer Reports show.
You can easily scale a system down, as Apple has done to OS X for the iPhone, by removing all the things the device doesn't need.
Scaling down the Mac OS X for the iphone was difficult and time consuming --- so much so that Leopard was delayed.
Scaling down the Mac OS X for the iphone was difficult and time consuming --- so much so that Leopard was delayed.
And the point is, what?
I'm not saying it's easy. After all, they also have to write new API's, as well as design an entirely new GUI, etc. The hardware is also different. An entirely new chip and capabilities.
The fact that ir was done shows that it can be done.
But where are the other Old phone OS's?
Dying off slowly.
Now that work is done, finished.
Verizon turned down the iPhone before they really understood what they were turning down. They definitely would not turn it down today.
My previous point is that Vodafone did want they original iPhone because they did understand what it was and what it could do for them. Which is why they do sell it now.
So that's why Verizon (Vodafone) got the iPhone and AT&T didn't?
...hang on a second.
Sure, because mobile Safari is a better user experience than your typical crappy 'minibrowser'. But what do you think those usage stats are like now that the iPhone has 3G? Quite a bit better, you'd think. It's all about user experience, and 3G definitely helps there... mobile Safari + 3G > mobile Safari + crap-slow GPRS or slow EDGE.
Which would you rather use? Even Jobs himself said of the 2.5G iPhone, "You wish it was faster." Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Yes exactly, mobile Safari is the direct interface, and is where the internet is used. The bandwidth is the road that the information travels on. While its always better to have a faster road. The road isn't the part that is directly used.
In any case, water under the bridge. 3G iPhone is here, 2.5G iPhone is now a footnote.
Their are still over 6 million 2.5G iPhones in the world. I see people happily using them every day.
Verizon turned down the iPhone before they really understood what they were turning down. They definitely would not turn it down today.
I disagree.
The main objection that Verizon has stated publicly is that the iphone deal hurts Verizon's distribution partners --- be it independent third party agents or large partners like circuit city. And we still face this problem with all the recent talk about whether walmart is selling the iphone or not.
It's not like the iphone is hurting Verizon's net adds.
I disagree.
The main objection that Verizon has stated publicly is that the iphone deal hurts Verizon's distribution partners --- be it independent third party agents or large partners like circuit city. And we still face this problem with all the recent talk about whether walmart is selling the iphone or not.
In the beginning, only Apple and AT&T were selling iPhones, but now, that's changed. The same thing would have been true for Verizon. I don't think that was a major reason.
It's not like the iphone is hurting Verizon's net adds.
You don't know that. The reports on that disagree. Over 40% of AT&T's iPhone pickups are from other carriers. The estimates have been saying that most are from Verizon, then T-Mobile, and lastly, from Sprint.
In the beginning, only Apple and AT&T were selling iPhones, but now, that's changed. The same thing would have been true for Verizon. I don't think that was a major reason.
You don't know that. The reports on that disagree. Over 40% of AT&T's iPhone pickups are from other carriers. The estimates have been saying that most are from Verizon, then T-Mobile, and lastly, from Sprint.
When small independent 3rd party AT&T agents can't sell the iphone --- what do they do? They badmouthed the iphone and then attempts to sell you a blackberry which they have in stock.
The last distribution partner that left Verizon was RadioShack --- and see how that turned out. RadioShack's stock crashed, CEO resigned for fudging his resume, had to close 700 stores nationwide.... You take care of your distribution partners and they take care of you.
Verizon has beaten AT&T basically every quarter in retail net adds since the first generation of iphone was launched. It's public record in their SEC filings. No need to read "estimates".
When small independent 3rd party AT&T agents can't sell the iphone --- what do they do? They badmouthed the iphone and then attempts to sell you a blackberry which they have in stock.
What does that have to do with anything? No company can sell something they're out of. Are you saying that it was a mistake for AT&T to agree to have the iPhone because of some minor thing such as that? AT&T wants the iPhone to be sold everywhere. That opposes what you just said.
Here, read this:
http://www.macblogz.com/2008/12/14/a...-distribution/
The last distribution partner that left Verizon was RadioShack --- and see how that turned out. RadioShack's stock crashed, CEO resigned for fudging his resume, had to close 700 stores nationwide.... You take care of your distribution partners and they take care of you.
Oh please! Radio Shack has so many problems because of changing markets and customer desires that moving from Verizon had nothing to do with it. Radio Shack has been having problems for years.
Verizon has beaten AT&T basically every quarter in retail net adds since the first generation of iphone was launched. It's public record in their SEC filings. No need to read "estimates".
That means nothing. Their adds have dropped, and that of AT&T has risen since the iPhone's debut.
I disagree.
The main objection that Verizon has stated publicly is that the iphone deal hurts Verizon's distribution partners --- be it independent third party agents or large partners like circuit city. And we still face this problem with all the recent talk about whether walmart is selling the iphone or not.
It's not like the iphone is hurting Verizon's net adds.
What does that have to do with anything? No company can sell something they're out of. Are you saying that it was a mistake for AT&T to agree to have the iPhone because of some minor thing such as that? AT&T wants the iPhone to be sold everywhere. That opposes what you just said.
That means nothing. Their adds have dropped, and that of AT&T has risen since the iPhone's debut.
No I am not saying it was a mistake on AT&T's part. I am saying that Verizon made that disclosure BEFORE the original iphone was launched. A lot of people stated at the time that it was just sour grapes for Verizon to say that.
Guess what --- this distribution issue turned out to be a genuine business issue. Whether you agree with Verizon about the importance of protecting their distribution partners --- that's another thing.
That means everything. Verizon has maintained its profit margin and net adds have remained stable. AT&T had to issue a profit warning in order to buy market share.
I guarantee you. Once AT&T contract is up and Verizon is launching its LTE network. Verizon will jockey for the iPhone. They would be stupid not to.
The original iphone deal that Verizon rejected is so much different than what the 3G iphone deal is now --- revenue sharing, no handset subsidy, no carrier tech support... Of course, Verizon is going to the negotiating table --- it would be stupid for Verizon not to go to the negotiating table.
If you look at the international 3G iphone deals --- no revenue sharing, a few carriers are doing tech support instead of Apple, handset susbidy at the discretion of the carriers...
No I am not saying it was a mistake on AT&T's part. I am saying that Verizon made that disclosure BEFORE the original iphone was launched. A lot of people stated at the time that it was just sour grapes for Verizon to say that.
Guess what --- this distribution issue turned out to be a genuine business issue. Whether you agree with Verizon about the importance of protecting their distribution partners --- that's another thing.
I was skeptical of your claim, but it turns out a Verizon VP did say that distribution was an issue. It wasn't the only issue. I don't think a lot of people noticed the distribution, most of the derivative stories focused on other things in the story. It looks like USA Today did the original story:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...tm?POE=TECISVA
No I am not saying it was a mistake on AT&T's part. I am saying that Verizon made that disclosure BEFORE the original iphone was launched. A lot of people stated at the time that it was just sour grapes for Verizon to say that.
Guess what --- this distribution issue turned out to be a genuine business issue. Whether you agree with Verizon about the importance of protecting their distribution partners --- that's another thing.
That means everything. Verizon has maintained its profit margin and net adds have remained stable. AT&T had to issue a profit warning in order to buy market share.
The distribution issue may be an issue with them, but it doesn't meant it's a real business issue. It's not one that makes sense to me, nor, apparently, to AT&T, which is, by the way doing VERY well in wireless. It's the landline business that's having problems and is responsible for any margin shrinkage.
http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pi...rticleid=26227
The original iphone deal that Verizon rejected is so much different than what the 3G iphone deal is now --- revenue sharing, no handset subsidy, no carrier tech support... Of course, Verizon is going to the negotiating table --- it would be stupid for Verizon not to go to the negotiating table.
If you look at the international 3G iphone deals --- no revenue sharing, a few carriers are doing tech support instead of Apple, handset susbidy at the discretion of the carriers...
But you see, I pointed out that the original distribution plans had changed. It no doubt would have changed had Verizon taken it up instead.
I was skeptical of your claim, but it turns out a Verizon VP did say that distribution was an issue. It wasn't the only issue. I don't think a lot of people noticed the distribution, most of the derivative stories focused on other things in the story. It looks like USA Today did the original story:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...tm?POE=TECISVA
It wasn't the main issue. Apple's meddling with the customer was more important. No company likes that, and Verizon is pretty arrogant too. Apple's not the only one. AT&T had more foresight than did Verizon.
It's worked out pretty well.
I was skeptical of your claim, but it turns out a Verizon VP did say that distribution was an issue.
What makes the point even more important was the timing of the original interview --- late January 2007. It was 2 weeks after Steve Jobs' keynote speech, no detail about distribution was ever announced at the keynote and the launch was still 5 months away.
It was no sour grapes.
It is a legitimate business issue --- whether you would value this issue as highly as Verizon had valued, that's a different matter. Another issue stated in that article was the consumer support issue --- which also turned out to be legitimate because several carriers worldwide are doing tech support for the iphone instead of Apple.
It's the landline business that's having problems and is responsible for any margin shrinkage.
But you see, I pointed out that the original distribution plans had changed. It no doubt would have changed had Verizon taken it up instead.
They had to make a $900 million charge for the iphone subsidy --- that affects the profit margin. Don't forget that every landline company ---- including Verizon --- are losing customers, so I don't accept your argument about it being landline.
No, the deal would not have changed had Verizon taken it up. What Apple needed to see was a massive failure of the original business plans --- price drop within 100 days, more than half of their iphones were exported to China and Russia, European carriers were stuck with excessive 2G iphone inventory, and carriers left and right were balking at the negotiating table for the 3G iphone....
The distribution issue may be an issue with them, but it doesn't meant it's a real business issue. It's not one that makes sense to me, nor, apparently, to AT&T, which is, by the way doing VERY well in wireless.
It doesn't have to make sense to you. Like it or not, Verizon Wireless is the best run wireless carrier in the US, with the best network, with the highest ARPU, with the highest data ARPU, with the best profit margin, with the best churn rate.... --- if this issue is important to Verizon, who are we to question their judgement.
They had to make a $900 million charge for the iphone subsidy --- that affects the profit margin. Don't forget that every landline company ---- including Verizon --- are losing customers, so I don't accept your argument about it being landline.
It's not my argument. It's their own reporting. They lost 2.2% of their landline customers. They have to report all subsidies, as does Verizon, Sprint, etc. If you look, you will find subsidies listed on their balance sheets as well. But, AT&T also told of increased profits because of the iPhone.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10072601-94.html
No, the deal would not have changed had Verizon taken it up. What Apple needed to see was a massive failure of the original business plans --- price drop within 100 days, more than half of their iphones were exported to China and Russia, European carriers were stuck with excessive 2G iphone inventory, and carriers left and right were balking at the negotiating table for the 3G iphone....
Now you're making up numbers. More than HALF the phones were exported to China and Russia?
You have to show proof of those numbers.
Also, you don't seem to know about what happened with Apples exports. Which carriers abroad had *2G* phones?
It doesn't have to make sense to you. Like it or not, Verizon Wireless is the best run wireless carrier in the US, with the best network, with the highest ARPU, with the highest data ARPU, with the best profit margin, with the best churn rate.... --- if this issue is important to Verizon, who are we to question their judgement.
Considering that Apple by far in a better circumstance than is verizon viz a viz their own industry, why would you question any deals THEY make, and any who want to do those deals with them?
However well Verizon is doing, they would be doing better had they made the deal.
Their would still need to be many issues worked out. Verizon charges extra for many of the iPhones native functions. That would certainly be a point of contention between Apple and Verizon.
The original iphone deal that Verizon rejected is so much different than what the 3G iphone deal is now --- revenue sharing, no handset subsidy, no carrier tech support... Of course, Verizon is going to the negotiating table --- it would be stupid for Verizon not to go to the negotiating table.
If you look at the international 3G iphone deals --- no revenue sharing, a few carriers are doing tech support instead of Apple, handset susbidy at the discretion of the carriers...
They have to report all subsidies, as does Verizon, Sprint, etc. If you look, you will find subsidies listed on their balance sheets as well. But, AT&T also told of increased profits because of the iPhone.
Now you're making up numbers. More than HALF the phones were exported to China and Russia?
Considering that Apple by far in a better circumstance than is verizon viz a viz their own industry, why would you question any deals THEY make, and any who want to do those deals with them?
However well Verizon is doing, they would be doing better had they made the deal.
Everybody has to report subsidies --- as cost of acquisition. But AT&T is the only carrier that made a special profit warning on the iphone subsidy. I believe concrete SEC filings in numbers and cents rather than a vague PR statement saying thqt their profits have increased due to the iphone.
2 million iphone sold in the US in Q4 2007, AT&T activated 900K. Don't really care what precise number goes to China and Russia --- only care that less than 1/2 of them ended up with AT&T.
What is good for Apple is not necessarily good for AT&T. I would not question Apple's decision of their demands. I only question why you question Verizon's judgement as opposed to AT&T's judgement.