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.
The question is how much are they willing to pay.
AIG may be a financial basketcase, but if I can buy the whole company for a dollar --- I would buy it. Your argument is like that --- just blanket statement saying Verizon would not turn down the iphone now. I would not turn down a deal to buy AIG for a dollar --- a completely useless statement.
Its not a blanket statement. The iPhone and Verizon are a very specific case with some contentious hurdles to cross before they will work with each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
The question is how much are they willing to pay.
AIG may be a financial basketcase, but if I can buy the whole company for a dollar --- I would buy it. Your argument is like that --- just blanket statement saying Verizon would not turn down the iphone now. I would not turn down a deal to buy AIG for a dollar --- a completely useless statement.
Its not a blanket statement. The iPhone and Verizon are a very specific case with some contentious hurdles to cross before they will work with each other.
Nokia is obviously the 800-pound gorilla of the worldwide cellphone market, but they are a mess in the US. A few years back, they tried to push bar phones on us, even though everyone here was into flips back then, and they all but ignored the CDMA phone market, even though CDMA is over 50% of the US market. Not exactly brilliant.
They didn't "all but ignore" the CDMA market, Qualcomm had issues with them manufacturing their own CDMA chipset, which led to the lawsuits etc...
Also, even though CDMA is over 50% of the US market, that doesn't make it large in the worldwide market, Qualcomm didn't one anyone coming in and playing in their backyard unless it was under their rules.
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.
How is the purchase of a device to replace a broken device counted? I doubt AT&T will say it is a new activiation
Except that US (with a population of 305 million according to wiki) has a higher 3G penetration rate than the 5 largest European countries combined (UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain with a total population of 301 million according to wiki).
Of course those 5 countries in Europe are just that, individual countries, and the mobile companies in them operate independently, the deals and networks they offer are different between the countries.
They didn't "all but ignore" the CDMA market, Qualcomm had issues with them manufacturing their own CDMA chipset, which led to the lawsuits etc...
It's more like Nokia had issues with buying Qualcomm's CDMA chipsets, so Nokia tried to make their own CDMA chipset --- which sucked in performance. And Nokia never embraced the flip phone form factor --- I would call this Nokia ignoring the American cell phone market in general, not just ignoring the US CDMA market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
How is the purchase of a device to replace a broken device counted? I doubt AT&T will say it is a new activiation
If the iphone breaks down so much and so often that requires a significant percentage change in my statistics --- then Apple has more things to worry about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Of course those 5 countries in Europe are just that, individual countries, and the mobile companies in them operate independently, the deals and networks they offer are different between the countries.
That has nothing to do with what I said --- I was talking about 3G penetration rate in those countries vs. the US. It is the best and most fair comparison you can ever find.
If the iphone breaks down so much and so often that requires a significant percentage change in my statistics --- then Apple has more things to worry about.
So if the phone is dropped in water, of dropped by a height and broken, then the user wouldn't get a new one? All phones suffer from the same issue of misuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
That has nothing to do with what I said --- I was talking about 3G penetration rate in those countries vs. the US. It is the best and most fair comparison you can ever find.
No it isn't. Those countries are individual in their own right, you can not group them together and then try and compare usage levels
So if the phone is dropped in water, of dropped by a height and broken, then the user wouldn't get a new one? All phones suffer from the same issue of misuse.
No it isn't. Those countries are individual in their own right, you can not group them together and then try and compare usage levels
Not to a level that is statistically significant --- it's not like how we are looking at each and every ballot in Minnesota and asking whether the voter intent to spoil the ballot by voting for Daffy Duck as senator.
Why not? It's not like California is really the same as Iowa in terms of 3G penetration. In 4 out of the 5 largest countries in Europe, the US beat them in 3G penetration individually. The only country that the US didn't beat is Italy --- but that's more of the issue that Italy has a 150% "fake" mobile penetration rate.
Tell me who do you think having better penetration rate if you count people instead of SIM cards --- US vs. Italy. I would lean on the US penetration rate because 1/2 the population has CDMA phones (which doesn't have SIM cards) and the other 1/2 with GSM phones (having a much higher postpaid contract subscriber proportion than Europe).
Otherwise, you are going to list individual European countries with higher 3G penetration than the US --- but with a population smaller than your NFL stadium (Liechtenstein).
Why not? It's not like California is really the same as Iowa in terms of 3G penetration. In 4 out of the 5 largest countries in Europe, the US beat them in 3G penetration individually. The only country that the US didn't beat is Italy --- but that's more of the issue that Italy has a 150% "fake" mobile penetration rate.
Tell me who do you think having better penetration rate if you count people instead of SIM cards --- US vs. Italy. I would lean on the US penetration rate because 1/2 the population has CDMA phones (which doesn't have SIM cards) and the other 1/2 with GSM phones (having a much higher postpaid contract subscriber proportion than Europe).
Otherwise, you are going to list individual European countries with higher 3G penetration than the US --- but with a population smaller than your NFL stadium (Liechtenstein).
Using your example, California and Iowa are both serviced by the same mobile companies, providing the same plans, and same costs in both States (excluding sales taxes).
Where as in Europe, there can be two mobile companies, both owned by the same company, but both will work independently, and offer different rates in their operating country. Try looking at Vodafone around all the European countries (in fact all over the work). Or O2/Vodafone in Ireland, the rates in North Ireland, are very different than the rates in Ireland.
Costs will affect penetration in different services, in Ireland where mobile data is expensive, you will not see many people using it, but in Finland where it is a lot cheaper to use mobile data, there will be a lot more people using it.
Using your example, California and Iowa are both serviced by the same mobile companies, providing the same plans, and same costs in both States (excluding sales taxes).
Where as in Europe, there can be two mobile companies, both owned by the same company, but both will work independently, and offer different rates in their operating country. Try looking at Vodafone around all the European countries (in fact all over the work). Or O2/Vodafone in Ireland, the rates in North Ireland, are very different than the rates in Ireland.
Costs will affect penetration in different services, in Ireland where mobile data is expensive, you will not see many people using it, but in Finland where it is a lot cheaper to use mobile data, there will be a lot more people using it.
American carriers have local plans as well. AT&T and Verizon operates in different areas for their landlines --- which greatly affects their bundling and pricing. In the US, quad bundling is the business model --- and Verizon doesn't provide FIOS in IOWA.
Do you know that Verizon has more subscribers with a 3G handset than Vodafone has in their entire European operation (even though Vodafone has about twice as many subscribers in Europe than Verizon has in the US).
American carriers have local plans as well. AT&T and Verizon operates in different areas for their landlines --- which greatly affects their bundling and pricing. In the US, quad bundling is the business model --- and Verizon doesn't provide FIOS in IOWA.
We aren't talking about landlines, we are talking about mobile plans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
Do you know that Verizon has more subscribers with a 3G handset than Vodafone has in their entire European operation (even though Vodafone has about twice as many subscribers in Europe than Verizon has in the US).
Yes I did, and since Vodafone owns part of Verizon, I am sure they are happy with the fact.
Why do you think that is even relevant to this discussion? Are you deliberately bringing in the tangents?
No, I am not deliberately bringing in the tangents.
I am just responding to jfanning who insist somehow his way of looking at statistic is correct. Statistically it makes no difference if Liechtenstein has a highest rate of 3G penetration in the world --- because they have less than 40,000 people (less than your average NFL stadium).
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.
Nonsense. You can have the 'very bestest' interface in the world, but at some level of slowness, the user experience is harmed. Remember OS X 10.0? Yargh.
Tell us with a straight face that you'd go back to dial-up on your home computer. That's about how fast GPRS is.
Quote:
Their are still over 6 million 2.5G iPhones in the world. I see people happily using them every day.
And Apple sold nearly 7 million 3G iPhones in just the 3rd quarter. The 2.5G iPhone couldn't match that in a full year.
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.
Holy God... Teno and I actually sorta kinda agree on something!
Yeah, this does seem possible, assuming Apple is willing to offer a reasonable deal. The coup de grace was when Apple extended their iPhone exclusive with ATT for another year, due to the new pricing changes/deal. Now VZW can't get their hands on it 'til mid-2010.
By then, LTE will be just around the corner, and Apple may get to lazy-out on making a CDMA model (though they probably still should, not the least for Korea in the short-term. Korea should have a decent amount of 4G in a couple of years, but it's a bit unclear yet if LTE or WiBro/WiMax is going to win over there).
In any case, VZW will certainly make a play for the LTE iPhone. But they won't pay through the nose for it... VZW is similar to Apple in that they're both fairly arrogant companies.
However well Verizon is doing, they would be doing better had they made the deal.
That's somewhat debatable. Apple was very likely asking for the sun and the moon in their offer to Verizon. ATT was in a weaker position than VZW, and was willing to cough up said sun and moon. VZW wasn't. And, in retrospect, I can't really blame them.
Even with the iPhone, ATT is still only battling VZW to a standstill, pretty much (and a lot of this is due to ATT's strength in prepaid, actually). With the VZW-Alltel merger that will be finalized anytime now, VZW re-gains the title of #1 US carrier... again, without the iPhone. VZW has lost a few customers to the iPhone, but their churn rate hasn't climbed dramatically. Their ARPU is fine. They'd like the iPhone, but they don't truly need it. Though the 3G model's success must be turning their heads more than a bit.
But, if you really think about it, Apple probably needs Verizon more than VZW needs Apple. With the Alltel merger, Verizon will have over 80 million customers, quite a bit more than ATT, and about one-third of the US market. If Apple is willing to cut VZW a more reasonable deal than it offered in the past and get them onboard, Apple's US sales stand to skyrocket, as there are lots of ppl out there who want an iPhone, but like their VZW (and Alltel) service and don't want to switch (or who are on the fence but don't want to pay the ETF, which is quite expensive on multi-line/family plans).
You'd have to think that getting VZW-Alltel onboard is goal one for Apple the instant the ATT exclusive runs out. Because there's just not many alternatives.
Sprint is dysfunctional and shrinking, and is pretty wedded to Wi-Max (I doubt Apple wishes to make a WiMax version of the iPhone). T-Mobile is barely a third of VZW-Alltel's size, and has an extremely limited 3G network (they started deploying it very late). US Cellular is a very good carrier, but they're tiny compared to the big boys. And so on.
[Nokia] didn't "all but ignore" the CDMA market, Qualcomm had issues with them manufacturing their own CDMA chipset, which led to the lawsuits etc...
I know, I know, Nokia and Qualcomm hate each other. But if you listen to Nokia's press releases and official line, for several years now they've bemoaned the fact that they haven't done well in the US, and they're always "vowing" to do better here with some initiative. But they never seem to.
At some point, you either do what it takes to get it done, or you don't. End of story. And playing strongly in the US for Nokia means coming strong into the CDMA market here, which they haven't. Pointing fingers at Qualcomm or not.
Quote:
Also, even though CDMA is over 50% of the US market, that doesn't make it large in the worldwide market, Qualcomm didn't one anyone coming in and playing in their backyard unless it was under their rules.
Never said CDMA's US presence made it huge worldwide (though, at around 15% worldwide marketshare, I wouldn't ignore CDMA globally either).
Comments
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.
The question is how much are they willing to pay.
AIG may be a financial basketcase, but if I can buy the whole company for a dollar --- I would buy it. Your argument is like that --- just blanket statement saying Verizon would not turn down the iphone now. I would not turn down a deal to buy AIG for a dollar --- a completely useless statement.
The question is how much are they willing to pay.
AIG may be a financial basketcase, but if I can buy the whole company for a dollar --- I would buy it. Your argument is like that --- just blanket statement saying Verizon would not turn down the iphone now. I would not turn down a deal to buy AIG for a dollar --- a completely useless statement.
Its not a blanket statement. The iPhone and Verizon are a very specific case with some contentious hurdles to cross before they will work with each other.
That's not much of a statement at all then.
Nokia is obviously the 800-pound gorilla of the worldwide cellphone market, but they are a mess in the US. A few years back, they tried to push bar phones on us, even though everyone here was into flips back then, and they all but ignored the CDMA phone market, even though CDMA is over 50% of the US market. Not exactly brilliant.
They didn't "all but ignore" the CDMA market, Qualcomm had issues with them manufacturing their own CDMA chipset, which led to the lawsuits etc...
Also, even though CDMA is over 50% of the US market, that doesn't make it large in the worldwide market, Qualcomm didn't one anyone coming in and playing in their backyard unless it was under their rules.
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.
How is the purchase of a device to replace a broken device counted? I doubt AT&T will say it is a new activiation
Except that US (with a population of 305 million according to wiki) has a higher 3G penetration rate than the 5 largest European countries combined (UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain with a total population of 301 million according to wiki).
Of course those 5 countries in Europe are just that, individual countries, and the mobile companies in them operate independently, the deals and networks they offer are different between the countries.
They didn't "all but ignore" the CDMA market, Qualcomm had issues with them manufacturing their own CDMA chipset, which led to the lawsuits etc...
It's more like Nokia had issues with buying Qualcomm's CDMA chipsets, so Nokia tried to make their own CDMA chipset --- which sucked in performance. And Nokia never embraced the flip phone form factor --- I would call this Nokia ignoring the American cell phone market in general, not just ignoring the US CDMA market.
How is the purchase of a device to replace a broken device counted? I doubt AT&T will say it is a new activiation
If the iphone breaks down so much and so often that requires a significant percentage change in my statistics --- then Apple has more things to worry about.
Of course those 5 countries in Europe are just that, individual countries, and the mobile companies in them operate independently, the deals and networks they offer are different between the countries.
That has nothing to do with what I said --- I was talking about 3G penetration rate in those countries vs. the US. It is the best and most fair comparison you can ever find.
If the iphone breaks down so much and so often that requires a significant percentage change in my statistics --- then Apple has more things to worry about.
So if the phone is dropped in water, of dropped by a height and broken, then the user wouldn't get a new one? All phones suffer from the same issue of misuse.
That has nothing to do with what I said --- I was talking about 3G penetration rate in those countries vs. the US. It is the best and most fair comparison you can ever find.
No it isn't. Those countries are individual in their own right, you can not group them together and then try and compare usage levels
So if the phone is dropped in water, of dropped by a height and broken, then the user wouldn't get a new one? All phones suffer from the same issue of misuse.
No it isn't. Those countries are individual in their own right, you can not group them together and then try and compare usage levels
Not to a level that is statistically significant --- it's not like how we are looking at each and every ballot in Minnesota and asking whether the voter intent to spoil the ballot by voting for Daffy Duck as senator.
Why not? It's not like California is really the same as Iowa in terms of 3G penetration. In 4 out of the 5 largest countries in Europe, the US beat them in 3G penetration individually. The only country that the US didn't beat is Italy --- but that's more of the issue that Italy has a 150% "fake" mobile penetration rate.
Tell me who do you think having better penetration rate if you count people instead of SIM cards --- US vs. Italy. I would lean on the US penetration rate because 1/2 the population has CDMA phones (which doesn't have SIM cards) and the other 1/2 with GSM phones (having a much higher postpaid contract subscriber proportion than Europe).
Otherwise, you are going to list individual European countries with higher 3G penetration than the US --- but with a population smaller than your NFL stadium (Liechtenstein).
Why not? It's not like California is really the same as Iowa in terms of 3G penetration. In 4 out of the 5 largest countries in Europe, the US beat them in 3G penetration individually. The only country that the US didn't beat is Italy --- but that's more of the issue that Italy has a 150% "fake" mobile penetration rate.
Tell me who do you think having better penetration rate if you count people instead of SIM cards --- US vs. Italy. I would lean on the US penetration rate because 1/2 the population has CDMA phones (which doesn't have SIM cards) and the other 1/2 with GSM phones (having a much higher postpaid contract subscriber proportion than Europe).
Otherwise, you are going to list individual European countries with higher 3G penetration than the US --- but with a population smaller than your NFL stadium (Liechtenstein).
Using your example, California and Iowa are both serviced by the same mobile companies, providing the same plans, and same costs in both States (excluding sales taxes).
Where as in Europe, there can be two mobile companies, both owned by the same company, but both will work independently, and offer different rates in their operating country. Try looking at Vodafone around all the European countries (in fact all over the work). Or O2/Vodafone in Ireland, the rates in North Ireland, are very different than the rates in Ireland.
Costs will affect penetration in different services, in Ireland where mobile data is expensive, you will not see many people using it, but in Finland where it is a lot cheaper to use mobile data, there will be a lot more people using it.
Using your example, California and Iowa are both serviced by the same mobile companies, providing the same plans, and same costs in both States (excluding sales taxes).
Where as in Europe, there can be two mobile companies, both owned by the same company, but both will work independently, and offer different rates in their operating country. Try looking at Vodafone around all the European countries (in fact all over the work). Or O2/Vodafone in Ireland, the rates in North Ireland, are very different than the rates in Ireland.
Costs will affect penetration in different services, in Ireland where mobile data is expensive, you will not see many people using it, but in Finland where it is a lot cheaper to use mobile data, there will be a lot more people using it.
American carriers have local plans as well. AT&T and Verizon operates in different areas for their landlines --- which greatly affects their bundling and pricing. In the US, quad bundling is the business model --- and Verizon doesn't provide FIOS in IOWA.
Do you know that Verizon has more subscribers with a 3G handset than Vodafone has in their entire European operation (even though Vodafone has about twice as many subscribers in Europe than Verizon has in the US).
American carriers have local plans as well. AT&T and Verizon operates in different areas for their landlines --- which greatly affects their bundling and pricing. In the US, quad bundling is the business model --- and Verizon doesn't provide FIOS in IOWA.
We aren't talking about landlines, we are talking about mobile plans.
Do you know that Verizon has more subscribers with a 3G handset than Vodafone has in their entire European operation (even though Vodafone has about twice as many subscribers in Europe than Verizon has in the US).
Yes I did, and since Vodafone owns part of Verizon, I am sure they are happy with the fact.
We aren't talking about landlines, we are talking about mobile plans.
I don't care if you care or not about the landlines --- the consumers do.
Verizon Wireless is strong in the north east and Cingular is strong in the south --- where their corporate parents have their landline operations.
I don't care if you care or not about the landlines --- the consumers do.
Verizon Wireless is strong in the north east and Cingular is strong in the south --- where their corporate parents have their landline operations.
Why do you think that is even relevant to this discussion? Are you deliberately bringing in the tangents?
Why do you think that is even relevant to this discussion? Are you deliberately bringing in the tangents?
No, I am not deliberately bringing in the tangents.
I am just responding to jfanning who insist somehow his way of looking at statistic is correct. Statistically it makes no difference if Liechtenstein has a highest rate of 3G penetration in the world --- because they have less than 40,000 people (less than your average NFL stadium).
Statistics from the small isolated European countries --- distort the whole picture.
You mean like Italy? Wow. No.
....
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.
Nonsense. You can have the 'very bestest' interface in the world, but at some level of slowness, the user experience is harmed. Remember OS X 10.0? Yargh.
Tell us with a straight face that you'd go back to dial-up on your home computer. That's about how fast GPRS is.
Their are still over 6 million 2.5G iPhones in the world. I see people happily using them every day.
And Apple sold nearly 7 million 3G iPhones in just the 3rd quarter. The 2.5G iPhone couldn't match that in a full year.
Don't kid yourself... it's now a footnote.
...
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.
Holy God... Teno and I actually sorta kinda agree on something!
Yeah, this does seem possible, assuming Apple is willing to offer a reasonable deal. The coup de grace was when Apple extended their iPhone exclusive with ATT for another year, due to the new pricing changes/deal. Now VZW can't get their hands on it 'til mid-2010.
By then, LTE will be just around the corner, and Apple may get to lazy-out on making a CDMA model (though they probably still should, not the least for Korea in the short-term. Korea should have a decent amount of 4G in a couple of years, but it's a bit unclear yet if LTE or WiBro/WiMax is going to win over there).
In any case, VZW will certainly make a play for the LTE iPhone. But they won't pay through the nose for it... VZW is similar to Apple in that they're both fairly arrogant companies.
...
However well Verizon is doing, they would be doing better had they made the deal.
That's somewhat debatable. Apple was very likely asking for the sun and the moon in their offer to Verizon. ATT was in a weaker position than VZW, and was willing to cough up said sun and moon. VZW wasn't. And, in retrospect, I can't really blame them.
Even with the iPhone, ATT is still only battling VZW to a standstill, pretty much (and a lot of this is due to ATT's strength in prepaid, actually). With the VZW-Alltel merger that will be finalized anytime now, VZW re-gains the title of #1 US carrier... again, without the iPhone. VZW has lost a few customers to the iPhone, but their churn rate hasn't climbed dramatically. Their ARPU is fine. They'd like the iPhone, but they don't truly need it. Though the 3G model's success must be turning their heads more than a bit.
But, if you really think about it, Apple probably needs Verizon more than VZW needs Apple. With the Alltel merger, Verizon will have over 80 million customers, quite a bit more than ATT, and about one-third of the US market. If Apple is willing to cut VZW a more reasonable deal than it offered in the past and get them onboard, Apple's US sales stand to skyrocket, as there are lots of ppl out there who want an iPhone, but like their VZW (and Alltel) service and don't want to switch (or who are on the fence but don't want to pay the ETF, which is quite expensive on multi-line/family plans).
You'd have to think that getting VZW-Alltel onboard is goal one for Apple the instant the ATT exclusive runs out. Because there's just not many alternatives.
Sprint is dysfunctional and shrinking, and is pretty wedded to Wi-Max (I doubt Apple wishes to make a WiMax version of the iPhone). T-Mobile is barely a third of VZW-Alltel's size, and has an extremely limited 3G network (they started deploying it very late). US Cellular is a very good carrier, but they're tiny compared to the big boys. And so on.
...
[Nokia] didn't "all but ignore" the CDMA market, Qualcomm had issues with them manufacturing their own CDMA chipset, which led to the lawsuits etc...
I know, I know, Nokia and Qualcomm hate each other. But if you listen to Nokia's press releases and official line, for several years now they've bemoaned the fact that they haven't done well in the US, and they're always "vowing" to do better here with some initiative. But they never seem to.
At some point, you either do what it takes to get it done, or you don't. End of story. And playing strongly in the US for Nokia means coming strong into the CDMA market here, which they haven't. Pointing fingers at Qualcomm or not.
Also, even though CDMA is over 50% of the US market, that doesn't make it large in the worldwide market, Qualcomm didn't one anyone coming in and playing in their backyard unless it was under their rules.
Never said CDMA's US presence made it huge worldwide (though, at around 15% worldwide marketshare, I wouldn't ignore CDMA globally either).
....