Not as long as you're stuck with one carrier. You will eventually stagnate.
I agree with your point, but Apple has always made it a point (sometimes to an extreme) to make things as simple as possible and have always had a "one size fits most" approach to things. They have 3 laptops and 3 desktops (with minor variances within each line), 4 iPods (but all are used in generally the same way, ie. iTunes), and one phone with one carrier.
I do think making a CDMA phone for Verizon and Sprint would increase sales here in the States, but I believe Apple is trying to get the platform as wide ranging and mature as possible with their one GSM model world-wide, and then worry about the rest of the market later. Remember, we are only still less than 2 years removed from the original iPhone release, a relative infant when it comes to handset platforms, and look how far it's come in that time. I believe once Apple has fleshed this platform out to an acceptable level (for them), then, and only then, will they start considering making different models and working with different carriers. Until then, 1 carrier per country makes things a lot simpler than 3 or 4 per country.
I didn't know they had an earlier option for a normal spectrum.
They had the same options every other company had to buy up spectrum. Even Google bid on spectrum later. It was even thought, for a while, that Apple was going to bid.
You could bid on spectrum. You just have to show you can pay for it.
I know you want to ignore this fact, but it still has to be acknowledged. Even with many more models and carriers, RIM's sales are not much better than Apple's with one phone and one carrier.
It should also be acknowledged that even though RIM has many more models, the iPhone is offered in MANY more countries than Blackberries.
Not as long as you're stuck with one carrier. You will eventually stagnate.
This is why Apple had job openings for engineers with CDMA experience on their website a while back. This was reported many times in the news. Furthermore, there is no confirmation on the length of Apple and AT&T contract.
Where did I say anyone does not benefit from doing what Apple does not do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
Apple choose this approach so it is silly to say someone else shouldn't benefit from making a choice Apple refuses to make. Apple simplified their approach and that has some benefits and drawbacks as you note. The same is true for the RIMM decision.
Apple has 80 carriers. People have switched in droves. The iPhone has helped AT&T have the greatest growth year over year it has ever had. Most of these subscribers are coming from other carriers.
Why do you think Verizon would have made any difference in MMS and video? What's more likely is that Verizon would not have allowed the iPhone to have the App Store, Bluetooth, iTunes, WiFi and Google Maps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
BUt the more carriers the greater the pentetration. People simply will not switch regardless if their carrier is inferior or whatever. The iPhone would have already had MMS texts and MMS pics plus video if it had been on Verizon on the other hand not to mention a better connection.
Well, I'm a iPhone developer who just bought a Curve 8900 primarily to handle support for my iPhone App.
There still isn't anything that comes close to the Blackberry when you need to move a lot of email, as far as I'm concerned. I'm pushing a handful of Gmail accounts to my phone, plus push-IM (MSN and Google Talk). There's also a native Gmail client that allows me to search through my various Gmail accounts. And there's GPS + Google Maps, of course. Go Google!
UMA was a pleasant surprise, and I feel like I'm 100 times more productive with a hardware keyboard, cut and paste, and real multitasking.
I've always carried around an iPod and a cell phone (among other things). I think the combination of iPod touch + Blackberry is absolutely the best thing going today. You have the best of both worlds, and sacrifice nothing.
Where did I say anyone does not benefit from doing what Apple does not do?
I know you want to ignore this fact, but it still has to be acknowledged. Even with many more models and carriers, RIM's sales are not much better than Apple's with one phone and one carrier.
If the point isn't relevant then why are you trying to raise it?
Quote:
Apple has 80 carriers. People have switched in droves. The iPhone has helped AT&T have the greatest growth year over year it has ever had. Most of these subscribers are coming from other carriers.
Why do you think Verizon would have made any difference in MMS and video? What's more likely is that Verizon would not have allowed the iPhone to have the App Store, Bluetooth, iTunes, WiFi and Google Maps.
All the other cell makers have numerous carries worldwide as well. What is your point in citing the information? People have come to AT&T no doubt about that but AT&T has no choice since that is the only egg in their basket driving their growth while they are losing landlines. Verizon is much more aggressive about building out FIOS to help them with the triple play. These large companies have more than one segment and you have to look at them as a whole.
Also what do you base your claim on that Verizon would not have allowed such things? Perhaps they offer Verizon specific services for dumb or feature phones but can you prove that smart phones aka WinCE, Palm or RIM devices have been locked down and not allowed to load apps? I've never seen nor heard this so I want to know the basis of the claim.
Apple has 80 carriers. People have switched in droves. The iPhone has helped AT&T have the greatest growth year over year it has ever had. Most of these subscribers are coming from other carriers.
Why do you think Verizon would have made any difference in MMS and video? What's more likely is that Verizon would not have allowed the iPhone to have the App Store, Bluetooth, iTunes, WiFi and Google Maps.
Not more than likely. It was a deal breaker. Apple approached Verizon before AT&T.
It IS a disadvantage.I don't think anyone is denying that.
I am. The iPhone reputation hurt by cheap loose infrastructure, being PC-oriented, hailing PC philosophy and not being up to the deal, is far worse than perpetual complaints of Numbers 2,3..N, which can't afford selling iPhone.
RIM should continue to do very well as long as they are affiliated with all the carriers and not just stuck with ONE CRAPPY ONE.
It's called penetration.
Sony/Ericsson has a lot of penetration and I don't see them doing better than Apple. Yes, they have more phones on the market. But that's not a sign that they're doing good. At one time, Motorola also had a lot of phones on the market. With every carrier. But that didn't prevent them from getting stagnant. Did it?
What we don't know is how much Apple is getting for this "exclusive deal" with ATT. You can bet that Apple is not giving it away cheap.
When the iPhone first came out it, was revealed that ATT was going to pay Apple about $480 per two year contract signed with an iPhone. (about $20 per month on a two year contract.) It was referred to as a form of "profit sharing". But ATT didn't have to subsidize the iPhone. This was part of the "exclusive deal".
When the iPhone 3G came out ATT began subsidizing the iPhone. The per month "profit sharing" part of the "exclusive deal" stopped. Instead ATT pays Apple a one time lump sum for each new contract with an iPhone. Plus they pay Apple full price for the iPhone. Which they eventually subsidize for $199.
So don't be so quick to assume that Apple would have done better with multiple carriers. For sure they would have sold more iPhones. But Apple would have made less money per iPhone. Figuring that ATT kicks back to Apple about $150 to $200 per two year iPhone contract. (No one knows how much for sure.) This was one of the main reason why (when they had the chance to) Verizon didn't make the "exclusive deal" with Apple for the iPhone.
So if you do the math, Apple would have to sell 30 to 40% more iPhones than they have, in order to make the same amount of money. If they didn't have this "exclusive deal" with ATT.
I am. The iPhone reputation hurt by cheap loose infrastructure, being PC-oriented, hailing PC philosophy and not being up to the deal, is far worse than perpetual complaints of Numbers 2,3..N, which can't afford selling iPhone.
Well, of course, if Apple made some really bad deals with carriers, that would be true. But assuming they didn't, it wouldn't be true.
Sony/Ericsson has a lot of penetration and I don't see them doing better than Apple. Yes, they have more phones on the market. But that's not a sign that they're doing good. At one time, Motorola also had a lot of phones on the market. With every carrier. But that didn't prevent them from getting stagnant. Did it?
Sony/Ericsson is in so much trouble, they've been thinking of closing down.
But they did maintain 40% gross margins. That's compared to what some people here constantly decry as Apple's "excessive" margins of about 34%.
Yeah, but the 40% is down from 49% in the trailing twelve months. (Although, RIM said it expected gross margin to go to 43%-44% in the next quarter).
Again, I am not saying it's bad, but rather that they are going to be under competitive pressure from Apple's 3rd Gen phone and Pre 1st Gen; i.e., their margins will continue to be under pressure, given the greater pricing pressure and higher costs associated with a product portfolio that has to keep apace.
(Btw, you can't really compare to Apple's 34%, since its product mix is quite different from RIM's)
Yeah, but the 40% is down from 49% in the trailing twelve months. (Although, RIM said it expected gross margin to go to 43%-44% in the next quarter).
Again, I am not saying it's bad, but rather that they are going to be under competitive pressure from Apple's 3rd Gen phone and Pre 1st Gen; i.e., their margins will continue to be under pressure, given the greater pricing pressure and higher costs associated with a product portfolio that has to keep apace.
(Btw, you can't really compare to Apple's 34%, since its product mix is quite different from RIM's)
Well, their sales last quarter came above projections, as did their subscriber growth.
We'll just have to wait a couple of weeks to see how Apple did here. Will Apple make 4 million in sales? Will their gross margins drop as well?
You know, we ARE in the middle of a major worldwide recession which is the worst in 60 years. You've got to temper your expectations because of that.
If the point isn't relevant then why are you trying to raise it?
I did not raise that issue, you did.
Quote:
All the other cell makers have numerous carries worldwide as well. What is your point in citing the information?
We are specifically talking about BlackBerry which is not on as many carriers world wide.
Quote:
People have come to AT&T no doubt about that but AT&T has no choice since that is the only egg in their basket driving their growth while they are losing landlines. Verizon is much more aggressive about building out FIOS to help them with the triple play. These large companies have more than one segment and you have to look at them as a whole.
The iPhone isn't the only phone AT&T offers, it is helping to drive people to its service, most people are purchasing other phones. But my point was specifically about AT&T versus Verizon.
Quote:
Also what do you base your claim on that Verizon would not have allowed such things? Perhaps they offer Verizon specific services for dumb or feature phones but can you prove that smart phones aka WinCE, Palm or RIM devices have been locked down and not allowed to load apps? I've never seen nor heard this so I want to know the basis of the claim.
The BlackBerry Storm does not have WiFi. Verizon only allows its own GPS service. Other examples of Verizon locking down it phones and charging extra for services.
Comments
Not as long as you're stuck with one carrier. You will eventually stagnate.
I agree with your point, but Apple has always made it a point (sometimes to an extreme) to make things as simple as possible and have always had a "one size fits most" approach to things. They have 3 laptops and 3 desktops (with minor variances within each line), 4 iPods (but all are used in generally the same way, ie. iTunes), and one phone with one carrier.
I do think making a CDMA phone for Verizon and Sprint would increase sales here in the States, but I believe Apple is trying to get the platform as wide ranging and mature as possible with their one GSM model world-wide, and then worry about the rest of the market later. Remember, we are only still less than 2 years removed from the original iPhone release, a relative infant when it comes to handset platforms, and look how far it's come in that time. I believe once Apple has fleshed this platform out to an acceptable level (for them), then, and only then, will they start considering making different models and working with different carriers. Until then, 1 carrier per country makes things a lot simpler than 3 or 4 per country.
The connection quality I can't argue about, but we really can't make any statements about MMS. No one knows that. Same thing with video.
I think we can say that video wouldn't haven't been available. The jailbroken video is pretty bad. The HW jsut can't handle it well enough.
They weren't made to bid on it. They failed to buy up other spectrum earlier. They had to bid on what they could.
I didn't know they had an earlier option for a normal spectrum.
I didn't know they had an earlier option for a normal spectrum.
They had the same options every other company had to buy up spectrum. Even Google bid on spectrum later. It was even thought, for a while, that Apple was going to bid.
You could bid on spectrum. You just have to show you can pay for it.
They made a bad decision.
I know you want to ignore this fact, but it still has to be acknowledged. Even with many more models and carriers, RIM's sales are not much better than Apple's with one phone and one carrier.
It should also be acknowledged that even though RIM has many more models, the iPhone is offered in MANY more countries than Blackberries.
Not as long as you're stuck with one carrier. You will eventually stagnate.
This is why Apple had job openings for engineers with CDMA experience on their website a while back. This was reported many times in the news. Furthermore, there is no confirmation on the length of Apple and AT&T contract.
Apple choose this approach so it is silly to say someone else shouldn't benefit from making a choice Apple refuses to make. Apple simplified their approach and that has some benefits and drawbacks as you note. The same is true for the RIMM decision.
Why do you think Verizon would have made any difference in MMS and video? What's more likely is that Verizon would not have allowed the iPhone to have the App Store, Bluetooth, iTunes, WiFi and Google Maps.
BUt the more carriers the greater the pentetration. People simply will not switch regardless if their carrier is inferior or whatever. The iPhone would have already had MMS texts and MMS pics plus video if it had been on Verizon on the other hand not to mention a better connection.
There still isn't anything that comes close to the Blackberry when you need to move a lot of email, as far as I'm concerned. I'm pushing a handful of Gmail accounts to my phone, plus push-IM (MSN and Google Talk). There's also a native Gmail client that allows me to search through my various Gmail accounts. And there's GPS + Google Maps, of course. Go Google!
UMA was a pleasant surprise, and I feel like I'm 100 times more productive with a hardware keyboard, cut and paste, and real multitasking.
I've always carried around an iPod and a cell phone (among other things). I think the combination of iPod touch + Blackberry is absolutely the best thing going today. You have the best of both worlds, and sacrifice nothing.
Where did I say anyone does not benefit from doing what Apple does not do?
I know you want to ignore this fact, but it still has to be acknowledged. Even with many more models and carriers, RIM's sales are not much better than Apple's with one phone and one carrier.
If the point isn't relevant then why are you trying to raise it?
Apple has 80 carriers. People have switched in droves. The iPhone has helped AT&T have the greatest growth year over year it has ever had. Most of these subscribers are coming from other carriers.
Why do you think Verizon would have made any difference in MMS and video? What's more likely is that Verizon would not have allowed the iPhone to have the App Store, Bluetooth, iTunes, WiFi and Google Maps.
All the other cell makers have numerous carries worldwide as well. What is your point in citing the information? People have come to AT&T no doubt about that but AT&T has no choice since that is the only egg in their basket driving their growth while they are losing landlines. Verizon is much more aggressive about building out FIOS to help them with the triple play. These large companies have more than one segment and you have to look at them as a whole.
Also what do you base your claim on that Verizon would not have allowed such things? Perhaps they offer Verizon specific services for dumb or feature phones but can you prove that smart phones aka WinCE, Palm or RIM devices have been locked down and not allowed to load apps? I've never seen nor heard this so I want to know the basis of the claim.
RIM is sponsoring U2.
RIM should continue to do very well as long as they are affiliated with all the carriers and not just stuck with ONE CRAPPY ONE.
It's called penetration.
Over 70 countries is global penetration. Being on AT&T or Verizon is a large penetration in the US.
Being on every US Carrier would guarantee a POS product.
Apple has 80 carriers. People have switched in droves. The iPhone has helped AT&T have the greatest growth year over year it has ever had. Most of these subscribers are coming from other carriers.
Why do you think Verizon would have made any difference in MMS and video? What's more likely is that Verizon would not have allowed the iPhone to have the App Store, Bluetooth, iTunes, WiFi and Google Maps.
Not more than likely. It was a deal breaker. Apple approached Verizon before AT&T.
It IS a disadvantage.I don't think anyone is denying that.
I am. The iPhone reputation hurt by cheap loose infrastructure, being PC-oriented, hailing PC philosophy and not being up to the deal, is far worse than perpetual complaints of Numbers 2,3..N, which can't afford selling iPhone.
It should also be acknowledged that even though RIM has many more models, the iPhone is offered in MANY more countries than Blackberries.
Really?
The Blackberry website lists 116 countries where you can get a Blackberry:
http://worldwide.blackberry.com/land...d=&providerID=
Whereas the Apple website lists 88 countries, with 3 coming soon:
http://www.apple.com/iphone/countries/
Perhaps I'm missing something?
RIM is sponsoring U2.
RIM should continue to do very well as long as they are affiliated with all the carriers and not just stuck with ONE CRAPPY ONE.
It's called penetration.
Sony/Ericsson has a lot of penetration and I don't see them doing better than Apple. Yes, they have more phones on the market. But that's not a sign that they're doing good. At one time, Motorola also had a lot of phones on the market. With every carrier. But that didn't prevent them from getting stagnant. Did it?
What we don't know is how much Apple is getting for this "exclusive deal" with ATT. You can bet that Apple is not giving it away cheap.
When the iPhone first came out it, was revealed that ATT was going to pay Apple about $480 per two year contract signed with an iPhone. (about $20 per month on a two year contract.) It was referred to as a form of "profit sharing". But ATT didn't have to subsidize the iPhone. This was part of the "exclusive deal".
When the iPhone 3G came out ATT began subsidizing the iPhone. The per month "profit sharing" part of the "exclusive deal" stopped. Instead ATT pays Apple a one time lump sum for each new contract with an iPhone. Plus they pay Apple full price for the iPhone. Which they eventually subsidize for $199.
So don't be so quick to assume that Apple would have done better with multiple carriers. For sure they would have sold more iPhones. But Apple would have made less money per iPhone. Figuring that ATT kicks back to Apple about $150 to $200 per two year iPhone contract. (No one knows how much for sure.) This was one of the main reason why (when they had the chance to) Verizon didn't make the "exclusive deal" with Apple for the iPhone.
So if you do the math, Apple would have to sell 30 to 40% more iPhones than they have, in order to make the same amount of money. If they didn't have this "exclusive deal" with ATT.
I am. The iPhone reputation hurt by cheap loose infrastructure, being PC-oriented, hailing PC philosophy and not being up to the deal, is far worse than perpetual complaints of Numbers 2,3..N, which can't afford selling iPhone.
Well, of course, if Apple made some really bad deals with carriers, that would be true. But assuming they didn't, it wouldn't be true.
Sony/Ericsson has a lot of penetration and I don't see them doing better than Apple. Yes, they have more phones on the market. But that's not a sign that they're doing good. At one time, Motorola also had a lot of phones on the market. With every carrier. But that didn't prevent them from getting stagnant. Did it?
Sony/Ericsson is in so much trouble, they've been thinking of closing down.
But they did maintain 40% gross margins. That's compared to what some people here constantly decry as Apple's "excessive" margins of about 34%.
Yeah, but the 40% is down from 49% in the trailing twelve months. (Although, RIM said it expected gross margin to go to 43%-44% in the next quarter).
Again, I am not saying it's bad, but rather that they are going to be under competitive pressure from Apple's 3rd Gen phone and Pre 1st Gen; i.e., their margins will continue to be under pressure, given the greater pricing pressure and higher costs associated with a product portfolio that has to keep apace.
(Btw, you can't really compare to Apple's 34%, since its product mix is quite different from RIM's)
Yeah, but the 40% is down from 49% in the trailing twelve months. (Although, RIM said it expected gross margin to go to 43%-44% in the next quarter).
Again, I am not saying it's bad, but rather that they are going to be under competitive pressure from Apple's 3rd Gen phone and Pre 1st Gen; i.e., their margins will continue to be under pressure, given the greater pricing pressure and higher costs associated with a product portfolio that has to keep apace.
(Btw, you can't really compare to Apple's 34%, since its product mix is quite different from RIM's)
Well, their sales last quarter came above projections, as did their subscriber growth.
We'll just have to wait a couple of weeks to see how Apple did here. Will Apple make 4 million in sales? Will their gross margins drop as well?
You know, we ARE in the middle of a major worldwide recession which is the worst in 60 years. You've got to temper your expectations because of that.
Well, of course, if Apple made some really bad deals with carriers, that would be true. But assuming they didn't, it wouldn't be true.
That is the advantage of Apple's strategy and iPhone itself in the end. DavidW showed above it was reasonable from financial point of view too.
If the point isn't relevant then why are you trying to raise it?
I did not raise that issue, you did.
All the other cell makers have numerous carries worldwide as well. What is your point in citing the information?
We are specifically talking about BlackBerry which is not on as many carriers world wide.
People have come to AT&T no doubt about that but AT&T has no choice since that is the only egg in their basket driving their growth while they are losing landlines. Verizon is much more aggressive about building out FIOS to help them with the triple play. These large companies have more than one segment and you have to look at them as a whole.
The iPhone isn't the only phone AT&T offers, it is helping to drive people to its service, most people are purchasing other phones. But my point was specifically about AT&T versus Verizon.
Also what do you base your claim on that Verizon would not have allowed such things? Perhaps they offer Verizon specific services for dumb or feature phones but can you prove that smart phones aka WinCE, Palm or RIM devices have been locked down and not allowed to load apps? I've never seen nor heard this so I want to know the basis of the claim.
The BlackBerry Storm does not have WiFi. Verizon only allows its own GPS service. Other examples of Verizon locking down it phones and charging extra for services.