Without the iphone, AT&T gets to keep 100% of their revenue --- and they have been happy with the $99 unlimited voice plan pick up rate. Who cares about the $90+ iphone ARPU if they have to ship $10-15 back to Apple every month.
As most phones are subsidized to the point of being free, no one keeps 100% of their revenue.
Quote:
It's only a failure --- if AT&T suddenly doesn't talk about iPhone activations. Verizon Wireless doesn't break out what phone model sells how many units --- they just said that VZW is beating the crap out of AT&T's postpaid net adds. AT&T didn't have to give out iphone activations in previous quarters --- they gave those numbers out because the numbers were good. They stopped giving out numbers when the numbers aren't so good.
You keep mentioning Verizon's post paid net adds. These numbers would only relate to iPhone sales if those net adds were for phones that cost $450. Most of those net adds are surely for free phones with contract. Therefore do not compete directly with potential iPhone customers.
As far as iPhone activation numbers of course they were lower this quarter than over Christmas. But you still give no real information or context as to why that is bad. Especially in light of AT&T's growth in revenue and profit.
As most phones are subsidized to the point of being free, no one keeps 100% of their revenue.
You keep mentioning Verizon's post paid net adds. These numbers would only relate to iPhone sales if those net adds were for phones that cost $450. Most of those net adds are surely for free phones with contract. Therefore do not compete directly with potential iPhone customers.
As far as iPhone activation numbers of course they were lower this quarter than over Christmas. But you still give no real information or context as to why that is bad. Especially in light of AT&T's growth in revenue and profit.
The problem is that handset subsidies don't go into the $300-400 level per handset --- which is what Munster is saying about revenue share ($18 per month x 24 months).
If the carriers subsidize your phone for $200 and gets to keep every cent --- then they may be ahead $200 without the revenue share.
I don't need to find a reason why iPhone activation numbers is bad for the March quarter. The silence by AT&T is telling people that it is more than seasonal fluctuations in demand.
The problem is that handset subsidies don't go into the $300-400 level per handset --- which is what Munster is saying about revenue share ($18 per month x 24 months).
Munster's numbers are at best speculative and cannot be used as first hand information.
Quote:
If the carriers subsidize your phone for $200 and gets to keep every cent --- then they may be ahead $200 without the revenue share.
Without revenue sharing Apple is more than likely to sell the iPhone to carriers at a high premium which will force them to subsidize even deeper than they would for other phones.
Quote:
I don't need to find a reason why iPhone activation numbers is bad for the March quarter. The silence by AT&T is telling people that it is more than seasonal fluctuations in demand.
You don't need a reason because you have no reason.
This is an assumption on your part. Why would AT&T be expected to continue to break out iPhone sales every quarter. This is not something that is normally practiced. Their silence shows no direct evidence to your conclusion.
Munster's numbers are at best speculative and cannot be used as first hand information.
Without revenue sharing Apple is more than likely to sell the iPhone to carriers at a high premium which will force them to subsidize even deeper than they would for other phones.
You don't need a reason because you have no reason.
This is an assumption on your part. Why would AT&T be expected to continue to break out iPhone sales every quarter. This is not something that is normally practiced. Their silence shows no direct evidence to your conclusion.
I love it when people on these forums quoting Munster's numbers when they served their argument and then quickly dismissing them when not.
Without revenue sharing and a price tag of $1000+ iphone --- the iphone either is as rare as those legendary high priced N series phones or that they are not carried at all by the carriers. The carriers don't have to carry the iphone --- like Verizon Wireless can look at the numbers and said no to Apple.
There was no obligation on AT&T's part when they released their iphone activation numbers. Like every other for-profit corporation, they will release PR stuff when the numbers are good. But absolute silence when things are bad. Nothing against AT&T or Apple --- the whole world does it.
I love it when people on these forums quoting Munster's numbers when they served their argument and then quickly dismissing them when not.
Depends on the situation. There are times when Munster has very good information that seems logical. In this particular situation there is no way to know the exact nature or structure of the revenue sharing deals.
Quote:
Without revenue sharing and a price tag of $1000+ iphone --- the iphone either is as rare as those legendary high priced N series phones or that they are not carried at all by the carriers. The carriers don't have to carry the iphone --- like Verizon Wireless can look at the numbers and said no to Apple.
Quite obviously they are carrying the iPhone and Apple ain't known for selling its products on the cheap.
Seeing as how Vodofone (which is half owner of Verizon) set a deal with Apple to sell the iPhone in 10 markets. I seriously doubt Verizon would turn down the iPhone today if offered.
Quote:
There was no obligation on AT&T's part when they released their iphone activation numbers. Like every other for-profit corporation, they will release PR stuff when the numbers are good. But absolute silence when things are bad. Nothing against AT&T or Apple --- the whole world does it.
Of course AT&T want to crow about 20,000 phones sold in one day. Or crow about its Christmas sales, Christmas is a particularly important time.
Of course if AT&T had sold as many or more iPhone in the first quarter of 2008. They would have a press release about it. I'm disagreeing with your assertion that simply because they did not break out sales automatically mean sales were bad. Doesn't necessarily mean that at all.
Of course if AT&T had sold as many or more iPhone in the first quarter of 2008. They would have a press release about it. I'm disagreeing with your assertion that simply because they did not break out sales automatically mean sales were bad. Doesn't necessarily mean that at all.
Even if it wasn't the first debut quarter of the device or the holiday season quarter the assumption that the sales must be dismal because they didn't state the numbers is poor rationale. While it may be true and one can certainly use that as an initial basis for a hypothesis, in and of itself it is a logical fallacy.
Sure, that is only an initial basis of hypothesis.
The interesting issue is that there are a million other things --- like none of the European carriers announced any numbers, China suddenly announcing 400K iphones, Russia suddenly announcing something similar in numbers, the MASSIVE drop in non-current deferred revenue for Apple...
You can look at Apple's SEC filing --- and look at their non-current deferred revenue for the iphone.
Comments
Without the iphone, AT&T gets to keep 100% of their revenue --- and they have been happy with the $99 unlimited voice plan pick up rate. Who cares about the $90+ iphone ARPU if they have to ship $10-15 back to Apple every month.
As most phones are subsidized to the point of being free, no one keeps 100% of their revenue.
It's only a failure --- if AT&T suddenly doesn't talk about iPhone activations. Verizon Wireless doesn't break out what phone model sells how many units --- they just said that VZW is beating the crap out of AT&T's postpaid net adds. AT&T didn't have to give out iphone activations in previous quarters --- they gave those numbers out because the numbers were good. They stopped giving out numbers when the numbers aren't so good.
You keep mentioning Verizon's post paid net adds. These numbers would only relate to iPhone sales if those net adds were for phones that cost $450. Most of those net adds are surely for free phones with contract. Therefore do not compete directly with potential iPhone customers.
As far as iPhone activation numbers of course they were lower this quarter than over Christmas. But you still give no real information or context as to why that is bad. Especially in light of AT&T's growth in revenue and profit.
As most phones are subsidized to the point of being free, no one keeps 100% of their revenue.
You keep mentioning Verizon's post paid net adds. These numbers would only relate to iPhone sales if those net adds were for phones that cost $450. Most of those net adds are surely for free phones with contract. Therefore do not compete directly with potential iPhone customers.
As far as iPhone activation numbers of course they were lower this quarter than over Christmas. But you still give no real information or context as to why that is bad. Especially in light of AT&T's growth in revenue and profit.
The problem is that handset subsidies don't go into the $300-400 level per handset --- which is what Munster is saying about revenue share ($18 per month x 24 months).
If the carriers subsidize your phone for $200 and gets to keep every cent --- then they may be ahead $200 without the revenue share.
I don't need to find a reason why iPhone activation numbers is bad for the March quarter. The silence by AT&T is telling people that it is more than seasonal fluctuations in demand.
The problem is that handset subsidies don't go into the $300-400 level per handset --- which is what Munster is saying about revenue share ($18 per month x 24 months).
Munster's numbers are at best speculative and cannot be used as first hand information.
If the carriers subsidize your phone for $200 and gets to keep every cent --- then they may be ahead $200 without the revenue share.
Without revenue sharing Apple is more than likely to sell the iPhone to carriers at a high premium which will force them to subsidize even deeper than they would for other phones.
I don't need to find a reason why iPhone activation numbers is bad for the March quarter. The silence by AT&T is telling people that it is more than seasonal fluctuations in demand.
You don't need a reason because you have no reason.
This is an assumption on your part. Why would AT&T be expected to continue to break out iPhone sales every quarter. This is not something that is normally practiced. Their silence shows no direct evidence to your conclusion.
Munster's numbers are at best speculative and cannot be used as first hand information.
Without revenue sharing Apple is more than likely to sell the iPhone to carriers at a high premium which will force them to subsidize even deeper than they would for other phones.
You don't need a reason because you have no reason.
This is an assumption on your part. Why would AT&T be expected to continue to break out iPhone sales every quarter. This is not something that is normally practiced. Their silence shows no direct evidence to your conclusion.
I love it when people on these forums quoting Munster's numbers when they served their argument and then quickly dismissing them when not.
Without revenue sharing and a price tag of $1000+ iphone --- the iphone either is as rare as those legendary high priced N series phones or that they are not carried at all by the carriers. The carriers don't have to carry the iphone --- like Verizon Wireless can look at the numbers and said no to Apple.
There was no obligation on AT&T's part when they released their iphone activation numbers. Like every other for-profit corporation, they will release PR stuff when the numbers are good. But absolute silence when things are bad. Nothing against AT&T or Apple --- the whole world does it.
I love it when people on these forums quoting Munster's numbers when they served their argument and then quickly dismissing them when not.
Depends on the situation. There are times when Munster has very good information that seems logical. In this particular situation there is no way to know the exact nature or structure of the revenue sharing deals.
Without revenue sharing and a price tag of $1000+ iphone --- the iphone either is as rare as those legendary high priced N series phones or that they are not carried at all by the carriers. The carriers don't have to carry the iphone --- like Verizon Wireless can look at the numbers and said no to Apple.
Quite obviously they are carrying the iPhone and Apple ain't known for selling its products on the cheap.
Seeing as how Vodofone (which is half owner of Verizon) set a deal with Apple to sell the iPhone in 10 markets. I seriously doubt Verizon would turn down the iPhone today if offered.
There was no obligation on AT&T's part when they released their iphone activation numbers. Like every other for-profit corporation, they will release PR stuff when the numbers are good. But absolute silence when things are bad. Nothing against AT&T or Apple --- the whole world does it.
Of course AT&T want to crow about 20,000 phones sold in one day. Or crow about its Christmas sales, Christmas is a particularly important time.
Of course if AT&T had sold as many or more iPhone in the first quarter of 2008. They would have a press release about it. I'm disagreeing with your assertion that simply because they did not break out sales automatically mean sales were bad. Doesn't necessarily mean that at all.
Of course if AT&T had sold as many or more iPhone in the first quarter of 2008. They would have a press release about it. I'm disagreeing with your assertion that simply because they did not break out sales automatically mean sales were bad. Doesn't necessarily mean that at all.
Even if it wasn't the first debut quarter of the device or the holiday season quarter the assumption that the sales must be dismal because they didn't state the numbers is poor rationale. While it may be true and one can certainly use that as an initial basis for a hypothesis, in and of itself it is a logical fallacy.
The interesting issue is that there are a million other things --- like none of the European carriers announced any numbers, China suddenly announcing 400K iphones, Russia suddenly announcing something similar in numbers, the MASSIVE drop in non-current deferred revenue for Apple...
You can look at Apple's SEC filing --- and look at their non-current deferred revenue for the iphone.
On my iPhone I got SPEED: 112kbps
All time: average 130 kbit
24 hr: average 112
I'm lucky I get 150-170kbps if I have very good signal, 130 without.