Oh look, my precise argument from last week that a bunch of people were screaming "isn't realistic.. AT&T FTW, Appe doesn't need anyone else, etc".... Let me paste in my old post:
Quote:
1) HALF OF ALL UNIT SALES if the iPhone have occured in the United states, so clearly it has been far more popular here and thus America is far more imporant as a lucrative market than just its total cellphone subscribers would suggest.
2) AT&T has a lot of customers, but Verizon and Sprint combined is over 135 million CDMA subscribers. The rest are either on Tmobile (no nationwide 3G network yet), small regional carriers, or prepaid. The iPhone interest on AT&T is going to saturate eventually and most of the individuals on another carrier that were interested in switching to get the iPhone have already done so considering it's been nearly two years since the iPhone release which means everyones contracts on other carriers should have expired by now. Obviously AT&T will continue to siphon a snakk stream of users from other carriers, but there are surely millions of interested potential iPhone customers who will not switch to AT&T.
Look at AT&T's coverage (or lackthereof) in the west, their spotty 3G coverage, even whole states are left out! Also, Verizon and Sprint together have a HUGE amount of small business and corporate accounts that people are stuck on and are in no position to change.
That would be absurd, Verizon carrying the iPhone. Verizon charges you for almost everything. Previously, I had Verizon but abandoned it for AT&T. AT&T has better service and phones.
Which US carrier carries the iPhone? AT&T.
Which carrier has rollover minutes? AT&T.
Which carrier is global? AT&T.
I'm happy with my iPhone 3G on "AT&T". If Apple decides to give Verizon a taste of the iPhone- that would be a disaster. Imagine the monthly bills for those iPhone customers that Verizon would charge for their service. Give me a break, even a 14-yr old like me can figure it out.
All things being equal, CDMA may or may not be a superior technology for voice calls but HSDPA is a far superior technology to EV-DO for cellular data.
That may be true if you've got coverage, but AT&T sure seems to have trouble deploying HSDPA compared to the EV-DO providers. This could just be due to AT&T being lazy/incompetent, but I suspect the real problem is the huge amount of spectrum that UMTS/HSDPA requires. That's gotta make logistics difficult in a lot of places.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DHKOsta
Actually, that's completely untrue. By any measure, GSM is superior to CDMA as a standard.* GSM is less widely deployed (that means fewer towers) in North America due to its youth here, and that's why you're inclined to call it a lesser "technology." Your statement is the logical equivalent of "Driving is a superior means of travel to flying because the airport is further from my house than my garage."
Now this really isn't true. CDMA is technically superior to GSM. It doesn't have GSM's 35 km range limitation, and it supports soft handoffs. There's a reason that some of the CDMA carriers manage to cover rural areas well and the GSM carriers never do. CDMA phones also work better in low-signal conditions, and don't drop calls as often. CDMA also supports more users per cell site and has no hard limits on the number of people that can connect to a tower at once. It also doesn't have that irritating tendency to make consumer electronics with speakers in them go "zzt, zzt, zzt" all the time if the phone happens to be in the same room. GSM may be more popular, but it is inferior technologically. It's not the difference between VHS and Betamax. It's the difference between VHS and DVD.
There's a reason that UMTS/HSDPA is based on CDMA, rather than the TDMA that GSM uses. In an ideal world, no one would be using GSM anymore, and they'd all be migrated over to UMTS, but sadly it looks like it probably won't be completely phased out until after LTE hits.
And, unless I missed something, CDMA phones don't have swappable SIM cards. So how the hell is that going to work?
Two thoughts about that:
1) It is technically feasible for CDMA phones to use swappable subscriber identity cards instead of hard-coded information burned into the phone itself. In fact, such systems have seen limited real-world implementations. However, the technology hasn't gained much traction.
2) Why is it even relevant? The hybrid chipset this article is talking about might only allow a choice between either LTE (4G) or "traditional" CDMA - there might still only be one fallback path per chipset. So if Apple chose to go down this route using such a chipset, they might still end up with 2 different types of 4G iPhones -- one LTE with CDMA fallback, and one LTE with GSM/UTMS fallback.
Actually, that's completely untrue. By any measure, GSM is superior to CDMA as a standard.* GSM is less widely deployed (that means fewer towers) in North America due to its youth here, and that's why you're inclined to call it a lesser "technology." Your statement is the logical equivalent of "Driving is a superior means of travel to flying because the airport is further from my house than my garage."
Next time you decide to publish your thoughts, please stick to your usual "ZOMG VERIPHONETOUCH CDMA>GSM LOL BC U DONT EVEN KNO!!!1!" This way, people will be able to identify it as garbage without having to actually read it.
*I'm using the word "standard" for simplicity's sake. I'm aware that CDMA is not itself a "standard." For what it's worth, referring to both terms as "technologies," as seen above, is even more useless. For clarity, I'm referring to networks descended from GSM and CDMA networks,
I was thinking jailbreakers broke their contract just to have something that every other cellphone user enjoys- choice of a carrier; and now this article explains why multiple carriers are sensible for Apple, and jailbreakers someday may no longer need to break their contracts; I think they won that way. Jailbreakers were protesters in a way. Also because I could post something first.
This also gives me the excuse to post the following:
I was thinking jailbreakers broke their contract just to have something that every other cellphone user enjoys- choice of a carrier; and now this article explains why multiple carriers are sensible for Apple, and jailbreakers someday may no longer need to break their contracts; I think they won that way. Jailbreakers were protesters in a way. Also because I could post something first.
This also gives me the excuse to post the following:
I hope AI doesn't mind; jailbreak away ladies!
what ?? hey i can't read so well write now . wow .
APPLE will build up 2 yrs of great expectation . about the next phone
AND who will sell it .
in the end apple gets tons of free ads.
apple gets so many wanting this phone and this phone just gets better
I have unlimited everything with Sprint (texts, tethering, internet, TV) and 1500 anytime minutes for $50/month, all in. It's an awesome deal. If I could get an iPhone on that plan then I would. But AT&Ts rates are just crazy expensive.
The problem is that you're judging everyone else by the SERO rates and not the regularly advertised rates which are considerably higher. It's great that you can get that, but I don't think just anyone can get.
The problem is that you're judging everyone else by the SERO rates and not the regularly advertised rates which are considerably higher. It's great that you can get that, but I don't think just anyone can get.
I'm still on the original SERO plan (from 4 years ago), the 500 anytime, N&W at 7pm, and Unlimited Text and Data for 30 dollars a month + tax.
Originally (and I don't know if this is still true or not) you only needed to enter a sprint e-mail address to sign up for the plan. It used to be anyone could do it, I'm not sure if it is still the same way but anyone could do it at the time. I would argue that the other carriers are gouging their customers.
I'm still on the original SERO plan (from 4 years ago), the 500 anytime, N&W at 7pm, and Unlimited Text and Data for 30 dollars a month + tax.
Originally (and I don't know if this is still true or not) you only needed to enter a sprint e-mail address to sign up for the plan. It used to be anyone could do it, I'm not sure if it is still the same way but anyone could do it at the time. I would argue that the other carriers are gouging their customers.
I didn't realize it was so easy to get on, I'm surprised that they let it go like that for so long given its stated purpose, because it was apparently so easy to get on without even having to know a Sprint employee.
You're grandfathered in, but if this article is right, the SERO program is gone, replaced with a more expensive employee program and harder to get on.
" The real question is WHEN. Will Apple make a CDMA phone? Maybe not, but it really is not that difficult at all. Will Apple stick with only one model of the iPhone? Highly doubtful. Why? Look at their iPod lines: multiple products for multiple types of consumers. Look at their notebook line; their Mac line. It won't be any different on the iPhone side.
I can somewhat understand (barely) the Apple cult. Heck, some accuse me of being one of them, but AT&T cult? I'm seriously flabbergasted.
w00master[/QUOTE]
"
Yes, the iPod has many versions but they're all mp3 players. Same technology just different form factors. Building a separate phone just to satisfy Verison or any other carrier just isn't cost effective . In the end a losing venture.
20-25% of AT&T customers using an iPhone seems astronomically high to me. That would be 15-20M of AT&T's current 78M subscriber base, which included all their cheap pay as go customers. That would mean 1 out of 4 or 5 phones sold is an iPhone with a $69/month plan. I think that is also about 8% of all phones in the US, regardless of carrier, being iPhones.
Just to be clear: the Citigroup analysts say 12% of ATT customers today have an iPhone, but would max out at 20-25%. So that's an estimated 9.3m ATT iPhone users today; we know 5.9m have signed up since July 2008, according to ATT conference calls/quarterly filings.
That %age might look high right now, but the trend is toward smartphones. Where's the upper limit?
If you go back just 6-7 years, you would've asked the same question about home broadband Internet, and might've concluded 25% would go for $40/mo broadband when $10/mo plans were available. But today, it's way past 50% and still growing. And that's because Internet-based content/communication has become more and more valuable. Same thing will happen with smartphones, though it may saturate around 60% instead of 80-90%. The key is how valuable will Internet access become to a person on-the-move? (Make sure you add in 4G LTE speeds in the future.)
(If wifi networks had taken off (or take off), then I'd lower the iPhone number, and increase the iPod touch number. But nationwide/municipal wifi seems dead, as even Google is no longer rah-rahing about it.)
Since when as a CITI ever been right about anything with apple... This would cut huge into apples Cost to build... Apple does not work like this.. you really dont have a big choice.. if you want a custom computer you have to have them build it .. not walk into the apple store.. I can see the Issues now.. Hum Att, Or Verizon um this has that.. Yeah thats what apple really wants.. You want there product you go with the company they choose.. if not go get a damn Blackberry..
I keep saying it, another analysis who goes not get it...
It is not a technical issue, if anything Apple has proven time and time again they can over come technical challenges. Maybe not in some people's time frame but have done it.
Market share is not the end all.
With Apple price is the price business model and they do not play the game of racing to the bottom to gain market share. There are two pricing models be the cheapest and sell lots to make profits over large volumes. The other is produce high valued products at lower volumes greater profit margins with much better quality and still make lots of profits.
The point these analysis keep missing Apple and Verizon have fundamentally two opposing business models. Verizon is only want suppliers who are willing to race to the bottom, since that make more profits for Verizon. We know Apple will not change their business model, specially with current management. The only question is will Verizon take the iPhone under Apple terms.
Comments
1) HALF OF ALL UNIT SALES if the iPhone have occured in the United states, so clearly it has been far more popular here and thus America is far more imporant as a lucrative market than just its total cellphone subscribers would suggest.
2) AT&T has a lot of customers, but Verizon and Sprint combined is over 135 million CDMA subscribers. The rest are either on Tmobile (no nationwide 3G network yet), small regional carriers, or prepaid. The iPhone interest on AT&T is going to saturate eventually and most of the individuals on another carrier that were interested in switching to get the iPhone have already done so considering it's been nearly two years since the iPhone release which means everyones contracts on other carriers should have expired by now. Obviously AT&T will continue to siphon a snakk stream of users from other carriers, but there are surely millions of interested potential iPhone customers who will not switch to AT&T.
Look at AT&T's coverage (or lackthereof) in the west, their spotty 3G coverage, even whole states are left out! Also, Verizon and Sprint together have a HUGE amount of small business and corporate accounts that people are stuck on and are in no position to change.
Which US carrier carries the iPhone? AT&T.
Which carrier has rollover minutes? AT&T.
Which carrier is global? AT&T.
I'm happy with my iPhone 3G on "AT&T". If Apple decides to give Verizon a taste of the iPhone- that would be a disaster. Imagine the monthly bills for those iPhone customers that Verizon would charge for their service. Give me a break, even a 14-yr old like me can figure it out.
All things being equal, CDMA may or may not be a superior technology for voice calls but HSDPA is a far superior technology to EV-DO for cellular data.
That may be true if you've got coverage, but AT&T sure seems to have trouble deploying HSDPA compared to the EV-DO providers. This could just be due to AT&T being lazy/incompetent, but I suspect the real problem is the huge amount of spectrum that UMTS/HSDPA requires. That's gotta make logistics difficult in a lot of places.
Actually, that's completely untrue. By any measure, GSM is superior to CDMA as a standard.* GSM is less widely deployed (that means fewer towers) in North America due to its youth here, and that's why you're inclined to call it a lesser "technology." Your statement is the logical equivalent of "Driving is a superior means of travel to flying because the airport is further from my house than my garage."
Now this really isn't true. CDMA is technically superior to GSM. It doesn't have GSM's 35 km range limitation, and it supports soft handoffs. There's a reason that some of the CDMA carriers manage to cover rural areas well and the GSM carriers never do. CDMA phones also work better in low-signal conditions, and don't drop calls as often. CDMA also supports more users per cell site and has no hard limits on the number of people that can connect to a tower at once. It also doesn't have that irritating tendency to make consumer electronics with speakers in them go "zzt, zzt, zzt" all the time if the phone happens to be in the same room. GSM may be more popular, but it is inferior technologically. It's not the difference between VHS and Betamax. It's the difference between VHS and DVD.
There's a reason that UMTS/HSDPA is based on CDMA, rather than the TDMA that GSM uses. In an ideal world, no one would be using GSM anymore, and they'd all be migrated over to UMTS, but sadly it looks like it probably won't be completely phased out until after LTE hits.
I will only buy an iphone when it has become ATT free.
And, unless I missed something, CDMA phones don't have swappable SIM cards. So how the hell is that going to work?
Two thoughts about that:
1) It is technically feasible for CDMA phones to use swappable subscriber identity cards instead of hard-coded information burned into the phone itself. In fact, such systems have seen limited real-world implementations. However, the technology hasn't gained much traction.
2) Why is it even relevant? The hybrid chipset this article is talking about might only allow a choice between either LTE (4G) or "traditional" CDMA - there might still only be one fallback path per chipset. So if Apple chose to go down this route using such a chipset, they might still end up with 2 different types of 4G iPhones -- one LTE with CDMA fallback, and one LTE with GSM/UTMS fallback.
Actually, that's completely untrue. By any measure, GSM is superior to CDMA as a standard.* GSM is less widely deployed (that means fewer towers) in North America due to its youth here, and that's why you're inclined to call it a lesser "technology." Your statement is the logical equivalent of "Driving is a superior means of travel to flying because the airport is further from my house than my garage."
Next time you decide to publish your thoughts, please stick to your usual "ZOMG VERIPHONETOUCH CDMA>GSM LOL BC U DONT EVEN KNO!!!1!" This way, people will be able to identify it as garbage without having to actually read it.
*I'm using the word "standard" for simplicity's sake. I'm aware that CDMA is not itself a "standard." For what it's worth, referring to both terms as "technologies," as seen above, is even more useless. For clarity, I'm referring to networks descended from GSM and CDMA networks,
CDMA is nearly dead.
What did they win?...
I was thinking jailbreakers broke their contract just to have something that every other cellphone user enjoys- choice of a carrier; and now this article explains why multiple carriers are sensible for Apple, and jailbreakers someday may no longer need to break their contracts; I think they won that way. Jailbreakers were protesters in a way. Also because I could post something first.
This also gives me the excuse to post the following:
I hope AI doesn't mind; jailbreak away ladies!
OMG! I've never heard that before. How absolutely nerve racking for that guy. It's like a conversation with Teckstud.
spammish off-topic comment.
I was thinking jailbreakers broke their contract just to have something that every other cellphone user enjoys- choice of a carrier; and now this article explains why multiple carriers are sensible for Apple, and jailbreakers someday may no longer need to break their contracts; I think they won that way. Jailbreakers were protesters in a way. Also because I could post something first.
This also gives me the excuse to post the following:
I hope AI doesn't mind; jailbreak away ladies!
what ?? hey i can't read so well write now . wow .
APPLE will build up 2 yrs of great expectation . about the next phone
AND who will sell it .
in the end apple gets tons of free ads.
apple gets so many wanting this phone and this phone just gets better
look at the app dept !!!
APPLE in the end will sell a ,ton of these phones
and we helped ./
enuf said
You got that part right.
I am getting rid of my iphone until i can get someone besides ATT and their absurb 3g rates. Only two more months left on the contract.
If you think you'll get a better smart-phone plan from Verizon, you're dreaming!
*AND* you'll get all the limitations on phone and access control for which Verizon is justly infamous.
I have unlimited everything with Sprint (texts, tethering, internet, TV) and 1500 anytime minutes for $50/month, all in. It's an awesome deal. If I could get an iPhone on that plan then I would. But AT&Ts rates are just crazy expensive.
The problem is that you're judging everyone else by the SERO rates and not the regularly advertised rates which are considerably higher. It's great that you can get that, but I don't think just anyone can get.
The problem is that you're judging everyone else by the SERO rates and not the regularly advertised rates which are considerably higher. It's great that you can get that, but I don't think just anyone can get.
I'm still on the original SERO plan (from 4 years ago), the 500 anytime, N&W at 7pm, and Unlimited Text and Data for 30 dollars a month + tax.
Originally (and I don't know if this is still true or not) you only needed to enter a sprint e-mail address to sign up for the plan. It used to be anyone could do it, I'm not sure if it is still the same way but anyone could do it at the time. I would argue that the other carriers are gouging their customers.
I'm still on the original SERO plan (from 4 years ago), the 500 anytime, N&W at 7pm, and Unlimited Text and Data for 30 dollars a month + tax.
Originally (and I don't know if this is still true or not) you only needed to enter a sprint e-mail address to sign up for the plan. It used to be anyone could do it, I'm not sure if it is still the same way but anyone could do it at the time. I would argue that the other carriers are gouging their customers.
I didn't realize it was so easy to get on, I'm surprised that they let it go like that for so long given its stated purpose, because it was apparently so easy to get on without even having to know a Sprint employee.
You're grandfathered in, but if this article is right, the SERO program is gone, replaced with a more expensive employee program and harder to get on.
http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2008/0...to-the-sunset/
I can somewhat understand (barely) the Apple cult. Heck, some accuse me of being one of them, but AT&T cult? I'm seriously flabbergasted.
w00master[/QUOTE]
"
Yes, the iPod has many versions but they're all mp3 players. Same technology just different form factors. Building a separate phone just to satisfy Verison or any other carrier just isn't cost effective . In the end a losing venture.
20-25% of AT&T customers using an iPhone seems astronomically high to me. That would be 15-20M of AT&T's current 78M subscriber base, which included all their cheap pay as go customers. That would mean 1 out of 4 or 5 phones sold is an iPhone with a $69/month plan. I think that is also about 8% of all phones in the US, regardless of carrier, being iPhones.
Just to be clear: the Citigroup analysts say 12% of ATT customers today have an iPhone, but would max out at 20-25%. So that's an estimated 9.3m ATT iPhone users today; we know 5.9m have signed up since July 2008, according to ATT conference calls/quarterly filings.
That %age might look high right now, but the trend is toward smartphones. Where's the upper limit?
If you go back just 6-7 years, you would've asked the same question about home broadband Internet, and might've concluded 25% would go for $40/mo broadband when $10/mo plans were available. But today, it's way past 50% and still growing. And that's because Internet-based content/communication has become more and more valuable. Same thing will happen with smartphones, though it may saturate around 60% instead of 80-90%. The key is how valuable will Internet access become to a person on-the-move? (Make sure you add in 4G LTE speeds in the future.)
(If wifi networks had taken off (or take off), then I'd lower the iPhone number, and increase the iPod touch number. But nationwide/municipal wifi seems dead, as even Google is no longer rah-rahing about it.)
PLus Steve Holds a Gurge..
Gotta love these analysts!
Seriously. If the world revolved around analysts, I'd be typing this on a Commodore 64.
Back on topic: Duh! Of course Apple will have to eventually move to other carriers to expand their current reach.
It is not a technical issue, if anything Apple has proven time and time again they can over come technical challenges. Maybe not in some people's time frame but have done it.
Market share is not the end all.
With Apple price is the price business model and they do not play the game of racing to the bottom to gain market share. There are two pricing models be the cheapest and sell lots to make profits over large volumes. The other is produce high valued products at lower volumes greater profit margins with much better quality and still make lots of profits.
The point these analysis keep missing Apple and Verizon have fundamentally two opposing business models. Verizon is only want suppliers who are willing to race to the bottom, since that make more profits for Verizon. We know Apple will not change their business model, specially with current management. The only question is will Verizon take the iPhone under Apple terms.