True- we will just wait and see. Hopefully it expands into the US market further via other carriers. It's not impossible and highly desired by anyone who's satisfied with their current carrier and refuses to go to AT&T, whatever their present carrier is.
There have been some rumors about Verizon carrying the iPhone, if that happens, it will really start to make inroads. But I agree, the iPhone needs to move beyond AT&T to get the kind of market penetration that will make it a serious contender. AT&T has had 2 years to profit from the iPhone, it's time for Apple to spread the wealth to some other carriers which will increase adoption of the iPhone.
How does the iPhone grow from infancy if it eventually stalls at some point unless it is made available to mutiple carriers in the USA?
This was explained to you in another recent thread by at least two or three people. It's also referenced in this very article.
The size of the addressable market for the 3G iPhone *outside* of the USA, is orders of magnitude larger than the size of the market they are missing out on *inside* the USA by not having a CDMA phone.
The iPhone can continue growing (as the article above explicitly states), by expanding into international markets which so far have only been scratched on the surface. They could forget about the Verizon part of the market for years and years and it would have no impact on their sales or sales growth.
It would be nice for those customers if Apple made a CDMA phone, but they certainly don't have to do it to maintain their business or the rapid growth of same.
It's not good enough just to post good financial results. You must also ensure that those results get noticed and people write about your company.
Agreed. But Apple is in no remote danger of not being written about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad
Letting Shaw Wu, who is world renowned for making wildly inaccurate predictions about Apple and then quietly revising them at the last minute so he can claim to have made accurate ones, on campus is just good PR.
Disagree. I am not sure that someone (quote) ....renowned for...wildly inaccurate predictions...then quiety revising them..... (unquote) is a good PR ally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad
As Oscar Wilde said, the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.
How does the iPhone grow from infancy if it eventually stalls at some point unless it is made available to mutiple carriers in the USA?
That may be the one thing they can't discuss so openly, all the other options seemed like relatively obvious ones, the uncharacteristic part of it is that they said that these may be under consideration.
They do get multiple carriers in some other countries. Apple doesn't seem to want to do a CDMA device, which is practically what is needed to get iPhone on a good competing carrier in the US, GSM in the US is pretty much AT&T, 2nd place is some carrier that barely offers 3G, and there's an asterisk behind that.
I don't think CDMA is really a hardware issue, I think Apple would easily be able to sell millions of CDMA iPhones, but they might lose the exclusivity kickback they get from AT&T.
Oppenheimer was one of that small cabal of hedge funds that held out on the bailout plan for Chrysler. Everyone else in the game agreed to take a hit and sell off their debt at a loss, but they wanted to hold out for a profit? (stuff snipped) Shame on Apple for sucking up to them. They should have let the Oppenheimer bus roll right on by on their tour.
It's not good enough just to post good financial results. You must also ensure that those results get noticed and people write about your company.
Letting Shaw Wu, who is world renowned for making wildly inaccurate predictions about Apple and then quietly revising them at the last minute so he can claim to have made accurate ones, on campus is just good PR.
As Oscar Wilde said, the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.
Man, it must be nice to hide behind anonymity.
According to sites that measure such things, i.e., Analyst Performances, Shaw Wu has quite a history* for his accuracy, in particular re Apple. Otherwise Apple would not welcome his presence, or for that matter be on their preferred list of invitees to their financial conference calls.
Oppenheimer was one of that small cabal of hedge funds that held out on the bailout plan for Chrysler. Everyone else in the game agreed to take a hit and sell off their debt at a loss, but they wanted to hold out for a profit? (stuff snipped) Shame on Apple for sucking up to them. They should have let the Oppenheimer bus roll right on by on their tour.
It is interesting you think people that put money in a company deserve nothing back and the union deserves everything . Sure glad you don't make the decisions for Apple. The union is getting what they have sown. Not going to be a good harvest and taxpayers are going to have to pay and pay . Our congress and senate made the rules and yet you call the investors , pigs. Guess you like socialism better than capitalism . Go to europe. They got plenty . Yuck.
It is interesting you think people that put money in a company deserve nothing back and the union deserves everything . Sure glad you don't make the decisions for Apple. The union is getting what they have sown. Not going to be a good harvest and taxpayers are going to have to pay and pay .
Unions sometimes are partially to blame, but in this case the UAW made significant concessions and management acknowledged it. But I guess you know more about Chrysler than their management does. The issue is not as black and white as you present it. Union pension funds are major investors so they have two dogs in the fight. Have a nice weekend--brought to you by the labor movement.
There have been some rumors about Verizon carrying the iPhone, if that happens, it will really start to make inroads. But I agree, the iPhone needs to move beyond AT&T to get the kind of market penetration that will make it a serious contender. AT&T has had 2 years to profit from the iPhone, it's time for Apple to spread the wealth to some other carriers which will increase adoption of the iPhone.
2 years does not equal 5 years, the length of the contract between Apple and AT&T. When that contract expires, they'll sit down and talk about the future between them. In fact, all signs point to AT&T trying to extend that contract, if it hasn't happened already.
AT&T's not stupid. They know that they're in a symbiotic relationship with Apple. No way their recent gains would have been made without Apple, and vice versa. Before you go on to say that Verizon has a better network, etc., etc., understand that Verizon had first crack at the iPhone but with conditions, which would have severely hampered the iPhone. That should be your first indicaton that the deal with Verizon will suck unless they get out of their own way and let Apple do it their way, which is what AT&T had the vision for. It probably wouldn't have been the success that it has been to date had they gone with Verizon.
By all counts, Apple's happy with the "market penetration" thus far. Remember, their goal isn't to be ubiquitous, but to be the BMW of the computer/consumer electronic world. Fewer phones at a higher cost = more money than a ton of phones being given away.
2 years does not equal 5 years, the length of the contract between Apple and AT&T. When that contract expires, they'll sit down and talk about the future between them. In fact, all signs point to AT&T trying to extend that contract, if it hasn't happened already.
AT&T's not stupid. They know that they're in a symbiotic relationship with Apple. No way their recent gains would have been made without Apple, and vice versa. Before you go on to say that Verizon has a better network, etc., etc., understand that Verizon had first crack at the iPhone but with conditions, which would have severely hampered the iPhone. That should be your first indicaton that the deal with Verizon will suck unless they get out of their own way and let Apple do it their way, which is what AT&T had the vision for. It probably wouldn't have been the success that it has been to date had they gone with Verizon.
By all counts, Apple's happy with the "market penetration" thus far. Remember, their goal isn't to be ubiquitous, but to be the BMW of the computer/consumer electronic world. Fewer phones at a higher cost = more money than a ton of phones being given away.
The 5 year deal info came from Verizon, stating that that is what Apple offered, along with a bunch of stuff that Verizon would have never agreed to. It does seem more likely that AT&T and Apple originally inked a 2 year deal (with a one year addition for dropping profit sharing), but even that is speculative.
To go with a CDMA-based iPhone Apple has to create and test a new device. Sure, most of the HW is the same, but the part they have no experience in is new: cellular radios. I think the idea of Apple going with Verizon is not likely. If they aren't willing to go with multiple carriers in every country they can get away with it legally, despite the iPhone having already proved itself in the US market and the few EU countries it was in, why would we expect them to do in the US. Especially when doing so would ruin a big part of the ecosystem that it needs to work in the long run: The control over the carrier. I doubt they'd want to give that up. If it was just about handset sales they would have sold to multiple carriers in all those other all-GSM countries after the iPhone proved itself, but they didn't.
If Verizon were to make an CDMA iPhone for the US market I think Sprint would be the better candidate for them, not Verizon. Sprint is losing customers fast (they lost 17 Trillion just last week, no lie) and should be willing to spend more money and offer more control than Verizon would sine they are the largest network by subs, with the best overall coverage and well known for wanting control. There is just no reason to think Verizon would give Apple what they want at this point.
To go with a CDMA-based iPhone Apple has to create and test a new device. Sure, most of the HW is the same, but the part they have no experience in is new: cellular radios.
?
How did they manage to get the current iPhone out without getting experience in cellular radios? They started from somewhere, I don't see how that's suddenly a problem with a different standard.
How did they manage to get the current iPhone out without getting experience in cellular radios? They started from somewhere, I don't see how that's suddenly a problem with a different standard.
It's an issue they have to deal with. They didn't exactly do a bang up job with the first two iPhone radios. There is definite improvement but they still aren't at the level of their competition. CDMA will offer many of the same initial issues as the first iPhone while some aspects will carry over from what they've learned so far.
Regardless, if they still choose not to sell their handset to all GSM-based carriers in a given country (where laws don't require them to) why should we expect them to make a 2nd handset type for the US?
edit: "no experience" was not the best choice of words. How about limited or recent experience, instead?
It is interesting you think people that put money in a company deserve nothing back and the union deserves everything . Sure glad you don't make the decisions for Apple. The union is getting what they have sown. Not going to be a good harvest and taxpayers are going to have to pay and pay . Our congress and senate made the rules and yet you call the investors , pigs. Guess you like socialism better than capitalism . Go to europe. They got plenty . Yuck.
DrJJones edited his original post rather than respond directly. If you think Europe is pure socialism and the U.S. is pure capitalism you're incredibly naive. Both have some of each. Most Americans are very happy having "socialist" institutions like social security, medicare, police, fire departments, public schools and colleges, and the military. Yes, we could privatize them all, but most Americans would resist that with great vigor. There are limits to what profit motive can deliver. I like capitalism in my business sector--its the best system. But unregulated or under-regulated capitalism, including the "piggish" greed that led to the mortgage meltdown, are the result. No system is the perfect answer for everything. It takes a balance. Telling people to who don't see it your way to leave the country is un-American. It reminds me of those who were hawks during the Vietnam war putting bumper stickers on their cars saying "America: Love It Or Leave It." The right may not have a monopoly on "Knownothing-ism" but they sure have their fair share of it. I am a Vietnam vet--did two tours of duty in the war zone so don't play the I'm more patriotic than you card.
Our congress and senate made the rules and yet you call the investors , pigs.
Not the investors, those who run that particular hedge fund. Hell, I'm an investor. I also think it's piggish behavior to lend money to those who can't possibly pay it back, because the "rules" allow you to make huge profits by packaging those bad investments and passing them off to others. Not all capitalists are saints. AIG anyone?
I've got to agree with Apple on the case in Australia. The iPhone is taking considerable market share over here by comparison to other smartphones. In fact its getting to the point where I can't jump on a train without seeing a few of them come out. So much for it only being for the rich - over here you can get one free on a $60 plan - thats $40 US.
Comments
True- we will just wait and see. Hopefully it expands into the US market further via other carriers. It's not impossible and highly desired by anyone who's satisfied with their current carrier and refuses to go to AT&T, whatever their present carrier is.
There have been some rumors about Verizon carrying the iPhone, if that happens, it will really start to make inroads. But I agree, the iPhone needs to move beyond AT&T to get the kind of market penetration that will make it a serious contender. AT&T has had 2 years to profit from the iPhone, it's time for Apple to spread the wealth to some other carriers which will increase adoption of the iPhone.
How does the iPhone grow from infancy if it eventually stalls at some point unless it is made available to mutiple carriers in the USA?
This was explained to you in another recent thread by at least two or three people. It's also referenced in this very article.
The size of the addressable market for the 3G iPhone *outside* of the USA, is orders of magnitude larger than the size of the market they are missing out on *inside* the USA by not having a CDMA phone.
The iPhone can continue growing (as the article above explicitly states), by expanding into international markets which so far have only been scratched on the surface. They could forget about the Verizon part of the market for years and years and it would have no impact on their sales or sales growth.
It would be nice for those customers if Apple made a CDMA phone, but they certainly don't have to do it to maintain their business or the rapid growth of same.
It's not good enough just to post good financial results. You must also ensure that those results get noticed and people write about your company.
Agreed. But Apple is in no remote danger of not being written about.
Letting Shaw Wu, who is world renowned for making wildly inaccurate predictions about Apple and then quietly revising them at the last minute so he can claim to have made accurate ones, on campus is just good PR.
Disagree. I am not sure that someone (quote) ....renowned for...wildly inaccurate predictions...then quiety revising them..... (unquote) is a good PR ally.
As Oscar Wilde said, the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.
Oscar Wilde rocks. But see my first point above.
How does the iPhone grow from infancy if it eventually stalls at some point unless it is made available to mutiple carriers in the USA?
That may be the one thing they can't discuss so openly, all the other options seemed like relatively obvious ones, the uncharacteristic part of it is that they said that these may be under consideration.
They do get multiple carriers in some other countries. Apple doesn't seem to want to do a CDMA device, which is practically what is needed to get iPhone on a good competing carrier in the US, GSM in the US is pretty much AT&T, 2nd place is some carrier that barely offers 3G, and there's an asterisk behind that.
I don't think CDMA is really a hardware issue, I think Apple would easily be able to sell millions of CDMA iPhones, but they might lose the exclusivity kickback they get from AT&T.
It's not good enough just to post good financial results. You must also ensure that those results get noticed and people write about your company.
Letting Shaw Wu, who is world renowned for making wildly inaccurate predictions about Apple and then quietly revising them at the last minute so he can claim to have made accurate ones, on campus is just good PR.
As Oscar Wilde said, the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.
Man, it must be nice to hide behind anonymity.
According to sites that measure such things, i.e., Analyst Performances, Shaw Wu has quite a history* for his accuracy, in particular re Apple. Otherwise Apple would not welcome his presence, or for that matter be on their preferred list of invitees to their financial conference calls.
* http://biz.yahoo.com/a/6/61497.html
Oppenheimer was one of that small cabal of hedge funds that held out on the bailout plan for Chrysler. Everyone else in the game agreed to take a hit and sell off their debt at a loss, but they wanted to hold out for a profit? (stuff snipped) Shame on Apple for sucking up to them. They should have let the Oppenheimer bus roll right on by on their tour.
It is interesting you think people that put money in a company deserve nothing back and the union deserves everything . Sure glad you don't make the decisions for Apple. The union is getting what they have sown. Not going to be a good harvest and taxpayers are going to have to pay and pay . Our congress and senate made the rules and yet you call the investors , pigs. Guess you like socialism better than capitalism . Go to europe. They got plenty . Yuck.
It is interesting you think people that put money in a company deserve nothing back and the union deserves everything . Sure glad you don't make the decisions for Apple. The union is getting what they have sown. Not going to be a good harvest and taxpayers are going to h
Unions sometimes are partially to blame, but in this case the UAW made significant concessions and management acknowledged it. But I guess you know more about Chrysler than their management does. The issue is not as black and white as you present it. Union pension funds are major investors so they have two dogs in the fight. Have a nice weekend--brought to you by the labor movement.
There have been some rumors about Verizon carrying the iPhone, if that happens, it will really start to make inroads. But I agree, the iPhone needs to move beyond AT&T to get the kind of market penetration that will make it a serious contender. AT&T has had 2 years to profit from the iPhone, it's time for Apple to spread the wealth to some other carriers which will increase adoption of the iPhone.
2 years does not equal 5 years, the length of the contract between Apple and AT&T. When that contract expires, they'll sit down and talk about the future between them. In fact, all signs point to AT&T trying to extend that contract, if it hasn't happened already.
AT&T's not stupid. They know that they're in a symbiotic relationship with Apple. No way their recent gains would have been made without Apple, and vice versa. Before you go on to say that Verizon has a better network, etc., etc., understand that Verizon had first crack at the iPhone but with conditions, which would have severely hampered the iPhone. That should be your first indicaton that the deal with Verizon will suck unless they get out of their own way and let Apple do it their way, which is what AT&T had the vision for. It probably wouldn't have been the success that it has been to date had they gone with Verizon.
By all counts, Apple's happy with the "market penetration" thus far. Remember, their goal isn't to be ubiquitous, but to be the BMW of the computer/consumer electronic world. Fewer phones at a higher cost = more money than a ton of phones being given away.
An editor actually let that out of the gate?
In the land of Oz?
An editor actually let that out of the gate?
Are you saying that slang for Australia is too fanciful for a business article? Just asking.
2 years does not equal 5 years, the length of the contract between Apple and AT&T. When that contract expires, they'll sit down and talk about the future between them. In fact, all signs point to AT&T trying to extend that contract, if it hasn't happened already.
AT&T's not stupid. They know that they're in a symbiotic relationship with Apple. No way their recent gains would have been made without Apple, and vice versa. Before you go on to say that Verizon has a better network, etc., etc., understand that Verizon had first crack at the iPhone but with conditions, which would have severely hampered the iPhone. That should be your first indicaton that the deal with Verizon will suck unless they get out of their own way and let Apple do it their way, which is what AT&T had the vision for. It probably wouldn't have been the success that it has been to date had they gone with Verizon.
By all counts, Apple's happy with the "market penetration" thus far. Remember, their goal isn't to be ubiquitous, but to be the BMW of the computer/consumer electronic world. Fewer phones at a higher cost = more money than a ton of phones being given away.
The 5 year deal info came from Verizon, stating that that is what Apple offered, along with a bunch of stuff that Verizon would have never agreed to. It does seem more likely that AT&T and Apple originally inked a 2 year deal (with a one year addition for dropping profit sharing), but even that is speculative.
To go with a CDMA-based iPhone Apple has to create and test a new device. Sure, most of the HW is the same, but the part they have no experience in is new: cellular radios. I think the idea of Apple going with Verizon is not likely. If they aren't willing to go with multiple carriers in every country they can get away with it legally, despite the iPhone having already proved itself in the US market and the few EU countries it was in, why would we expect them to do in the US. Especially when doing so would ruin a big part of the ecosystem that it needs to work in the long run: The control over the carrier. I doubt they'd want to give that up. If it was just about handset sales they would have sold to multiple carriers in all those other all-GSM countries after the iPhone proved itself, but they didn't.
If Verizon were to make an CDMA iPhone for the US market I think Sprint would be the better candidate for them, not Verizon. Sprint is losing customers fast (they lost 17 Trillion just last week, no lie) and should be willing to spend more money and offer more control than Verizon would sine they are the largest network by subs, with the best overall coverage and well known for wanting control. There is just no reason to think Verizon would give Apple what they want at this point.
To go with a CDMA-based iPhone Apple has to create and test a new device. Sure, most of the HW is the same, but the part they have no experience in is new: cellular radios.
?
How did they manage to get the current iPhone out without getting experience in cellular radios? They started from somewhere, I don't see how that's suddenly a problem with a different standard.
How did they manage to get the current iPhone out without getting experience in cellular radios? They started from somewhere, I don't see how that's suddenly a problem with a different standard.
It's an issue they have to deal with. They didn't exactly do a bang up job with the first two iPhone radios. There is definite improvement but they still aren't at the level of their competition. CDMA will offer many of the same initial issues as the first iPhone while some aspects will carry over from what they've learned so far.
Regardless, if they still choose not to sell their handset to all GSM-based carriers in a given country (where laws don't require them to) why should we expect them to make a 2nd handset type for the US?
edit: "no experience" was not the best choice of words. How about limited or recent experience, instead?
It is interesting you think people that put money in a company deserve nothing back and the union deserves everything . Sure glad you don't make the decisions for Apple. The union is getting what they have sown. Not going to be a good harvest and taxpayers are going to have to pay and pay . Our congress and senate made the rules and yet you call the investors , pigs. Guess you like socialism better than capitalism . Go to europe. They got plenty . Yuck.
Here Here!
Here Here!
DrJJones edited his original post rather than respond directly. If you think Europe is pure socialism and the U.S. is pure capitalism you're incredibly naive. Both have some of each. Most Americans are very happy having "socialist" institutions like social security, medicare, police, fire departments, public schools and colleges, and the military. Yes, we could privatize them all, but most Americans would resist that with great vigor. There are limits to what profit motive can deliver. I like capitalism in my business sector--its the best system. But unregulated or under-regulated capitalism, including the "piggish" greed that led to the mortgage meltdown, are the result. No system is the perfect answer for everything. It takes a balance. Telling people to who don't see it your way to leave the country is un-American. It reminds me of those who were hawks during the Vietnam war putting bumper stickers on their cars saying "America: Love It Or Leave It." The right may not have a monopoly on "Knownothing-ism" but they sure have their fair share of it. I am a Vietnam vet--did two tours of duty in the war zone so don't play the I'm more patriotic than you card.
Our congress and senate made the rules and yet you call the investors , pigs.
Not the investors, those who run that particular hedge fund. Hell, I'm an investor. I also think it's piggish behavior to lend money to those who can't possibly pay it back, because the "rules" allow you to make huge profits by packaging those bad investments and passing them off to others. Not all capitalists are saints. AIG anyone?
Not all capitalists are saints.
Understatement of the year!