It has everything to do with it, Apple buyers bought a Mac to snub their noses at MS
I originally bought my first Mac in 1988 and have stuck with Apple over the years (well, all but the sucky mid-90's) is because they make a product that has an overall better user experience. Only superficial anti-fanbois such as yourself bring up red-herrings like "snub their noses at MS" - what crap. If MS produces something of quality, I'll have no problem buying it - I rather enjoy my Xbox 360 and it gets far more use then my PS3 (over glorified BluRay player and PS2 game player - I have the launch 60GB) or Wii.
Anyway, the fact that Apple's latest hardware happens to run Windows doesn't change that for me, the Mac has an overall superior experience to the Windows world.
Heck, even Windows runs better and faster on a Mac then on hardware from the traditional big box PC builders.
Without saying if I think the exclusivity will continue or not, if this analyst is basing his conclusion primarily on this fact, then he really should find a new job. That's roughly 20% of the worldwide market you are ignoring there. And about 50% if you look at the US alone.
Besides, you are talking about devices that typically only last 2-3 years. So the projected number of users 4 years from now is irrlevant to a device I'd be selling today.
300 million users is a big enough market to justify the nominal expense of creating a Verizon phone. The only real financial consideration is how the subsidies might change if it were non-exclusive. Would the extra profit from Verizon phones offset the lower subsidies ATT would likely be willing to pay if they didn't have exclusivity?
Hey just look at Wal-Mart, their profit margin is at roughly 10%, but they sell in the billions. The number 2 retailer is way below them in sales at only several hundred millions and with higher profit margin. I dont know about you but I'll take the 10% of billions
Europe and Asia is basically a mixture of 14.4Mbps and 7.2Mbps networks. The United States is 3-5 years behind most industrialized nations.
We had widespread cellular networks before most industrialized nations, and our land mass is greater then most - heck most of our states are larger then multiple countries in Europe.
Other countries like India or China skipped wired networks and went straight to wireless, fairly recently so they don't have sunk costs in older technology to write off.
Sometimes being first isn't a benefit. Just like AT&T is finding out with the iPhone, having the best most easy to use smartphone can be a double edged sword!
Hey just look at Wal-Mart, their profit margin is at roughly 10%, but they sell in the billions. The number 2 retailer is way below them in sales at only several hundred millions and with higher profit margin. I dont know about you but I'll take the 10% of billions
I wouldn't. If Microsoft is Wal-Mart and Apple is your number 2 - I'd rather be Apple:
I originally bought my first Mac in 1988 and have stuck with Apple over the years (well, all but the sucky mid-90's) is because they make a product that has an overall better user experience. Only superficial anti-fanbois such as yourself bring up red-herrings like "snub their noses at MS" - what crap. If MS produces something of quality, I'll have no problem buying it - I rather enjoy my Xbox 360 and it gets far more use then my PS3 (over glorified BluRay player and PS2 game player - I have the launch 60GB) or Wii.
Anyway, the fact that Apple's latest hardware happens to run Windows doesn't change that for me, the Mac has an overall superior experience to the Windows world.
Heck, even Windows runs better and faster on a Mac then on hardware from the traditional big box PC builders.
Dude you're comparing apples to oranges, and I didn't say that all Mac owners bought their computers to snub MS but that was the sentiment of alot of people and it still is. Just look at the commercials. MS doesnt build computers so they cant control the crappy hardware its OS runs on. BTW the XBOX doesn't count, that idea was sold to Bill Gates by a group of gamers within MS.
Actually I hate Wal-mart, and Microsoft but when it comes to business they know what they're doing. I'm not bashing Apple, I love Apple. It's ATT thats the problem, how do you agree to sell a phone that you didnt fully research at how it would affect your network. You have to take a worse case scenario and be ready to handle it. Can you imagine crossing a bridge and wondering if the engineers accounted for there being semi trucks with full cargo bumper to bumper on all lanes and didnt designed the bridge to easily handle that? Thats what att didnt do. They knew full well what the iphone could do and how many they expected to sell and still did nothing to improve the growing demand. C'mon its been over two yrs and you still cant get it right.
Dude you're comparing apples to oranges, and I didn't say that all Mac owners bought their computers to snub MS but that was the sentiment of alot of people and it still is. Just look at the commercials.
And it's a pretty silly reason to pick a platform, but then again people do silly things all the time.
Quote:
MS doesnt build computers so they cant control the crappy hardware its OS runs on.
Sucks to be them. it's why Apple will own the profitable "cream" at the top of the heap, and MS and the clone makers will own the high volume, unprofitable bottom (netbooks anyone?)
I know who I would rather be. People fixated on pure market share as a measure of worth need to have some serious counseling to deal with their insecurity issues.
Quote:
BTW the XBOX doesn't count, that idea was sold to Bill Gates by a group of gamers within MS.
Why doesn't it count? Where the idea came from is irrelevant - they still had to execute it. And they did! Why shouldn't MS get credit for doing something well when they do? For me the Xbox succeeds not just because of the hardware - it is technically inferior to the PS3 on paper. No, it succeeds because overall, as a package (from developer tools, to hardware, to the xbox live service) it kicks the crap out of Sony and Nintendo. Sounds like a page out of the Apple playbook
They knew full well what the iphone could do and how many they expected to sell and still did nothing to improve the growing demand.
Really? So rather then plan and ramp up for demand ahead of time, AT&T just sat their with their thumb up their proverbial butt and let their network collapse?
They may be allot of things, but they aren't that stupid. And even if they were, if Apple had any inkling that was a possible outcome, I guarantee you the terms of the agreement would have been very different. Apple is VERY protective about their user experience.
It's their secret sauce and what set's them apart from the rest of the industry.
The demand for data from the iPhone was simply unprecedented. The iPhone is a victim of runaway success.
Quote:
C'mon its been over two yrs and you still cant get it right.
Radios are not trivial. Infrastructure does not appear overnight. If they had stopped selling phone's after the first year, your complaint might have some merit - but the whole time AT&T has been upgrading - Apple has been having blockbuster sales of new phones!
It's hard to believe just how much people take infrastructure for granted since most of the time it just works. Cellular networks are incredibly complex and there are numerous interdependencies. It is rocket science...
The data iSuppli lists should not be construed as the cost of the device to R&D or market or license or package or ship or store or sell or even the money Apple has to put aside for inevitable lawsuits and repairs. iSuppli doesn?t factor any of these other things in and that very clearly state that.
Hey.... where the heck have you been? Welcome back!
Why doesn't it count? Where the idea came from is irrelevant - they still had to execute it. And they did! Why shouldn't MS get credit for doing something well when they do? For me the Xbox succeeds not just because of the hardware - it is technically inferior to the PS3 on paper. No, it succeeds because overall, as a package (from developer tools, to hardware, to the xbox live service) it kicks the crap out of Sony and Nintendo. Sounds like a page out of the Apple playbook
Really? So rather then plan and ramp up for demand ahead of time, AT&T just sat their with their thumb up their proverbial butt and let their network collapse?
They may be allot of things, but they aren't that stupid. And even if they were, if Apple had any inkling that was a possible outcome, I guarantee you the terms of the agreement would have been very different. Apple is VERY protective about their user experience.
It's their secret sauce and what set's them apart from the rest of the industry.
The demand for data from the iPhone was simply unprecedented. The iPhone is a victim of runaway success.
Radios are not trivial. Infrastructure does not appear overnight. If they had stopped selling phone's after the first year, your complaint might have some merit - but the whole time AT&T has been upgrading - Apple has been having blockbuster sales of new phones!
It's hard to believe just how much people take infrastructure for granted since most of the time it just works. Cellular networks are incredibly complex and there are numerous interdependencies. It is rocket science...
That's why Apple had the forthsight to include WIFI in the iPhone. Way before there were hotspots everywhere. AT&T and its 3G network actually hinders the capability of the iPhone and they let Apple build a phone it's network couldn't handle. Why do you think Verizon is so controlling over what phones it sells? It does that to make sure the network can handle the traffic. It has close to 90 million suscribers yet our calls don't get dropped and the 3G speeds are at what they should be.
What an ignorant statement - it's not trivial, either! There are spectrum, licensing and issues of acquiring tower space - not even mentioning spectrum management, tuning and all the other complexities of dealing with wirless technology.
Actually, it's as bad or worse then rocket science. There is nothing trivial about radios.
I didn't say it was trivial, but there's nothing new to discover or implement. As someone said in a post, enhanced variants of HSPA up to 28.8 have already been fielded. Has acquiring tower space never been done before? Or spectrum management for HSPA? Do you even understand what the phrase "rocket science" means?
LTE on the other hand is much closer to rocket science (but still not). Chip sets and lots of LTE equipment have yet to even be built at a production-level quality.
Well, wait a minute. Are you allocating that entire $30 to developing HSPA and LTE? What about emergency upgrades of *existing* towers and their backhauls? More and more iPhone users are coming online, and service is getting worse. How much do you invest in just trying to make things work for another month or two?
AT&T put themselves in a bind. The revenue the generate from iPhone sales (while huge) isn't enough to both make needed fixes today *and* build out LTE for the future. iSuppli probably could have said it better, but it was a valid point: AT&T has not figured out how to make the iPhone's massive data use profitable.
I can only imagine the laughs that the Apple team had after meetings with AT&T in the early days of contract negotiations. You can just see the Apple guys, pitching the exclusive contract and high revenue sharing numbers with powerpoint's about how revolutionary the phone would be and how many people would switch to AT&T to get it... and the AT&T guys doing their financial analysis based on the way people used data on pre-iPhone devices.
1. Why wouldn't my dollars for voice minutes be funding everything else? Is that not real money?
2. And the point of my post was where is T-mobile and Verizon getting the money to fund their data expansions? Is it not better to collect money to fund it? Or does T-mobile and Verizon not need to expand for data and yet somehow still be competitive three years from now?
Verizon is actually the one in more desperate straits. They have no CDMA/EVDO enhancement to go to, so they must go to LTE right now. But LTE is really not ready yet, so they're taking a big risk trying to push out brand new equipment that quickly. Name any carrier around the world that has already implemented LTE. Any carriers other than Verizon planning large-scale implementation by the end of 2010? end of 2011?
1. Why wouldn't my dollars for voice minutes be funding everything else? Is that not real money?
2. And the point of my post was where is T-mobile and Verizon getting the money to fund their data expansions? Is it not better to collect money to fund it? Or does T-mobile and Verizon not need to expand for data and yet somehow still be competitive three years from now?
Verizon is actually the one in more desperate straits. They have no CDMA/EVDO enhancement to go to, so they must go to LTE right now. But LTE is really not ready yet, so they're taking a big risk trying to push out brand new equipment that quickly. Name any carrier around the world that has already implemented LTE. Any carriers other than Verizon planning large-scale implementation by the end of 2010? end of 2011?
I'll tell you exactly where Verizon gets some the money from. From the APPS that 90 million people buy, unlike AT&T that doesn't get a dime from the Apps iPhone users buy Verizon gets a piece if not all the money from a App the one of its customers buy, that right there is the major difference between Verizon and AT&T
They knew full well what the iphone could do and how many they expected to sell and still did nothing to improve the growing demand. C'mon its been over two yrs and you still cant get it right.
Well, they didn't know full well what iPhone users would do. They didn't even see the phone until a month before its release in Jan 2007. They obviously expected it to be a little better than other smartphones, and that users would use a bit more data than other smartphone users (hey, remember that original data plan was only $20 and a piece of that went to Apple). But they really didn't know what it could do. Now, AT&T refers to iPhone as a computer in terms of network usage.
But I agree that it has been over two years and AT&T has made lots of upgrades, but the pace of their upgrades is slower than Apple's ability to make and sell better iPhones that cause its users to devour even more data.
AT&T has said they have to replace equipment at their cell towers to get to 7.2 and 14.4. They need to do this much more rapidly; the equipment is available to buy. In some areas, they need to add more towers, so pay up and do it as soon as they can get approval. In many places, they have to upgrade backhaul equipment, so do it already. Yes in some cases, they'll be slowed by government approvals, but most of what they need to do is not.
1. Why wouldn't my dollars for voice minutes be funding everything else? Is that not real money?
2. And the point of my post was where is T-mobile and Verizon getting the money to fund their data expansions? Is it not better to collect money to fund it? Or does T-mobile and Verizon not need to expand for data and yet somehow still be competitive three years from now?
Verizon is actually the one in more desperate straits. They have no CDMA/EVDO enhancement to go to, so they must go to LTE right now. But LTE is really not ready yet, so they're taking a big risk trying to push out brand new equipment that quickly. Name any carrier around the world that has already implemented LTE. Any carriers other than Verizon planning large-scale implementation by the end of 2010? end of 2011?
I read an article that stated Verizon was going with LTE. The date of the article was Sept 2007 shortly after the iPhone 2G had come out. So if you think LTE is something new that Verizon is rushing into you are sadly mistaken
1. Why wouldn't my dollars for voice minutes be funding everything else? Is that not real money?
2. And the point of my post was where is T-mobile and Verizon getting the money to fund their data expansions? Is it not better to collect money to fund it? Or does T-mobile and Verizon not need to expand for data and yet somehow still be competitive three years from now?
Verizon is actually the one in more desperate straits. They have no CDMA/EVDO enhancement to go to, so they must go to LTE right now. But LTE is really not ready yet, so they're taking a big risk trying to push out brand new equipment that quickly. Name any carrier around the world that has already implemented LTE. Any carriers other than Verizon planning large-scale implementation by the end of 2010? end of 2011?
Verizon Wireless likes to spend every dime that they have on the network --- because Verizon wanted to screw with Vodafone. They haven't given Vodafone any dividend from Verizon Wireless' profit since 2005.
I wouldn't worry about Verizon's LTE push --- they like to make big technology bets (first American carrier to go national with a 3G network, and $22 billion FIOS network build-out). Name any carrier around the world that are nuts enough to spend $22 billion on a fiber optics network.
Comments
It has everything to do with it, Apple buyers bought a Mac to snub their noses at MS
I originally bought my first Mac in 1988 and have stuck with Apple over the years (well, all but the sucky mid-90's) is because they make a product that has an overall better user experience. Only superficial anti-fanbois such as yourself bring up red-herrings like "snub their noses at MS" - what crap. If MS produces something of quality, I'll have no problem buying it - I rather enjoy my Xbox 360 and it gets far more use then my PS3 (over glorified BluRay player and PS2 game player - I have the launch 60GB) or Wii.
Anyway, the fact that Apple's latest hardware happens to run Windows doesn't change that for me, the Mac has an overall superior experience to the Windows world.
Heck, even Windows runs better and faster on a Mac then on hardware from the traditional big box PC builders.
Without saying if I think the exclusivity will continue or not, if this analyst is basing his conclusion primarily on this fact, then he really should find a new job. That's roughly 20% of the worldwide market you are ignoring there. And about 50% if you look at the US alone.
Besides, you are talking about devices that typically only last 2-3 years. So the projected number of users 4 years from now is irrlevant to a device I'd be selling today.
300 million users is a big enough market to justify the nominal expense of creating a Verizon phone. The only real financial consideration is how the subsidies might change if it were non-exclusive. Would the extra profit from Verizon phones offset the lower subsidies ATT would likely be willing to pay if they didn't have exclusivity?
Hey just look at Wal-Mart, their profit margin is at roughly 10%, but they sell in the billions. The number 2 retailer is way below them in sales at only several hundred millions and with higher profit margin. I dont know about you but I'll take the 10% of billions
Europe and Asia is basically a mixture of 14.4Mbps and 7.2Mbps networks. The United States is 3-5 years behind most industrialized nations.
We had widespread cellular networks before most industrialized nations, and our land mass is greater then most - heck most of our states are larger then multiple countries in Europe.
Other countries like India or China skipped wired networks and went straight to wireless, fairly recently so they don't have sunk costs in older technology to write off.
Sometimes being first isn't a benefit. Just like AT&T is finding out with the iPhone, having the best most easy to use smartphone can be a double edged sword!
Apparently Apple doesn't agree - and it doesn't seem to be hurting them that much...
No, the inability of IBM/Motorola to provide a decent low power/low heat notebook chip forced Apple to move to Intel.
The ability to run Windows was gravy, but I guarantee you it was not a primary driver for Apple.
This.
Hey just look at Wal-Mart, their profit margin is at roughly 10%, but they sell in the billions. The number 2 retailer is way below them in sales at only several hundred millions and with higher profit margin. I dont know about you but I'll take the 10% of billions
I wouldn't. If Microsoft is Wal-Mart and Apple is your number 2 - I'd rather be Apple:
http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/to...tment-now.aspx
I originally bought my first Mac in 1988 and have stuck with Apple over the years (well, all but the sucky mid-90's) is because they make a product that has an overall better user experience. Only superficial anti-fanbois such as yourself bring up red-herrings like "snub their noses at MS" - what crap. If MS produces something of quality, I'll have no problem buying it - I rather enjoy my Xbox 360 and it gets far more use then my PS3 (over glorified BluRay player and PS2 game player - I have the launch 60GB) or Wii.
Anyway, the fact that Apple's latest hardware happens to run Windows doesn't change that for me, the Mac has an overall superior experience to the Windows world.
Heck, even Windows runs better and faster on a Mac then on hardware from the traditional big box PC builders.
Dude you're comparing apples to oranges, and I didn't say that all Mac owners bought their computers to snub MS but that was the sentiment of alot of people and it still is. Just look at the commercials. MS doesnt build computers so they cant control the crappy hardware its OS runs on. BTW the XBOX doesn't count, that idea was sold to Bill Gates by a group of gamers within MS.
I wouldn't. If Microsoft is Wal-Mart and Apple is your number 2 - I'd rather be Apple:
http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/to...tment-now.aspx
Actually I hate Wal-mart, and Microsoft but when it comes to business they know what they're doing. I'm not bashing Apple, I love Apple. It's ATT thats the problem, how do you agree to sell a phone that you didnt fully research at how it would affect your network. You have to take a worse case scenario and be ready to handle it. Can you imagine crossing a bridge and wondering if the engineers accounted for there being semi trucks with full cargo bumper to bumper on all lanes and didnt designed the bridge to easily handle that? Thats what att didnt do. They knew full well what the iphone could do and how many they expected to sell and still did nothing to improve the growing demand. C'mon its been over two yrs and you still cant get it right.
Dude you're comparing apples to oranges, and I didn't say that all Mac owners bought their computers to snub MS but that was the sentiment of alot of people and it still is. Just look at the commercials.
And it's a pretty silly reason to pick a platform, but then again people do silly things all the time.
MS doesnt build computers so they cant control the crappy hardware its OS runs on.
Sucks to be them. it's why Apple will own the profitable "cream" at the top of the heap, and MS and the clone makers will own the high volume, unprofitable bottom (netbooks anyone?)
I know who I would rather be. People fixated on pure market share as a measure of worth need to have some serious counseling to deal with their insecurity issues.
BTW the XBOX doesn't count, that idea was sold to Bill Gates by a group of gamers within MS.
Why doesn't it count? Where the idea came from is irrelevant - they still had to execute it. And they did! Why shouldn't MS get credit for doing something well when they do? For me the Xbox succeeds not just because of the hardware - it is technically inferior to the PS3 on paper. No, it succeeds because overall, as a package (from developer tools, to hardware, to the xbox live service) it kicks the crap out of Sony and Nintendo. Sounds like a page out of the Apple playbook
They knew full well what the iphone could do and how many they expected to sell and still did nothing to improve the growing demand.
Really? So rather then plan and ramp up for demand ahead of time, AT&T just sat their with their thumb up their proverbial butt and let their network collapse?
They may be allot of things, but they aren't that stupid. And even if they were, if Apple had any inkling that was a possible outcome, I guarantee you the terms of the agreement would have been very different. Apple is VERY protective about their user experience.
It's their secret sauce and what set's them apart from the rest of the industry.
The demand for data from the iPhone was simply unprecedented. The iPhone is a victim of runaway success.
C'mon its been over two yrs and you still cant get it right.
Radios are not trivial. Infrastructure does not appear overnight. If they had stopped selling phone's after the first year, your complaint might have some merit - but the whole time AT&T has been upgrading - Apple has been having blockbuster sales of new phones!
It's hard to believe just how much people take infrastructure for granted since most of the time it just works. Cellular networks are incredibly complex and there are numerous interdependencies. It is rocket science...
The data iSuppli lists should not be construed as the cost of the device to R&D or market or license or package or ship or store or sell or even the money Apple has to put aside for inevitable lawsuits and repairs. iSuppli doesn?t factor any of these other things in and that very clearly state that.
Hey.... where the heck have you been? Welcome back!
Why doesn't it count? Where the idea came from is irrelevant - they still had to execute it. And they did! Why shouldn't MS get credit for doing something well when they do? For me the Xbox succeeds not just because of the hardware - it is technically inferior to the PS3 on paper. No, it succeeds because overall, as a package (from developer tools, to hardware, to the xbox live service) it kicks the crap out of Sony and Nintendo. Sounds like a page out of the Apple playbook
So where does its 54% failure rate fit into this?
Really? So rather then plan and ramp up for demand ahead of time, AT&T just sat their with their thumb up their proverbial butt and let their network collapse?
They may be allot of things, but they aren't that stupid. And even if they were, if Apple had any inkling that was a possible outcome, I guarantee you the terms of the agreement would have been very different. Apple is VERY protective about their user experience.
It's their secret sauce and what set's them apart from the rest of the industry.
The demand for data from the iPhone was simply unprecedented. The iPhone is a victim of runaway success.
Radios are not trivial. Infrastructure does not appear overnight. If they had stopped selling phone's after the first year, your complaint might have some merit - but the whole time AT&T has been upgrading - Apple has been having blockbuster sales of new phones!
It's hard to believe just how much people take infrastructure for granted since most of the time it just works. Cellular networks are incredibly complex and there are numerous interdependencies. It is rocket science...
That's why Apple had the forthsight to include WIFI in the iPhone. Way before there were hotspots everywhere. AT&T and its 3G network actually hinders the capability of the iPhone and they let Apple build a phone it's network couldn't handle. Why do you think Verizon is so controlling over what phones it sells? It does that to make sure the network can handle the traffic. It has close to 90 million suscribers yet our calls don't get dropped and the 3G speeds are at what they should be.
So where does its 54% failure rate fit into this?
LOL, thats not fair, its not their fault, talk to the children in Malaysia that make them
What an ignorant statement - it's not trivial, either! There are spectrum, licensing and issues of acquiring tower space - not even mentioning spectrum management, tuning and all the other complexities of dealing with wirless technology.
Actually, it's as bad or worse then rocket science. There is nothing trivial about radios.
I didn't say it was trivial, but there's nothing new to discover or implement. As someone said in a post, enhanced variants of HSPA up to 28.8 have already been fielded. Has acquiring tower space never been done before? Or spectrum management for HSPA? Do you even understand what the phrase "rocket science" means?
LTE on the other hand is much closer to rocket science (but still not). Chip sets and lots of LTE equipment have yet to even be built at a production-level quality.
Well, wait a minute. Are you allocating that entire $30 to developing HSPA and LTE? What about emergency upgrades of *existing* towers and their backhauls? More and more iPhone users are coming online, and service is getting worse. How much do you invest in just trying to make things work for another month or two?
AT&T put themselves in a bind. The revenue the generate from iPhone sales (while huge) isn't enough to both make needed fixes today *and* build out LTE for the future. iSuppli probably could have said it better, but it was a valid point: AT&T has not figured out how to make the iPhone's massive data use profitable.
I can only imagine the laughs that the Apple team had after meetings with AT&T in the early days of contract negotiations. You can just see the Apple guys, pitching the exclusive contract and high revenue sharing numbers with powerpoint's about how revolutionary the phone would be and how many people would switch to AT&T to get it... and the AT&T guys doing their financial analysis based on the way people used data on pre-iPhone devices.
1. Why wouldn't my dollars for voice minutes be funding everything else? Is that not real money?
2. And the point of my post was where is T-mobile and Verizon getting the money to fund their data expansions? Is it not better to collect money to fund it? Or does T-mobile and Verizon not need to expand for data and yet somehow still be competitive three years from now?
Verizon is actually the one in more desperate straits. They have no CDMA/EVDO enhancement to go to, so they must go to LTE right now. But LTE is really not ready yet, so they're taking a big risk trying to push out brand new equipment that quickly. Name any carrier around the world that has already implemented LTE. Any carriers other than Verizon planning large-scale implementation by the end of 2010? end of 2011?
1. Why wouldn't my dollars for voice minutes be funding everything else? Is that not real money?
2. And the point of my post was where is T-mobile and Verizon getting the money to fund their data expansions? Is it not better to collect money to fund it? Or does T-mobile and Verizon not need to expand for data and yet somehow still be competitive three years from now?
Verizon is actually the one in more desperate straits. They have no CDMA/EVDO enhancement to go to, so they must go to LTE right now. But LTE is really not ready yet, so they're taking a big risk trying to push out brand new equipment that quickly. Name any carrier around the world that has already implemented LTE. Any carriers other than Verizon planning large-scale implementation by the end of 2010? end of 2011?
I'll tell you exactly where Verizon gets some the money from. From the APPS that 90 million people buy, unlike AT&T that doesn't get a dime from the Apps iPhone users buy Verizon gets a piece if not all the money from a App the one of its customers buy, that right there is the major difference between Verizon and AT&T
They knew full well what the iphone could do and how many they expected to sell and still did nothing to improve the growing demand. C'mon its been over two yrs and you still cant get it right.
Well, they didn't know full well what iPhone users would do. They didn't even see the phone until a month before its release in Jan 2007. They obviously expected it to be a little better than other smartphones, and that users would use a bit more data than other smartphone users (hey, remember that original data plan was only $20 and a piece of that went to Apple). But they really didn't know what it could do. Now, AT&T refers to iPhone as a computer in terms of network usage.
But I agree that it has been over two years and AT&T has made lots of upgrades, but the pace of their upgrades is slower than Apple's ability to make and sell better iPhones that cause its users to devour even more data.
AT&T has said they have to replace equipment at their cell towers to get to 7.2 and 14.4. They need to do this much more rapidly; the equipment is available to buy. In some areas, they need to add more towers, so pay up and do it as soon as they can get approval. In many places, they have to upgrade backhaul equipment, so do it already. Yes in some cases, they'll be slowed by government approvals, but most of what they need to do is not.
1. Why wouldn't my dollars for voice minutes be funding everything else? Is that not real money?
2. And the point of my post was where is T-mobile and Verizon getting the money to fund their data expansions? Is it not better to collect money to fund it? Or does T-mobile and Verizon not need to expand for data and yet somehow still be competitive three years from now?
Verizon is actually the one in more desperate straits. They have no CDMA/EVDO enhancement to go to, so they must go to LTE right now. But LTE is really not ready yet, so they're taking a big risk trying to push out brand new equipment that quickly. Name any carrier around the world that has already implemented LTE. Any carriers other than Verizon planning large-scale implementation by the end of 2010? end of 2011?
I read an article that stated Verizon was going with LTE. The date of the article was Sept 2007 shortly after the iPhone 2G had come out. So if you think LTE is something new that Verizon is rushing into you are sadly mistaken
1. Why wouldn't my dollars for voice minutes be funding everything else? Is that not real money?
2. And the point of my post was where is T-mobile and Verizon getting the money to fund their data expansions? Is it not better to collect money to fund it? Or does T-mobile and Verizon not need to expand for data and yet somehow still be competitive three years from now?
Verizon is actually the one in more desperate straits. They have no CDMA/EVDO enhancement to go to, so they must go to LTE right now. But LTE is really not ready yet, so they're taking a big risk trying to push out brand new equipment that quickly. Name any carrier around the world that has already implemented LTE. Any carriers other than Verizon planning large-scale implementation by the end of 2010? end of 2011?
Verizon Wireless likes to spend every dime that they have on the network --- because Verizon wanted to screw with Vodafone. They haven't given Vodafone any dividend from Verizon Wireless' profit since 2005.
I wouldn't worry about Verizon's LTE push --- they like to make big technology bets (first American carrier to go national with a 3G network, and $22 billion FIOS network build-out). Name any carrier around the world that are nuts enough to spend $22 billion on a fiber optics network.