You may have just hit on the response by Verizon to the Apple and AT&T commercials. It could show calls going through while someone else is using data while it could show AT&T users unable to complete calls while the people around him surf. The tagline could be something along the lines of people browsing the web will never stop you from getting your calls on Verizon. It would take the separate nature of voice and data and turn it into a strength rather than a weakness in the mind of the consumer.
I think it would be too nuanced of a message. It also implies that one's network isn't popular.
Verizon can put out all the snarky ads they want, but they know the day is coming when data use will swamp their network. They will have the same issues that ATT is currently having. It won't be a great day in the wireless industry when they start bandwidth capping (even more so than currently) and charging more for less of it. They'll see that day if their current Droid campaign is successful.
I think it would be too nuanced of a message. It also implies that one's network isn't popular.
Verizon can put out all the snarky ads they want, but they know the day is coming when data use will swamp their network. They will have the same issues that ATT is currently having. It won't be a great day in the wireless industry when they start bandwidth capping (even more so than currently) and charging more for less of it. They'll see that day if their current Droid campaign is successful.
Everybody knows that Verizon just have to suck less than the other carriers and still claim the crown as the king of the carriers.
Everybody knows that Verizon just have to suck less than the other carriers and still claim the crown as the king of the carriers.
You know what sucks the least? Cheaper service. I'll start thinking of switching back to Verizon when it costs something like $20/mo for unlimited data. Oh and $20/month for 300 minutes.
From my experience with a Palm Treo 650 on Verizon, it's going to take something pretty big for me to switch back. Maybe when the LTE is up I'll start thinking about it. Right now, I'm immensely satisfied with an iPhone 3GS and ATT service.
This should really tell you something. Pricing is the number one driver for getting customers, not coverage. Coverage just has to be good enough. When Verizon lowers the floor on the cost of voice+data, let me know. I'd love to see $50 for 400 minutes and unlimited data or something like that.
You know what sucks the least? Cheaper service. I'll start thinking of switching back to Verizon when it costs something like $20/mo for unlimited data. Oh and $20/month for 300 minutes.
From my experience with a Palm Treo 650 on Verizon, it's going to take something pretty big for me to switch back. Maybe when the LTE is up I'll start thinking about it. Right now, I'm immensely satisfied with an iPhone 3GS and ATT service.
This should really tell you something. Pricing is the number one driver for getting customers, not coverage. Coverage just has to be good enough. When Verizon lowers the floor on the cost of voice+data, let me know. I'd love to see $50 for 400 minutes and unlimited data or something like that.
If pricing is number 1, then Sprint and T-Mobile would be winning customers.
For most services, AT&T and Verizon have similar pricing. And Verizon sucks less.
It is what it is --- the world doesn't stand still while AT&T improves its network. Verizon will improves its network as well --- and since they are already ahead, staying ahead ain't that all difficult.
If pricing is number 1, then Sprint and T-Mobile would be winning customers.
For most services, AT&T and Verizon have similar pricing. And Verizon sucks less.
It is what it is --- the world doesn't stand still while AT&T improves its network. Verizon will improves its network as well --- and since they are already ahead, staying ahead ain't that all difficult.
Unfortunately, the minimum cost for voice+data is about $70/month for all carriers. Do I need unlimited texts? No. Do I need unlimited voice? No. Would I like a nice touchscreen phone? Yes. Does it still cost about $70/mo for basic voice+data on all carriers? Yes, especially for the best phones.
Really, why do you continue to argue with this line of argumentum. Verizon's "superior" or "sucks least" network is a rather vague and superfluous line of thought. You do realize, that it doesn't suck least everywhere in the USA? That ATT or Sprint or T-Mobile or some regional carrier will have better service in some areas? That cell phone service and customer service varies from neighborhood to neighborhood, city to city, state to state?
For the most part, the big 4 carriers in the USA are reasonably good in providing national service. There are advantages and disadvantages, but one carrier isn't so much better than the other that it'll swallow up the market due to its network quality. Now, there are good business reasons why it is necessary for one or two carriers to swallow up all other carriers, but it really isn't related to service quality so much.
Really, why do you continue to argue with this line of argumentum. Verizon's "superior" or "sucks least" network is a rather vague and superfluous line of thought. You do realize, that it doesn't suck least everywhere in the USA? That ATT or Sprint or T-Mobile or some regional carrier will have better service in some areas? That cell phone service and customer service varies from neighborhood to neighborhood, city to city, state to state?
I also recognize that cell phone carriers have the same consumer satisfaction ranking as used car salesmesn.
Being ranked the best used car salesman ain't all that difficult.
The truth hurts doesn't it? AT&T sat on their butts while Verizon overtook them in total 3G coverage, so many dropped calls from AT&T and dead zones. More people have left AT&T to Verizon because of this (plus a plethora of other facts).
What Verizon was saying may be misleading but any ad. company will place misleading details into their ads, its the way this game is played, AT&T are acting like snobbish little children now and takes the case to court which was dismissed, with a second chance in December 6th to prove the claims which it will not.
Then Luke Wilson?? This is the best that AT&T can do? The commercials are boring, At least the Verizon map states "3G" Why did Luke mention mostly major metropolis cities? Of course there will be coverage there, out in the 'boonies' in the most populas areas AT&T lacks 3G where as Verizon does not, this is fact, not false as Verizon has proved.
Without Apple, AT&T would not be where they are. This true is fact!
(and why is Apple giving out so many iPhones in contests, givaways, etc, to boost AT&T?? knowing that most people will not buy an iPhone then have to swap to AT&T they will opt for a Storm, Droid, or anything else, less glitzy, less toys, but people do enjoy them)
I'm glad I don't live in America and have to put up with rubbish about networks like this.
What a mess, your phone companies are a joke, your Internets are full of whiners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry1971
The truth hurts doesn't it? AT&T sat on their butts while Verizon overtook them in total 3G coverage, so many dropped calls from AT&T and dead zones. More people have left AT&T to Verizon because of this (plus a plethora of other facts).
What Verizon was saying may be misleading but any ad. company will place misleading details into their ads, its the way this game is played, AT&T are acting like snobbish little children now and takes the case to court which was dismissed, with a second chance in December 6th to prove the claims which it will not.
Then Luke Wilson?? This is the best that AT&T can do? The commercials are boring, At least the Verizon map states "3G" Why did Luke mention mostly major metropolis cities? Of course there will be coverage there, out in the 'boonies' in the most populas areas AT&T lacks 3G where as Verizon does not, this is fact, not false as Verizon has proved.
Without Apple, AT&T would not be where they are. This true is fact!
(and why is Apple giving out so many iPhones in contests, givaways, etc, to boost AT&T?? knowing that most people will not buy an iPhone then have to swap to AT&T they will opt for a Storm, Droid, or anything else, less glitzy, less toys, but people do enjoy them)
The truth hurts doesn't it? AT&T sat on their butts while Verizon overtook them in total 3G coverage, so many dropped calls from AT&T and dead zones. More people have left AT&T to Verizon because of this (plus a plethora of other facts).
Um, in the 3rd quarter (Jul-Sep), the churn rate for AT&T was better than Verizon (1.43% vs 1.49%). Those numbers are somewhat close, but what is really hurting Verizon is that compared to same quarter last year, Verizon's churn rate is going up while ATT's is going down. Last year, Verizon's churn rate was better than ATT's.
Moreover, ATT had more net additional subscriptions than Verizon (2m vs 1.2m). This implies more people were leaving Verizon than AT&T.
There is a reason why Verizon started an anti-iPhone and anti-ATT marketing campaign. It's all in the financial performance from last quarter.
In the 4th quarter, who knows how it will turn out. Maybe the Droid, Storm and the marketing campaign will stay and reverse the current trends for Verizon, but who knows. But Verizon does know that they were losing the mindshare battle to Apple and by association, to ATT. You don't start a negative ad campaign lest you see your competition's numbers better than yours.
Quote:
What Verizon was saying may be misleading but any ad. company will place misleading details into their ads, its the way this game is played, AT&T are acting like snobbish little children now and takes the case to court which was dismissed, with a second chance in December 6th to prove the claims which it will not.
Then Luke Wilson?? This is the best that AT&T can do? The commercials are boring, At least the Verizon map states "3G" Why did Luke mention mostly major metropolis cities? Of course there will be coverage there, out in the 'boonies' in the most populas areas AT&T lacks 3G where as Verizon does not, this is fact, not false as Verizon has proved.
Well, I think most people will agree that ATT's marketing is not good. Typically very poor message making. They don't play to their strengths very well. During this American holiday, I was getting 1.2 to 2.2 Mbit/s downloads on ATT in various cities (including exurbs). Those are very good numbers. 2.2 Mbit/s in Austin, TX hill country was very impressive. They should continue to play to their strengths.
Quote:
Without Apple, AT&T would not be where they are. This true is fact!
Alternate histories are speculation, not fact. If Apple gave in and the iPhone landed on Verizon in 2007, it may have bombed because of Verizon's typical crippling of phones, at least at the time. They are like Apple and understand the power of branding. They won't let a third party take that away from them. Remember, the Droid is a Verizon phone. It's not a Motorola phone. If it was the other way around, Verizon would have none of it and wouldn't have let it on its network.
Quote:
(and why is Apple giving out so many iPhones in contests, givaways, etc, to boost AT&T?? knowing that most people will not buy an iPhone then have to swap to AT&T they will opt for a Storm, Droid, or anything else, less glitzy, less toys, but people do enjoy them)
Not sure what you're talking about here. Perhaps its a European thing. People give away iPods yes. But iPhones? Haven't heard much from that end. Here in Texas, I see Verizon advertising much more than ATT.
Um, in the 3rd quarter (Jul-Sep), the churn rate for AT&T was better than Verizon (1.43% vs 1.49%). Those numbers are somewhat close, but what is really hurting Verizon is that compared to same quarter last year, Verizon's churn rate is going up while ATT's is going down. Last year, Verizon's churn rate was better than ATT?s.
[?]
Excellent post. The whole thing, not just the part I quoted.
I?m looking forward to the next quarter since it will be after the 3GS launch frenzy had time to settle and Verizon had time to get the Droid and other phones off the ground. The iPhone did well for AT&T last quarter and the gap has been closing since the iPhone arrived, but it?s not yet a trend of AT&T besting Verizon.
Um, in the 3rd quarter (Jul-Sep), the churn rate for AT&T was better than Verizon (1.43% vs 1.49%). Those numbers are somewhat close, but what is really hurting Verizon is that compared to same quarter last year, Verizon's churn rate is going up while ATT's is going down. Last year, Verizon's churn rate was better than ATT's.
Moreover, ATT had more net additional subscriptions than Verizon (2m vs 1.2m). This implies more people were leaving Verizon than AT&T.
There is a reason why Verizon started an anti-iPhone and anti-ATT marketing campaign. It's all in the financial performance from last quarter.
In the 4th quarter, who knows how it will turn out. Maybe the Droid, Storm and the marketing campaign will stay and reverse the current trends for Verizon, but who knows. But Verizon does know that they were losing the mindshare battle to Apple and by association, to ATT. You don't start a negative ad campaign lest you see your competition's numbers better than yours.
Well, I think most people will agree that ATT's marketing is not good. Typically very poor message making. They don't play to their strengths very well. During this American holiday, I was getting 1.2 to 2.2 Mbit/s downloads on ATT in various cities (including exurbs). Those are very good numbers. 2.2 Mbit/s in Austin, TX hill country was very impressive. They should continue to play to their strengths.
Alternate histories are speculation, not fact. If Apple gave in and the iPhone landed on Verizon in 2007, it may have bombed because of Verizon's typical crippling of phones, at least at the time. They are like Apple and understand the power of branding. They won't let a third party take that away from them. Remember, the Droid is a Verizon phone. It's not a Motorola phone. If it was the other way around, Verizon would have none of it and wouldn't have let it on its network.
Not sure what you're talking about here. Perhaps its a European thing. People give away iPods yes. But iPhones? Haven't heard much from that end. Here in Texas, I see Verizon advertising much more than ATT.
Yes, AT&T has lower churns than Verizon --- but it's the average of big numbers. It's harder for Verizon to keep churn rates lower because they have 8 million more subscribers.
Only 1.2 million of AT&T's net adds came from AT&T, the rest of the 800K went to Tracfone. You might as well say that more people are moving to Tracfone.
It is what it is --- the 3rd quarter was a quarter for the iphone full quarter launch and Verizon hadn't launched any new smartphones like the Droid.
AT&T/Cingular is a south baby bell --- of course you are getting fast 3G downloading speed in Texas. Unfortunately, the south is not where the iphone geeks (and newspaper reporters) live.
You are making alternative histories --- the first gen iphone was the most crippled phone on earth. There is no way for Verizon to make it more crippled.
You are making alternative histories --- the first gen iphone was the most crippled phone on earth. There is no way for Verizon to make it more crippled.
Embroidery doesn’t work well when trying win an argument. “Most crippled phone on earth” Yet this is the phone with the first web browser that was feasbily usable for the average webpage since it allowed for standard HTML rendering, had a decent JS engine, and had intelligent double tap zooming to make webpages usable.
This is the first phone that had a full iPod in it, not just a crippled version of an iPod with a 100 song limit and poor UI. The best iPod experience I’ve had.
This is the phone that sparked a widespread change of the way webpages could be rendered by allowing for iPhone-specific sites based on the User Agent and even a way to get an iPhone-specific icon on your Home Page if you choose to save the page.
This was the phone that so crippled that it sold ~700k in the first weekend. This is the phone that was so crippled that it came with 8GB of NAND and 128MB RAM when I think the average smartphone barely came with 128MB of NAND on-board. Not to mention that crippling choice to make WiFI standard.
This is the crippled device that had a desktop OS stripped and redesigned to fit into a phone which later saw these technologies put into Mac OS X Snow Leopard. This is the device that is so crippled that it is now on v3.0 with access to over 100k apps from the App Store, and the ability to buy music, movies, TV shows and audiobooks right from the device.
That 1st generation iPhone sure is a piece of crap.
PS: Things Verizon could have done to cripple the phone even more (using their history as a guide).
Not allowing WiFi
Not allow syncing via BlueTooth
Not allow syncing via USB
Require all purchases to be made through Verizon
Renting ringtones per month as the only option
Not allowing an App Store unless though Verizon store
Having Verizon sticker on back on iPhone
Charging $50/month for data
Not allowing Apple, the people that make the phone, to service their own phones
Not allowing Apple to have their own US call center to deal with problems, but instead have someone in Bangalore poorly trained on 65 phones to help iPhone users with problems.
There is a lot Verizon could have done to mess up the iPhone. There is no question that Verizon would have been the all-around worst choice for Apple.
Yes, AT&T has lower churns than Verizon --- but it's the average of big numbers. It's harder for Verizon to keep churn rates lower because they have 8 million more subscribers.
Churn rate is given in percentages not averages. It basically represents the carrier's ability maintain customers. If one carrier's churn rate is lower than the other, it means it is doing a better job of keeping existing customers. If the churn rate statistic stays the same (~1.2% for AT&T and ~1.4% for Verizon) for the two over the next few years, AT&T will gradually catch up to Verizon and surpass it in number of customers.
Quote:
Only 1.2 million of AT&T's net adds came from AT&T, the rest of the 800K went to Tracfone. You might as well say that more people are moving to Tracfone.
You could say that. But you could say that those 1.2m net postpaid adds were iPhone adds. ATT activated 3.2m iPhones with 40% new customers to AT&T. This resulted in AT&T ARPU of $61 compared to Verizon's $51. AT&T is getting very good ARPU boosts from the iPhone. It comes at a cost of network saturation, but having higher ARPU will pay off in the long run.
So AT&T was keeping more of its customer base and adding new customers at much higher ARPU. Verizon would not be running a negative ad campaign specifically against AT&T and Apple if these numbers were good for Verizon. Verizon is simply on the wrong side of these numbers: churn, net adds, ARPU, compared to ATT and they are definitely trying to do something to knock the ATT/Apple's good points down.
Quote:
It is what it is --- the 3rd quarter was a quarter for the iphone full quarter launch and Verizon hadn't launched any new smartphones like the Droid.
Yes it is what it is. It is doubtful that Apple and ATT could replicate 3Q performance until the next 3rd quarter when the next iPhone comes out. I suspect Verizon will have better Q4 then ATT will.
Quote:
AT&T/Cingular is a south baby bell --- of course you are getting fast 3G downloading speed in Texas. Unfortunately, the south is not where the iphone geeks (and newspaper reporters) live.
Customer satisfaction is a gestalt or is holistic, not dominated by tech geeks.
Quote:
You are making alternative histories --- the first gen iphone was the most crippled phone on earth. There is no way for Verizon to make it more crippled.
Sure there is. Verizon would have wanted it to be a Verizon branded phone, with various Verizon branding vehicles from logos on the device and various Verizon branding software vehicles and services.
And I contest with the iPhone EDGE being crippled. It may not have had all of the features other phones had, but it delivered on things other phones didn't do: ease-of-use and pleasure-of-use, great music/video functionality, and great Internet functionality. Those are all things consumers would do a lot more than many of the features that were missing. Apple was in fact extremely proud of doing it. At least Jobs was.
Churn rate is given in percentages not averages. It basically represents the carrier's ability maintain customers. If one carrier's churn rate is lower than the other, it means it is doing a better job of keeping existing customers. If the churn rate statistic stays the same (~1.2% for AT&T and ~1.4% for Verizon) for the two over the next few years, AT&T will gradually catch up to Verizon and surpass it in number of customers.
You could say that. But you could say that those 1.2m net postpaid adds were iPhone adds. ATT activated 3.2m iPhones with 40% new customers to AT&T. This resulted in AT&T ARPU of $61 compared to Verizon's $51. AT&T is getting very good ARPU boosts from the iPhone. It comes at a cost of network saturation, but having higher ARPU will pay off in the long run.
So AT&T was keeping more of its customer base and adding new customers at much higher ARPU. Verizon would not be running a negative ad campaign specifically against AT&T and Apple if these numbers were good for Verizon. Verizon is simply on the wrong side of these numbers: churn, net adds, ARPU, compared to ATT and they are definitely trying to do something to knock the ATT/Apple's good points down.
Yes it is what it is. It is doubtful that Apple and ATT could replicate 3Q performance until the next 3rd quarter when the next iPhone comes out. I suspect Verizon will have better Q4 then ATT will.
Customer satisfaction is a gestalt or is holistic, not dominated by tech geeks.
Sure there is. Verizon would have wanted it to be a Verizon branded phone, with various Verizon branding vehicles from logos on the device and various Verizon branding software vehicles and services.
And I contest with the iPhone EDGE being crippled. It may not have had all of the features other phones had, but it delivered on things other phones didn't do: ease-of-use and pleasure-of-use, great music/video functionality, and great Internet functionality. Those are all things consumers would do a lot more than many of the features that were missing. Apple was in fact extremely proud of doing it. At least Jobs was.
First of all, you are comparing TWO different churn numbers. For postpaid churn, VZW is 1.13 vs. AT&T is 1.17. For total churn, VZW is 1.49 vs. AT&T's 1.43. Second of all, I am talking about averaging over larger numbers (like baseball stats). It's easier to get a higher batting average if you only have 50 at bats (and you have a hot streak).
Again, you are comparing TWO different ARPU numbers. For total ARPU, VZW is $51.04 vs. AT&T $51.21. For postpaid ARPU, VZW is $52.78 vs. AT&T's $61.23. All those TRACFONE subscribers that paid $15 ARPU drags down the whole company's averages.
I wasn't commenting on consumer satisfaction as a southern baby bell --- I was commenting a AI member who resides in the south getting very good AT&T 3G downloading speed, which is quite natural for a southern baby bell to have a better network in the south.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
There is a lot Verizon could have done to mess up the iPhone. There is no question that Verizon would have been the all-around worst choice for Apple.
But you didn't get to have those features in the first gen iphone. So a Verizon first gen iphone in 2007 --- would mean that you can actually get turn-by-turn nav in 2007, can buy a ringtone in 2007, can buy a song in 2007, and buy a game in 2007.
First of all, you are comparing TWO different churn numbers. For postpaid churn, VZW is 1.13 vs. AT&T is 1.17. For total churn, VZW is 1.49 vs. AT&T's 1.43. Second of all, I am talking about averaging over larger numbers (like baseball stats). It's easier to get a higher batting average if you only have 50 at bats (and you have a hot streak).
Again, you are comparing TWO different ARPU numbers. For total ARPU, VZW is $51.04 vs. AT&T $51.21. For postpaid ARPU, VZW is $52.78 vs. AT&T's $61.23. All those TRACFONE subscribers that paid $15 ARPU drags down the whole company's averages.
Yes I am talking different numbers. Sorry for the confusion. Where did you get your 3Q total ARPU number for AT&T?
And how does it negate the conclusion? ATT churn rate is going down through time. Verizon's is going up. ATT ARPU is higher, especially postpaid. And ATT has more net adds, even with postpaid.
Quote:
I wasn't commenting on consumer satisfaction as a southern baby bell --- I was commenting a AI member who resides in the south getting very good AT&T 3G downloading speed, which is quite natural for a southern baby bell to have a better network in the south.
And? I had both Verizon and Sprint here. They sucked worse then Verizon and Sprint CDMA. Dropped calls aplenty. So I can say CDMA sucks?
You were making an implicit point that since ATT doesn't have better service than Verizon in the place were tech geeks and reports live (supposedly in SF-Bay Area, Chicago, and NYC), it meant that ATT was inferior. Another implicit point their is that perception is reality.
Well, when dealing with 80 million customers, tech geeks and reporters don't have as much power as they think.
Yes I am talking different numbers. Sorry for the confusion. Where did you get your 3Q total ARPU number for AT&T?
And how does it negate the conclusion? ATT churn rate is going down through time. Verizon's is going up. ATT ARPU is higher, especially postpaid. And ATT has more net adds, even with postpaid.
You were making an implicit point that since ATT doesn't have better service than Verizon in the place were tech geeks and reports live (supposedly in SF-Bay Area, Chicago, and NYC), it meant that ATT was inferior. Another implicit point their is that perception is reality.
Well, when dealing with 80 million customers, tech geeks and reporters don't have as much power as they think.
The numbers are in the quarterly financial reports.
I am not negating anything. But it is a fact that the two carriers have very similar churn numbers, similar total ARPU, similar net adds. Everything is similar, except that Verizon doesn't have to pay a king's ransom for the iphone.
I am making an explicit point that since Verizon is the baby bell for New York City --- it is natural for them to have more faciliites, more cell towers, more fiber optic cables in the sewers linking to the cell towers in NYC. I am making a second explicit point that the people most likely to have a smartphone are going to be people who live in cities like NYC, Boston and Washington DC. I am making a third explicit point that we read national news reports from reporters who live in NYC --- of course they are going to report that they have a better Verizon coverage in NYC.
That has nothing to do with perception is reality that AT&T's network is inferior. AT&T's network is inferior because they had to deal with 4 different networks at the same time a few years ago (analog, TDMA, GSM and UMTS networks), they went through a Cingular/AT&T Wireless merger in 2004/5.... Verizon's network is superior because they hadn't have a major merger since Verizon was founded in 2000 (not counting Alltel in Jan this year), that analog-cdmaOne-cdma 1x-ev-do upgrades were simpler to deal with.
Comments
Um, I would presume using the mic/headphone or bluetooth handsfree. You didn't really think that one out, did you?
Regarding the Stud Dude...
Sometimes I think he just has an axe to grind over god knows what. That or he just isn't the brightest bulb in the bunch.
You may have just hit on the response by Verizon to the Apple and AT&T commercials. It could show calls going through while someone else is using data while it could show AT&T users unable to complete calls while the people around him surf. The tagline could be something along the lines of people browsing the web will never stop you from getting your calls on Verizon. It would take the separate nature of voice and data and turn it into a strength rather than a weakness in the mind of the consumer.
I think it would be too nuanced of a message. It also implies that one's network isn't popular.
Verizon can put out all the snarky ads they want, but they know the day is coming when data use will swamp their network. They will have the same issues that ATT is currently having. It won't be a great day in the wireless industry when they start bandwidth capping (even more so than currently) and charging more for less of it. They'll see that day if their current Droid campaign is successful.
I think it would be too nuanced of a message. It also implies that one's network isn't popular.
Verizon can put out all the snarky ads they want, but they know the day is coming when data use will swamp their network. They will have the same issues that ATT is currently having. It won't be a great day in the wireless industry when they start bandwidth capping (even more so than currently) and charging more for less of it. They'll see that day if their current Droid campaign is successful.
Everybody knows that Verizon just have to suck less than the other carriers and still claim the crown as the king of the carriers.
Heheheh!
May be some percent of drop calls and bad reception is iPhone issue. Smaller phone -> smaller RF part -> worse reception. Who knows?
Everybody knows that Verizon just have to suck less than the other carriers and still claim the crown as the king of the carriers.
You know what sucks the least? Cheaper service. I'll start thinking of switching back to Verizon when it costs something like $20/mo for unlimited data. Oh and $20/month for 300 minutes.
From my experience with a Palm Treo 650 on Verizon, it's going to take something pretty big for me to switch back. Maybe when the LTE is up I'll start thinking about it. Right now, I'm immensely satisfied with an iPhone 3GS and ATT service.
This should really tell you something. Pricing is the number one driver for getting customers, not coverage. Coverage just has to be good enough. When Verizon lowers the floor on the cost of voice+data, let me know. I'd love to see $50 for 400 minutes and unlimited data or something like that.
You know what sucks the least? Cheaper service. I'll start thinking of switching back to Verizon when it costs something like $20/mo for unlimited data. Oh and $20/month for 300 minutes.
From my experience with a Palm Treo 650 on Verizon, it's going to take something pretty big for me to switch back. Maybe when the LTE is up I'll start thinking about it. Right now, I'm immensely satisfied with an iPhone 3GS and ATT service.
This should really tell you something. Pricing is the number one driver for getting customers, not coverage. Coverage just has to be good enough. When Verizon lowers the floor on the cost of voice+data, let me know. I'd love to see $50 for 400 minutes and unlimited data or something like that.
If pricing is number 1, then Sprint and T-Mobile would be winning customers.
For most services, AT&T and Verizon have similar pricing. And Verizon sucks less.
It is what it is --- the world doesn't stand still while AT&T improves its network. Verizon will improves its network as well --- and since they are already ahead, staying ahead ain't that all difficult.
How do you actually do both simulltaneously on that small screen anyway? just curious. Speaker phone- Is that what we're talking here?
Don't be dense.
Of course you don't need the screen for a phone call.
I use that feature all the time. It's the bomb.
Checking an e-mail while on a call,
looking up directions while on a call,
yeah, even surfing the web reading lame trolls on AI during a boring conference call.
If pricing is number 1, then Sprint and T-Mobile would be winning customers.
For most services, AT&T and Verizon have similar pricing. And Verizon sucks less.
It is what it is --- the world doesn't stand still while AT&T improves its network. Verizon will improves its network as well --- and since they are already ahead, staying ahead ain't that all difficult.
Unfortunately, the minimum cost for voice+data is about $70/month for all carriers. Do I need unlimited texts? No. Do I need unlimited voice? No. Would I like a nice touchscreen phone? Yes. Does it still cost about $70/mo for basic voice+data on all carriers? Yes, especially for the best phones.
Really, why do you continue to argue with this line of argumentum. Verizon's "superior" or "sucks least" network is a rather vague and superfluous line of thought. You do realize, that it doesn't suck least everywhere in the USA? That ATT or Sprint or T-Mobile or some regional carrier will have better service in some areas? That cell phone service and customer service varies from neighborhood to neighborhood, city to city, state to state?
For the most part, the big 4 carriers in the USA are reasonably good in providing national service. There are advantages and disadvantages, but one carrier isn't so much better than the other that it'll swallow up the market due to its network quality. Now, there are good business reasons why it is necessary for one or two carriers to swallow up all other carriers, but it really isn't related to service quality so much.
Really, why do you continue to argue with this line of argumentum. Verizon's "superior" or "sucks least" network is a rather vague and superfluous line of thought. You do realize, that it doesn't suck least everywhere in the USA? That ATT or Sprint or T-Mobile or some regional carrier will have better service in some areas? That cell phone service and customer service varies from neighborhood to neighborhood, city to city, state to state?
I also recognize that cell phone carriers have the same consumer satisfaction ranking as used car salesmesn.
Being ranked the best used car salesman ain't all that difficult.
What Verizon was saying may be misleading but any ad. company will place misleading details into their ads, its the way this game is played, AT&T are acting like snobbish little children now and takes the case to court which was dismissed, with a second chance in December 6th to prove the claims which it will not.
Then Luke Wilson?? This is the best that AT&T can do? The commercials are boring, At least the Verizon map states "3G" Why did Luke mention mostly major metropolis cities? Of course there will be coverage there, out in the 'boonies' in the most populas areas AT&T lacks 3G where as Verizon does not, this is fact, not false as Verizon has proved.
Without Apple, AT&T would not be where they are. This true is fact!
(and why is Apple giving out so many iPhones in contests, givaways, etc, to boost AT&T?? knowing that most people will not buy an iPhone then have to swap to AT&T they will opt for a Storm, Droid, or anything else, less glitzy, less toys, but people do enjoy them)
What a mess, your phone companies are a joke, your Internets are full of whiners.
The truth hurts doesn't it? AT&T sat on their butts while Verizon overtook them in total 3G coverage, so many dropped calls from AT&T and dead zones. More people have left AT&T to Verizon because of this (plus a plethora of other facts).
What Verizon was saying may be misleading but any ad. company will place misleading details into their ads, its the way this game is played, AT&T are acting like snobbish little children now and takes the case to court which was dismissed, with a second chance in December 6th to prove the claims which it will not.
Then Luke Wilson?? This is the best that AT&T can do? The commercials are boring, At least the Verizon map states "3G" Why did Luke mention mostly major metropolis cities? Of course there will be coverage there, out in the 'boonies' in the most populas areas AT&T lacks 3G where as Verizon does not, this is fact, not false as Verizon has proved.
Without Apple, AT&T would not be where they are. This true is fact!
(and why is Apple giving out so many iPhones in contests, givaways, etc, to boost AT&T?? knowing that most people will not buy an iPhone then have to swap to AT&T they will opt for a Storm, Droid, or anything else, less glitzy, less toys, but people do enjoy them)
The truth hurts doesn't it? AT&T sat on their butts while Verizon overtook them in total 3G coverage, so many dropped calls from AT&T and dead zones. More people have left AT&T to Verizon because of this (plus a plethora of other facts).
Um, in the 3rd quarter (Jul-Sep), the churn rate for AT&T was better than Verizon (1.43% vs 1.49%). Those numbers are somewhat close, but what is really hurting Verizon is that compared to same quarter last year, Verizon's churn rate is going up while ATT's is going down. Last year, Verizon's churn rate was better than ATT's.
Moreover, ATT had more net additional subscriptions than Verizon (2m vs 1.2m). This implies more people were leaving Verizon than AT&T.
There is a reason why Verizon started an anti-iPhone and anti-ATT marketing campaign. It's all in the financial performance from last quarter.
In the 4th quarter, who knows how it will turn out. Maybe the Droid, Storm and the marketing campaign will stay and reverse the current trends for Verizon, but who knows. But Verizon does know that they were losing the mindshare battle to Apple and by association, to ATT. You don't start a negative ad campaign lest you see your competition's numbers better than yours.
What Verizon was saying may be misleading but any ad. company will place misleading details into their ads, its the way this game is played, AT&T are acting like snobbish little children now and takes the case to court which was dismissed, with a second chance in December 6th to prove the claims which it will not.
Then Luke Wilson?? This is the best that AT&T can do? The commercials are boring, At least the Verizon map states "3G" Why did Luke mention mostly major metropolis cities? Of course there will be coverage there, out in the 'boonies' in the most populas areas AT&T lacks 3G where as Verizon does not, this is fact, not false as Verizon has proved.
Well, I think most people will agree that ATT's marketing is not good. Typically very poor message making. They don't play to their strengths very well. During this American holiday, I was getting 1.2 to 2.2 Mbit/s downloads on ATT in various cities (including exurbs). Those are very good numbers. 2.2 Mbit/s in Austin, TX hill country was very impressive. They should continue to play to their strengths.
Without Apple, AT&T would not be where they are. This true is fact!
Alternate histories are speculation, not fact. If Apple gave in and the iPhone landed on Verizon in 2007, it may have bombed because of Verizon's typical crippling of phones, at least at the time. They are like Apple and understand the power of branding. They won't let a third party take that away from them. Remember, the Droid is a Verizon phone. It's not a Motorola phone. If it was the other way around, Verizon would have none of it and wouldn't have let it on its network.
(and why is Apple giving out so many iPhones in contests, givaways, etc, to boost AT&T?? knowing that most people will not buy an iPhone then have to swap to AT&T they will opt for a Storm, Droid, or anything else, less glitzy, less toys, but people do enjoy them)
Not sure what you're talking about here. Perhaps its a European thing. People give away iPods yes. But iPhones? Haven't heard much from that end. Here in Texas, I see Verizon advertising much more than ATT.
Um, in the 3rd quarter (Jul-Sep), the churn rate for AT&T was better than Verizon (1.43% vs 1.49%). Those numbers are somewhat close, but what is really hurting Verizon is that compared to same quarter last year, Verizon's churn rate is going up while ATT's is going down. Last year, Verizon's churn rate was better than ATT?s.
[?]
Excellent post. The whole thing, not just the part I quoted.
I?m looking forward to the next quarter since it will be after the 3GS launch frenzy had time to settle and Verizon had time to get the Droid and other phones off the ground. The iPhone did well for AT&T last quarter and the gap has been closing since the iPhone arrived, but it?s not yet a trend of AT&T besting Verizon.
Um, in the 3rd quarter (Jul-Sep), the churn rate for AT&T was better than Verizon (1.43% vs 1.49%). Those numbers are somewhat close, but what is really hurting Verizon is that compared to same quarter last year, Verizon's churn rate is going up while ATT's is going down. Last year, Verizon's churn rate was better than ATT's.
Moreover, ATT had more net additional subscriptions than Verizon (2m vs 1.2m). This implies more people were leaving Verizon than AT&T.
There is a reason why Verizon started an anti-iPhone and anti-ATT marketing campaign. It's all in the financial performance from last quarter.
In the 4th quarter, who knows how it will turn out. Maybe the Droid, Storm and the marketing campaign will stay and reverse the current trends for Verizon, but who knows. But Verizon does know that they were losing the mindshare battle to Apple and by association, to ATT. You don't start a negative ad campaign lest you see your competition's numbers better than yours.
Well, I think most people will agree that ATT's marketing is not good. Typically very poor message making. They don't play to their strengths very well. During this American holiday, I was getting 1.2 to 2.2 Mbit/s downloads on ATT in various cities (including exurbs). Those are very good numbers. 2.2 Mbit/s in Austin, TX hill country was very impressive. They should continue to play to their strengths.
Alternate histories are speculation, not fact. If Apple gave in and the iPhone landed on Verizon in 2007, it may have bombed because of Verizon's typical crippling of phones, at least at the time. They are like Apple and understand the power of branding. They won't let a third party take that away from them. Remember, the Droid is a Verizon phone. It's not a Motorola phone. If it was the other way around, Verizon would have none of it and wouldn't have let it on its network.
Not sure what you're talking about here. Perhaps its a European thing. People give away iPods yes. But iPhones? Haven't heard much from that end. Here in Texas, I see Verizon advertising much more than ATT.
Yes, AT&T has lower churns than Verizon --- but it's the average of big numbers. It's harder for Verizon to keep churn rates lower because they have 8 million more subscribers.
Only 1.2 million of AT&T's net adds came from AT&T, the rest of the 800K went to Tracfone. You might as well say that more people are moving to Tracfone.
It is what it is --- the 3rd quarter was a quarter for the iphone full quarter launch and Verizon hadn't launched any new smartphones like the Droid.
AT&T/Cingular is a south baby bell --- of course you are getting fast 3G downloading speed in Texas. Unfortunately, the south is not where the iphone geeks (and newspaper reporters) live.
You are making alternative histories --- the first gen iphone was the most crippled phone on earth. There is no way for Verizon to make it more crippled.
You are making alternative histories --- the first gen iphone was the most crippled phone on earth. There is no way for Verizon to make it more crippled.
Embroidery doesn’t work well when trying win an argument. “Most crippled phone on earth” Yet this is the phone with the first web browser that was feasbily usable for the average webpage since it allowed for standard HTML rendering, had a decent JS engine, and had intelligent double tap zooming to make webpages usable.
This is the first phone that had a full iPod in it, not just a crippled version of an iPod with a 100 song limit and poor UI. The best iPod experience I’ve had.
This is the phone that sparked a widespread change of the way webpages could be rendered by allowing for iPhone-specific sites based on the User Agent and even a way to get an iPhone-specific icon on your Home Page if you choose to save the page.
This was the phone that so crippled that it sold ~700k in the first weekend. This is the phone that was so crippled that it came with 8GB of NAND and 128MB RAM when I think the average smartphone barely came with 128MB of NAND on-board. Not to mention that crippling choice to make WiFI standard.
This is the crippled device that had a desktop OS stripped and redesigned to fit into a phone which later saw these technologies put into Mac OS X Snow Leopard. This is the device that is so crippled that it is now on v3.0 with access to over 100k apps from the App Store, and the ability to buy music, movies, TV shows and audiobooks right from the device.
That 1st generation iPhone sure is a piece of crap.
PS: Things Verizon could have done to cripple the phone even more (using their history as a guide).
- Not allowing WiFi
- Not allow syncing via BlueTooth
- Not allow syncing via USB
- Require all purchases to be made through Verizon
- Renting ringtones per month as the only option
- Not allowing an App Store unless though Verizon store
- Having Verizon sticker on back on iPhone
- Charging $50/month for data
- Not allowing Apple, the people that make the phone, to service their own phones
- Not allowing Apple to have their own US call center to deal with problems, but instead have someone in Bangalore poorly trained on 65 phones to help iPhone users with problems.
There is a lot Verizon could have done to mess up the iPhone. There is no question that Verizon would have been the all-around worst choice for Apple.Yes, AT&T has lower churns than Verizon --- but it's the average of big numbers. It's harder for Verizon to keep churn rates lower because they have 8 million more subscribers.
Churn rate is given in percentages not averages. It basically represents the carrier's ability maintain customers. If one carrier's churn rate is lower than the other, it means it is doing a better job of keeping existing customers. If the churn rate statistic stays the same (~1.2% for AT&T and ~1.4% for Verizon) for the two over the next few years, AT&T will gradually catch up to Verizon and surpass it in number of customers.
Only 1.2 million of AT&T's net adds came from AT&T, the rest of the 800K went to Tracfone. You might as well say that more people are moving to Tracfone.
You could say that. But you could say that those 1.2m net postpaid adds were iPhone adds. ATT activated 3.2m iPhones with 40% new customers to AT&T. This resulted in AT&T ARPU of $61 compared to Verizon's $51. AT&T is getting very good ARPU boosts from the iPhone. It comes at a cost of network saturation, but having higher ARPU will pay off in the long run.
So AT&T was keeping more of its customer base and adding new customers at much higher ARPU. Verizon would not be running a negative ad campaign specifically against AT&T and Apple if these numbers were good for Verizon. Verizon is simply on the wrong side of these numbers: churn, net adds, ARPU, compared to ATT and they are definitely trying to do something to knock the ATT/Apple's good points down.
It is what it is --- the 3rd quarter was a quarter for the iphone full quarter launch and Verizon hadn't launched any new smartphones like the Droid.
Yes it is what it is. It is doubtful that Apple and ATT could replicate 3Q performance until the next 3rd quarter when the next iPhone comes out. I suspect Verizon will have better Q4 then ATT will.
AT&T/Cingular is a south baby bell --- of course you are getting fast 3G downloading speed in Texas. Unfortunately, the south is not where the iphone geeks (and newspaper reporters) live.
Customer satisfaction is a gestalt or is holistic, not dominated by tech geeks.
You are making alternative histories --- the first gen iphone was the most crippled phone on earth. There is no way for Verizon to make it more crippled.
Sure there is. Verizon would have wanted it to be a Verizon branded phone, with various Verizon branding vehicles from logos on the device and various Verizon branding software vehicles and services.
And I contest with the iPhone EDGE being crippled. It may not have had all of the features other phones had, but it delivered on things other phones didn't do: ease-of-use and pleasure-of-use, great music/video functionality, and great Internet functionality. Those are all things consumers would do a lot more than many of the features that were missing. Apple was in fact extremely proud of doing it. At least Jobs was.
Churn rate is given in percentages not averages. It basically represents the carrier's ability maintain customers. If one carrier's churn rate is lower than the other, it means it is doing a better job of keeping existing customers. If the churn rate statistic stays the same (~1.2% for AT&T and ~1.4% for Verizon) for the two over the next few years, AT&T will gradually catch up to Verizon and surpass it in number of customers.
You could say that. But you could say that those 1.2m net postpaid adds were iPhone adds. ATT activated 3.2m iPhones with 40% new customers to AT&T. This resulted in AT&T ARPU of $61 compared to Verizon's $51. AT&T is getting very good ARPU boosts from the iPhone. It comes at a cost of network saturation, but having higher ARPU will pay off in the long run.
So AT&T was keeping more of its customer base and adding new customers at much higher ARPU. Verizon would not be running a negative ad campaign specifically against AT&T and Apple if these numbers were good for Verizon. Verizon is simply on the wrong side of these numbers: churn, net adds, ARPU, compared to ATT and they are definitely trying to do something to knock the ATT/Apple's good points down.
Yes it is what it is. It is doubtful that Apple and ATT could replicate 3Q performance until the next 3rd quarter when the next iPhone comes out. I suspect Verizon will have better Q4 then ATT will.
Customer satisfaction is a gestalt or is holistic, not dominated by tech geeks.
Sure there is. Verizon would have wanted it to be a Verizon branded phone, with various Verizon branding vehicles from logos on the device and various Verizon branding software vehicles and services.
And I contest with the iPhone EDGE being crippled. It may not have had all of the features other phones had, but it delivered on things other phones didn't do: ease-of-use and pleasure-of-use, great music/video functionality, and great Internet functionality. Those are all things consumers would do a lot more than many of the features that were missing. Apple was in fact extremely proud of doing it. At least Jobs was.
First of all, you are comparing TWO different churn numbers. For postpaid churn, VZW is 1.13 vs. AT&T is 1.17. For total churn, VZW is 1.49 vs. AT&T's 1.43. Second of all, I am talking about averaging over larger numbers (like baseball stats). It's easier to get a higher batting average if you only have 50 at bats (and you have a hot streak).
Again, you are comparing TWO different ARPU numbers. For total ARPU, VZW is $51.04 vs. AT&T $51.21. For postpaid ARPU, VZW is $52.78 vs. AT&T's $61.23. All those TRACFONE subscribers that paid $15 ARPU drags down the whole company's averages.
I wasn't commenting on consumer satisfaction as a southern baby bell --- I was commenting a AI member who resides in the south getting very good AT&T 3G downloading speed, which is quite natural for a southern baby bell to have a better network in the south.
There is a lot Verizon could have done to mess up the iPhone. There is no question that Verizon would have been the all-around worst choice for Apple.
But you didn't get to have those features in the first gen iphone. So a Verizon first gen iphone in 2007 --- would mean that you can actually get turn-by-turn nav in 2007, can buy a ringtone in 2007, can buy a song in 2007, and buy a game in 2007.
First of all, you are comparing TWO different churn numbers. For postpaid churn, VZW is 1.13 vs. AT&T is 1.17. For total churn, VZW is 1.49 vs. AT&T's 1.43. Second of all, I am talking about averaging over larger numbers (like baseball stats). It's easier to get a higher batting average if you only have 50 at bats (and you have a hot streak).
Again, you are comparing TWO different ARPU numbers. For total ARPU, VZW is $51.04 vs. AT&T $51.21. For postpaid ARPU, VZW is $52.78 vs. AT&T's $61.23. All those TRACFONE subscribers that paid $15 ARPU drags down the whole company's averages.
Yes I am talking different numbers. Sorry for the confusion. Where did you get your 3Q total ARPU number for AT&T?
And how does it negate the conclusion? ATT churn rate is going down through time. Verizon's is going up. ATT ARPU is higher, especially postpaid. And ATT has more net adds, even with postpaid.
I wasn't commenting on consumer satisfaction as a southern baby bell --- I was commenting a AI member who resides in the south getting very good AT&T 3G downloading speed, which is quite natural for a southern baby bell to have a better network in the south.
And? I had both Verizon and Sprint here. They sucked worse then Verizon and Sprint CDMA. Dropped calls aplenty. So I can say CDMA sucks?
You were making an implicit point that since ATT doesn't have better service than Verizon in the place were tech geeks and reports live (supposedly in SF-Bay Area, Chicago, and NYC), it meant that ATT was inferior. Another implicit point their is that perception is reality.
Well, when dealing with 80 million customers, tech geeks and reporters don't have as much power as they think.
Yes I am talking different numbers. Sorry for the confusion. Where did you get your 3Q total ARPU number for AT&T?
And how does it negate the conclusion? ATT churn rate is going down through time. Verizon's is going up. ATT ARPU is higher, especially postpaid. And ATT has more net adds, even with postpaid.
You were making an implicit point that since ATT doesn't have better service than Verizon in the place were tech geeks and reports live (supposedly in SF-Bay Area, Chicago, and NYC), it meant that ATT was inferior. Another implicit point their is that perception is reality.
Well, when dealing with 80 million customers, tech geeks and reporters don't have as much power as they think.
The numbers are in the quarterly financial reports.
I am not negating anything. But it is a fact that the two carriers have very similar churn numbers, similar total ARPU, similar net adds. Everything is similar, except that Verizon doesn't have to pay a king's ransom for the iphone.
I am making an explicit point that since Verizon is the baby bell for New York City --- it is natural for them to have more faciliites, more cell towers, more fiber optic cables in the sewers linking to the cell towers in NYC. I am making a second explicit point that the people most likely to have a smartphone are going to be people who live in cities like NYC, Boston and Washington DC. I am making a third explicit point that we read national news reports from reporters who live in NYC --- of course they are going to report that they have a better Verizon coverage in NYC.
That has nothing to do with perception is reality that AT&T's network is inferior. AT&T's network is inferior because they had to deal with 4 different networks at the same time a few years ago (analog, TDMA, GSM and UMTS networks), they went through a Cingular/AT&T Wireless merger in 2004/5.... Verizon's network is superior because they hadn't have a major merger since Verizon was founded in 2000 (not counting Alltel in Jan this year), that analog-cdmaOne-cdma 1x-ev-do upgrades were simpler to deal with.