Given the market reaction on both stocks today, the CEOs have no choice.
What a ludicrous statement from a typically over-inflated sense of importance stock market oriented philosophy.
Attitudes like this are the biggest danger to American companies - thankfully there are at least a few companies that don't totally pander to every whim of the markets, shareholders or analysts. Too bad more companies don't tell shareholders and analysts where to stick it.
I never understood this mentality from "the market". Why the heck would you invest in a company (i.e. buy stock) if you didn't think they knew what they were doing to the point that you felt you needed to demand they do things differently. It's the same reason so many mergers and acquisitions fail - aside from the difficulties in doing them, why buy a company (presumably because it was successful and therefor had value) and then set out to change it?
Totally daft - yet here we are with a shining example of "tail wagging the dog" BS.
Apple is in the top three companies for market cap - someone knows what the heck they are doing and it sure as heck isn't because of the input of a bunch of idiot shareholders, analysts or investment bankers. I don't think any tail wagging is necessary but call me crazy.
WSJ also reported that the iPad would have a "facial recognition front-facing camera" and that it would be $1000
This is what the WSJ said about the camera:
"This person said Apple has experimented with the ability to leave virtual sticky notes on the device and for the gadget to automatically recognize individuals via a built-in camera. It is unclear whether these features will be included at launch."
This is what the WSJ said about the price:
"Analysts say demand will depend on its price, which some believe will be about $1,000."
Here are the links to the pre-iPad-launch WSJ rumor articles:
Everyone seems to be glossing over the real point of this article. Why the hell would Apple release a CDMA iphone but not for Verizon? Doesn't make sense. They'd either put some R&D into CDMA and release for the largest carrier in the US or not bother with CDMA and wait for VZ to fully roll out LTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34
Any talk of a LTE-only phone without CDMA supporting Verizon is fallacy.
I 100% agree with that statement. However, whether Apple decides to make an LTE/CDMA iphone at all is a different story.
Steve never said it was five years. Both he and Randall Stephenson said it was a multi-year exclusive.
USAToday reported that it was for five years with no official source, but a year later in 2008, said that it had been renegotiated into a 3-year deal ending in 2010. It claimed the renegotiation was precipitated by Apple changing from an unsubsidized phone but data plan revenue sharing arrangement to a subsidized phone with no revenue sharing arrangement.
Hmmm, maybe then it is this USA Today report I am remembering then. I could have sworn it was announced in the keynote. Oh well. Thanks for the info Mark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
Nothing.
You are on a rumors site after all and Apple is Doomed? unless they capitulate to Verizon
Nah, Apple will be Just Fine? without Verizon. AT&T just needs to shore up their network in New York, LA, and other huge markets and all will be well.
Even if there is an LTE phone that let's say spottily covers half the US by the end of 2010, it will need a network to fall back on when not in LTE coverage. For Verizon, that will be CDMA. And it will need the ability to fall back for a long time after 2010.
3G began implementation over 6 years ago. And today, none of the US carriers can claim 100% coverage. Do you really think LTE coverage will happen faster than that? Or that Apple would wait that long to introduce an LTE phone for Verizon (with no fall back)?
Finally, would Apple want to take the risk of introducing a phone that has both a brand new first-time ever (for Apple) LTE implementation and a brand new first-time ever (for Apple) CDMA implementation? Or would they rather take it in steps?
Agreed. From a technology perspective, Apple will have to do a CDMA version of the iPhone IF they want to enter the Verizon market in any time frame short of 5 -10 years, i.e. LTE would be so pervasive that they would not need a fallback technology.
So do they want to enter the Verizon market? It's probably the biggest market that they have not entered, world wide. Apple probably is going to begin to see slowing growth rates in the ATT market just due to saturation. Google/Android has a toehold in the Verizon market. The longer that Google is left to be the premier OS in that market, the more difficult it will be for Apple to displace them. ATT is undoubtably working hard to improve the quality of their network but even if they fixed it completely today, the perception would take several years to catch up. So Verizon will be perceived to have a superior network for at least several years.
When you add all of the market and technology issues up, I don't see how Apple doesn't introduce a CDMA iPhone. Timing? My guess is that Apple called WSJ for a prerelease to freeze up the market for a few months.
From a business point of view, it comes down to a guesstimate of how many additional iPhones Verizon will need to deliver to Apple to offset the lost subsidy from AT&T.
Estimates for the current subsidy range from $300 to over $400 per iPhone.
If the subsidy drops 33%, then the total number of iPhones sold will need to increase 50% to bring the same amount of profit to Apple. If it drops 50%, the the total sold needs to double.
Not saying that it cannot happen, just noting the numbers involved.
What you are leaving out is that Apple would sell 6-8 million iPhones essentially for free to Verizon customers who refuse to leave the Verizon network.
If I were Steve Jobs a Verizon iPhone is the last thing I'll ever do.
I want to see Ivan Seidenberg running naked in the middle of Time Square with the phrase "I'm Apple's bitch" tattooed on his ass before considering a Verizon iPhone.
Never forget! Verizon laughed off the iPhone and then attacked it in a series of ads.
I am glad you don't run Apple. You clearly have no idea how business is done.
What a ludicrous statement from a typically over-inflated sense of importance stock market oriented philosophy. (Blah Blah)
........ I don't think any tail wagging is necessary but call me crazy.
You can rant all you want, but I am not making a value-judgment here, unlike you. Just stating an observation/prediction, that's all. Even if Apple doesn't bend to the market's whims -- that may or may not be true at some level, who knows -- Apple is only one of two players here.
Verizon is not Apple.
It is quite possible that, if you were CEO of Verizon, you see a price move like today's (which pretty much is one of the best stock price days you've had as a company) and conclude that the market is trying to tell you something. It is, in turn, likely that it could change your behavior and your negotiating stance with Apple, because your senior managers, your board, your analysts, your institutional investors are all nudging you in that direction. That, in turn, could make Apple reconsider.
Many such corporate actions are endogenous to price signals, just as prices themselves are endogenous to corporate actions -- it sometimes becomes difficult to separate cause and effect.
Agreed. From a technology perspective, Apple will have to do a CDMA version of the iPhone IF they want to enter the Verizon market in any time frame short of 5 -10 years, i.e. LTE would be so pervasive that they would not need a fallback technology.
So do they want to enter the Verizon market? It's probably the biggest market that they have not entered, world wide. Apple probably is going to begin to see slowing growth rates in the ATT market just due to saturation. Google/Android has a toehold in the Verizon market. The longer that Google is left to be the premier OS in that market, the more difficult it will be for Apple to displace them. ATT is undoubtably working hard to improve the quality of their network but even if they fixed it completely today, the perception would take several years to catch up. So Verizon will be perceived to have a superior network for at least several years.
When you add all of the market and technology issues up, I don't see how Apple doesn't introduce a CDMA iPhone. Timing? My guess is that Apple called WSJ for a prerelease to freeze up the market for a few months.
Welcome, a1ang.
Verizon is probably the second biggest carrier left for Apple. China Mobile with 500m (or whatever) subs is clearly the biggest with no iPhone, and Apple has been in long-running talks with them. After Verizon, China Telecom and NTT DoCoMo (Japan) are next, in the 50-60m subs range, unless one of the Pakistan carriers is bigger. Pakistan is estimated to have 90-100m subs. I have no idea who the carriers are there but Apple isn't on any of them.
Interestingly, Verizon and China Telecom both have CDMA networks, and DoCoMo has a W-CDMA network. The WSJ article said Apple was seeking a dual CDMA/W-CDMA chip from Qualcomm. If that came to be, there would be one phone for 240m subscribers (including Sprint). Seems worth it to me.
Verizon is probably the second biggest carrier left for Apple. China Mobile with 500m (or whatever) subs is clearly the biggest with no iPhone, and Apple has been in long-running talks with them. After Verizon, China Telecom and NTT DoCoMo (Japan) are next, in the 50-60m subs range, unless one of the Pakistan carriers is bigger. Pakistan is estimated to have 90-100m subs. I have no idea who the carriers are there but Apple isn't on any of them.
Interestingly, Verizon and China Telecom both have CDMA networks, and DoCoMo has a W-CDMA network. The WSJ article said Apple was seeking a dual CDMA/W-CDMA chip from Qualcomm. If that came to be, there would be one phone for 240m subscribers (including Sprint). Seems worth it to me.
I think the next biggest carrier for a country by subscriber totals after China Mobile is India's Reliance Communications with nearly 100M subs, and perhaps India's Tata Teleservices which is on par with China Telecom with 60M subs. From what I can tell Japan's au carrier using CDMA/EV-DO is only about 35M subs, with NTT DoCoMo already using W-CDMA, but not selling the iPhone.
I'm not sure a "world mode" chips makes sense. They are larger, cost more (especially for Qualcomm licensing) and seem to be more inefficient. Having all that in every iPhone would be a waste, IMO. On top of that, why isn't every phone vendor using it if it's such a great idea. Only a few are using it and for only a select few phones. Furthermore, the Storm 2 that has the "European 3G radios" and works for CDMA in the US doesn't have the 3G radios to work on AT&T or T-Mobile. I'm sure that isn't a coincidence.
I think the next biggest carrier for a country by subscriber totals after China Mobile is India's Reliance Communications with nearly 100M subs, and perhaps India's Tata Teleservices which is on par with China Telecom with 60M subs. From what I can tell Japan's au carrier using CDMA/EV-DO is only about 35M subs, with NTT DoCoMo already using W-CDMA, but not selling the iPhone.
Good catch. I skipped over India in my spreadsheet.
From a business point of view, it comes down to a guesstimate of how many additional iPhones Verizon will need to deliver to Apple to offset the lost subsidy from AT&T.
Estimates for the current subsidy range from $300 to over $400 per iPhone.
If the subsidy drops 33%, then the total number of iPhones sold will need to increase 50% to bring the same amount of profit to Apple. If it drops 50%, the the total sold needs to double.
Not saying that it cannot happen, just noting the numbers involved.
I like the logic but it may be more complex that that. Apple has a very strong hand in the US. Verizon really want it so will probably cave to a similar subsidy to AT&Ts current one. AT&T's subscriber growth and ARPS growth has been largely dependent on the iPhone so Apple has a pretty strong case here too (though one assumes their subs growth disappears with a VZW iPhone). Apple could threaten them with losing the iPhone? I would expect AT&Ts subsidy to decline a bit but VZWs to be strong. The seeming inelasticity of VZW subscriber base also comes into play. There should be huge pent up demand on VZW but VZW does not lose customers either way (better network etc.).
On a slightly related note, it will be fascinating to see what a large block of new iPhone users do to the VZW network.
It seems every time there is a new announcement from apple out of the woodwork comes opinions of some analyst that gets paid three times as much as the average joe stating that it isn't going to happen.
This guy must be from the same office that stated that the Ipad would never be released this year.
Another important factor is Android phones are becoming available on AT&T. When the iPhone was released it was in a league of its own. Nothing could compete. When the first generation Android phones came out they were poor in comparison to the iPhone; however, Android has been rapidly improving and there are a lot more models offering a lot more choice. The competition is now greater than ever before. I still believe the iPhone is the better option, but Android is no longer a bad choice.
On a slightly related note, it will be fascinating to see what a large block of new iPhone users do to the VZW network.
I would hope that Verizon has learned to some extent from the ATT experience. Their management has said that they will be fine. But then I've never heard a CEO admit that they will have a problem.
On a slightly related note, it will be fascinating to see what a large block of new iPhone users do to the VZW network.
I suspect they are already learning thanks to the Droid. According to AdMob, Android's share of the smartphone internet traffic (presumably this is mainly Verizon) is not far behind the iPhone.
I suspect they are already learning thanks to the Droid. According to AdMob, Android's share of the smartphone internet traffic (presumably this is mainly Verizon) is not far behind the iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by a1ang
I would hope that Verizon has learned to some extent from the ATT experience. Their management has said that they will be fine. But then I've never heard a CEO admit that they will have a problem.
Droid will teach them something but its volume is still a fraction of iPhones on AT&T. Admob's stats covers all Android phones/other devices spread across all networks and wifi (mostly T-Mob/VZW/Sprint) so I doubt VZW has anything close to the overall intensity of traffic.
The question is not that they can see it coming but what will they invest to avoid an AT&T like disaster? Their current 3G network has greater coverage but is slower overall and we have no idea about capacity nor their desire to invest in capacity, given that most of their $s are probably going to 4G given the dead-end of their 3G technology
Comments
Given the market reaction on both stocks today, the CEOs have no choice.
What a ludicrous statement from a typically over-inflated sense of importance stock market oriented philosophy.
Attitudes like this are the biggest danger to American companies - thankfully there are at least a few companies that don't totally pander to every whim of the markets, shareholders or analysts. Too bad more companies don't tell shareholders and analysts where to stick it.
I never understood this mentality from "the market". Why the heck would you invest in a company (i.e. buy stock) if you didn't think they knew what they were doing to the point that you felt you needed to demand they do things differently. It's the same reason so many mergers and acquisitions fail - aside from the difficulties in doing them, why buy a company (presumably because it was successful and therefor had value) and then set out to change it?
Totally daft - yet here we are with a shining example of "tail wagging the dog" BS.
Apple is in the top three companies for market cap - someone knows what the heck they are doing and it sure as heck isn't because of the input of a bunch of idiot shareholders, analysts or investment bankers. I don't think any tail wagging is necessary but call me crazy.
Most people [...] All they want to know is if it works on Verizon or not.
Most people? Do you work for Verizon? There's only five million difference between AT&T and Verizon - hardly "most people"
Too late I'd say..
WSJ also reported that the iPad would have a "facial recognition front-facing camera" and that it would be $1000
This is what the WSJ said about the camera:
"This person said Apple has experimented with the ability to leave virtual sticky notes on the device and for the gadget to automatically recognize individuals via a built-in camera. It is unclear whether these features will be included at launch."
This is what the WSJ said about the price:
"Analysts say demand will depend on its price, which some believe will be about $1,000."
Here are the links to the pre-iPad-launch WSJ rumor articles:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...653644260.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...731077976.html
Any talk of a LTE-only phone without CDMA supporting Verizon is fallacy.
I 100% agree with that statement. However, whether Apple decides to make an LTE/CDMA iphone at all is a different story.
Steve never said it was five years. Both he and Randall Stephenson said it was a multi-year exclusive.
USAToday reported that it was for five years with no official source, but a year later in 2008, said that it had been renegotiated into a 3-year deal ending in 2010. It claimed the renegotiation was precipitated by Apple changing from an unsubsidized phone but data plan revenue sharing arrangement to a subsidized phone with no revenue sharing arrangement.
Hmmm, maybe then it is this USA Today report I am remembering then. I could have sworn it was announced in the keynote. Oh well. Thanks for the info Mark.
Nothing.
You are on a rumors site after all and Apple is Doomed? unless they capitulate to Verizon
Nah, Apple will be Just Fine? without Verizon. AT&T just needs to shore up their network in New York, LA, and other huge markets and all will be well.
Even if there is an LTE phone that let's say spottily covers half the US by the end of 2010, it will need a network to fall back on when not in LTE coverage. For Verizon, that will be CDMA. And it will need the ability to fall back for a long time after 2010.
3G began implementation over 6 years ago. And today, none of the US carriers can claim 100% coverage. Do you really think LTE coverage will happen faster than that? Or that Apple would wait that long to introduce an LTE phone for Verizon (with no fall back)?
Finally, would Apple want to take the risk of introducing a phone that has both a brand new first-time ever (for Apple) LTE implementation and a brand new first-time ever (for Apple) CDMA implementation? Or would they rather take it in steps?
Agreed. From a technology perspective, Apple will have to do a CDMA version of the iPhone IF they want to enter the Verizon market in any time frame short of 5 -10 years, i.e. LTE would be so pervasive that they would not need a fallback technology.
So do they want to enter the Verizon market? It's probably the biggest market that they have not entered, world wide. Apple probably is going to begin to see slowing growth rates in the ATT market just due to saturation. Google/Android has a toehold in the Verizon market. The longer that Google is left to be the premier OS in that market, the more difficult it will be for Apple to displace them. ATT is undoubtably working hard to improve the quality of their network but even if they fixed it completely today, the perception would take several years to catch up. So Verizon will be perceived to have a superior network for at least several years.
When you add all of the market and technology issues up, I don't see how Apple doesn't introduce a CDMA iPhone. Timing? My guess is that Apple called WSJ for a prerelease to freeze up the market for a few months.
From a business point of view, it comes down to a guesstimate of how many additional iPhones Verizon will need to deliver to Apple to offset the lost subsidy from AT&T.
Estimates for the current subsidy range from $300 to over $400 per iPhone.
If the subsidy drops 33%, then the total number of iPhones sold will need to increase 50% to bring the same amount of profit to Apple. If it drops 50%, the the total sold needs to double.
Not saying that it cannot happen, just noting the numbers involved.
What you are leaving out is that Apple would sell 6-8 million iPhones essentially for free to Verizon customers who refuse to leave the Verizon network.
If I were Steve Jobs a Verizon iPhone is the last thing I'll ever do.
I want to see Ivan Seidenberg running naked in the middle of Time Square with the phrase "I'm Apple's bitch" tattooed on his ass before considering a Verizon iPhone.
Never forget! Verizon laughed off the iPhone and then attacked it in a series of ads.
I am glad you don't run Apple. You clearly have no idea how business is done.
What a ludicrous statement from a typically over-inflated sense of importance stock market oriented philosophy. (Blah Blah)
........ I don't think any tail wagging is necessary but call me crazy.
You can rant all you want, but I am not making a value-judgment here, unlike you. Just stating an observation/prediction, that's all. Even if Apple doesn't bend to the market's whims -- that may or may not be true at some level, who knows -- Apple is only one of two players here.
Verizon is not Apple.
It is quite possible that, if you were CEO of Verizon, you see a price move like today's (which pretty much is one of the best stock price days you've had as a company) and conclude that the market is trying to tell you something. It is, in turn, likely that it could change your behavior and your negotiating stance with Apple, because your senior managers, your board, your analysts, your institutional investors are all nudging you in that direction. That, in turn, could make Apple reconsider.
Many such corporate actions are endogenous to price signals, just as prices themselves are endogenous to corporate actions -- it sometimes becomes difficult to separate cause and effect.
No need to get on a high horse.
Agreed. From a technology perspective, Apple will have to do a CDMA version of the iPhone IF they want to enter the Verizon market in any time frame short of 5 -10 years, i.e. LTE would be so pervasive that they would not need a fallback technology.
So do they want to enter the Verizon market? It's probably the biggest market that they have not entered, world wide. Apple probably is going to begin to see slowing growth rates in the ATT market just due to saturation. Google/Android has a toehold in the Verizon market. The longer that Google is left to be the premier OS in that market, the more difficult it will be for Apple to displace them. ATT is undoubtably working hard to improve the quality of their network but even if they fixed it completely today, the perception would take several years to catch up. So Verizon will be perceived to have a superior network for at least several years.
When you add all of the market and technology issues up, I don't see how Apple doesn't introduce a CDMA iPhone. Timing? My guess is that Apple called WSJ for a prerelease to freeze up the market for a few months.
Welcome, a1ang.
Verizon is probably the second biggest carrier left for Apple. China Mobile with 500m (or whatever) subs is clearly the biggest with no iPhone, and Apple has been in long-running talks with them. After Verizon, China Telecom and NTT DoCoMo (Japan) are next, in the 50-60m subs range, unless one of the Pakistan carriers is bigger. Pakistan is estimated to have 90-100m subs. I have no idea who the carriers are there but Apple isn't on any of them.
Interestingly, Verizon and China Telecom both have CDMA networks, and DoCoMo has a W-CDMA network. The WSJ article said Apple was seeking a dual CDMA/W-CDMA chip from Qualcomm. If that came to be, there would be one phone for 240m subscribers (including Sprint). Seems worth it to me.
Welcome, a1ang.
Verizon is probably the second biggest carrier left for Apple. China Mobile with 500m (or whatever) subs is clearly the biggest with no iPhone, and Apple has been in long-running talks with them. After Verizon, China Telecom and NTT DoCoMo (Japan) are next, in the 50-60m subs range, unless one of the Pakistan carriers is bigger. Pakistan is estimated to have 90-100m subs. I have no idea who the carriers are there but Apple isn't on any of them.
Interestingly, Verizon and China Telecom both have CDMA networks, and DoCoMo has a W-CDMA network. The WSJ article said Apple was seeking a dual CDMA/W-CDMA chip from Qualcomm. If that came to be, there would be one phone for 240m subscribers (including Sprint). Seems worth it to me.
I think the next biggest carrier for a country by subscriber totals after China Mobile is India's Reliance Communications with nearly 100M subs, and perhaps India's Tata Teleservices which is on par with China Telecom with 60M subs. From what I can tell Japan's au carrier using CDMA/EV-DO is only about 35M subs, with NTT DoCoMo already using W-CDMA, but not selling the iPhone.
I'm not sure a "world mode" chips makes sense. They are larger, cost more (especially for Qualcomm licensing) and seem to be more inefficient. Having all that in every iPhone would be a waste, IMO. On top of that, why isn't every phone vendor using it if it's such a great idea. Only a few are using it and for only a select few phones. Furthermore, the Storm 2 that has the "European 3G radios" and works for CDMA in the US doesn't have the 3G radios to work on AT&T or T-Mobile. I'm sure that isn't a coincidence.
I think the next biggest carrier for a country by subscriber totals after China Mobile is India's Reliance Communications with nearly 100M subs, and perhaps India's Tata Teleservices which is on par with China Telecom with 60M subs. From what I can tell Japan's au carrier using CDMA/EV-DO is only about 35M subs, with NTT DoCoMo already using W-CDMA, but not selling the iPhone.
Good catch. I skipped over India in my spreadsheet.
From a business point of view, it comes down to a guesstimate of how many additional iPhones Verizon will need to deliver to Apple to offset the lost subsidy from AT&T.
Estimates for the current subsidy range from $300 to over $400 per iPhone.
If the subsidy drops 33%, then the total number of iPhones sold will need to increase 50% to bring the same amount of profit to Apple. If it drops 50%, the the total sold needs to double.
Not saying that it cannot happen, just noting the numbers involved.
I like the logic but it may be more complex that that. Apple has a very strong hand in the US. Verizon really want it so will probably cave to a similar subsidy to AT&Ts current one. AT&T's subscriber growth and ARPS growth has been largely dependent on the iPhone so Apple has a pretty strong case here too (though one assumes their subs growth disappears with a VZW iPhone). Apple could threaten them with losing the iPhone? I would expect AT&Ts subsidy to decline a bit but VZWs to be strong. The seeming inelasticity of VZW subscriber base also comes into play. There should be huge pent up demand on VZW but VZW does not lose customers either way (better network etc.).
On a slightly related note, it will be fascinating to see what a large block of new iPhone users do to the VZW network.
This guy must be from the same office that stated that the Ipad would never be released this year.
Wonder if my Jail broken Iphone will work on verizon. I didnt think Verizon used SIM cards.
Or GSM.
On a slightly related note, it will be fascinating to see what a large block of new iPhone users do to the VZW network.
I would hope that Verizon has learned to some extent from the ATT experience. Their management has said that they will be fine. But then I've never heard a CEO admit that they will have a problem.
On a slightly related note, it will be fascinating to see what a large block of new iPhone users do to the VZW network.
I suspect they are already learning thanks to the Droid. According to AdMob, Android's share of the smartphone internet traffic (presumably this is mainly Verizon) is not far behind the iPhone.
I suspect they are already learning thanks to the Droid. According to AdMob, Android's share of the smartphone internet traffic (presumably this is mainly Verizon) is not far behind the iPhone.
I would hope that Verizon has learned to some extent from the ATT experience. Their management has said that they will be fine. But then I've never heard a CEO admit that they will have a problem.
Droid will teach them something but its volume is still a fraction of iPhones on AT&T. Admob's stats covers all Android phones/other devices spread across all networks and wifi (mostly T-Mob/VZW/Sprint) so I doubt VZW has anything close to the overall intensity of traffic.
The question is not that they can see it coming but what will they invest to avoid an AT&T like disaster? Their current 3G network has greater coverage but is slower overall and we have no idea about capacity nor their desire to invest in capacity, given that most of their $s are probably going to 4G given the dead-end of their 3G technology