First you say that people won't switch to a carrier to get the phone they want, then you say that brand loyalty is a known phenomena. DOES NOT COMPUTE It's been well documented that AT&T is gaining more customers and having less turnover since getting the iPhone.
The last Strand report on cell phone market share showed that AT&T gained no market share from offering the iPhone. It might have prevented them from losing customers because of their service but not gaining customers.[/QUOTE]
Yep, we're all delusional, and Strand Consult offers "proof" of how we've all been taken in by Apple by listing 20 deficiencies of the iPhone platform (most of which, by the way, are no longer valid). The company even goes so far as to say:
In reality the iPhone is surrounded by a multitude of people, media and companies that are happy to bend the truth to defend the product they have purchased from Apple.
Not only are we all delusional wackos, but we're also liars! Strand wittily created a name for our disease -- The iPhone Syndrome -- and is glad to share this with everyone in a free report. Of course, you have to register to get the report, which most likely puts you on a marketing email list. The following quote may provide some insight into the potential customers they're hoping to reach with this report.
A sterling example of objective analysis, and a sharp-eyed and discerning consultant with a finger on the pulse of all things mobile because:
Quote:
Unlike many of those that sell information about the mobile future, we are not financially dependent on technology providers, phone manufacturers or infrastructure providers. We make a living from advising mobile operators on how to achieve success and make a profit for their shareholders.”
Translation from Danish to English: research coming from Strand Consult is admirably impartial in championing the cause of wireless carriers. Which isn’t to say it doesn’t contain any truth but it does say that we know who’s paying the company’s phone bills.
Riding comfortably in the carriers' pocket, delivering the kind of analysis only a pocketed analyst can give.
From what I have been able to gather, I think that Apple's recent dev agreement changes are under scrutiny.
The changes make it clear that if a dev wants in on a vendor with monopoly power in the app business (Apple), it must write its app in such a manner that it is unsuitable for any other vendor's store.
IOW, they are trying to use their power in selling apps to hurt other app vendors, and in turn, other hardware manufacturers.
So the allegation seems to be that they are using their monopoly power in one market (mobile apps) to disadvantage competitors in another market (mobile phones).
I have no idea of whether this analysis is valid. It is my best guess.
In your own words, how do you understand the word monopoly?
3% market share is a monopoly?
You are aware of course that monopoly itself is not against the law?
Quote:
So the allegation seems to be that they are using their monopoly power in one market (mobile apps) to disadvantage competitors in another market (mobile phones).
How exactly did they have monopoly in mobile Apps?
Last I heard, Apple has around 200K Apps and coounting. But didn't the Android group also boasted
Sure the Apple mobile Apps may seem to you a monopoly
But weren't they developed specifically for iPhone OS mobile products?
Were these Apps imposed on other mobile devices, outside of Apple products?
Did Apple impose upon individual developers not to create versions of these Apps for other devices?
Did Apple monopolize the hundreds of thousands of developers?
Do these developers have the ability to create Apps for other companies?
From what I have been able to gather, I think that Apple's recent dev agreement changes are under scrutiny.
The changes make it clear that if a dev wants in on a vendor with monopoly power in the app business (Apple), it must write its app in such a manner that it is unsuitable for any other vendor's store.
IOW, they are trying to use their power in selling apps to hurt other app vendors, and in turn, other hardware manufacturers.
So the allegation seems to be that they are using their monopoly power in one market (mobile apps) to disadvantage competitors in another market (mobile phones).
I have no idea of whether this analysis is valid. It is my best guess.
Apple is not disadvantaging competitors in the mobile phone market. The only market they might be disadvantaging is the mobile apps development tools market.
Note that Adobe says it doesn't question Apple's right to set the rules for its platform, including app development tools. See Geschke's interview at AllThingsD.
Same here. But I know several people who just won't leave Verizon but who eagerly want an iPhone.
You missed the point of my statement you responded to here. Someone posted that I was arguing for iPhones for other companies like Verizon, because I want one for myself.
In fact, my original point is a variant of what you stated. There are more than likely many customers who are likely not to leave Verizon, even if they wanted to have an iPhone. I went even further, that there might be those who migrated to AT&T that may go back to Verizon, if a Verizon iPhone becomes available. I am not the only one who presented this argument.
I went even further in speculating that some customers who might have initially considered the iPhone might have found replacements for the iPhone, so that even if a Verizon iPhone would be offered in the future, would no longer consider an iPhone to replace their "new found favorite". This is behavior is not uncommon. I know a lot of people who married someone else other than their other professed love, because at some point they got separated. Also, inertia could dissuade people from changing set patterns. In the case of devices, sometimes you get so invested on it, you become a defender of what you get used to. A good example is the case of Flash developers who are unwilling to change their ways, even if Flasg may indeed be a dead or dying option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005
Such a number looks like it could be useful, but there are so many variables in discussing the potential customer base worldwide. For example, Apple just sold about 1.2-1.5m iPhones into China Unicom's 160m+ subscriber base in its first 2 quarters, which is about half as successful as Apple selling 1.3m iPhones to AT&T's 80m subscriber base in its first 2quarters in 2007. But what portion of that subscriber base is looking to buy any smartphone?
The whole point of raising the separation of data -- other parts of the world and US, was that the iPhone was introduced at different times. You should not create a sigmoidal curve if you change the parameters, in here the scope of the ecosystem -- then claim the growth rate is increasing.
In fact, I agree with your other point. While the total population of the US, a by extension the customer base of either Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile, the average disposable income of these customers may be so much higher than some populations in other parts of the world. There are other factors of course, but they are likely to be good target customers for the iPhone.
This is one of my arguments why Apple cannot simply cede these potential customers to other phone manufacturers. To go back to my earlier point, if Apple ignores these potentiaal customers now, Apple may find that they may no longer be as receptive in the future, when Apple has the time of day to pay attention to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005
AT&T and Verizon have each added about 12-13m net postpaid subscribers since 1Q07 (not including purchases like Alltel). Sprint has lost 8m postpaid subscribers, which I think is a faster rate than before iPhone was introduced, though I think Sprint's 2008 customer service fiasco is mostly to blame. Verizon has 82m postpaid subscribers, AT&T 65m, and Sprint 33m. (I have spotty T-Mobile numbers.)
In both these cases, your observation above and the one below, a potential fallacy of correlation between phenomenon and causation can happen, as interpreted by other previous posters, if the correlation of the data are not well scrutinized.
I forgot the classic example for this kind of fallacy now. So, I will invent one:
It was cloudy all week.
The sun was not seen rising the same week.
The clouds caused the sun not to rise.
It may very well be that if the iPhone were available to Sprint, Verizon and AT&T, it might not have averted Sprint customers from jumping ship more than likely to Verizon and AT&T.
Note that as you stated, Verizon gained customers even without the iPhone. Thus, during the same period while AT&T gained customers at the same time that the iPhone was introduced, one can only say that it might have contributed but whether it was the sole or main cause need to be scrutinized further because of the similar gains in Verizon, without the iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005
AT&T and Verizon postpaid churn is about 1.1. Sprint and T-Mobile over 2. AT&T's is lower by about 15-20% since iPhone, Verizon's higher by about 20%, Sprint and T-Mobile lower by about 5-10%. So people are continuing to switch. But the penetration rate for cellphones has gone (or is about to go) over 100% in the US - meaning that many people have more than one subscription, and likely more than one phone.
Which makes these correlations even more dubious because of the complexity.
If I am not mistaken, the trend you were referring to came from "Business Insider: SAI" (or some other pseudo-analyst); which has this penchant for posting figures to focus on an observed trend, then make claims about what caused the phenomenon, without really providing any detailed study of how they arrived at the potential cause. In relation to churning:
What is dubious about such correlation is that they also found another phenomenon that does not sit very well with the aforementioned observation:
Dropped calls hurt AT&T customer satisfaction
Then another post indicated
High satisfaction among iPhone users
Which is causing what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005
Approximately 3.5m iPhone activations in year 1, 8.3m in year 2, 9m so far in 9 mos of year 3 (maybe another 2-3m in this quarter depending on the launch date for iPhone 4th Gen). Since some are upgrades of previous iPhones, I estimate about 15-17m AT&T subcribers are using iPhone; around 20-25% of AT&T postpaid subscribers. I think it's slowing, but cellphones are replaced every 18-24 mos. So AT&T may look saturated, but the 8m from year 2 are primed for upgrades. And of course, many who have not yet bought smartphones are also beginning to do so. Canalys estimates 65m will buy smartphones in North America in 2010 (47m bought smartphones in 2009).
I'll have to address the rest of your post later. Gotta go.
It is possible that will happen. But, the sales will not be an increase in population of customers but rather simply a replenishment. Since the old phones are likely not thrown away, it may very well lead to "increase customers" within AT&T since it is the only carrier compatible with the iPhone GSM. We do not know of course how the distribution will emerge of all carriers have compatible teecommunication systems.
Clearly his central point focused around Apple's concern for market share. If you want to play in semantics, then yes of course Apple does care about market share. But market share is not central to Apple's business strategy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
He never said Apple was "overly concerned" He said "If Apple doesn't care about market share..."
Argue against his position, not made-up words that you put into his mouth.
You missed the point of my statement you responded to here. Someone posted that I was arguing for iPhones for other companies like Verizon, because I want one for myself.
....
This is one of my arguments why Apple cannot simply cede these potential customers to other phone manufacturers. To go back to my earlier point, if Apple ignores these potential customers now, Apple may find that they may no longer be as receptive in the future, when Apple has the time of day to pay attention to them.
I wasn't arguing for any point; just saying that there are people who won't leave Verizon. And I agree there may be switchers back to Verizon if iPhone were available. From anecdotal evidence (which therefore could be wrong), many iPhone users love their iPhone but just tolerate AT&T and would love to go elsewhere as long as they could keep their iPhone. I've not seen any surveys on this, and AT&T would certainly not say anything.
I also agree that some portion who went with an alternate phone won't switch early, but I'm sure how "sticky" other phones like Android are, and most people are willing to consider a different phone when their contracts are up. Some, of course, will fall in love with Google apps and its Web hooks. But as far as I can tell from surveying those around me, Blackberries and iPhones (data not over a long period) seem the most sticky.
Quote:
In both these cases, your observation above and the one below, a potential fallacy of correlation between phenomenon and causation can happen, as interpreted by other previous posters, if the correlation of the data are not well scrutinized.
...
It may very well be that if the iPhone were available to Sprint, Verizon and AT&T, it might not have averted Sprint customers from jumping ship more than likely to Verizon and AT&T.
Note that as you stated, Verizon gained customers even without the iPhone. Thus, during the same period while AT&T gained customers at the same time that the iPhone was introduced, one can only say that it might have contributed but whether it was the sole or main cause need to be scrutinized further because of the similar gains in Verizon, without the iPhone.
I agree it is difficult to attribute causation to any of this data without surveys that ask for motives. All we can do is look at lots of different pieces of evidence/data and make our best guess.
So we do know that sometime during this period, Verizon issued exit surveys (search AI), and added the choice "iPhone" to the list of reasons for leaving. So Verizon got some data, which of course, hasn't been released. We can reasonably speculate that iPhone was added because people were responding with "Other - iPhone", but we don't really know why.
We also know point based on published survey data, most people like Verizon for precisely the reason they advertise, network reliability. Verizon has claimed before that network reliability is the reason for their low churn (don't have source; think it was conference call but too lazy to search through transcripts).
We also know that many (and in some cases, the majority) of new AT&T subscribers were signing up for iPhones. Of course, they might've switched to AT&T for other reasons and just happen to choose an iPhone.
AT&T has told us that iPhone subscribers are much less likely to leave AT&T than its users of other cellphones.
Quote:
If I am not mistaken, the trend you were referring to came from "Business Insider: SAI" (or some other pseudo-analyst); which has this penchant for posting figures to focus on an observed trend, then make claims about what caused the phenomenon, without really providing any detailed study of how they arrived at the potential cause. In relation to churning:
I wasn't referring to SAI. The numbers are from their quarterly reports. Postpaid churn is a key metric for US carriers (at least Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint). Again, I don't attribute causation unless the carrier itself gives a cause in their report or conference call.
Quote:
What is dubious about such correlation is that they also found another phenomenon that does not sit very well with the aforementioned observation:
Dropped calls hurt AT&T customer satisfaction
Then another post indicated
High satisfaction among iPhone users
Which is causing what?
Well, both could be true at the same time. iPhone users are immensely satisfied, but the imperfection is dropped calls. And among other AT&T non-iPhone users, dropped calls are seen to be bringing down customer satisfaction even more.
By the way, I'm on record here as saying that I think this year (Sept or so) is the time for Apple to use it's Verizon trump card. On a previous post, I gave a list of five reasons why I think it might happen, and others added a couple more. I don't think the cost of implementing a CDMA phone is a big deal (I have reason to believe that Apple has had a CDMA iPhone in the lab since the beginning - just waiting for the go ahead to move to a production design. Just like they had an Intel version of Mac OS X from the beginning.)
By the way, I'm on record here as saying that I think this year (Sept or so) is the time for Apple to use it's Verizon trump card. On a previous post, I gave a list of five reasons why I think it might happen, and others added a couple more. I don't think the cost of implementing a CDMA phone is a big deal (I have reason to believe that Apple has had a CDMA iPhone in the lab since the beginning - just waiting for the go ahead to move to a production design. Just like they had an Intel version of Mac OS X from the beginning.)
I am advocating for Apple to seriously consider other carriers in the US and abroad, especially in China. The US is very critical and I hope they consider developing for Verizon and also the other carriers, eventually.
I agree there is no technological impediment to other variants of the iPhone; other phone manufacturers do supply phones to various telecommunications platforms. In the case of Apple, they did consider Verizon as their first choice; I agree that they did consider CDMA iPhone even at inception.
The US telecommunications industry is still largely an oligopoly, but the presence of iPhone in the major carriers would at least provice competition, For customers this may lead to better prices and services.
For Apple, as I noted before, this will give them a chance to stake a claim while the high-end phones are still in flux. Android is still in infancy. Windows Mobile 7 has yet to gain traction, if it ever will. RIM while it had a headstart does not have the technology and ecosystem comparable to Apple IPhone OS ecosystem. The Palm OS may yet have some chance if HP will devote more resources to develop it. Nokia seems not to be making any headway, at least in the North American market. It has not yet much progress in developing its OS that would really challenge the IPhone OS.
I am advocating for Apple to seriously consider other carriers in the US and abroad, especially in China. The US is very critical and I hope they consider developing for Verizon and also the other carriers, eventually.
...
For Apple, as I noted before, this will give them a chance to stake a claim while the high-end phones are still in flux. Android is still in infancy. Windows Mobile 7 has yet to gain traction, if it ever will. RIM while it had a headstart does not have the technology and ecosystem comparable to Apple IPhone OS ecosystem. The Palm OS may yet have some chance if HP will devote more resources to develop it. Nokia seems not to be making any headway, at least in the North American market. It has not yet much progress in developing its OS that would really challenge the IPhone OS.
CGC
From what I know and have seen in the smartphone market, I totally agree with your position. That said, I know Apple has better global data than I do. Based on their very calculated and strategic actions over the last 10 years in building the many interconnected Apple strands (products, stores, etc), I trust that Jobs doesn't allow them to have blindspots, and thus, they can see clearly what they should do to stay ahead of all their competitors in building the iPhone platform. Basically, I think they know better than I do.
Apple has chosen to move very deliberately in ramping production and entering markets. I expect they have reasons that I can't see yet, just like it's hard to see what they're doing with all their acquisitions. In the past, I've always wanted them to move faster, whether it was with iPods, Macs, AppleTVs, home networked storage, etc. But they haven't moved that quickly and yet they've succeeded.
Comments
First you say that people won't switch to a carrier to get the phone they want, then you say that brand loyalty is a known phenomena. DOES NOT COMPUTE It's been well documented that AT&T is gaining more customers and having less turnover since getting the iPhone.
The last Strand report on cell phone market share showed that AT&T gained no market share from offering the iPhone. It might have prevented them from losing customers because of their service but not gaining customers.[/QUOTE]
Strand Report....Strand Report.... oh yeah (via TUAW):
Yep, we're all delusional, and Strand Consult offers "proof" of how we've all been taken in by Apple by listing 20 deficiencies of the iPhone platform (most of which, by the way, are no longer valid). The company even goes so far as to say:
In reality the iPhone is surrounded by a multitude of people, media and companies that are happy to bend the truth to defend the product they have purchased from Apple.
Not only are we all delusional wackos, but we're also liars! Strand wittily created a name for our disease -- The iPhone Syndrome -- and is glad to share this with everyone in a free report. Of course, you have to register to get the report, which most likely puts you on a marketing email list. The following quote may provide some insight into the potential customers they're hoping to reach with this report.
A sterling example of objective analysis, and a sharp-eyed and discerning consultant with a finger on the pulse of all things mobile because:
Unlike many of those that sell information about the mobile future, we are not financially dependent on technology providers, phone manufacturers or infrastructure providers. We make a living from advising mobile operators on how to achieve success and make a profit for their shareholders.”
Translation from Danish to English: research coming from Strand Consult is admirably impartial in championing the cause of wireless carriers. Which isn’t to say it doesn’t contain any truth but it does say that we know who’s paying the company’s phone bills.
Riding comfortably in the carriers' pocket, delivering the kind of analysis only a pocketed analyst can give.
From what I have been able to gather, I think that Apple's recent dev agreement changes are under scrutiny.
The changes make it clear that if a dev wants in on a vendor with monopoly power in the app business (Apple), it must write its app in such a manner that it is unsuitable for any other vendor's store.
IOW, they are trying to use their power in selling apps to hurt other app vendors, and in turn, other hardware manufacturers.
So the allegation seems to be that they are using their monopoly power in one market (mobile apps) to disadvantage competitors in another market (mobile phones).
I have no idea of whether this analysis is valid. It is my best guess.
In your own words, how do you understand the word monopoly?
3% market share is a monopoly?
You are aware of course that monopoly itself is not against the law?
So the allegation seems to be that they are using their monopoly power in one market (mobile apps) to disadvantage competitors in another market (mobile phones).
How exactly did they have monopoly in mobile Apps?
Last I heard, Apple has around 200K Apps and coounting. But didn't the Android group also boasted
Sure the Apple mobile Apps may seem to you a monopoly
CGC
From what I have been able to gather, I think that Apple's recent dev agreement changes are under scrutiny.
The changes make it clear that if a dev wants in on a vendor with monopoly power in the app business (Apple), it must write its app in such a manner that it is unsuitable for any other vendor's store.
IOW, they are trying to use their power in selling apps to hurt other app vendors, and in turn, other hardware manufacturers.
So the allegation seems to be that they are using their monopoly power in one market (mobile apps) to disadvantage competitors in another market (mobile phones).
I have no idea of whether this analysis is valid. It is my best guess.
Apple is not disadvantaging competitors in the mobile phone market. The only market they might be disadvantaging is the mobile apps development tools market.
Note that Adobe says it doesn't question Apple's right to set the rules for its platform, including app development tools. See Geschke's interview at AllThingsD.
Same here. But I know several people who just won't leave Verizon but who eagerly want an iPhone.
You missed the point of my statement you responded to here. Someone posted that I was arguing for iPhones for other companies like Verizon, because I want one for myself.
In fact, my original point is a variant of what you stated. There are more than likely many customers who are likely not to leave Verizon, even if they wanted to have an iPhone. I went even further, that there might be those who migrated to AT&T that may go back to Verizon, if a Verizon iPhone becomes available. I am not the only one who presented this argument.
I went even further in speculating that some customers who might have initially considered the iPhone might have found replacements for the iPhone, so that even if a Verizon iPhone would be offered in the future, would no longer consider an iPhone to replace their "new found favorite". This is behavior is not uncommon. I know a lot of people who married someone else other than their other professed love, because at some point they got separated. Also, inertia could dissuade people from changing set patterns. In the case of devices, sometimes you get so invested on it, you become a defender of what you get used to. A good example is the case of Flash developers who are unwilling to change their ways, even if Flasg may indeed be a dead or dying option.
Such a number looks like it could be useful, but there are so many variables in discussing the potential customer base worldwide. For example, Apple just sold about 1.2-1.5m iPhones into China Unicom's 160m+ subscriber base in its first 2 quarters, which is about half as successful as Apple selling 1.3m iPhones to AT&T's 80m subscriber base in its first 2quarters in 2007. But what portion of that subscriber base is looking to buy any smartphone?
The whole point of raising the separation of data -- other parts of the world and US, was that the iPhone was introduced at different times. You should not create a sigmoidal curve if you change the parameters, in here the scope of the ecosystem -- then claim the growth rate is increasing.
In fact, I agree with your other point. While the total population of the US, a by extension the customer base of either Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile, the average disposable income of these customers may be so much higher than some populations in other parts of the world. There are other factors of course, but they are likely to be good target customers for the iPhone.
This is one of my arguments why Apple cannot simply cede these potential customers to other phone manufacturers. To go back to my earlier point, if Apple ignores these potentiaal customers now, Apple may find that they may no longer be as receptive in the future, when Apple has the time of day to pay attention to them.
AT&T and Verizon have each added about 12-13m net postpaid subscribers since 1Q07 (not including purchases like Alltel). Sprint has lost 8m postpaid subscribers, which I think is a faster rate than before iPhone was introduced, though I think Sprint's 2008 customer service fiasco is mostly to blame. Verizon has 82m postpaid subscribers, AT&T 65m, and Sprint 33m. (I have spotty T-Mobile numbers.)
In both these cases, your observation above and the one below, a potential fallacy of correlation between phenomenon and causation can happen, as interpreted by other previous posters, if the correlation of the data are not well scrutinized.
I forgot the classic example for this kind of fallacy now. So, I will invent one:
- It was cloudy all week.
- The sun was not seen rising the same week.
- The clouds caused the sun not to rise.
It may very well be that if the iPhone were available to Sprint, Verizon and AT&T, it might not have averted Sprint customers from jumping ship more than likely to Verizon and AT&T.Note that as you stated, Verizon gained customers even without the iPhone. Thus, during the same period while AT&T gained customers at the same time that the iPhone was introduced, one can only say that it might have contributed but whether it was the sole or main cause need to be scrutinized further because of the similar gains in Verizon, without the iPhone.
AT&T and Verizon postpaid churn is about 1.1. Sprint and T-Mobile over 2. AT&T's is lower by about 15-20% since iPhone, Verizon's higher by about 20%, Sprint and T-Mobile lower by about 5-10%. So people are continuing to switch. But the penetration rate for cellphones has gone (or is about to go) over 100% in the US - meaning that many people have more than one subscription, and likely more than one phone.
Which makes these correlations even more dubious because of the complexity.
If I am not mistaken, the trend you were referring to came from "Business Insider: SAI" (or some other pseudo-analyst); which has this penchant for posting figures to focus on an observed trend, then make claims about what caused the phenomenon, without really providing any detailed study of how they arrived at the potential cause. In relation to churning:
http://static.businessinsider.com/im...-2007-2010.gif
and then attributed the cause to the iPhone:
What is dubious about such correlation is that they also found another phenomenon that does not sit very well with the aforementioned observation:
Dropped calls hurt AT&T customer satisfaction
Then another post indicated
High satisfaction among iPhone users
Which is causing what?
Approximately 3.5m iPhone activations in year 1, 8.3m in year 2, 9m so far in 9 mos of year 3 (maybe another 2-3m in this quarter depending on the launch date for iPhone 4th Gen). Since some are upgrades of previous iPhones, I estimate about 15-17m AT&T subcribers are using iPhone; around 20-25% of AT&T postpaid subscribers. I think it's slowing, but cellphones are replaced every 18-24 mos. So AT&T may look saturated, but the 8m from year 2 are primed for upgrades. And of course, many who have not yet bought smartphones are also beginning to do so. Canalys estimates 65m will buy smartphones in North America in 2010 (47m bought smartphones in 2009).
I'll have to address the rest of your post later. Gotta go.
It is possible that will happen. But, the sales will not be an increase in population of customers but rather simply a replenishment. Since the old phones are likely not thrown away, it may very well lead to "increase customers" within AT&T since it is the only carrier compatible with the iPhone GSM. We do not know of course how the distribution will emerge of all carriers have compatible teecommunication systems.
CGC
He never said Apple was "overly concerned" He said "If Apple doesn't care about market share..."
Argue against his position, not made-up words that you put into his mouth.
You missed the point of my statement you responded to here. Someone posted that I was arguing for iPhones for other companies like Verizon, because I want one for myself.
....
This is one of my arguments why Apple cannot simply cede these potential customers to other phone manufacturers. To go back to my earlier point, if Apple ignores these potential customers now, Apple may find that they may no longer be as receptive in the future, when Apple has the time of day to pay attention to them.
I wasn't arguing for any point; just saying that there are people who won't leave Verizon. And I agree there may be switchers back to Verizon if iPhone were available. From anecdotal evidence (which therefore could be wrong), many iPhone users love their iPhone but just tolerate AT&T and would love to go elsewhere as long as they could keep their iPhone. I've not seen any surveys on this, and AT&T would certainly not say anything.
I also agree that some portion who went with an alternate phone won't switch early, but I'm sure how "sticky" other phones like Android are, and most people are willing to consider a different phone when their contracts are up. Some, of course, will fall in love with Google apps and its Web hooks. But as far as I can tell from surveying those around me, Blackberries and iPhones (data not over a long period) seem the most sticky.
In both these cases, your observation above and the one below, a potential fallacy of correlation between phenomenon and causation can happen, as interpreted by other previous posters, if the correlation of the data are not well scrutinized.
...
It may very well be that if the iPhone were available to Sprint, Verizon and AT&T, it might not have averted Sprint customers from jumping ship more than likely to Verizon and AT&T.
Note that as you stated, Verizon gained customers even without the iPhone. Thus, during the same period while AT&T gained customers at the same time that the iPhone was introduced, one can only say that it might have contributed but whether it was the sole or main cause need to be scrutinized further because of the similar gains in Verizon, without the iPhone.
I agree it is difficult to attribute causation to any of this data without surveys that ask for motives. All we can do is look at lots of different pieces of evidence/data and make our best guess.
So we do know that sometime during this period, Verizon issued exit surveys (search AI), and added the choice "iPhone" to the list of reasons for leaving. So Verizon got some data, which of course, hasn't been released. We can reasonably speculate that iPhone was added because people were responding with "Other - iPhone", but we don't really know why.
We also know point based on published survey data, most people like Verizon for precisely the reason they advertise, network reliability. Verizon has claimed before that network reliability is the reason for their low churn (don't have source; think it was conference call but too lazy to search through transcripts).
We also know that many (and in some cases, the majority) of new AT&T subscribers were signing up for iPhones. Of course, they might've switched to AT&T for other reasons and just happen to choose an iPhone.
AT&T has told us that iPhone subscribers are much less likely to leave AT&T than its users of other cellphones.
If I am not mistaken, the trend you were referring to came from "Business Insider: SAI" (or some other pseudo-analyst); which has this penchant for posting figures to focus on an observed trend, then make claims about what caused the phenomenon, without really providing any detailed study of how they arrived at the potential cause. In relation to churning:
http://static.businessinsider.com/im...-2007-2010.gif
and then attributed the cause to the iPhone:
I wasn't referring to SAI. The numbers are from their quarterly reports. Postpaid churn is a key metric for US carriers (at least Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint). Again, I don't attribute causation unless the carrier itself gives a cause in their report or conference call.
What is dubious about such correlation is that they also found another phenomenon that does not sit very well with the aforementioned observation:
Dropped calls hurt AT&T customer satisfaction
Then another post indicated
High satisfaction among iPhone users
Which is causing what?
Well, both could be true at the same time. iPhone users are immensely satisfied, but the imperfection is dropped calls. And among other AT&T non-iPhone users, dropped calls are seen to be bringing down customer satisfaction even more.
By the way, I'm on record here as saying that I think this year (Sept or so) is the time for Apple to use it's Verizon trump card. On a previous post, I gave a list of five reasons why I think it might happen, and others added a couple more. I don't think the cost of implementing a CDMA phone is a big deal (I have reason to believe that Apple has had a CDMA iPhone in the lab since the beginning - just waiting for the go ahead to move to a production design. Just like they had an Intel version of Mac OS X from the beginning.)
By the way, I'm on record here as saying that I think this year (Sept or so) is the time for Apple to use it's Verizon trump card. On a previous post, I gave a list of five reasons why I think it might happen, and others added a couple more. I don't think the cost of implementing a CDMA phone is a big deal (I have reason to believe that Apple has had a CDMA iPhone in the lab since the beginning - just waiting for the go ahead to move to a production design. Just like they had an Intel version of Mac OS X from the beginning.)
I am advocating for Apple to seriously consider other carriers in the US and abroad, especially in China. The US is very critical and I hope they consider developing for Verizon and also the other carriers, eventually.
I agree there is no technological impediment to other variants of the iPhone; other phone manufacturers do supply phones to various telecommunications platforms. In the case of Apple, they did consider Verizon as their first choice; I agree that they did consider CDMA iPhone even at inception.
The US telecommunications industry is still largely an oligopoly, but the presence of iPhone in the major carriers would at least provice competition, For customers this may lead to better prices and services.
For Apple, as I noted before, this will give them a chance to stake a claim while the high-end phones are still in flux. Android is still in infancy. Windows Mobile 7 has yet to gain traction, if it ever will. RIM while it had a headstart does not have the technology and ecosystem comparable to Apple IPhone OS ecosystem. The Palm OS may yet have some chance if HP will devote more resources to develop it. Nokia seems not to be making any headway, at least in the North American market. It has not yet much progress in developing its OS that would really challenge the IPhone OS.
CGC
I am advocating for Apple to seriously consider other carriers in the US and abroad, especially in China. The US is very critical and I hope they consider developing for Verizon and also the other carriers, eventually.
...
For Apple, as I noted before, this will give them a chance to stake a claim while the high-end phones are still in flux. Android is still in infancy. Windows Mobile 7 has yet to gain traction, if it ever will. RIM while it had a headstart does not have the technology and ecosystem comparable to Apple IPhone OS ecosystem. The Palm OS may yet have some chance if HP will devote more resources to develop it. Nokia seems not to be making any headway, at least in the North American market. It has not yet much progress in developing its OS that would really challenge the IPhone OS.
CGC
From what I know and have seen in the smartphone market, I totally agree with your position. That said, I know Apple has better global data than I do. Based on their very calculated and strategic actions over the last 10 years in building the many interconnected Apple strands (products, stores, etc), I trust that Jobs doesn't allow them to have blindspots, and thus, they can see clearly what they should do to stay ahead of all their competitors in building the iPhone platform. Basically, I think they know better than I do.
Apple has chosen to move very deliberately in ramping production and entering markets. I expect they have reasons that I can't see yet, just like it's hard to see what they're doing with all their acquisitions. In the past, I've always wanted them to move faster, whether it was with iPods, Macs, AppleTVs, home networked storage, etc. But they haven't moved that quickly and yet they've succeeded.