This is ridiculous. Wireless providers are getting FAR too greedy.
The way I look at it, they have always been greedy. In the early 2000's I think they even colluded with handset manufacturers to discourage competition and discourage advancements on their devices and networks. They were happy with the way things were and didn't want you to actually.. you know.. USE the network they set up because then people would being to realize what a sorry state their networks actually are in.
I hope some day people get fed up with call quality issues. I began using skype occasionally here at home and I can't believe the quality. It's truly remarkable, and for the bandwidth it makes you question just how horrible the phone companies really are.
From the article: Google Inc., Apple Inc., and Facebook Inc. need to pitch in to help pay for the billions of dollars of network investments needed for their bandwidth-hogging services, European phone operators say.
I'm nor really sure about where this ruthless huffing about carriers and phone subsidy models is all about when it's clear the article is about getting content providers, not device manufacturers, to chip in.
Both roads lead to apple, sure, but you're all arguing the wrong thing
Thats kind of like thanking the rapist for using a condom. Unfortunately they have so much lobbying power that they will keep making laws that benefit them.
That's total BS. Silicon Valley companies are many times the size of carriers. Google and Apple has become the favorite targets for FTC investigators. And Apple has become the enemy of net neutrality --- from the law professor who coined the term.
We all know how much of a bully Apple can be when it comes to this stuff. It's their way, or the highway.
If the subsidized cost simply isn't covering the bandwidth, then Apple needs to allow carriers to sell the phone at a price that makes sense for their business!
umm... no
Your analogy would make sense if Ford told BP what the cost of gas should be, and it wasn't enough to pay for the cost of getting that gas to the people.
Let's break down the iPhone revenue/cost structure.
No-contract price of iPhone 4 16GB: $700 (I'm assuming this is correct)
Price that customer pays (with 2-year contract): $200
This means that AT&T gives a $500 subsidy.
Now here is what AT&T charges for just data usage over a 2-year period:
200MB Plan: $360@$15/month for data
2GB Plan: $600@$25/month
This does not include minutes, texting, and possible overages. I bet that AT&T bets that some customers will exceed the usage limit, getting hit with an overage, which equals more money in AT&T's pocket. On a per-customer basis, AT&T makes a healthy profit on iPhone users.
It's no secret that carriers make nary a pittance on the handsets. This has always been true. That's why they give out all those BOGO deals and rebates. Carriers make money off of plans.
"iPhone hype hides the heavy subsidies that operators have to pay to Apple, coupled with the company's replacement cycle and the revenue share it demands in some markets. This means it is not the money-spinner many assume."
So Apple demands heavy subsidies be paid by the carriers, along with a share in the revenue.
Looks like I wasn't entirely wrong, and the only insult that should be made right now should be directed at you.
That's the impression of a single Danish research outfit, at least. Not really clear what they're basing it on.
However, just common-sense wise, it appears to be predicated on the kind of hard-to-swallow notion that the world's major telcom operators are incapable of making rational decisions regarding profit and loss and are eagerly taking on a money losing extortion scheme, because.....
Hard to say. The Reality Distortion Field is more powerful than we imagined? Telcoms are hipsters and posers? Honestly, the idea reads like the usual dismissal of Apple's success with consumers (they just buy what they're told, they overpay because they're blinded by style, all the cool kids are doing it) writ large.
Im no celluar engineer, so I probably needs some ed-u-ma-cation...
in the end, doesn't the cell tower tie into the internet backbone? Or does ATT and Verizon etc have seperate 'cell/data' lines criss-crossing the US?
I thought the whole purpose of going digital was to utilize this internet backbone?
The data limit issues is with the cell tower and how it handles it? So its not that someone uses 90G per month per si, its that they are tying up the cell tower and its tie in to the internet backbone down the road. This is the 'complaint', correct?
Anywhoo... its a BS complaint. Users pay for the data (cell tower allocation/time) used.
"iPhone hype hides the heavy subsidies that operators have to pay to Apple, coupled with the company's replacement cycle and the revenue share it demands in some markets. This means it is not the money-spinner many assume."
So Apple demands heavy subsidies be paid by the carriers, along with a share in the revenue.
Looks like I wasn't entirely wrong, and the only insult that should be made right now should be directed at you.
Actually, no, you still are wrong. The carrier decides the subsidy it wants on the phone. Only the accounting changes:
If you buy the phone at the carrier's shop, the phone is sold at a loss (the carrier paid $600, sold it at $200). If it is sold at a franchise shop, the situation is similar. The carrier has an agreement with Apple that if Apple sells a service contract along with the phone, then the carrier will pay the same subsidy to Apple - in all cases recovering the cost and more on the service plan.
You should get down on your knees and thank god that we are not Europe --- which their regulator just said it's perfectly ok if their carrier to block voip traffic.
And twelve years behind Japan, where I could get 100M/s fiber service to the home in 1998 for US$20 a month. Of course, in Japan I had 128k/s connectivity, unlimited, via my mobile phone in 1997, or simultaneous voice and 64k/s data. And the phone had 8 hours talk time, 30 days standby time, an FM radio, and built in voice mail.
Do not believe anything a US carrier says about the US having the most advanced cellular services - we do not and have not since the early 1990s.
The way I look at it, they have always been greedy. In the early 2000's I think they even colluded with handset manufacturers to discourage competition and discourage advancements on their devices and networks. They were happy with the way things were and didn't want you to actually.. you know.. USE the network they set up because then people would being to realize what a sorry state their networks actually are in.
I hope some day people get fed up with call quality issues. I began using skype occasionally here at home and I can't believe the quality. It's truly remarkable, and for the bandwidth it makes you question just how horrible the phone companies really are.
Actually, you are making the assumption that you are the manufacturers' customer. You are not. Phone manufacturers, until Apple came along, have only one set of customers, the carriers. You do not buy a phone from HTC or Nokia. You buy the phone from Verizon, Sprint, or T-Mobile. A manufacturer receives from the carrier a list of specifications about the phone they want, or presents a new concept to the carrier, who then proceeds to detail exactly what they want the phone to do. If the manufacturer does not do what the carrier demands, the carrier does not buy the phone. End of story for the manufacturer.
And twelve years behind Japan, where I could get 100M/s fiber service to the home in 1998 for US$20 a month. Of course, in Japan I had 128k/s connectivity, unlimited, via my mobile phone in 1997, or simultaneous voice and 64k/s data. And the phone had 8 hours talk time, 30 days standby time, an FM radio, and built in voice mail.
Do not believe anything a US carrier says about the US having the most advanced cellular services - we do not and have not since the early 1990s.
So what? NTT is government owned --- pork barrel projects and bridges to nowhere. A super fast internet that does NOTHING to the Japanese economy --- which just had 2 lost decades.
Somehow when the 3G iphone came out and wired.com did a speed survey --- the US had the third fastest speed in the whole world. Not bad for a country which was described to be years behind Europe and Asia. The US has higher 3G penetration rate than Europe now and has higher SMS usage than Europe.
I could be misinformed on this, but from all I've read about how these things worked, I was sure Apple tells the carriers what the price should be so that the iphone remains competitive.
There is one small grammatical error in your post, the word 'carriers' should use the singular. In the US, where there is no competition at all between carriers regarding the iPhone, Apple tells AT&T what it should charge for the iPhone (otherwise Apple would not be able to include a price in their presentations) and AT&T and Apple haggle behind the scenes what AT&T pays Apple per iPhone.
In most other countries, Apple sells the iPhone to the carriers at a fixed price and then the carriers decide on how much to subsidise the device, which they often do various extents depending on which plan you subscribe to and how much the customer has contributed to carriers bottom line in the past.
There is one small grammatical error in your post, the word 'carriers' should use the singular. In the US, where there is no competition at all between carriers regarding the iPhone, Apple tells AT&T what it should charge for the iPhone (otherwise Apple would not be able to include a price in their presentations) and AT&T and Apple haggle behind the scenes what AT&T pays Apple per iPhone.
In most other countries, Apple sells the iPhone to the carriers at a fixed price and then the carriers decide on how much to subsidise the device, which they often do various extents depending on which plan you subscribe to and how much the customer has contributed to carriers bottom line in the past.
I am pretty sure that Apple would be perfectly happy if AT&T just sells the iphone at zero dollar like many overseas iphone carriers.
Your first two sentences was all your comment needed to consist of. The rest is you just trying to be a dick and make this a personal argument.
If all they tell them is that each phone costs $500, then yes, I'm wrong, and a correction is all that's needed.
Well, first off I am the one that decides on the content of my posts.
2. The only insult that it contained was the suggestion that you are an apologist for the carriers because of a personal connection. I couldn't imagine any other reason. This clearly hit a nerve. Do you deny you have a personal connection with a wireless carrier? You are a sales droid in a phone shop perhaps?
I am just wondering would anyone else like to see Apple become a telecom.
Never happen. The capital requirements and infrastructure costs are too high and the margins are too low.
The fact is that it's almost impossible to keep up with bandwidth growth. Right now, Apple can implicitly blame the carriers when service is poor. If Apple owned the telecom, Apple would have to take the blame. Why would they put themselves in that position?
Apple has never been a discount provider. They'd probably raise prices.
Furthermore, such a vertical integration probably wouldn't pass muster with various governmental agencies in the U.S. and the EU. It would be considered too strong a monopoly, even though strictly, it wouldn't be a monopoly.
So if people who drive Honda use our highways more than any other make, the Federal Government should make Honda pay for road repairs?
F'ing idiots.
Honda is not equivelent... try a Mack Truck. If the vehicle weights a gizzion tons and smashes the road as it is driven and is slower, takes up space etc etc Should that one user pay more than the typical gas tax?
OR
If someone is on the cell line 24/7 and is streaming data, essentially taking out on lane of the cell tower highway, should he pay a 'higher rate per gigbyte' than a guy that gets on a few times a month?
Electrical companies do similar things with peak usage charges etc
An arguement can be made, not sure its that sound, let the beatings begin.
But it is still a thousand times better than the other countries.
Japan and South Korea --- their top wireless carriers own more than 50% of the market share.
You won't see a single industrialized country with a top carrier owning so little market share as Verizon Wireless. The top carriers in the industrialized world are mostly owning high 30's to low 40's in market share percentage. Verizon Wireless owns something like 32%.
An a thousand times better? My, how much complaints we'd see on this forum if it were something like the "other countries" with their bitrates, prices and coverage. Now that would be bad wouldn't it?
Let's break down the iPhone revenue/cost structure.
No-contract price of iPhone 4 16GB: $700 (I'm assuming this is correct)
Price that customer pays (with 2-year contract): $200
This means that AT&T gives a $500 subsidy.
Now here is what AT&T charges for just data usage over a 2-year period:
200MB Plan: $360@$15/month for data
2GB Plan: $600@$25/month
This does not include minutes, texting, and possible overages. I bet that AT&T bets that some customers will exceed the usage limit, getting hit with an overage, which equals more money in AT&T's pocket. On a per-customer basis, AT&T makes a healthy profit on iPhone users.
In Switzerland, the biggest carrier offers three (data) plans, 100 MB/month for $25, 250 MB/month for $35, and 1 GB/month for $55. These plans do not include any minutes or texts, but the call rates per minute and texts are cheaper with the more expensive plans. The handset price varies as well depending on plans and on your customer 'status' (every existing customer is sorted into five different brackets depending on how long you have been with the carrier and how much your average bill was).
Comments
This is ridiculous. Wireless providers are getting FAR too greedy.
The way I look at it, they have always been greedy. In the early 2000's I think they even colluded with handset manufacturers to discourage competition and discourage advancements on their devices and networks. They were happy with the way things were and didn't want you to actually.. you know.. USE the network they set up because then people would being to realize what a sorry state their networks actually are in.
I hope some day people get fed up with call quality issues. I began using skype occasionally here at home and I can't believe the quality. It's truly remarkable, and for the bandwidth it makes you question just how horrible the phone companies really are.
I'm nor really sure about where this ruthless huffing about carriers and phone subsidy models is all about when it's clear the article is about getting content providers, not device manufacturers, to chip in.
Both roads lead to apple, sure, but you're all arguing the wrong thing
Thats kind of like thanking the rapist for using a condom. Unfortunately they have so much lobbying power that they will keep making laws that benefit them.
That's total BS. Silicon Valley companies are many times the size of carriers. Google and Apple has become the favorite targets for FTC investigators. And Apple has become the enemy of net neutrality --- from the law professor who coined the term.
We all know how much of a bully Apple can be when it comes to this stuff. It's their way, or the highway.
If the subsidized cost simply isn't covering the bandwidth, then Apple needs to allow carriers to sell the phone at a price that makes sense for their business!
umm... no
Your analogy would make sense if Ford told BP what the cost of gas should be, and it wasn't enough to pay for the cost of getting that gas to the people.
Let's break down the iPhone revenue/cost structure.
No-contract price of iPhone 4 16GB: $700 (I'm assuming this is correct)
Price that customer pays (with 2-year contract): $200
This means that AT&T gives a $500 subsidy.
Now here is what AT&T charges for just data usage over a 2-year period:
200MB Plan: $360@$15/month for data
2GB Plan: $600@$25/month
This does not include minutes, texting, and possible overages. I bet that AT&T bets that some customers will exceed the usage limit, getting hit with an overage, which equals more money in AT&T's pocket. On a per-customer basis, AT&T makes a healthy profit on iPhone users.
It's no secret that carriers make nary a pittance on the handsets. This has always been true. That's why they give out all those BOGO deals and rebates. Carriers make money off of plans.
Is it possible for Apple to look into partnering with Harbinger and Clearwire to create a mobile network of their own .
Sure. But why would they want to? The Jobserino wants to change the world, not serve up data bits.
deleted
I looked into it, and found why I was under the impression I was under:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...elecoms-iphone
"iPhone hype hides the heavy subsidies that operators have to pay to Apple, coupled with the company's replacement cycle and the revenue share it demands in some markets. This means it is not the money-spinner many assume."
So Apple demands heavy subsidies be paid by the carriers, along with a share in the revenue.
Looks like I wasn't entirely wrong, and the only insult that should be made right now should be directed at you.
That's the impression of a single Danish research outfit, at least. Not really clear what they're basing it on.
However, just common-sense wise, it appears to be predicated on the kind of hard-to-swallow notion that the world's major telcom operators are incapable of making rational decisions regarding profit and loss and are eagerly taking on a money losing extortion scheme, because.....
Hard to say. The Reality Distortion Field is more powerful than we imagined? Telcoms are hipsters and posers? Honestly, the idea reads like the usual dismissal of Apple's success with consumers (they just buy what they're told, they overpay because they're blinded by style, all the cool kids are doing it) writ large.
Im no celluar engineer, so I probably needs some ed-u-ma-cation...
in the end, doesn't the cell tower tie into the internet backbone? Or does ATT and Verizon etc have seperate 'cell/data' lines criss-crossing the US?
I thought the whole purpose of going digital was to utilize this internet backbone?
The data limit issues is with the cell tower and how it handles it? So its not that someone uses 90G per month per si, its that they are tying up the cell tower and its tie in to the internet backbone down the road. This is the 'complaint', correct?
Anywhoo... its a BS complaint. Users pay for the data (cell tower allocation/time) used.
I looked into it, and found why I was under the impression I was under:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...elecoms-iphone
"iPhone hype hides the heavy subsidies that operators have to pay to Apple, coupled with the company's replacement cycle and the revenue share it demands in some markets. This means it is not the money-spinner many assume."
So Apple demands heavy subsidies be paid by the carriers, along with a share in the revenue.
Looks like I wasn't entirely wrong, and the only insult that should be made right now should be directed at you.
Actually, no, you still are wrong. The carrier decides the subsidy it wants on the phone. Only the accounting changes:
If you buy the phone at the carrier's shop, the phone is sold at a loss (the carrier paid $600, sold it at $200). If it is sold at a franchise shop, the situation is similar. The carrier has an agreement with Apple that if Apple sells a service contract along with the phone, then the carrier will pay the same subsidy to Apple - in all cases recovering the cost and more on the service plan.
F'ing idiots.
What are you talking about? The US is 4 years AHEAD of Europe in FTTH deployment.
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=172028
You should get down on your knees and thank god that we are not Europe --- which their regulator just said it's perfectly ok if their carrier to block voip traffic.
And twelve years behind Japan, where I could get 100M/s fiber service to the home in 1998 for US$20 a month. Of course, in Japan I had 128k/s connectivity, unlimited, via my mobile phone in 1997, or simultaneous voice and 64k/s data. And the phone had 8 hours talk time, 30 days standby time, an FM radio, and built in voice mail.
Do not believe anything a US carrier says about the US having the most advanced cellular services - we do not and have not since the early 1990s.
The way I look at it, they have always been greedy. In the early 2000's I think they even colluded with handset manufacturers to discourage competition and discourage advancements on their devices and networks. They were happy with the way things were and didn't want you to actually.. you know.. USE the network they set up because then people would being to realize what a sorry state their networks actually are in.
I hope some day people get fed up with call quality issues. I began using skype occasionally here at home and I can't believe the quality. It's truly remarkable, and for the bandwidth it makes you question just how horrible the phone companies really are.
Actually, you are making the assumption that you are the manufacturers' customer. You are not. Phone manufacturers, until Apple came along, have only one set of customers, the carriers. You do not buy a phone from HTC or Nokia. You buy the phone from Verizon, Sprint, or T-Mobile. A manufacturer receives from the carrier a list of specifications about the phone they want, or presents a new concept to the carrier, who then proceeds to detail exactly what they want the phone to do. If the manufacturer does not do what the carrier demands, the carrier does not buy the phone. End of story for the manufacturer.
And twelve years behind Japan, where I could get 100M/s fiber service to the home in 1998 for US$20 a month. Of course, in Japan I had 128k/s connectivity, unlimited, via my mobile phone in 1997, or simultaneous voice and 64k/s data. And the phone had 8 hours talk time, 30 days standby time, an FM radio, and built in voice mail.
Do not believe anything a US carrier says about the US having the most advanced cellular services - we do not and have not since the early 1990s.
So what? NTT is government owned --- pork barrel projects and bridges to nowhere. A super fast internet that does NOTHING to the Japanese economy --- which just had 2 lost decades.
Somehow when the 3G iphone came out and wired.com did a speed survey --- the US had the third fastest speed in the whole world. Not bad for a country which was described to be years behind Europe and Asia. The US has higher 3G penetration rate than Europe now and has higher SMS usage than Europe.
I could be misinformed on this, but from all I've read about how these things worked, I was sure Apple tells the carriers what the price should be so that the iphone remains competitive.
There is one small grammatical error in your post, the word 'carriers' should use the singular. In the US, where there is no competition at all between carriers regarding the iPhone, Apple tells AT&T what it should charge for the iPhone (otherwise Apple would not be able to include a price in their presentations) and AT&T and Apple haggle behind the scenes what AT&T pays Apple per iPhone.
In most other countries, Apple sells the iPhone to the carriers at a fixed price and then the carriers decide on how much to subsidise the device, which they often do various extents depending on which plan you subscribe to and how much the customer has contributed to carriers bottom line in the past.
There is one small grammatical error in your post, the word 'carriers' should use the singular. In the US, where there is no competition at all between carriers regarding the iPhone, Apple tells AT&T what it should charge for the iPhone (otherwise Apple would not be able to include a price in their presentations) and AT&T and Apple haggle behind the scenes what AT&T pays Apple per iPhone.
In most other countries, Apple sells the iPhone to the carriers at a fixed price and then the carriers decide on how much to subsidise the device, which they often do various extents depending on which plan you subscribe to and how much the customer has contributed to carriers bottom line in the past.
I am pretty sure that Apple would be perfectly happy if AT&T just sells the iphone at zero dollar like many overseas iphone carriers.
Your first two sentences was all your comment needed to consist of. The rest is you just trying to be a dick and make this a personal argument.
If all they tell them is that each phone costs $500, then yes, I'm wrong, and a correction is all that's needed.
Well, first off I am the one that decides on the content of my posts.
2. The only insult that it contained was the suggestion that you are an apologist for the carriers because of a personal connection. I couldn't imagine any other reason. This clearly hit a nerve. Do you deny you have a personal connection with a wireless carrier? You are a sales droid in a phone shop perhaps?
I am just wondering would anyone else like to see Apple become a telecom.
Never happen. The capital requirements and infrastructure costs are too high and the margins are too low.
The fact is that it's almost impossible to keep up with bandwidth growth. Right now, Apple can implicitly blame the carriers when service is poor. If Apple owned the telecom, Apple would have to take the blame. Why would they put themselves in that position?
Apple has never been a discount provider. They'd probably raise prices.
Furthermore, such a vertical integration probably wouldn't pass muster with various governmental agencies in the U.S. and the EU. It would be considered too strong a monopoly, even though strictly, it wouldn't be a monopoly.
So if people who drive Honda use our highways more than any other make, the Federal Government should make Honda pay for road repairs?
F'ing idiots.
Honda is not equivelent... try a Mack Truck. If the vehicle weights a gizzion tons and smashes the road as it is driven and is slower, takes up space etc etc Should that one user pay more than the typical gas tax?
OR
If someone is on the cell line 24/7 and is streaming data, essentially taking out on lane of the cell tower highway, should he pay a 'higher rate per gigbyte' than a guy that gets on a few times a month?
Electrical companies do similar things with peak usage charges etc
An arguement can be made, not sure its that sound, let the beatings begin.
But it is still a thousand times better than the other countries.
Japan and South Korea --- their top wireless carriers own more than 50% of the market share.
You won't see a single industrialized country with a top carrier owning so little market share as Verizon Wireless. The top carriers in the industrialized world are mostly owning high 30's to low 40's in market share percentage. Verizon Wireless owns something like 32%.
Yeah, Right: http://www.telecomsmarketresearch.co...atistics.shtml. Just one example right there. Others available if you can't find any.
An a thousand times better? My, how much complaints we'd see on this forum if it were something like the "other countries" with their bitrates, prices and coverage. Now that would be bad wouldn't it?
Let's break down the iPhone revenue/cost structure.
No-contract price of iPhone 4 16GB: $700 (I'm assuming this is correct)
Price that customer pays (with 2-year contract): $200
This means that AT&T gives a $500 subsidy.
Now here is what AT&T charges for just data usage over a 2-year period:
200MB Plan: $360@$15/month for data
2GB Plan: $600@$25/month
This does not include minutes, texting, and possible overages. I bet that AT&T bets that some customers will exceed the usage limit, getting hit with an overage, which equals more money in AT&T's pocket. On a per-customer basis, AT&T makes a healthy profit on iPhone users.
In Switzerland, the biggest carrier offers three (data) plans, 100 MB/month for $25, 250 MB/month for $35, and 1 GB/month for $55. These plans do not include any minutes or texts, but the call rates per minute and texts are cheaper with the more expensive plans. The handset price varies as well depending on plans and on your customer 'status' (every existing customer is sorted into five different brackets depending on how long you have been with the carrier and how much your average bill was).