"We estimate that AT&T?s average revenue per user (ARPU) for the iPhone is $90 ? $95 per month which includes the mandatory $30 per month data plan...AT&T?s average revenue per user (ARPU) for the iPhone is about twice its ARPU for regular feature phones."
"Postpaid subscriber ARPU (average monthly revenues per subscriber) up 2.0 percent to $62.84, the seventh consecutive quarter with a year-over-year increase"
My competitor's store is across the street... I can look out my front window and see that his sales are increasing at a greater rate than mine due greatly to a product that he carries that I don't carry... and I wouldn't be motivated to also carry that product??!!
Yeah... okay... sure...
sales are only part of the puzzle. What really matters is Revenue per user.
And again, this "study" is crap, which is why most news sources are steering clear of it.
It doesn't include Corporate (or vzwonline) sales. We don't know WHAT retailers it is including. (are they big box, are they mom and pop? what type GREATLY influences devices sold)
In fact, we have no idea WHAT this data really points to in the larger scheme of things.
The only things we can conclude based off of this data is:
1: The author (both of the initial study and of this repost) never took a statistics class, or they're intentionally biasing information to make it say something it otherwise would not
2: AT&T is F&^% without the iphone
3. For the retailers studied, they're selling more android phones than BBerry. We have NO idea what their % of smartphone sales are to total sales.
My competitor's store is across the street... I can look out my front window and see that his sales are increasing at a greater rate than mine due greatly to a product that he carries that I don't carry... and I wouldn't be motivated to also carry that product??!!
Yeah... okay... sure...
Can this comparison really be made? Is AT&T making greater long-term gains versus Verizon if many of current iPhone sales are being sold to current iPhone owners? Or is Verizon making greater gains if, even with lower gross sales numbers, it is opening up more new data subscriptions than AT&T?
Maybe that is the case, maybe it's not. But either way, it's information that is not presented in the data here. The moral of the story being that numbers can be manipulated to tell almost any story.
It's one persons quote from an analyst from their "proprietary data collection", not actual sales data from Verizon, as I already posted.
The analysis on hand is more than just judging a horse race-- for instance it includes observations about the danger to Verizon of becoming a single platform vendor, which doesn't require any comparison to the iPhone at all and which supports the premise that Verizon might have grown more amenable to making a deal with Apple.
Quote:
The article is about Verizon. The conclusion of point three that Android cannot compete with the iphone because Verizon isn't selling as many Android phones as Att's iphones is a logical fallacy.
First of all, it's not a "logical fallacy", you just don't agree with it. Secondly, the article doesn't say that Android "can't compete", it says that Android "isn't competitive" -- on Verizon vs. AT&T and iOS--then goes on to explain, at length, exactly what competitive in this context means.
Quote:
The fact that dumbass troll DED pegged the headline as "Android's weak sales" based on only sales of Verizon and not even counting Att as they sell Android phones, is again, a fallacy.
Seems like your'e just parsing the phrase for maximum contention. Why would I imagine that "weak sales" for any vendor but Verizon would influence what Verizon did? Are you saying the choice of words implies that Verizon might be more open to getting the iPhone because of weak sales on AT&T? How does that make any sense?
Quote:
Verizon may not be selling as many smartphones due to their 3G tech vs. 3.75G tech from Sprint or Att, their particular smartphone offerings, reputation, costs of ownership, competition from Sprint, or whatever. To flatly lay the blame on "weak sales" of Android is quite the wrong conclusion.
Yeah, I get that you think that. You don't seem to have anything to back it up, however, but irritability.
Quote:
Yes, by showing that people can go to other carriers other than Verizon and get Android based phones. In other words, Verizon can go out of business and Att, T-Mobile and Sprint can all still sell near or even more iphones.
An anecdote "shows" nothing but the anecdote. It's completely irrelevant as a data point. Moreover, it's irrelevant about a point that isn't even being made. You seem more upset that anyone would cast aspersions on Android than willing to engage the argument being made.
Quote:
To draw a more accurate (yet still somewhat inconclusive) picture, we need to see all smartphone sales of Att, not just the iphone, and all smartphone sales of the other carriers. And...
No, that's what we need to do to engage the other argument you want to have. It's not the point of the article.
Quote:
So let's say they do. Then as usual, we can all see whether Android lives or dies. Even if they have 25% and Apple 40%, it isn't like we can't all just get along. With people like DED it's either 95% for Apple and everyone else is "other"
What? You want to have a fight with Daniel about the importance and likely triumph of Android. The article was about the relative sales of Android and iOS on Verizon and AT&T, respectively, and how that might affect Verizon's fortunes going forward. If the data are accurate (as is carefully noted in the article) then the case seems pretty compelling. If not, then it's all just speculation. Either way, the Grandeur That Is Android in the larger picture isn't really what it's about.
The analysis on hand is more than just judging a horse race-- for instance it includes observations about the danger to Verizon of becoming a single platform vendor, which doesn't require any comparison to the iPhone at all and which supports the premise that Verizon might have grown more amenable to making a deal with Apple.
Don't recall arguing against this point so that's a strawman.
Att is practically a one OS vender too. Seems to be working just fine for them.
Quote:
First of all, it's not a "logical fallacy", you just don't agree with it.
Yeah, I don't agree with it because it based on a logical fallacy. Good one there.
Quote:
Secondly, the article doesn't say that Android "can't compete", it says that Android "isn't competitive" -- on Verizon vs. AT&T and iOS--then goes on to explain, at length, exactly what competitive in this context means.
No, it said, and to quote, AGAIN:
Quote:
Strike three, the site states, is that Android is simply not competitive with Apple's iPhone.
It did NOT state the additional bounds/constraints you added.
Quote:
An anecdote "shows" nothing but the anecdote. It's completely irrelevant as a data point. Moreover, it's irrelevant about a point that isn't even being made. You seem more upset that anyone would cast aspersions on Android than willing to engage the argument being made.
Not sure what you are complaining about. Do you need to see 1000 people buying phones at Sprint vs. 1 to believe that people can buy Android phones from other than Verizon? Because that's the only point I was making
You think you are a step ahead of me, you aren't.
Quote:
Yeah, I get that you think that. You don't seem to have anything to back it up, however, but irritability.
Quote:
What? You want to have a fight with Daniel about the importance and likely triumph of Android.
Notice how I didn't draw any conclusions unlike Horace Dediu of the original article and parrot them line per line, as DED loves to bitch about everyone else doing this when it happens to be negative about Apple.
So yeah, I call his bull shit every time. And until he decides to defend himself, I'll keep calling him out.
Let's all agree on this, carriers don't care about a smartphone user switching from one smartphone to another since they pay the same amount for a data plan.
Not all the smartphones are made equal. Some of them got better compression than the other. switching phone may change the amount of data you use for the same task. As for carrier, they do want to sell more data plan (better compression may not be benefit to them). As for customers, how much you can afford to pay of the data plan that suit for your needs with the phone's feature, is the key consideration. but not many people know how to compare the bits and bytes for the same task on different phones, not even some "professional assessment" out there.
Take it for what it's worth (not much -- random pseudo anonymous Internet posting!) but a lot of normal folks I know aren't happy with their Android phones. I think some of the consumer satisfaction reports out there back this up, though not as dramatically as my personal experiences. It's going to be interesting to see how those numbers look in 8-12 months. Most of this stems from the carrier/handset maker crapware. Stock Android is quite nice but how many people root their phones and install custom ROMs? My friend recently got a new HTC Incredible and I was really shocked just how horrible unusable it was compared to stock Android. Verizon (or HTC?) decided to load up so many widgets that the phone, brand new out of the box, was slow. That's not a good recipe for customer satisfaction.
Realistically though these numbers probably reflect a certain saturation of the SmartPhone market. We tend to assume *everyone* wants a SmartPhone but when you factor in the up-front price plus a data plan it gets expensive. I suspect we might see SmartPhone growth in general slow down because of this. I believe this is also why both AT&T and VZ are pushing cheaper (lower cap) data plans. They realize there's a limited market of people willing to spend $200 + $30/month. Unfortunately for Android this means more crapware pre-loaded and more last-gen phones being sold at very low prices, or given away for free, which carriers some risk of poisoning the Android market going forward. If people get stuck with a slow phone that gets abandoned with new software updates they're going to be less likely to buy another Android phone in the future.
The original unlocked Droid sold well and competed well against the iPhone. ( I have one ) However, in traditional Google fashion, they release Froyo with so many major bugs that people ( myself included ) are getting tired of dealing with them and the fact that it can take up to six months to get a simple bug fix. One - Two months for Google to fix it. Then 1-2 months for the phone manufacturer to approve the update. Then two - three months for Verizon to approve it and send it out. My phone is rooted and I can get bug fixes faster by loading a hacked ROM. Otherwise I would have smashed the phone and went to a basic hand set a long time ago.
However, all newer Android phones on verizon are fairly locked down. With locked bootloaders the hacker community is not able to fix many of the bugs Google always releases like they did with the Original Droid. While not many iPhone users jailbreak their phone, a lot of Android have to root their phone just to be able to use many of the basic features after a Google bug riddled update. In my opinion, I think that the locked down and buggy nature of the new Androind phones is limiting their appeal.
Now, Android does have a few features that I like better than the iPhone.
1) Voice commands and text entry on Android is excellent. I use these features a lot. It sux on the iPhone.
2) Google maps and navigation is better on Android.
3) I have the option of using flash or not on Android. I know many people hate it, but the option is nice...
4) The file system in Android is very useful. In my work I often have to download files on my phone and transfer them to a computer when tethering is not practical. This is easy and clean on Android. It is a pain on my iPad and some time impossible depending of the file type. The iPhone needs some basic type of USB and WiFi file transfer. I think a dropbox approach is a very reasonable request. There is NO GOOD reason why I can download a file from the web and put it in a dropbox on my iPhone/iPad and use Wifi or USB to transfer it to a computer.
5) Wifi and USB teathering is free and works great on the Android phones. ( No you do not have to root the phone to do this. A one time purchase $10.00 app does it nicely )
6) You can charge the phone from any standard USB source. No special iAdapters/Cables require...
7) The Chrome to Phone App is incredibly useful. For those that do not know what it is, you can select any text or links in your Chrome or Firefox browser and send it to your phone. I love it to copy an address or technical note. Send it to the phone as text and past it into my Note app. If it is an address all I have to do it touch it in the note and it pops up Google navigation/map. I use this app several times a day... there are a couple of apps that kind of do the same thin on the iPhone/iPad, but are no where near as clean....
Other than that, I prefer the iPhone. It operates smoother and has less bugs and they get fixed faster when they do occur. It is far easier to put multimedia stuff on the iPhone. The user interface it simpler. The camera actually works. Every Android phone I have used has a very flaky camera app ( must be unstable in the core Android OS ). I get it to take a picture about 1/2 of the time when I want it to...
I really hope that the iPhone comes to Verizon in January. My droid is on it's last leg, ( Cracked glass and it went swimming ). I DO NOT want to buy one of the newer locked down Android phones. To me it kills the whole openness argument of the Android concept. I can't really use AT&T as my main phone for many reasons, so I will be forced to go to an Android phone after the first of the year if the iPhone is not available.
In my opinion the combination of: Google's buggy code, the phone manufactures sticking their stupid user interfaces in the android phones, Verizon tenancy to lock down the phones and stick their crapware in them, will kill Android as fast as it gained market share. It is sad too because the Android OS could offer an incredible phone experience if it was allowed to mature without so many people screwing with it....
After 2 android phones, Eris and Ally, I decided I would stick with WinMobile 6.x since it is what I am used to. I cannot stand smudging my fingertips all over a screen and I do not care for Android apps' intrusiveness (telling Google all), and uncertain security, nor Apple's walled garden philosophy, so a pox on 'em all. The WinMo apps base is somewhat limited, but has a rich enough selection of apps for all I want to do on a smartphone - it is not a real PC after all, but a phone with some PC abilities added on, and that works for me. My latest WinMo 6.5 Imagio does seem to be a bit more locked down where tethering is concerned, so VZW is turning me off in that regard, also.
So I agree with the criticism of VZW's lockdown approach - kills what little interest I had in Android as a phone platform. I am still experimenting with Android tablets, that are freer, but correspondingly locked out of the Android Market (unless hacked), but that Google-is-watching aspect still annoys me. The resistive screens suit my tactile style well enough letting me use stylus/fingernail.
Nobody calls me out on it because I always have supporting links.
Too bad your "points" aren't actually supported by the links. This is the first time you've recently provided any links to your absurd claims and as usual you get it wrong.
The data clearly shows that Apple has been improving AT&T's ARPU, not detracting from it. All iPhone users are postpaid subs and they show 7 qtrs of consecutive postpaid ARPU improvement driven by iPhone sales.
The fact is that Verizon isn't too happy it's not sharing in the high ARPU iPhone sales. Android isn't generating the same sales volume (584K postpaid adds for VZW vs 745K postpaid adds for AT&T) OR ARPU given Verizon's post paid ARPUs are lower ($55 VZW vs $62 AT&T).
Money quote:
"At $62.84, AT&T’s postpaid average revenue per user is also well above its rivals, including Verizon at $55.66, thanks largely to the iPhone. "
So all you've proven is that once again you don't know what you're talking about because you're looking at the wrong metric. Total AT&T ARPU is down due to the drag of lowered pre-paid margins which aren't relevant in a discussion about Android vs iPhone or why VZW really wants the iPhone. That's an assload of money it's leaving on the table for AT&T every single qtr along with the desired postpaid adds. 5.2M iPhones activated in 3Q.
Only a complete dumbass would try to imply that the iPhone is a drag on AT&T's ARPU.
"In the three months ending in October, the share of Android users had risen sharply from 17 to 23.5 percent, says the report. Meanwhile, iPhone share couldn't even rise a single percent, going from 23.8 to 24.6 percent."
How would one explain this result? So many people on ATT are switching to android or what?
Too bad your "points" aren't actually supported by the links. This is the first time you've recently provided any links to your absurd claims and as usual you get it wrong.
The data clearly shows that Apple has been improving AT&T's ARPU, not detracting from it. All iPhone users are postpaid subs and they show 7 qtrs of consecutive postpaid ARPU improvement driven by iPhone sales.
The fact is that Verizon isn't too happy it's not sharing in the high ARPU iPhone sales. Android isn't generating the same sales volume (584K postpaid adds for VZW vs 745K postpaid adds for AT&T) OR ARPU given Verizon's post paid ARPUs are lower ($55 VZW vs $62 AT&T).
Money quote:
"At $62.84, AT&T’s postpaid average revenue per user is also well above its rivals, including Verizon at $55.66, thanks largely to the iPhone. "
So all you've proven is that once again you don't know what you're talking about because you're looking at the wrong metric. Total AT&T ARPU is down due to the drag of lowered pre-paid margins which aren't relevant in a discussion about Android vs iPhone or why VZW really wants the iPhone. That's an assload of money it's leaving on the table for AT&T every single qtr along with the desired postpaid adds. 5.2M iPhones activated in 3Q.
Only a complete dumbass would try to imply that the iPhone is a drag on AT&T's ARPU.
(1) Since the iphone 4 was launched in Q2, Verizon had 1.249 million postpaid net adds and AT&T had 1.250 million postpaid net adds. That's it --- a 1000 postpaid subscriber difference.
(2) AT&T is highlighting their postpaid ARPU --- because for the precise reason I was talking about, that their ARPU has been going down. Lesson number 1 on SEC filings, check the footnotes --- that's where the real information is located, not the one page press release that highlights all the good points.
Somehow, this analyst was saying that Verizon is cornered into making a deal with Apple because Android sales are failing.
AT&T needs the iphone because they are simultaneously grabbing high ARPU subscribers (iphone with a 100 dollar ARPU) and low ARPU subscriber (tracfone with 15 dollar ARPU). You average the two out --- and you end up with a total ARPU that lower than Verizon's ARPU.
Verizon doesn't have to go for the iphone --- precisely because they don't try to grab the cheap prepaid subscribers. You can have very high ARPU just by selling feature phones with unlimited voice plans.
Verizon doesn't even have to go for the Android phone --- because it beats AT&T on data ARPU. Verizon has a data ARPU of $18.20 vs. AT&T has a data ARPU of $17.35.
The problem is that the study try to imply that Verizon is in trouble because iphone is a high ARPU item.
But AT&T's ARPU went down in the same period and Verizon Wireless' ARPU went up in the same period.
We don't have the breakdowns on iPhone ARPU vs. the ARPU of AT&T without the iPhone.
If you can supply those numbers to us, you may have a point. I'm betting someone at VZW probably doesn't see it your way. External numbers are nice to cite but these aren't even that specific.
In this case, Verizon has a more complete network with better reputation and they sell more dumbphones than AT&T by a highly large margin.
The original unlocked Droid sold well and competed well against the iPhone. ( I have one ) However, in traditional Google fashion, they release Froyo with so many major bugs that people ( myself included ) are getting tired of dealing with them ...
In my opinion the combination of: Google's buggy code, the phone manufactures sticking their stupid user interfaces in the android phones, Verizon tenancy to lock down the phones and stick their crapware in them, will kill Android as fast as it gained market share. It is sad too because the Android OS could offer an incredible phone experience if it was allowed to mature without so many people screwing with it....
Thank you for your well-written, personal critique on Verizon and Android.
I fear, however, the tone and perspective is lost here, as most the posters are more interested in pissing in each other's cornflakes...
iphone to verizon: probably a shift of AT&T iphone customers to verizon.. good for verizon peanuts for apple so probably apple will not make the move to verizon..
...Will Apple allow a Verizon logo on their phone?? How's about a pre-installed Verizon-only App store? Will they accept the possibility of being only a provider of the data-pipe? ...
In all fairness, all this chart shows is the spike in sales after the iphone 4 release. Sales always spike in the quarter after the year's new model is released.
DUH! What about the sales spike when a new Android phone is released. One iPhone sales spike a year versus how many Android sales spikes?
Comments
And you know this because?...
He likes making stuff up and hopes no one actually calls him on it.
Like that ARPU crack. The iPhone does contribute to a higher ARPU for AT&T and AT&T's ARPU has been going up as a result of the iPhone.
"AT&T Q1 2010: 2.7 million iPhone activations, ARPU up 3.9%"
http://www.intomobile.com/2010/04/21...s-arpu-up-3-9/
"We estimate that AT&T?s average revenue per user (ARPU) for the iPhone is $90 ? $95 per month which includes the mandatory $30 per month data plan...AT&T?s average revenue per user (ARPU) for the iPhone is about twice its ARPU for regular feature phones."
http://blogs.forbes.com/greatspecula...of-the-iphone/
"Postpaid subscriber ARPU (average monthly revenues per subscriber) up 2.0 percent to $62.84, the seventh consecutive quarter with a year-over-year increase"
http://www.phonedog.com/2010/10/21/a...nes-activated/
Frankly there are entire threads where samab hasn't posted a single correct statement...this seems like another one...
Huh?
My competitor's store is across the street... I can look out my front window and see that his sales are increasing at a greater rate than mine due greatly to a product that he carries that I don't carry... and I wouldn't be motivated to also carry that product??!!
Yeah... okay... sure...
sales are only part of the puzzle. What really matters is Revenue per user.
And again, this "study" is crap, which is why most news sources are steering clear of it.
It doesn't include Corporate (or vzwonline) sales. We don't know WHAT retailers it is including. (are they big box, are they mom and pop? what type GREATLY influences devices sold)
In fact, we have no idea WHAT this data really points to in the larger scheme of things.
The only things we can conclude based off of this data is:
1: The author (both of the initial study and of this repost) never took a statistics class, or they're intentionally biasing information to make it say something it otherwise would not
2: AT&T is F&^% without the iphone
3. For the retailers studied, they're selling more android phones than BBerry. We have NO idea what their % of smartphone sales are to total sales.
Huh?
My competitor's store is across the street... I can look out my front window and see that his sales are increasing at a greater rate than mine due greatly to a product that he carries that I don't carry... and I wouldn't be motivated to also carry that product??!!
Yeah... okay... sure...
Can this comparison really be made? Is AT&T making greater long-term gains versus Verizon if many of current iPhone sales are being sold to current iPhone owners? Or is Verizon making greater gains if, even with lower gross sales numbers, it is opening up more new data subscriptions than AT&T?
Maybe that is the case, maybe it's not. But either way, it's information that is not presented in the data here. The moral of the story being that numbers can be manipulated to tell almost any story.
It's one persons quote from an analyst from their "proprietary data collection", not actual sales data from Verizon, as I already posted.
The analysis on hand is more than just judging a horse race-- for instance it includes observations about the danger to Verizon of becoming a single platform vendor, which doesn't require any comparison to the iPhone at all and which supports the premise that Verizon might have grown more amenable to making a deal with Apple.
The article is about Verizon. The conclusion of point three that Android cannot compete with the iphone because Verizon isn't selling as many Android phones as Att's iphones is a logical fallacy.
First of all, it's not a "logical fallacy", you just don't agree with it. Secondly, the article doesn't say that Android "can't compete", it says that Android "isn't competitive" -- on Verizon vs. AT&T and iOS--then goes on to explain, at length, exactly what competitive in this context means.
The fact that dumbass troll DED pegged the headline as "Android's weak sales" based on only sales of Verizon and not even counting Att as they sell Android phones, is again, a fallacy.
Seems like your'e just parsing the phrase for maximum contention. Why would I imagine that "weak sales" for any vendor but Verizon would influence what Verizon did? Are you saying the choice of words implies that Verizon might be more open to getting the iPhone because of weak sales on AT&T? How does that make any sense?
Verizon may not be selling as many smartphones due to their 3G tech vs. 3.75G tech from Sprint or Att, their particular smartphone offerings, reputation, costs of ownership, competition from Sprint, or whatever. To flatly lay the blame on "weak sales" of Android is quite the wrong conclusion.
Yeah, I get that you think that. You don't seem to have anything to back it up, however, but irritability.
Yes, by showing that people can go to other carriers other than Verizon and get Android based phones. In other words, Verizon can go out of business and Att, T-Mobile and Sprint can all still sell near or even more iphones.
An anecdote "shows" nothing but the anecdote. It's completely irrelevant as a data point. Moreover, it's irrelevant about a point that isn't even being made. You seem more upset that anyone would cast aspersions on Android than willing to engage the argument being made.
To draw a more accurate (yet still somewhat inconclusive) picture, we need to see all smartphone sales of Att, not just the iphone, and all smartphone sales of the other carriers. And...
No, that's what we need to do to engage the other argument you want to have. It's not the point of the article.
So let's say they do. Then as usual, we can all see whether Android lives or dies. Even if they have 25% and Apple 40%, it isn't like we can't all just get along. With people like DED it's either 95% for Apple and everyone else is "other"
What? You want to have a fight with Daniel about the importance and likely triumph of Android. The article was about the relative sales of Android and iOS on Verizon and AT&T, respectively, and how that might affect Verizon's fortunes going forward. If the data are accurate (as is carefully noted in the article) then the case seems pretty compelling. If not, then it's all just speculation. Either way, the Grandeur That Is Android in the larger picture isn't really what it's about.
He likes making stuff up and hopes no one actually calls him on it.
Like that ARPU crack. The iPhone does contribute to a higher ARPU for AT&T and AT&T's ARPU has been going up as a result of the iPhone.
Frankly there are entire threads where samab hasn't posted a single correct statement...this seems like another one...
AT&T Wireless' ARPU went down in the last year (page 9).
http://www.att.com/Investor/Growth_P...ster_Q3_10.pdf
Nobody calls me out on it because I always have supporting links.
Verizon numbers: Coming from third party data collected from third party retailers.
you really expect the verizon data to paint an accurate picture?
The analysis on hand is more than just judging a horse race-- for instance it includes observations about the danger to Verizon of becoming a single platform vendor, which doesn't require any comparison to the iPhone at all and which supports the premise that Verizon might have grown more amenable to making a deal with Apple.
Don't recall arguing against this point so that's a strawman.
Att is practically a one OS vender too. Seems to be working just fine for them.
First of all, it's not a "logical fallacy", you just don't agree with it.
Yeah, I don't agree with it because it based on a logical fallacy. Good one there.
Secondly, the article doesn't say that Android "can't compete", it says that Android "isn't competitive" -- on Verizon vs. AT&T and iOS--then goes on to explain, at length, exactly what competitive in this context means.
No, it said, and to quote, AGAIN:
Strike three, the site states, is that Android is simply not competitive with Apple's iPhone.
It did NOT state the additional bounds/constraints you added.
An anecdote "shows" nothing but the anecdote. It's completely irrelevant as a data point. Moreover, it's irrelevant about a point that isn't even being made. You seem more upset that anyone would cast aspersions on Android than willing to engage the argument being made.
Not sure what you are complaining about. Do you need to see 1000 people buying phones at Sprint vs. 1 to believe that people can buy Android phones from other than Verizon? Because that's the only point I was making
You think you are a step ahead of me, you aren't.
Yeah, I get that you think that. You don't seem to have anything to back it up, however, but irritability.
What? You want to have a fight with Daniel about the importance and likely triumph of Android.
Notice how I didn't draw any conclusions unlike Horace Dediu of the original article and parrot them line per line, as DED loves to bitch about everyone else doing this when it happens to be negative about Apple.
So yeah, I call his bull shit every time. And until he decides to defend himself, I'll keep calling him out.
Let's all agree on this, carriers don't care about a smartphone user switching from one smartphone to another since they pay the same amount for a data plan.
Not all the smartphones are made equal. Some of them got better compression than the other. switching phone may change the amount of data you use for the same task. As for carrier, they do want to sell more data plan (better compression may not be benefit to them). As for customers, how much you can afford to pay of the data plan that suit for your needs with the phone's feature, is the key consideration. but not many people know how to compare the bits and bytes for the same task on different phones, not even some "professional assessment" out there.
Realistically though these numbers probably reflect a certain saturation of the SmartPhone market. We tend to assume *everyone* wants a SmartPhone but when you factor in the up-front price plus a data plan it gets expensive. I suspect we might see SmartPhone growth in general slow down because of this. I believe this is also why both AT&T and VZ are pushing cheaper (lower cap) data plans. They realize there's a limited market of people willing to spend $200 + $30/month. Unfortunately for Android this means more crapware pre-loaded and more last-gen phones being sold at very low prices, or given away for free, which carriers some risk of poisoning the Android market going forward. If people get stuck with a slow phone that gets abandoned with new software updates they're going to be less likely to buy another Android phone in the future.
1. If the Verizon Iphone will be 3G or 4G ?
2. Pricing of the data.
3. Can Verizon handle the surge ?
Well,
The original unlocked Droid sold well and competed well against the iPhone. ( I have one ) However, in traditional Google fashion, they release Froyo with so many major bugs that people ( myself included ) are getting tired of dealing with them and the fact that it can take up to six months to get a simple bug fix. One - Two months for Google to fix it. Then 1-2 months for the phone manufacturer to approve the update. Then two - three months for Verizon to approve it and send it out. My phone is rooted and I can get bug fixes faster by loading a hacked ROM. Otherwise I would have smashed the phone and went to a basic hand set a long time ago.
However, all newer Android phones on verizon are fairly locked down. With locked bootloaders the hacker community is not able to fix many of the bugs Google always releases like they did with the Original Droid. While not many iPhone users jailbreak their phone, a lot of Android have to root their phone just to be able to use many of the basic features after a Google bug riddled update. In my opinion, I think that the locked down and buggy nature of the new Androind phones is limiting their appeal.
Now, Android does have a few features that I like better than the iPhone.
1) Voice commands and text entry on Android is excellent. I use these features a lot. It sux on the iPhone.
2) Google maps and navigation is better on Android.
3) I have the option of using flash or not on Android. I know many people hate it, but the option is nice...
4) The file system in Android is very useful. In my work I often have to download files on my phone and transfer them to a computer when tethering is not practical. This is easy and clean on Android. It is a pain on my iPad and some time impossible depending of the file type. The iPhone needs some basic type of USB and WiFi file transfer. I think a dropbox approach is a very reasonable request. There is NO GOOD reason why I can download a file from the web and put it in a dropbox on my iPhone/iPad and use Wifi or USB to transfer it to a computer.
5) Wifi and USB teathering is free and works great on the Android phones. ( No you do not have to root the phone to do this. A one time purchase $10.00 app does it nicely )
6) You can charge the phone from any standard USB source. No special iAdapters/Cables require...
7) The Chrome to Phone App is incredibly useful. For those that do not know what it is, you can select any text or links in your Chrome or Firefox browser and send it to your phone. I love it to copy an address or technical note. Send it to the phone as text and past it into my Note app. If it is an address all I have to do it touch it in the note and it pops up Google navigation/map. I use this app several times a day... there are a couple of apps that kind of do the same thin on the iPhone/iPad, but are no where near as clean....
Other than that, I prefer the iPhone. It operates smoother and has less bugs and they get fixed faster when they do occur. It is far easier to put multimedia stuff on the iPhone. The user interface it simpler. The camera actually works. Every Android phone I have used has a very flaky camera app ( must be unstable in the core Android OS ). I get it to take a picture about 1/2 of the time when I want it to...
I really hope that the iPhone comes to Verizon in January. My droid is on it's last leg, ( Cracked glass and it went swimming ). I DO NOT want to buy one of the newer locked down Android phones. To me it kills the whole openness argument of the Android concept. I can't really use AT&T as my main phone for many reasons, so I will be forced to go to an Android phone after the first of the year if the iPhone is not available.
In my opinion the combination of: Google's buggy code, the phone manufactures sticking their stupid user interfaces in the android phones, Verizon tenancy to lock down the phones and stick their crapware in them, will kill Android as fast as it gained market share. It is sad too because the Android OS could offer an incredible phone experience if it was allowed to mature without so many people screwing with it....
After 2 android phones, Eris and Ally, I decided I would stick with WinMobile 6.x since it is what I am used to. I cannot stand smudging my fingertips all over a screen and I do not care for Android apps' intrusiveness (telling Google all), and uncertain security, nor Apple's walled garden philosophy, so a pox on 'em all. The WinMo apps base is somewhat limited, but has a rich enough selection of apps for all I want to do on a smartphone - it is not a real PC after all, but a phone with some PC abilities added on, and that works for me. My latest WinMo 6.5 Imagio does seem to be a bit more locked down where tethering is concerned, so VZW is turning me off in that regard, also.
So I agree with the criticism of VZW's lockdown approach - kills what little interest I had in Android as a phone platform. I am still experimenting with Android tablets, that are freer, but correspondingly locked out of the Android Market (unless hacked), but that Google-is-watching aspect still annoys me. The resistive screens suit my tactile style well enough letting me use stylus/fingernail.
Oh well, back to the cave ...
AT&T Wireless' ARPU went down in the last year (page 9).
http://www.att.com/Investor/Growth_P...ster_Q3_10.pdf
Nobody calls me out on it because I always have supporting links.
Too bad your "points" aren't actually supported by the links. This is the first time you've recently provided any links to your absurd claims and as usual you get it wrong.
The data clearly shows that Apple has been improving AT&T's ARPU, not detracting from it. All iPhone users are postpaid subs and they show 7 qtrs of consecutive postpaid ARPU improvement driven by iPhone sales.
The fact is that Verizon isn't too happy it's not sharing in the high ARPU iPhone sales. Android isn't generating the same sales volume (584K postpaid adds for VZW vs 745K postpaid adds for AT&T) OR ARPU given Verizon's post paid ARPUs are lower ($55 VZW vs $62 AT&T).
Money quote:
"At $62.84, AT&T’s postpaid average revenue per user is also well above its rivals, including Verizon at $55.66, thanks largely to the iPhone. "
http://gigaom.com/2010/11/05/q3-wire...erizon-iphone/
So all you've proven is that once again you don't know what you're talking about because you're looking at the wrong metric. Total AT&T ARPU is down due to the drag of lowered pre-paid margins which aren't relevant in a discussion about Android vs iPhone or why VZW really wants the iPhone. That's an assload of money it's leaving on the table for AT&T every single qtr along with the desired postpaid adds. 5.2M iPhones activated in 3Q.
Only a complete dumbass would try to imply that the iPhone is a drag on AT&T's ARPU.
"In the three months ending in October, the share of Android users had risen sharply from 17 to 23.5 percent, says the report. Meanwhile, iPhone share couldn't even rise a single percent, going from 23.8 to 24.6 percent."
How would one explain this result? So many people on ATT are switching to android or what?
Too bad your "points" aren't actually supported by the links. This is the first time you've recently provided any links to your absurd claims and as usual you get it wrong.
The data clearly shows that Apple has been improving AT&T's ARPU, not detracting from it. All iPhone users are postpaid subs and they show 7 qtrs of consecutive postpaid ARPU improvement driven by iPhone sales.
The fact is that Verizon isn't too happy it's not sharing in the high ARPU iPhone sales. Android isn't generating the same sales volume (584K postpaid adds for VZW vs 745K postpaid adds for AT&T) OR ARPU given Verizon's post paid ARPUs are lower ($55 VZW vs $62 AT&T).
Money quote:
"At $62.84, AT&T’s postpaid average revenue per user is also well above its rivals, including Verizon at $55.66, thanks largely to the iPhone. "
http://gigaom.com/2010/11/05/q3-wire...erizon-iphone/
So all you've proven is that once again you don't know what you're talking about because you're looking at the wrong metric. Total AT&T ARPU is down due to the drag of lowered pre-paid margins which aren't relevant in a discussion about Android vs iPhone or why VZW really wants the iPhone. That's an assload of money it's leaving on the table for AT&T every single qtr along with the desired postpaid adds. 5.2M iPhones activated in 3Q.
Only a complete dumbass would try to imply that the iPhone is a drag on AT&T's ARPU.
(1) Since the iphone 4 was launched in Q2, Verizon had 1.249 million postpaid net adds and AT&T had 1.250 million postpaid net adds. That's it --- a 1000 postpaid subscriber difference.
(2) AT&T is highlighting their postpaid ARPU --- because for the precise reason I was talking about, that their ARPU has been going down. Lesson number 1 on SEC filings, check the footnotes --- that's where the real information is located, not the one page press release that highlights all the good points.
Somehow, this analyst was saying that Verizon is cornered into making a deal with Apple because Android sales are failing.
AT&T needs the iphone because they are simultaneously grabbing high ARPU subscribers (iphone with a 100 dollar ARPU) and low ARPU subscriber (tracfone with 15 dollar ARPU). You average the two out --- and you end up with a total ARPU that lower than Verizon's ARPU.
Verizon doesn't have to go for the iphone --- precisely because they don't try to grab the cheap prepaid subscribers. You can have very high ARPU just by selling feature phones with unlimited voice plans.
Verizon doesn't even have to go for the Android phone --- because it beats AT&T on data ARPU. Verizon has a data ARPU of $18.20 vs. AT&T has a data ARPU of $17.35.
The problem is that the study try to imply that Verizon is in trouble because iphone is a high ARPU item.
But AT&T's ARPU went down in the same period and Verizon Wireless' ARPU went up in the same period.
We don't have the breakdowns on iPhone ARPU vs. the ARPU of AT&T without the iPhone.
If you can supply those numbers to us, you may have a point. I'm betting someone at VZW probably doesn't see it your way. External numbers are nice to cite but these aren't even that specific.
In this case, Verizon has a more complete network with better reputation and they sell more dumbphones than AT&T by a highly large margin.
Well,
The original unlocked Droid sold well and competed well against the iPhone. ( I have one ) However, in traditional Google fashion, they release Froyo with so many major bugs that people ( myself included ) are getting tired of dealing with them ...
In my opinion the combination of: Google's buggy code, the phone manufactures sticking their stupid user interfaces in the android phones, Verizon tenancy to lock down the phones and stick their crapware in them, will kill Android as fast as it gained market share. It is sad too because the Android OS could offer an incredible phone experience if it was allowed to mature without so many people screwing with it....
Thank you for your well-written, personal critique on Verizon and Android.
I fear, however, the tone and perspective is lost here, as most the posters are more interested in pissing in each other's cornflakes...
World's 1st AndroidBerry!!
iphone to verizon: probably a shift of AT&T iphone customers to verizon.. good for verizon peanuts for apple so probably apple will not make the move to verizon..
ff
...Will Apple allow a Verizon logo on their phone?? How's about a pre-installed Verizon-only App store? Will they accept the possibility of being only a provider of the data-pipe? ...
No, no and possibly yes.
In all fairness, all this chart shows is the spike in sales after the iphone 4 release. Sales always spike in the quarter after the year's new model is released.
DUH! What about the sales spike when a new Android phone is released. One iPhone sales spike a year versus how many Android sales spikes?