The mobile business is changing rapidly. In a span of 5 years smartphones are almost completely replacing feature phones. Apple is riding this wave and bringing in enormous profits. However, the market will sooner or later reach saturation. Telcos won't be getting so many new smartphone customers, and existing ones will be less likely to upgrade each year. In my opinion, Sprint is late to the iPhone party and will be left with a disproportionate bill. Time will tell.
OK. So you don't have any evidence to support your claims that Sprint made a mistake. I didn't think so.
OK. So you don't have any evidence to support your claims that Sprint made a mistake. I didn't think so.
But what would you expect from Dr. Dopey?
What is your problem? Do you have a better prediction about how well Sprint will be doing three years from now? If so, let's hear it, if not, go pound sand.
The mobile business is changing rapidly. In a span of 5 years smartphones are almost completely replacing feature phones. Apple is riding this wave and bringing in enormous profits. However, the market will sooner or later reach saturation. Telcos won't be getting so many new smartphone customers, and existing ones will be less likely to upgrade each year. In my opinion, Sprint is late to the iPhone party and will be left with a disproportionate bill. Time will tell.
This ignores several key factors
*How long will the conversion from feature phones to smartphones will take. "almost completely" is a relative term. I think there will be plenty of people still converting by 2015, especially since I'm certain such a conversion takes longer in a down economy.
*Global economy. Plenty of developing nations will be in the market for smartphones in the coming decades.
*We still have a generation of people alive who use landlines. Some of them have cell phones, but most are uncomfortable with anything beyond a feature phone. The generation following them will naturally have feature phones, but with many stalwarts who will never upgrade to smartphones. The generation behind them will naturally have smartphones. This is a long process we are discussing.
*People have babies. Babies grow up and get phones. There will always be new subscribers.
Saturation is theoretically possible, but not happening a) anytime soon and b) not as long as the population is growing.
What is your problem? Do you have a better prediction about how well Sprint will be doing three years from now? If so, let's hear it, if not, go pound sand.
I can guarantee that the CEO of Sprint knows more about their business than you. If you want someone to believe your assessment over his, where's your evidence?
And I'm not the one making the prediction, so there's nothing for me to provide.
*How long will the conversion from feature phones to smartphones will take. "almost completely" is a relative term. I think there will be plenty of people still converting by 2015, especially since I'm certain such a conversion takes longer in a down economy.
*Global economy. Plenty of developing nations will be in the market for smartphones in the coming decades.
*We still have a generation of people alive who use landlines. Some of them have cell phones, but most are uncomfortable with anything beyond a feature phone. The generation following them will naturally have feature phones, but with many stalwarts who will never upgrade to smartphones. The generation behind them will naturally have smartphones. This is a long process we are discussing.
*People have babies. Babies grow up and get phones. There will always be new subscribers.
Saturation is theoretically possible, but not happening a) anytime soon and b) not as long as the population is growing.
"almost completely" is a relative term, so is "plenty of people";
developing nations are irrelevant to Sprint;
generation change is slow and much less of a factor with rapidly changing technology;
population growth -- see above.
So yeah, there are factors with positive effect, but those are ripples on the surface during the ebb tide.
Let me add that the next iPhone will likely be LTE-capable, so Sprint will be put in disadvantage once again. I would have invested some of the billions they gave to Apple for iPhones into replacing their network technology instead.
Let me add that the next iPhone will likely be LTE-capable, so Sprint will be put in disadvantage once again. I would have invested some of the billions they gave to Apple for iPhones into replacing their network technology instead.
Still waiting for you to explain to us why you know more about Sprint's business than the CEO.
And I doubt if they 'gave' billions to Apple. They signed a multibillion dollar agreement to purchase iPhones. From everything I've read, that's a standard purchase agreement. Apple ships phones to Sprint and then sends an invoice. Sprint pays the invoice after 30 days or whatever terms they worked out. That agreement is spread out over several years and Sprint will be receiving revenues over that same time frame.
Still waiting for you to explain to us why you know more about Sprint's business than the CEO.
Of course he knows more about Sprint's business, that's his job, not mine. Whether he's telling us all that he knows is another matter. Who do you think has a bigger incentive to paint a rosy picture?
And I doubt if they 'gave' billions to Apple. They signed a multibillion dollar agreement to purchase iPhones. From everything I've read, that's a standard purchase agreement. Apple ships phones to Sprint and then sends an invoice. Sprint pays the invoice after 30 days or whatever terms they worked out. That agreement is spread out over several years and Sprint will be receiving revenues over that same time frame.
So what happens if Sprint cannot sign up 30 million people for the iPhone in four years? Will Apple say "Fine, you did your best, forget about it"? Or will they expect Sprint to pay according to the agreement?
Of course he knows more about Sprint's business, that's his job, not mine. Whether he's telling us all that he knows is another matter. Who do you think has a bigger incentive to paint a rosy picture?
You do know that lying about a material matter is a felony for the CEO of a public company, right? So if you're going to accuse him of lying, you'd better have some real evidence.
Sorry, but I'll take the word of a CEO who is legally and morally bound to tell the truth about his company over a dopey anonymous troll on AI.
So what happens if Sprint cannot sign up 30 million people for the iPhone in four years? Will Apple say "Fine, you did your best, forget about it"? Or will they expect Sprint to pay according to the agreement?
I don't know - I haven't seen the agreement. Have you?
In any event, the CEO has seen the agreement and he's comfortable with his position. So, once again, what evidence do you have that he's lying or has created an unreasonable level of risk for Sprint?
You do know that lying about a material matter is a felony for the CEO of a public company, right? So if you're going to accuse him of lying, you'd better have some real evidence.
Sorry, but I'll take the word of a CEO who is legally and morally bound to tell the truth about his company over a dopey anonymous troll on AI.
I don't know - I haven't seen the agreement. Have you?
In any event, the CEO has seen the agreement and he's comfortable with his position. So, once again, what evidence do you have that he's lying or has created an unreasonable level of risk for Sprint?
By all means, suit yourself, take whichever word you like.
"almost completely" is a relative term, so is "plenty of people";
developing nations are irrelevant to Sprint;
generation change is slow and much less of a factor with rapidly changing technology;
population growth -- see above.
So yeah, there are factors with positive effect, but those are ripples on the surface during the ebb tide.
Let me add that the next iPhone will likely be LTE-capable, so Sprint will be put in disadvantage once again. I would have invested some of the billions they gave to Apple for iPhones into replacing their network technology instead.
• that is correct. But it does not alter or invalidate my point
• it doesn't matter if developing nations are irrelevant to sprint. There is still room to grow, regardless of who chooses to take advantage of it
• the fact that generation change is slow only buttresses my point that the move to "saturation" will also be slow
I'm not saying that they will have a positive effect on Sprint. I'm saying that the idea of saturation is flawed
You're right about that. Investors aren't too happy about Apple's long-term planning, either. In fact, Wall Street is practically saying Apple has $0 growth long-term. If companies want to be supported by Wall Street they'd better only think weeks in advance.
Comments
OK. So you don't have any evidence to support your claims that Sprint made a mistake. I didn't think so.
But what would you expect from Dr. Dopey?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
OK. So you don't have any evidence to support your claims that Sprint made a mistake. I didn't think so.
But what would you expect from Dr. Dopey?
What is your problem? Do you have a better prediction about how well Sprint will be doing three years from now? If so, let's hear it, if not, go pound sand.
That is a good thing. A CEO who is focusing not on the next quarter or year but on the medium-to-longer term. No wonder Wall Street is unhappy!
Because all CEOs are honest to their word & would never stretch facts to save them or their company… just sayin'
Cheers !
This ignores several key factors
*How long will the conversion from feature phones to smartphones will take. "almost completely" is a relative term. I think there will be plenty of people still converting by 2015, especially since I'm certain such a conversion takes longer in a down economy.
*Global economy. Plenty of developing nations will be in the market for smartphones in the coming decades.
*We still have a generation of people alive who use landlines. Some of them have cell phones, but most are uncomfortable with anything beyond a feature phone. The generation following them will naturally have feature phones, but with many stalwarts who will never upgrade to smartphones. The generation behind them will naturally have smartphones. This is a long process we are discussing.
*People have babies. Babies grow up and get phones. There will always be new subscribers.
Saturation is theoretically possible, but not happening a) anytime soon and b) not as long as the population is growing.
I can guarantee that the CEO of Sprint knows more about their business than you. If you want someone to believe your assessment over his, where's your evidence?
And I'm not the one making the prediction, so there's nothing for me to provide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by halfyearsun
This ignores several key factors
*How long will the conversion from feature phones to smartphones will take. "almost completely" is a relative term. I think there will be plenty of people still converting by 2015, especially since I'm certain such a conversion takes longer in a down economy.
*Global economy. Plenty of developing nations will be in the market for smartphones in the coming decades.
*We still have a generation of people alive who use landlines. Some of them have cell phones, but most are uncomfortable with anything beyond a feature phone. The generation following them will naturally have feature phones, but with many stalwarts who will never upgrade to smartphones. The generation behind them will naturally have smartphones. This is a long process we are discussing.
*People have babies. Babies grow up and get phones. There will always be new subscribers.
Saturation is theoretically possible, but not happening a) anytime soon and b) not as long as the population is growing.
"almost completely" is a relative term, so is "plenty of people";
developing nations are irrelevant to Sprint;
generation change is slow and much less of a factor with rapidly changing technology;
population growth -- see above.
So yeah, there are factors with positive effect, but those are ripples on the surface during the ebb tide.
Let me add that the next iPhone will likely be LTE-capable, so Sprint will be put in disadvantage once again. I would have invested some of the billions they gave to Apple for iPhones into replacing their network technology instead.
Still waiting for you to explain to us why you know more about Sprint's business than the CEO.
And I doubt if they 'gave' billions to Apple. They signed a multibillion dollar agreement to purchase iPhones. From everything I've read, that's a standard purchase agreement. Apple ships phones to Sprint and then sends an invoice. Sprint pays the invoice after 30 days or whatever terms they worked out. That agreement is spread out over several years and Sprint will be receiving revenues over that same time frame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Still waiting for you to explain to us why you know more about Sprint's business than the CEO.
Of course he knows more about Sprint's business, that's his job, not mine. Whether he's telling us all that he knows is another matter. Who do you think has a bigger incentive to paint a rosy picture?
And I doubt if they 'gave' billions to Apple. They signed a multibillion dollar agreement to purchase iPhones. From everything I've read, that's a standard purchase agreement. Apple ships phones to Sprint and then sends an invoice. Sprint pays the invoice after 30 days or whatever terms they worked out. That agreement is spread out over several years and Sprint will be receiving revenues over that same time frame.
So what happens if Sprint cannot sign up 30 million people for the iPhone in four years? Will Apple say "Fine, you did your best, forget about it"? Or will they expect Sprint to pay according to the agreement?
You do know that lying about a material matter is a felony for the CEO of a public company, right? So if you're going to accuse him of lying, you'd better have some real evidence.
Sorry, but I'll take the word of a CEO who is legally and morally bound to tell the truth about his company over a dopey anonymous troll on AI.
I don't know - I haven't seen the agreement. Have you?
In any event, the CEO has seen the agreement and he's comfortable with his position. So, once again, what evidence do you have that he's lying or has created an unreasonable level of risk for Sprint?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
You do know that lying about a material matter is a felony for the CEO of a public company, right? So if you're going to accuse him of lying, you'd better have some real evidence.
Sorry, but I'll take the word of a CEO who is legally and morally bound to tell the truth about his company over a dopey anonymous troll on AI.
I don't know - I haven't seen the agreement. Have you?
In any event, the CEO has seen the agreement and he's comfortable with his position. So, once again, what evidence do you have that he's lying or has created an unreasonable level of risk for Sprint?
By all means, suit yourself, take whichever word you like.
• that is correct. But it does not alter or invalidate my point
• it doesn't matter if developing nations are irrelevant to sprint. There is still room to grow, regardless of who chooses to take advantage of it
• the fact that generation change is slow only buttresses my point that the move to "saturation" will also be slow
I'm not saying that they will have a positive effect on Sprint. I'm saying that the idea of saturation is flawed
You're right about that. Investors aren't too happy about Apple's long-term planning, either. In fact, Wall Street is practically saying Apple has $0 growth long-term. If companies want to be supported by Wall Street they'd better only think weeks in advance.