|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > June 2007 > Verizon retakes US wireless subscriber lead from AT&T
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Verizon retakes US wireless subscriber lead from AT&T
|
|
|
| See "http://tinyurl.com/28gjdz"
| |
| John Navas 2007-05-02, 3:33 pm |
| On Tue, 01 May 2007 15:51:19 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 4637c46a$0$27208$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>See "http://tinyurl.com/28gjdz"
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/t.../01verizon.html>
Verizon’s wireless business, which Verizon owns jointly with the
Vodafone Group, reported revenue of $10.3 billion in the first
quarter. The unit added 1.7 million wireless subscribers, ending the
quarter with 60.7 million subscribers, second only to AT&T Wireless,
which serves 62.2 million customers.
So much for claims here to the contrary.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2007-05-03, 3:33 pm |
| In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 01 May 2007 15:51:19 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 4637c46a$0$27208$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/t.../01verizon.html>
>
> Verizon?s wireless business, which Verizon owns jointly with the
> Vodafone Group, reported revenue of $10.3 billion in the first
> quarter. The unit added 1.7 million wireless subscribers, ending the
> quarter with 60.7 million subscribers, second only to AT&T Wireless,
> which serves 62.2 million customers.
>
> So much for claims here to the contrary.
>
Next quarter, two quarters max.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
| |
|
| Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> Next quarter, two quarters max.
What Navas doesn't understand is the difference between actual customers
of the carrier, and customers of MVNOs.
It's not accurate for Cingular to claim customers of their wholesale
MVNOs as Cingular customers. Cingular leases their network to these
MVNOs, but they aren't Cingular's customers per-se.
Now if Cingular wants to say something like "More people use our network
than any other network" that would be accurate. But the fact remains
that in terms of actual customers, Verizon has passed Cingular.
| |
| John Navas 2007-05-03, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 03 May 2007 14:57:50 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 463a5ae0$0$27240$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
[color=darkred]
>What Navas doesn't understand is the difference between actual customers
>of the carrier, and customers of MVNOs.
I understand perfectly. I just don't have an anti-GSM
anti-AT&T/Cingular agenda.
>Now if Cingular wants to say something like "More people use our network
>than any other network" that would be accurate. But the fact remains
>that in terms of actual customers, Verizon has passed Cingular.
The quote above speaks for itself, no matter what you may claim.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-05-03, 10:33 pm |
| At 03 May 2007 14:57:50 -0700 SMS wrote:
> It's not accurate for Cingular to claim customers of their wholesale
> MVNOs as Cingular customers.
"Number of customers" doesn't have a hard and fast definition- if you
want to exclude wholesale, fine, how about prepaid? Is a four-line
family plan four customers or one? My two-TV satellite system is only
"one customer" to DISH Network, is my two-line T-Mobile family plan two
customers to T-Mo? Well, that's up to T-Mobile- do they want two
customers with a lower ARPU, or one with a high ARPU?
> Cingular leases their network to these MVNOs, but they aren't Cingular's
> customers per-se.
Not retail customers, but those end users are purchasing the MVNO's
"service," based, at least in part, by the strength of the underlying
network. Look at yourself- you didn't buy PagePlus for your daughter
because of their snazzy website or top-notch customer service- you bought
them because they sell prepaid "Verizon service" for $2.50/month instead
of $15.
> Now if Cingular wants to say something like "More people use our network
> than any other network" that would be accurate.
Companies that sell both wholesale and retail often combine the sales
figures of both business arms. It's up to the company and how they want
to "massage" the numbers.
It's a double edged sword- if you take out the relatively low ARPU
wholesale customers, the number of customers goes down, but ARPU and data
ARPU go up.
> But the fact remains that in terms of actual customers, Verizon has
> passed Cingular.
To pull a Clinton, it really depends what your definition of "is" is! Is
a Beyond customer a Cingular customer? Probably not, but Beyond itself
IS a Cingular customer- as is Consumer Cellular, Ztar (7-11's Speakout)
etc. Why shouldn't THOSE "multi-line" customers count, even if they
purchase at a "discount" (wholesale) when multi-line municipal,
government and corporate customers count (and also purchase service at a
discount!)
Perhaps the real lesson in this diatribe is that in the real world things
like commerce are too complicated to wrap up in a single nebulous (and
self-serving) statistic.
IIRC, Verizon already leads in revenue due to higher ARPU, but you have
to admit that "more customers than any other wireless carrier" sounds
better in ads than "rakes in more money than any other wireless carrier!"
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Kevin Weaver 2007-06-06, 4:33 am |
| Now I've seen and heard it all. Was it not you that posted the Cingular has
more customers then Verizon when the news broke out the 1st time ?
Now say yes. And step down from the soap box.
"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:d3ik33l3h6puk8e
p9b15ko2tvl6dq51h4h@
4ax.com...
> On Thu, 03 May 2007 12:58:54 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
> < 63nj33hfi6b8a2ohlioq
fhf7rmfcq8t760@4ax.com>:
>
>
> Perhaps. Perhaps not. Only time will tell.
> Not that it really matters except to those few with an agenda. ;)
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Kevin Weaver wrote:
> Now I've seen and heard it all. Was it not you that posted the Cingular
> has more customers then Verizon when the news broke out the 1st time ?
As has been explained, Verizon Wireless now has more customers than
"wireless from AT&T" or whatever they're calling themselves.
See "http://www.itnews.com.au/newsstory.aspx?CIaNID=49296&src=site-marq"
AT&T leases out space on their wireless network to other companies, and
they try to count the customers of the other companies as their own
subscribers, but analysts reject this sleight of hand.
All of this doesn't even matter all that much--unless your main job in
life is to shill for Cingular/AT&T.
[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
non-spam posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going
away, and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding
AT&T's Wireless Service.]
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-06-06, 10:33 am |
| At 06 Jun 2007 00:42:03 -0700 SMS wrote:
> As has been explained, Verizon Wireless now has more customers than
> "wireless from AT&T" or whatever they're calling themselves.
More retail customers, yes.
> AT&T leases out space on their wireless network to other companies,
Companies that buy or lease lines from AT&T, by definition, are
"customers."
> and they try to count the customers of the other companies as their
> own subscribers, but analysts reject this sleight of hand.
Depends on the analysts, I suppose. RCR Wireless News, an industry trade
publication doesn't seem to have any problems referring to AT&T as the
largest carrier, although it did report Verizon's recent retail lead.
If Ford sells 10,000 to Hertz, Ford counts those cars as sales, even
though Hertz will rent, then eventually resell them. If Cingular sells
10000 lines to prepaid resellers like Ztar (Speakout), similarly, they've
sold 10,000 lines. Verizion has a much smaller number of wholesale sales
than AT&T (or Sprint) because they've largely avoided that market by
choice.
> All of this doesn't even matter all that much...
True- Verizon will likely overtake Cingular in total number of customers
(by ANY definition) by year end.
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 06 Jun 2007 00:42:03 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>
> More retail customers, yes.
Right, more customers that signed up with Verizon Wireless than signed
up with Cingular/AT&T Wireless.
> If Ford sells 10,000 to Hertz, Ford counts those cars as sales, even
> though Hertz will rent, then eventually resell them.
That's not a good analogy. Hertz is a corporate fleet customer, but they
are buying essentially the same product as the retail customer.
A good analogy would be if GM lets Hertz lease the GM factory to produce
a different vehicle, for sale only to Hertz.
What AT&T could say is "we have the most wireless users using our
wireless network."
| |
| John Navas 2007-06-06, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 00:42:03 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 4666653c$0$27212$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Kevin Weaver wrote:
>
>As has been explained, Verizon Wireless now has more customers than
>"wireless from AT&T" or whatever they're calling themselves.
Nope: <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/t.../01verizon.html>
Verizon's wireless business, which Verizon owns jointly with the
Vodafone Group, reported revenue of $10.3 billion in the first
quarter. The unit added 1.7 million wireless subscribers, ending the
quarter with 60.7 million subscribers, second only to AT&T Wireless,
which serves 62.2 million customers.
Not that it matters except to those with an anti-Cingular/AT&T Wireless
agenda. ;)
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Kevin Weaver 2007-06-06, 10:33 pm |
| Wrong again. I'm a Cingular user.
You being wrong is nothing new.
"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:sa7e6392j2eb70g
ffda3fb8jq3eobddkao@
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 00:42:03 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 4666653c$0$27212$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
> Nope: <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/t.../01verizon.html>
>
> Verizon's wireless business, which Verizon owns jointly with the
> Vodafone Group, reported revenue of $10.3 billion in the first
> quarter. The unit added 1.7 million wireless subscribers, ending the
> quarter with 60.7 million subscribers, second only to AT&T Wireless,
> which serves 62.2 million customers.
>
> Not that it matters except to those with an anti-Cingular/AT&T Wireless
> agenda. ;)
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-06-06, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 20:48:15 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 00:42:03 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>wrote in < 4666653c$0$27212$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
>Nope: <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/t.../01verizon.html>
>
> Verizon's wireless business, which Verizon owns jointly with the
> Vodafone Group, reported revenue of $10.3 billion in the first
> quarter. The unit added 1.7 million wireless subscribers, ending the
> quarter with 60.7 million subscribers, second only to AT&T Wireless,
> which serves 62.2 million customers.
>
Apples and Oranges.
Verizon = Subscribers
AT&T = Customers
When subscribers are counted for each Verizon comes out on top.
>Not that it matters except to those with an anti-Cingular/AT&T Wireless
>agenda. ;)
| |
| Mij Adyaw 2007-06-06, 10:33 pm |
| That means that Stinkular is now "number two" behind verizon. It just goes
to proove that CDMA is better.
| |
|
| karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> AT&T = Customers
>
> When subscribers are counted for each Verizon comes out on top.
Verizon has more subscribers than "Wireless from AT&T" while AT&T has
more users of its network by virtue of them leasing capacity to more
MVNOs than Verizon.
A good metric is how many subscribers can call each other using mobile
to mobile minutes. The MVNO customers of AT&T don't get to call actual
AT&T subscribers.
Not sure why Navas is so upset about Verizon passing AT&T in
subscribers, it really doesn't mean anything other than bragging rights
in advertising.
| |
|
| Mij Adyaw wrote:
> That means that Stinkular is now "number two" behind verizon. It just goes
> to proove that CDMA is better.
The number of subscribers that have any idea of the technology behind
their network is very small. However a large part of the reason that
Verizon consistently is ranked better than Cingular in every part of the
country is partially due to the technology because CDMA makes it easier
to provide better service.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-06-07, 4:33 am |
| At 06 Jun 2007 16:58:46 -0700 SMS wrote:
> Not sure why Navas is so upset about Verizon passing AT&T in
> subscribers, it really doesn't mean anything other than bragging
> rights in advertising.
And yet Verizon hasn't bragged about it in their ads to date. Apparently
they don't think they've surpassed AT&T yet either...
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-06-07, 4:33 am |
| On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:01:41 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
>Mij Adyaw wrote:
>
>The number of subscribers that have any idea of the technology behind
>their network is very small. However a large part of the reason that
>Verizon consistently is ranked better than Cingular in every part of the
>country is partially due to the technology because CDMA makes it easier
>to provide better service.
It has far more to do with Customer Service. EVERY year scientifuic
surveys from
The Yankee Group, J.D. Power and Consumer Reports rate Verizon as FAR
BETTER than Cingular or SprintPCS in Customer Service.
| |
|
| karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:01:41 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> It has far more to do with Customer Service. EVERY year scientifuic
> surveys from
>
> The Yankee Group, J.D. Power and Consumer Reports rate Verizon as FAR
> BETTER than Cingular or SprintPCS in Customer Service.
Nope, the good surveys break down their evaluation into several
categories, including coverage and dropped calls. The CDMA cellular
carriers, Verizon and Alltel, consistently rank the best in every area
they serve. These are surveys with very high sample sizes, so the
results have an extremely low margin of error. Sprint is another story;
they're stuck with CDMA on PCS, and 1900 MHz presents quality of service
issues that are very difficult and very expensive to overcome.
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 06 Jun 2007 16:58:46 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>
>
> And yet Verizon hasn't bragged about it in their ads to date. Apparently
> they don't think they've surpassed AT&T yet either...
More likely that they don't think it's something worth using in their
advertising. Look at the comparative number of net additions between
Cingular and Verizon. Clearly the current Verizon marketing campaigns
are doing fine. Advertising like that can backfire. If you claim you're
the best just because you have the most subscribers and the most people
you can call free on mobile to mobile, what happens when you have a
couple of comparatively mediocre quarters of net additions, as Cingular
has been experiencing, and lose the lead slightly? Cingular is only
slightly behind right now, and when the iPhone hits they will probably
be slightly ahead for a while.
Doing well in national and regional surveys is the best marketing tool,
and that's something money can't buy. Of course you can run always run
out and do your own survey, misrepresent the results and base a whole
national ad campaign on those results, to the point that even the
company that you paid to do the survey has to issue a statement that the
advertising claims are are invalid. Did Cingular really ever believe
that no one would see through the "fewest dropped calls" claim? It
backfired, as there was not evidence to support their claims.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-06-07, 12:33 pm |
| At 07 Jun 2007 06:36:02 -0700 SMS wrote:
> Cingular is only slightly behind right now, and when the iPhone hits
> they will probably be slightly ahead for a while.
You're giving the iPhone waaaay too much credit. I suspect the actual
number of people who jump ship will be small. Frankly, Verizon's phone
selection has been lackluster for quite sometime- people buy Verizon for
"The Network"- not for snazzy phones.
> Doing well in national and regional surveys is the best marketing tool,
> and that's something money can't buy. Of course you can run always
> run out and do your own survey, misrepresent the results and base a
> whole national ad campaign on those results, to the point that even
> the company that you paid to do the survey has to issue a statement
> that the advertising claims are are invalid. Did Cingular really ever
> believe that no one would see through the "fewest dropped calls" claim?
> It backfired, as there was not evidence to support their claims.
How did it "backfire?" Other than a few weirdos like us that follow this
industry way too closely, the general public knows nothing about the
lawsuits and countersuits about Cingular's "fewest dropped calls" or
Sprint's "most powerful network" etc.
The ad campaign is still running strong, and whether it affects public
perception remains to be seen. Obviously the "can you here me now" geek
trudging through swamps and forests convinced America Verizon works
everywhere.
I was at the "YMCA of the Rockies" campground in Estes Park last weekend,
and the "can you here me now" guy was nowhere to be seen. Verizon users
were struggling for signal in the woods just like the rest of us. In fact,
I was quite impressed that my T-Mo service did as well as it did- my wife
and I lost signal no more (or less) freqently than my Verizon-packing
sister-in-law and niece.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 07 Jun 2007 06:36:02 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>
> You're giving the iPhone waaaay too much credit. I suspect the actual
> number of people who jump ship will be small. Frankly, Verizon's phone
> selection has been lackluster for quite sometime- people buy Verizon for
> "The Network"- not for snazzy phones.
You're probably right. Maybe I got caught up in all the hype for the
iPhone. It's actually a very nice web pad with its wi-fi access, and
while high-priced for a phone, it's not so bad for a web access device
plus music player. Too bad there is no external memory slot.
| |
| John Navas 2007-06-13, 12:33 pm |
| On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 06:36:02 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 466809b2$0$27181$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Todd Allcock wrote:
The one that's so intent on this issue, as the record clearly shows, is
actually you, presumably because of your axe to grind against GSM in
general and AT&T/Cingular in particular.
[color=darkred]
Well, duh. :)
<SCRAMBLE>[color=darkred]
>More likely that they don't think it's something worth using in their
>advertising. Look at the comparative number of net additions between
>Cingular and Verizon. Clearly the current Verizon marketing campaigns
>are doing fine. Advertising like that can backfire. If you claim you're
>the best just because you have the most subscribers and the most people
>you can call free on mobile to mobile, what happens when you have a
>couple of comparatively mediocre quarters of net additions, as Cingular
>has been experiencing, and lose the lead slightly? Cingular is only
>slightly behind right now, and when the iPhone hits they will probably
>be slightly ahead for a while.
</SCRAMBLE>
>Doing well in national and regional surveys is the best marketing tool,
>and that's something money can't buy. Of course you can run always run
>out and do your own survey, misrepresent the results and base a whole
>national ad campaign on those results, to the point that even the
>company that you paid to do the survey has to issue a statement that the
>advertising claims are are invalid.
You mean like Verizon ads based solely on undisclosed and unverifiable
internal testing? LOL
>Did Cingular really ever believe
>that no one would see through the "fewest dropped calls" claim? It
>backfired, as there was not evidence to support their claims.
The campaign is still running, so that wouldn't seem to be true either.
Give it a rest.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-06-13, 12:33 pm |
| On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:58:46 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 46674a27$0$27202$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
> karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
>
>Verizon has more subscribers than "Wireless from AT&T" while AT&T has
>more users of its network by virtue of them leasing capacity to more
>MVNOs than Verizon.
The simple fact, no matter how you try to deny it, is that AT&T/Cingular
is the market leader.
>A good metric is how many subscribers can call each other using mobile
>to mobile minutes. The MVNO customers of AT&T don't get to call actual
>AT&T subscribers.
Your personal metric makes no sense, and is at odds with the industry.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-06-13, 12:33 pm |
| On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 08:25:40 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 4666d1e4$0$27221$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>Right, more customers that signed up with Verizon Wireless than signed
>up with Cingular/AT&T Wireless.
>
>
>That's not a good analogy. Hertz is a corporate fleet customer, but they
>are buying essentially the same product as the retail customer.
>
>A good analogy would be if GM lets Hertz lease the GM factory to produce
>a different vehicle, for sale only to Hertz.
>
>What AT&T could say is "we have the most wireless users using our
>wireless network."
Give it a rest. No matter how you try to explain it away, AT&T/Cingular
is in fact the current leading carrier.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-06-13, 12:33 pm |
| On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 08:58:09 -0600, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <f46ic1$7st$1@aioe.org>:
>At 06 Jun 2007 00:42:03 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>True- Verizon will likely overtake Cingular in total number of customers
>(by ANY definition) by year end.
Maybe. But then again maybe not -- the iPhone is the wild card.
It's quite possible the iPhone could result in an _increase_ in share
for AT&T/Cingular. Time will tell.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-06-13, 3:33 pm |
| On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:01:41 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 46674ad5$0$27202$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Mij Adyaw wrote:
>
>The number of subscribers that have any idea of the technology behind
>their network is very small. However a large part of the reason that
>Verizon consistently is ranked better than Cingular in every part of the
>country is partially due to the technology because CDMA makes it easier
>to provide better service.
That's simply nonsense. GSM/UMTS and CDMA both have pros and cons.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-06-13, 3:33 pm |
| On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 15:01:34 -0700, "Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com>
wrote in <39G9i.406905$g24.320517@newsfe12.phx>:
>That means that Stinkular is now "number two" behind verizon. It just goes
>to proove that CDMA is better.
Incorrect on both counts.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-06-13, 3:33 pm |
| At 13 Jun 2007 16:58:57 +0000 John Navas wrote:
> Maybe. But then again maybe not -- the iPhone is the wild card.
> It's quite possible the iPhone could result in an _increase_ in share
> for AT&T/Cingular. Time will tell.
While I think the iPhone will be a success, it won't be THAT much of one
given the price tag/product category. No matter how successful a BMW is,
for example, it doesn't outsell the Toyota Camry- they're in different
classes. Even if the iPhone outsells every $200+ cellphone, sales will
still be dwarfed by the "free" phone(s) of the moment.
There's also the "Peter" factor- most folks won't eat an ETF just to be
first on their block, so many iPhone sales will happen over time as
existing contracts "peter out." (Many initial sales will likely be AT&T
contract extensions, which, while nice, don't mean as much to the net adds,
except, perhaps, in lower churn.)
| |
| John Navas 2007-06-13, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:25:03 -0400, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <f4pk4f$hnc$1@aioe.org>:
>At 13 Jun 2007 16:58:57 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>
>While I think the iPhone will be a success, it won't be THAT much of one
>given the price tag/product category. No matter how successful a BMW is,
>for example, it doesn't outsell the Toyota Camry- they're in different
>classes. Even if the iPhone outsells every $200+ cellphone, sales will
>still be dwarfed by the "free" phone(s) of the moment.
Maybe. But then again, maybe not -- there are some pretty successful
phones in that category, and we don't know what kind of pricing curve is
planned. From what I've seen, Apple has a lot of margin in that phone,
and thus a lot of room for discounting. I'm pretty impressed by what
I've seen of the phone, which is way more cool than the stodgy stuff now
on the market, and I think it might well sell on cool alone. Then
there's the fact that the iPod far outsells the competition even though
much of the competition is much less expensive. What this suggests is
that people are willing to pay a big price premium for cool.
>There's also the "Peter" factor- most folks won't eat an ETF just to be
>first on their block, so many iPhone sales will happen over time as
>existing contracts "peter out." (Many initial sales will likely be AT&T
>contract extensions, which, while nice, don't mean as much to the net adds,
>except, perhaps, in lower churn.)
Maybe. But then again, maybe not -- AT&T may well be willing to upgrade
people early, and even expiring contracts plus new customers is still a
huge potential market, on the order of 6+ million per month. Even just
1% of that potential would still be 500K units this year, which I think
is pretty conservative.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
|
|
|
|
|