"SMS" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
>> Unless I missed that, Apple was a willing participant in the exclusivity
>> deal. What makes you think Apple wants it to go away any more than AT&T
> Because Apple would get the best of both worlds if the feds say that these
> deals are monopolistic. They get out of the exclusivity arrangement
> without technically breaking it,
What makes you think they want to break it? They've obviously negotiated
some sort of financial benefit that would evaporate with the contract. If
they didn't want to be in a exclusive arrangement with AT&T, they wouldn't
> and they increase the TAM for the iPhone by 168 million subscribers.
*Sigh* You really need to look up the definition of "TAM." You're
(intentionally) conveniently forgetting the TAM for the iPhone is already
the entire population of all markets that AT&T serves. Just because a
potential customer is currently a subscriber of another carrier doesn't
prevent them from switching to AT&T to obtain the object of their potential
desire. An (admittedly dumb) analogy to your argument is that DISH Network
and DirecTV should also build cable boxes to increase their TAM by the 70 or
so million cable TV subscribers in the US, or Burger King should sell Big
Macs. Like with satellite TV, or fast food, the game in wireless is to
steal your competitors' market share by switching them to YOUR product.
> > And if only a conservative 75% of your 4 million subscribers lived in an
> > area where AT&T offered equivalent coverage, those 3 million have
> > already
> > defected to AT&T for their JesusPhone.
> Where would those areas be? None of the major metropolitan areas in the
> United States, as you are well aware.
All of the major markets in the US have perfectly adequate service from
multiple carriers, most within the "margin of error" according to your
beloved magazine surveys. Even assuming that Verizon covers a few nooks and
crannies no other carrier does, you still haven't answered my oft-asked
1. Why haven't the 150-plus million non-Verizon customers in the US not have
already switched to the "obviously superior" Verizon service anytime in the
last two decades?
2. Where do the 10% of Verizon's customer base that churns annually go?
That's EIGHT million people. More than double the number you assume would
suddenly buy iPhones if available on Verizon. For a company who's
subscribers are, according to you, "especially loathe to leave..." due to
the "...quality, coverage, and service," they manage to drive away 1 out of
10 customers every year. Where do they go?
Let's even forget Sprint and T-Mobile and their "value pricing to compensate
for smaller networks" approach for a moment, and just concentrate on the
evil twins: AT&T's and Verizon's pricing are seemingly in a virtual lockstep
right down to data add-ons, Verizon now even offers a fairly decent
selection of world phones (negating the potential "international traveler
advantage" that might have previously favored AT&T,) so why haven't the 60
million AT&T subscribers not using iPhones jumped to Verizon already if
AT&T's coverage is such crap compared to Verizon?
If we assume, as you apparently believe, that Verizon's network is orders of
magnitude better than AT&T's, that leaves us two theories:
1) That the 60+ million AT&T customers are either complete idiots or just
coincidentally and luckily avoid the vast areas of the country where Verizon
has service and AT&T doesn't, or,
2) That Verizon is such an insanely horrible company to do business with,
that only those forced to do business with them by virtue of their amazingly
superior coverage, willingly do so.
Otherwise, we can assume that the network differences, at least in most
users' experiences (places they live, work, play or travel,) are close
enough, or only come in to play in so few areas, that it has little effect
on the vast majority of customers, who use coverage as one of just many
criteria in choosing a wireless company.
In a truly competitive, mature marketplace, there is never one clear market
leader superior in every way, or it would've absorbed, killed off, or
marginalized all competitors. The existance of strong, profitable
competitors proves there are effective alternatives to Verizon.
[Only tangentally related, this was an interesting read: http://www.costquest.com/costquest/d...ion_Report.pdf
By zip code, nearly 97% of the US population has 3G coverage available, and
86% has it available from two or more providers. And that's 3G- not just
good ol' voice coverage.]