On 2007-02-01, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> The math was done long before Q4 2006, don't you think? Not saying you're
>> incorrect, just pointing out that these discussions likely started back in
>> Q1/Q2 2005 (at least with Verizon).
>
> Of course, but the numbers have been similar for many quarters. Verizon
> has been signing up far more new contract customers, the high value
> customers that would be likely to buy an iPhone. When you launch a new
> product, you go for the biggest TAM (total available market).

Exactly. But Apple has worldwide selling power, and if they goal was
the biggest total addressable market with a single initial product then
a GSM product can't be topped. Any dalliance with Verizon would have
meant they'd need to develop a second model to put on the shelves in
Europe and Asia, so even if we accept that Verizon somehow has an advantage
in the US which might make up for its smaller subscriber numbers, it
certainly has no advantage that could pay for delaying product availability
in Europe and Asia.

> As one analyst put it, "Verizon continues to take significant market
> share from Cingular in the retail postpaid market."

But as another analyst put it, "GSM/UMTS market penetration worldwide is
up from 53% in 2000 to 82% in 2006".

> Maybe Apple also looked at the differences in quality of the network as
> well, especially the much larger high speed data network. Maybe they
> didn't include HSDPA in the iPhone because the HSDPA network coverage
> lags EV-DO by so much.

I'm curious about this too, though less because of anything to do with
Cingular and more because lack of 2100 MHz UMTS keeps them from selling
in Korea and Japan. I guess it could also be because a 4-band GSM/3-band
UMTS phone was too bleeding edge for a first product (I know of only 2
phones on the market that do this, and one doesn't do HSDPA), or because
support for wideband CDMA would have stressed a power budget that is
probably tight already. It could be anything.

Dennis Ferguson