Why did Apple choose GSM for the iPhone?

In alt.cellular.attws 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote:
> The whole GSM vs CDMA debate is pretty much over for most of the
> world, all you have to look at is the graph of the competing
> standards:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...technology.svg
>
> Notice the other line about subscriber growth too.
>
>

Apple is nothing if not about planned obsolecense and upgrades. With a
company like Verizon, users will have to go through the hassle of calling up
Verizon, buying a Verizon blessed [i]phone and then get it activated. With
GSM, Apple simply releases a new iPhonse [unlocked ... but that is in the
future] and a user is free to just take the SIM out of the old one and put it
in the new one.

That alone seems like a major reason to me.

Also, since Europe is a major market for Apple, they are predominantly GSM, so
it also make sense from that perspective.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

In the land of the dark the Ship of the Sun is driven by the Grateful Dead.
-- Egyptian Book of the Dead

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

> Apple is nothing if not about planned obsolecense and upgrades. With a
> company like Verizon, users will have to go through the hassle of calling up
> Verizon, buying a Verizon blessed [i]phone and then get it activated. With
> GSM, Apple simply releases a new iPhonse [unlocked ... but that is in the
> future] and a user is free to just take the SIM out of the old one and put it
> in the new one.

I've activated many phones on Verizon without ever calling them, or
having to open the phone. It takes just a few seconds on-line to
activate the phone.

Buying a new iPhone from a Verizon store would not be materially more
difficult than buying one from an Apple or AT&T store.

> That alone seems like a major reason to me.

If on-line activation versus swapping a SIM seems like a major reason,
then you haven't been paying attention, since Apple first approached
Verizon for the iPhone they obviously weren't too concerned about this
issue. The major reason they wanted Verizon was because Verizon has
significantly more retail subscribers (and continues to increase their
lead in retail customers versus AT&T); it had nothing to do with GSM
versus CDMA. It's all about subscriber growth and sales potential. They
did what any company would do--try to get their product into the channel
with the largest sales potential.

> Also, since Europe is a major market for Apple, they are predominantly GSM, so
> it also make sense from that perspective.

Perhaps, but obviously Apple knew they could easily do both a GSM and
CDMA version of the phone. Look at other countries, where Apple always
first approaches the carrier with the largest sales potential, and if
turned down they go down the line until they find a carrier that will
agree to their revenue sharing terms. Also, one of the reasons the
iPhone has done poorly in Europe is because of the lack of 3G, so it's
unlikely that they did much research into the European market.

In alt.cellular.attws SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
>> Apple is nothing if not about planned obsolecense and upgrades. With a
>> company like Verizon, users will have to go through the hassle of calling up
>> Verizon, buying a Verizon blessed [i]phone and then get it activated. With
>> GSM, Apple simply releases a new iPhonse [unlocked ... but that is in the
>> future] and a user is free to just take the SIM out of the old one and put it
>> in the new one.
>
> I've activated many phones on Verizon without ever calling them, or
> having to open the phone. It takes just a few seconds on-line to
> activate the phone.
>

Right ... but it has to be a Verizon approved phone.

> Buying a new iPhone from a Verizon store would not be materially more
> difficult than buying one from an Apple or AT&T store.
>

True ... but later, when it is not AT&T exclusive, you can buy one anywhere
and just put your SIM in it. Another major market for Apple is Europe, which
is mostly GSM, so that is another advantage to their choice of technology.


>> That alone seems like a major reason to me.
>
> If on-line activation versus swapping a SIM seems like a major reason,
> then you haven't been paying attention, since Apple first approached
> Verizon for the iPhone they obviously weren't too concerned about this
> issue. The major reason they wanted Verizon was because Verizon has
> significantly more retail subscribers (and continues to increase their
> lead in retail customers versus AT&T); it had nothing to do with GSM
> versus CDMA. It's all about subscriber growth and sales potential. They
> did what any company would do--try to get their product into the channel
> with the largest sales potential.
>

You missed my point. You can only activate Verizon approved phones on their
network [even via the online tool]. Verizon has promised to open this up, but
they also promised to go to pro-rated early termination fees and I haven't
seen that materialize ... so vapor is vapor until otherwise revealed.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

In the land of the dark the Ship of the Sun is driven by the Grateful Dead.
-- Egyptian Book of the Dead

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 06:42:24 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47bc3b9c$0$36354$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>If on-line activation versus swapping a SIM seems like a major reason,
>then you haven't been paying attention, since Apple first approached
>Verizon for the iPhone they obviously weren't too concerned about this
>issue. The major reason they wanted Verizon was because Verizon has
>significantly more retail subscribers (and continues to increase their
>lead in retail customers versus AT&T); it had nothing to do with GSM
>versus CDMA. It's all about subscriber growth and sales potential. They
>did what any company would do--try to get their product into the channel
>with the largest sales potential.

That's actually all about Verizon spin, trying to explain away how it
lost the iPhone beauty contest to AT&T. GSM was clearly a much better
fit for Apple, especially with CDMA2000 in serious decline.

>> Also, since Europe is a major market for Apple, they are predominantly GSM, so
>> it also make sense from that perspective.
>
>Perhaps, but obviously Apple knew they could easily do both a GSM and
>CDMA version of the phone.

Not so easy, actually, especially because of battery life issues.

>Look at other countries, where Apple always
>first approaches the carrier with the largest sales potential, and if
>turned down they go down the line until they find a carrier that will
>agree to their revenue sharing terms. Also, one of the reasons the
>iPhone has done poorly in Europe is because of the lack of 3G, so it's
>unlikely that they did much research into the European market.

You obviously don't know Apple very well.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

> You missed my point. You can only activate Verizon approved phones on their
> network [even via the online tool]. Verizon has promised to open this up, but
> they also promised to go to pro-rated early termination fees and I haven't
> seen that materialize ... so vapor is vapor until otherwise revealed.

I didn't miss it. Technically you can only activate iPhones on AT&T.
Apple didn't care about the phone being able to be used on multiple
networks, in fact they made attempts to prevent this from occurring.

Perhaps one reason Apple wanted Verizon so badly was because preventing
the use of the phone on other CDMA networks would have been much easier.
Indeed, maybe the reason they wanted Verizon in the U.S. was because the
U.S. model phones could then not be used in Europe or much of Asia, on
GSM networks, with Apple losing their cut. Look at where most of the
unactivated iPhones ended up.

You're also mistaken about ETFs on Verizon. Pro-rated termination fees
are already in effect at Verizon (for more than a year in fact, since
November 2006), the ETF goes down $5/month, i.e. at 23 months you'd pay
$175-($5 x 23)=$60. AT&T and T-Mobile have announced pro-rated ETFs, but
haven't implemented them yet.

From: "http://www.verizonwireless.com/"

"AN EARLY TERMINATION FEE WILL APPLY IF YOU CHOOSE TO END YOUR SERVICE
BEFORE BECOMING A MONTH–TO–MONTH CUSTOMER, OR IF WE TERMINATE IT EARLY
FOR GOOD CAUSE. FOR SERVICE ACTIVATED PRIOR TO 11/16/06, THE EARLY
TERMINATION FEE IS $175 PER WIRELESS PHONE NUMBER. FOR SERVICE ACTIVATED
ON OR AFTER 11/16/06, OR FOR LINES OF SERVICE WITH MINIMUM TERMS
EXTENDED ON OR AFTER 11/16/06, THE EARLY TERMINATION FEE IS $175, WHICH
WILL BE REDUCED BY $5 FOR EACH FULL MONTH TOWARD YOUR MINIMUM TERM THAT
YOU COMPLETE."

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:39:02 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47bc48e3$0$36391$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Perhaps one reason Apple wanted Verizon so badly was because preventing
>the use of the phone on other CDMA networks would have been much easier.

Apple didn't want Verizon "so badly" -- it selected AT&T Wireless.
There are few other CDMA2000 networks of any significance.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

Carl wrote:

> I could be wrong about this, but I believe AT&T has a 5 year exclusivity
> agreement with Apple regarding the iPhone. If so, I wouldn't count on seeing
> a CDMA version for quite some time to come.

It's not clear if Apple is precluded from making a CDMA model or just
precluded from a deal with any other U.S. carrier for five years. If
it's the latter, they could market a CDMA version in say Korea, and have
it make its way back to the U.S. without their explicit approval.

Apple desperately wanted Verizon for the iPhone because Verizon has the
largest retail subscriber base, and continues to increase its lead over
2nd place AT&T in new retail subscribers. The reason that sales have not
met expectations is because they had to go with AT&T. If you look at all
the independent surveys on network quality, you can understand why
subscribers aren't switching from Verizon to AT&T in droves just to get
an iPhone.

If they sold a Korean CDMA version for a higher price and didn't stop it
from being gray-marketed into the U.S., that could make up for the lack
of revenue sharing, and greatly increase the sales of the iPhone.

In any case, it's becoming moot as similar devices, but with more
capability, and more applications, are eclipsing the iPhone. The
Sony-Ericsson XPERIA™ X1 looks especially good.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:26:20 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47bc53f8$0$36344$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Apple desperately wanted Verizon for the iPhone because Verizon has the
>largest retail subscriber base, and continues to increase its lead over
>2nd place AT&T in new retail subscribers. The reason that sales have not
>met expectations is because they had to go with AT&T. If you look at all
>the independent surveys on network quality, you can understand why
>subscribers aren't switching from Verizon to AT&T in droves just to get
>an iPhone.

Nonsense. AT&T won the Apple "beauty contest" for the iPhone. Verizon
lost, and all the Verizon spin in the world won't change that simple
fact. And sales of the iPhone have been doing very well indeed, easily
the most successful smartphone launch in history.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

In article <47bc53f8$0$36344$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Apple desperately wanted Verizon for the iPhone because Verizon has the
> largest retail subscriber base, and continues to increase its lead over
> 2nd place AT&T in new retail subscribers. The reason that sales have not
> met expectations is because they had to go with AT&T. If you look at all
> the independent surveys on network quality, you can understand why
> subscribers aren't switching from Verizon to AT&T in droves just to get
> an iPhone.

In guess you think if you keep repeating the above that will make it
true. Your whole paragraph is a crock.

--
Charles

Charles wrote:
> In article <47bc53f8$0$36344$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Apple desperately wanted Verizon for the iPhone because Verizon has the
>> largest retail subscriber base, and continues to increase its lead over
>> 2nd place AT&T in new retail subscribers. The reason that sales have not
>> met expectations is because they had to go with AT&T. If you look at all
>> the independent surveys on network quality, you can understand why
>> subscribers aren't switching from Verizon to AT&T in droves just to get
>> an iPhone.
>
> In guess you think if you keep repeating the above that will make it
> true. Your whole paragraph is a crock.

If you have any citations that dispute the citations which have been
posted here repeatedly, then come forward with them. Of course you
won't. The USA Today report about Apple going to Verizon first has never
been disputed by any of the interested parties. The facts about retail
subscribers are public documents, and the surveys on network quality are
available from the publishers and no one has disputed their accuracy
based on anything other than their own sour grapes statements.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:41:07 -0500, Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote in
<200220081241077002%fort514@mac.com>:

>In article <47bc53f8$0$36344$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
><scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Apple desperately wanted Verizon for the iPhone because Verizon has the
>> largest retail subscriber base, and continues to increase its lead over
>> 2nd place AT&T in new retail subscribers. The reason that sales have not
>> met expectations is because they had to go with AT&T. If you look at all
>> the independent surveys on network quality, you can understand why
>> subscribers aren't switching from Verizon to AT&T in droves just to get
>> an iPhone.
>
>In guess you think if you keep repeating the above that will make it
>true. Your whole paragraph is a crock.

Yes and amen.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:55:22 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47bc68d7$0$36377$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Charles wrote:
>> In article <47bc53f8$0$36344$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
>> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Apple desperately wanted Verizon for the iPhone because Verizon has the
>>> largest retail subscriber base, and continues to increase its lead over
>>> 2nd place AT&T in new retail subscribers. The reason that sales have not
>>> met expectations is because they had to go with AT&T. If you look at all
>>> the independent surveys on network quality, you can understand why
>>> subscribers aren't switching from Verizon to AT&T in droves just to get
>>> an iPhone.
>>
>> In guess you think if you keep repeating the above that will make it
>> true. Your whole paragraph is a crock.
>
>If you have any citations that dispute the citations which have been
>posted here repeatedly, then come forward with them. Of course you
>won't.

There are no *independent* citations of any kind.

>The USA Today report about Apple going to Verizon first

Was based entirely on claims by Verizon.

>has never
>been disputed by any of the interested parties.

Meaningless. These companies don't comment on things like that.

>The facts about retail
>subscribers are public documents, and the surveys on network quality are
>available from the publishers

Misinterpreted by you in both cases.

>and no one has disputed their accuracy
>based on anything other than their own sour grapes statements.

Simply not true.

And no actual links to back up your claims, as usual.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

At 20 Feb 2008 09:55:22 -0800 SMS wrote:

> If you have any citations that dispute the citations which have been
> posted here repeatedly, then come forward with them. Of course you
> won't.

I doubt many disagree with the facts you point out-just the over-the-top
conclusions you draw from them.

Yes, Apple probably approached Verizon first. Perhaps they approached both
simultaneously to get "feelers" as to whether further pursuit was useful.

Personally, I believe they approached Verizon first to "get it out of the
way." Verizon'shistory of crippling handsets made them very unlikely to
play well with the iPhone, and I suspect Apple didn't expect much from
Verizon, but gave them a shot and realized quickly further talks were
pointless.

> The facts about retail subscribers are public documents,

Yes, and the difference in customers between the top two carriers, either
retail or total, is relatively negligible- within 10%. This really
eliminates neither carrier as a desirable choice.

> and the surveys on network quality are available from the publishers
> and no one has disputed their accuracy based on anything other than
> their own sour grapes statements.
>

While true, and while I agree Verizon has a stronger network, it's not by
anywhere near the margin you suggest. If Verizon was as superior as you
believe, why haven't the 50+ million "retail" AT&T customers jumped ship
yet? All contracts run out eventually, so why does ANYONE re-up on AT&T's
"inferior" network.

The fact that T-Mo, the carrier with the weakest network, consistently
ranks at or near the top of customer satisfaction surveys points out that
even their network is satisfactory.

Now if I want to close with an SMS-like conclusion from the above, I could
suggest that the Verizon customer service experience must be pretty
lackluster if their superior network doesn't give them a commanding lead
over T-Mo and their inferior network in satisfaction surveys like J.D.
Powers'!

Or, I could give a Navas-like conclusion and simply type "Rubbish." ;-)

Either way, you're blurring the distinction between "fact" and "unsupported
conclusion drawn from fact."

Todd Allcock wrote:

> Personally, I believe they approached Verizon first to "get it out of the
> way." Verizon'shistory of crippling handsets made them very unlikely to
> play well with the iPhone, and I suspect Apple didn't expect much from
> Verizon, but gave them a shot and realized quickly further talks were
> pointless.

Almost certainly the reason they approached Verizon first was because
they knew two things:

1. Verizon has the most retail subscribers of any U.S. carrier, and
continues to add more retail subscribers than AT&T. This meant the
largest possible market in the U.S. for the iPhone.

2. Very few Verizon subscribers would give up the Verizon network in
order to get an iPhone, while AT&T subscribers have less allegiance. The
churn numbers confirm this.

I'm not sure what conclusions you think I'm drawing that are unsupported
by the citations I include.

> Yes, and the difference in customers between the top two carriers, either
> retail or total, is relatively negligible- within 10%.

It's actually over 10%. At the end of 2007, AT&T wireless had 55 million
retail post paid customers, while Verizon had 61 million.

> While true, and while I agree Verizon has a stronger network, it's not by
> anywhere near the margin you suggest. If Verizon was as superior as you
> believe, why haven't the 50+ million "retail" AT&T customers jumped ship
> yet? All contracts run out eventually, so why does ANYONE re-up on AT&T's
> "inferior" network.

A few reasons right off the top of my head:

1. A better selection of handsets
2. More worldwide roaming
3. Adequate service in the areas where they use their phones

> The fact that T-Mo, the carrier with the weakest network, consistently
> ranks at or near the top of customer satisfaction surveys points out that
> even their network is satisfactory.

No, what it proves is that there is more to customer satisfaction than
the actual quality of the network.

> Now if I want to close with an SMS-like conclusion from the above, I could
> suggest that the Verizon customer service experience must be pretty
> lackluster if their superior network doesn't give them a commanding lead
> over T-Mo and their inferior network in satisfaction surveys like J.D.
> Powers'!

Actually, what you could conclude it that T-Mobile's customer service is
outstanding, while Verizon's is lackluster.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:10:10 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47bc8871$0$36324$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> Personally, I believe they approached Verizon first to "get it out of the
>> way." Verizon'shistory of crippling handsets made them very unlikely to
>> play well with the iPhone, and I suspect Apple didn't expect much from
>> Verizon, but gave them a shot and realized quickly further talks were
>> pointless.
>
>Almost certainly the reason they approached Verizon first was because
>they knew two things:

We have only the word of Verizon on that, which is meaningless.

>1. Verizon has the most retail subscribers of any U.S. carrier, and
>continues to add more retail subscribers than AT&T. This meant the
>largest possible market in the U.S. for the iPhone.

The difference compared to AT&T is again meaningless, and AT&T is
actually ahead.

>2. Very few Verizon subscribers would give up the Verizon network in
>order to get an iPhone, while AT&T subscribers have less allegiance. The
>churn numbers confirm this.

The churn numbers actually say nothing of the sort -- they are low for
both carriers.

3. The worldwide market is GSM/UMTS, and CDMA2000 is a dead end, making
AT&T a much more attractive part of a global strategy.

4. Verizon modifies ("cripples" according to you) handsets, something
that Apple won't tolerate.

>I'm not sure what conclusions you think I'm drawing that are unsupported
>by the citations I include.

All of them.

>> Yes, and the difference in customers between the top two carriers, either
>> retail or total, is relatively negligible- within 10%.
>
>It's actually over 10%. At the end of 2007, AT&T wireless had 55 million
>retail post paid customers, while Verizon had 61 million.

Nope. You're cooking the books. (What a shock.)

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

At 20 Feb 2008 12:10:10 -0800 SMS wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> > Personally, I believe they approached Verizon first to "get it out of
the
> > way." Verizon'shistory of crippling handsets made them very unlikely to
> > play well with the iPhone, and I suspect Apple didn't expect much from
> > Verizon, but gave them a shot and realized quickly further talks were
> > pointless.
>
> Almost certainly the reason they approached Verizon first was because
> they knew two things:
>
> 1. Verizon has the most retail subscribers of any U.S. carrier, and
> continues to add more retail subscribers than AT&T. This meant the
> largest possible market in the U.S. for the iPhone.


Again, by an extremely small margin. All else being equal, you'd take the
larger carrier, but all things are rarely equal. Let's face it- Apple and
Verizon would've been a lousy fit!


> 2. Very few Verizon subscribers would give up the Verizon network in
> order to get an iPhone, while AT&T subscribers have less allegiance.

Again, that's an unwarranted conclusion, conveniently forgetting the small
spike in Verizon churn in the 3rd-quarter last year (the iPhone's big
quarter.) Apparently not ALL Verizon customers swear an allegiance! ;-)

AT&T's churn is a little higher, but that's still the second best churn
number in the industry.

> The churn numbers confirm this.

Again, all else being equal...


> I'm not sure what conclusions you think I'm drawing that are unsupported
by the citations I include.


Everything beyond the hard numbers! Stuff like "Verizon has the lowest
churn" is a fact, for example, while "very few Verizon customers would
leave..." is an opinion. There is a difference, you know.

> > Yes, and the difference in customers between the top two carriers,
either
> > retail or total, is relatively negligible- within 10%.
>
> It's actually over 10%. At the end of 2007, AT&T wireless had 55 million
retail post paid customers, while Verizon had 61 million.

You got me by 500k customers, give or take. (The difference was less when
Apple and A&T did the deal, BTW!).

> > While true, and while I agree Verizon has a stronger network, it's not
by
> > anywhere near the margin you suggest. If Verizon was as superior as you
> > believe, why haven't the 50+ million "retail" AT&T customers jumped ship
> > yet? All contracts run out eventually, so why does ANYONE re-up on
AT&T's
> > "inferior" network.
>
> A few reasons right off the top of my head:
>
> 1. A better selection of handsets
> 2. More worldwide roaming
> 3. Adequate service in the areas where they use their phones


If all of those factors are more important to 63, er, 55 million customers,
than "the network" then why do you think Apple would see Verizon and it's
network as an advantage? The top two carriers are essentially
interchangeable from Apple's standpoint, and equally viable. Why not just
take the better deal?


> > The fact that T-Mo, the carrier with the weakest network, consistently
> > ranks at or near the top of customer satisfaction surveys points out
that
> > even their network is satisfactory.
>
> No, what it proves is that there is more to customer satisfaction than
the actual quality of the network.

Of course- yet if these non-Verizon networks wereaspoor as you think, we
non-VZW users would all be walking around with dead phones!

> > Now if I want to close with an SMS-like conclusion from the above, I
could
> > suggest that the Verizon customer service experience must be pretty
> > lackluster if their superior network doesn't give them a commanding lead
> > over T-Mo and their inferior network in satisfaction surveys like J.D.
> > Powers'!
>
> Actually, what you could conclude it that T-Mobile's customer service is
> outstanding, while Verizon's is lackluster.
But I was mostly kidding- I've never really heard too much griping about
VZW's CS, (at least compared to, say, Sprint's.) You can only draw your
conclusion if you accept the premise Verizon's network is orders of
magnitude better than others, when the reality is that all the national
carriers have comparable networks within a few percentage points of each
other (counted by POPs, rather than geography.)

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> amazed us all with the
following in news:fpifdm$57d$1@aioe.org:

> At 20 Feb 2008 12:10:10 -0800 SMS wrote:
>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>
>> > Personally, I believe they approached Verizon first to "get it out
>> > of
> the
>> > way." Verizon'shistory of crippling handsets made them very
>> > unlikely to play well with the iPhone, and I suspect Apple didn't
>> > expect much from Verizon, but gave them a shot and realized quickly
>> > further talks were pointless.
>>
>> Almost certainly the reason they approached Verizon first was because
>> they knew two things:
>>
>> 1. Verizon has the most retail subscribers of any U.S. carrier, and
>> continues to add more retail subscribers than AT&T. This meant the
>> largest possible market in the U.S. for the iPhone.
>
>
> Again, by an extremely small margin. All else being equal, you'd take
> the larger carrier, but all things are rarely equal. Let's face it-
> Apple and Verizon would've been a lousy fit!
>
>
>> 2. Very few Verizon subscribers would give up the Verizon network in
>> order to get an iPhone, while AT&T subscribers have less allegiance.
>
> Again, that's an unwarranted conclusion, conveniently forgetting the
> small spike in Verizon churn in the 3rd-quarter last year (the
> iPhone's big quarter.) Apparently not ALL Verizon customers swear an
> allegiance! ;-)
>
> AT&T's churn is a little higher, but that's still the second best
> churn
> number in the industry.
>
>> The churn numbers confirm this.
>
> Again, all else being equal...
>
>
>> I'm not sure what conclusions you think I'm drawing that are
>> unsupported
> by the citations I include.
>
>
> Everything beyond the hard numbers! Stuff like "Verizon has the
> lowest churn" is a fact, for example, while "very few Verizon
> customers would leave..." is an opinion. There is a difference, you
> know.
>
>> > Yes, and the difference in customers between the top two carriers,
> either
>> > retail or total, is relatively negligible- within 10%.
>>
>> It's actually over 10%. At the end of 2007, AT&T wireless had 55
>> million
> retail post paid customers, while Verizon had 61 million.
>
> You got me by 500k customers, give or take. (The difference was less
> when Apple and A&T did the deal, BTW!).
>
>> > While true, and while I agree Verizon has a stronger network, it's
>> > not
> by
>> > anywhere near the margin you suggest. If Verizon was as superior
>> > as you believe, why haven't the 50+ million "retail" AT&T customers
>> > jumped ship yet? All contracts run out eventually, so why does
>> > ANYONE re-up on
> AT&T's
>> > "inferior" network.
>>
>> A few reasons right off the top of my head:
>>
>> 1. A better selection of handsets
>> 2. More worldwide roaming
>> 3. Adequate service in the areas where they use their phones
>
>
> If all of those factors are more important to 63, er, 55 million
> customers, than "the network" then why do you think Apple would see
> Verizon and it's network as an advantage? The top two carriers are
> essentially interchangeable from Apple's standpoint, and equally
> viable. Why not just take the better deal?
>
>
>> > The fact that T-Mo, the carrier with the weakest network,
>> > consistently ranks at or near the top of customer satisfaction
>> > surveys points out
> that
>> > even their network is satisfactory.
>>
>> No, what it proves is that there is more to customer satisfaction
>> than
> the actual quality of the network.
>
> Of course- yet if these non-Verizon networks wereaspoor as you think,
> we non-VZW users would all be walking around with dead phones!
>
>> > Now if I want to close with an SMS-like conclusion from the above,
>> > I
> could
>> > suggest that the Verizon customer service experience must be pretty
>> > lackluster if their superior network doesn't give them a commanding
>> > lead over T-Mo and their inferior network in satisfaction surveys
>> > like J.D. Powers'!
>>
>> Actually, what you could conclude it that T-Mobile's customer service
>> is outstanding, while Verizon's is lackluster.
> But I was mostly kidding- I've never really heard too much griping
> about VZW's CS, (at least compared to, say, Sprint's.) You can only
> draw your conclusion if you accept the premise Verizon's network is
> orders of magnitude better than others, when the reality is that all
> the national carriers have comparable networks within a few percentage
> points of each other (counted by POPs, rather than geography.)
>
>
>
>

Todd- you realize that you're arguing with the Verizon version of Navas,
don't you?

At 20 Feb 2008 18:27:26 -0600 The Bob wrote:

> Todd- you realize that you're arguing with the Verizon version of Navas,
> don't you?


Unfortunately, it seems more that way all the time, but I'm not ready to
write Steven off just yet...

Although I AM starting to wonder if SMS looks just like John Navas except
with a goatee... ;-)

Todd Allcock wrote:

>> 1. Verizon has the most retail subscribers of any U.S. carrier, and
>> continues to add more retail subscribers than AT&T. This meant the
>> largest possible market in the U.S. for the iPhone.
>
> Again, by an extremely small margin.

More than 10% more, and the gap is widening every quarter.

All else being equal, you'd take the
> larger carrier, but all things are rarely equal. Let's face it- Apple and
> Verizon would've been a lousy fit!

You may be right. Both are headstrong companies with an attitude of "we
have all the supply, so we can demand whatever the $%#@ we want." Let's
face it, Verizon knows that it gets away with a lot of what they do
because for many subscribers there is simply no decent alternative. They
periodically offer to let subscribers out of their contracts when they
unilaterally change the terms for the worse. It's not surprising that
Verizon didn't want to give Apple the revenue sharing that Apple wanted.

> Again, that's an unwarranted conclusion, conveniently forgetting the small
> spike in Verizon churn in the 3rd-quarter last year (the iPhone's big
> quarter.) Apparently not ALL Verizon customers swear an allegiance! ;-)

A small spike for what was supposed to be g-ds gift to the cellular
phone industry.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 20 Feb 2008 18:27:26 -0600 The Bob wrote:
>
>> Todd- you realize that you're arguing with the Verizon version of Navas,
>> don't you?
>
>
> Unfortunately, it seems more that way all the time, but I'm not ready to
> write Steven off just yet...
>
> Although I AM starting to wonder if SMS looks just like John Navas except
> with a goatee... ;-)
>

I have no goatee, and I've never seen Navas so I don't know if I look
like him.

"The Bob" appears to be more like Navas than me. Lots of attacks, but
never any substance.

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:47bcd003$0$36348$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 20 Feb 2008 18:27:26 -0600 The Bob wrote:
>>
>>> Todd- you realize that you're arguing with the Verizon version of
>>> Navas, don't you?
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, it seems more that way all the time, but I'm not ready
>> to write Steven off just yet...
>>
>> Although I AM starting to wonder if SMS looks just like John Navas
>> except with a goatee... ;-)
>>
>
> I have no goatee, and I've never seen Navas so I don't know if I look
> like him.
>
> "The Bob" appears to be more like Navas than me. Lots of attacks, but
> never any substance.
>

Sorry, Steve- I've provided plenty of substance. The fact that you don't
choose to recognize it is not surprising.

At 20 Feb 2008 17:15:32 -0800 SMS wrote:

> I have no goatee, and I've never seen Navas so I don't know if I look
like him.

It was a "nerd-reference" to the "Mirror, Mirror" episode of the original
Star Trek series, where the parallel-universe-opposite Mr. Spock sported a
mustache and goatee.

I must be a lot older (and geekier) than you guys... ;-)

> "The Bob" appears to be more like Navas than me. Lots of attacks, but
> never any substance.

There's a lot of that going around here lately... Mostly well-deserved
against our resident NG villian, but it's really lowering the S/N ratio,
which seems to be his current plan.

I'm certainly just as guilty as most of us lately- I need to restrain
myself better and follow your filter-and-ignore policy. It seems to have
worked for our iPhanboy Oxford, but of course he didn't have as much
history invested here as He Who Must Not Be Named.

Cheers!

At 20 Feb 2008 21:20:21 -0600 The Bob wrote:

> > "The Bob" appears to be more like Navas than me. Lots of attacks, but
> > never any substance.
> >
>
> Sorry, Steve- I've provided plenty of substance. The fact that you don't
> choose to recognize it is not surprising.


To be fair to Steve, it's kind of hard to tell how substantive your prior
posts have been with the nymshifting...

It took me a few posts to figure you out from your posting style, but then
again I appreciate a few good ascerbic comments from a fellow Rocky
Mountain wiseass! ;-)

At 20 Feb 2008 17:13:32 -0800 SMS wrote:

> You may be right. Both are headstrong companies with an attitude
> of "we have all the supply, so we can demand whatever the $%#@
> we want." Let's face it, Verizon knows that it gets away with a lot
> of what they do because for many subscribers there is simply no
> decent alternative.

Agreed.

> They periodically offer to let subscribers out of their contracts when
> they unilaterally change the terms for the worse.

Which I've never understood (from any cell company- not just Verizon.)
Most have billing systems advanced enough to handle myriads of
"grandfathered" rate plans. Wouldn't it be cheaper to just grandfather, say,
a $0.10 or $0.15 texting charge until the end of a contract, rather than
let people walk out of a $50/month plan over a lousy nickel increase?

> It's not surprising
> that Verizon didn't want to give Apple the revenue sharing that Apple
> wanted.

I'm sure it was simply Verizon greed, but as a former cellular dealer I'd
like to pretend it was at least partly out of respect for their dealer
base. AT&T is essentially paying Apple the "dealer residuals" on each
iPhone contract, and locking their entire dealer network out of a hot-
selling phone possibly to prevent "double-dipping" of residuals.


> > Again, that's an unwarranted conclusion, conveniently forgetting the
small
> > spike in Verizon churn in the 3rd-quarter last year (the iPhone's big
> > quarter.) Apparently not ALL Verizon customers swear an allegiance!
;-)
>
> A small spike for what was supposed to be g-ds gift to the cellular phone
industry.

Agreed, but it was a spike nonetheless. Frankly, for all the noise about
the JesusPhone, all of the other carriers (except Sprint) are doing well in
net adds- at last year's level or above, so the iPhone exclusivity isn't
exactly crippling the competition.

In alt.cellular.attws Todd Allcock <elecconnec@americaonline.com> wrote:
>
>> > Now if I want to close with an SMS-like conclusion from the above, I
> could
>> > suggest that the Verizon customer service experience must be pretty
>> > lackluster if their superior network doesn't give them a commanding lead
>> > over T-Mo and their inferior network in satisfaction surveys like J.D.
>> > Powers'!
>>
>> Actually, what you could conclude it that T-Mobile's customer service is
>> outstanding, while Verizon's is lackluster.
> But I was mostly kidding- I've never really heard too much griping about
> VZW's CS, (at least compared to, say, Sprint's.) You can only draw your
> conclusion if you accept the premise Verizon's network is orders of
> magnitude better than others, when the reality is that all the national
> carriers have comparable networks within a few percentage points of each
> other (counted by POPs, rather than geography.)
>

I have had nothing but excellent customer service from Verizon and I have used
it a few times [mostly related to my Daughter breaking phones or a temporary
but significant period of overage where I didn't want to commit to a new
higher plan for only two months of service.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

In the land of the dark the Ship of the Sun is driven by the Grateful Dead.
-- Egyptian Book of the Dead

Todd Allcock wrote:

> Which I've never understood (from any cell company- not just Verizon.)
> Most have billing systems advanced enough to handle myriads of
> "grandfathered" rate plans. Wouldn't it be cheaper to just grandfather, say,
> a $0.10 or $0.15 texting charge until the end of a contract, rather than
> let people walk out of a $50/month plan over a lousy nickel increase?

Yes, but they know that few people will take advantage of the escape
clause. They must have calculated that the increased revenue from the
higher rates more than offsets the lost subscribers.

> I'm sure it was simply Verizon greed, but as a former cellular dealer I'd
> like to pretend it was at least partly out of respect for their dealer
> base. AT&T is essentially paying Apple the "dealer residuals" on each
> iPhone contract, and locking their entire dealer network out of a hot-
> selling phone possibly to prevent "double-dipping" of residuals.

I know that AT&T's dealers are very upset about not being able to sell
the iPhone, however I'd speculate that it was the revenue sharing and
not the residuals that caused Verizon to pass on the iPhone.

> Agreed, but it was a spike nonetheless. Frankly, for all the noise about
> the JesusPhone, all of the other carriers (except Sprint) are doing well in
> net adds- at last year's level or above, so the iPhone exclusivity isn't
> exactly crippling the competition.

True, I originally thought that the iPhone would enable AT&T to overtake
Verizon in new retail additions, but in fact Verizon continues to widen
its lead. With the right management, Sprint could probably turn things
around, but they'll probably be sold to someone that can make better use
of their network.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:21:15 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47bda447$0$36412$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> Which I've never understood (from any cell company- not just Verizon.)
>> Most have billing systems advanced enough to handle myriads of
>> "grandfathered" rate plans. Wouldn't it be cheaper to just grandfather, say,
>> a $0.10 or $0.15 texting charge until the end of a contract, rather than
>> let people walk out of a $50/month plan over a lousy nickel increase?
>
>Yes, but they know that few people will take advantage of the escape
>clause. They must have calculated that the increased revenue from the
>higher rates more than offsets the lost subscribers.

More to the point, they do their best not to alert people to the fact by
burying that fact in dense and confusing legalese. Sadly, the
Republican FTC doesn't seem to think there's anything wrong with that,
and most of the state PUCs aren't up to the task.

>> I'm sure it was simply Verizon greed, but as a former cellular dealer I'd
>> like to pretend it was at least partly out of respect for their dealer
>> base. AT&T is essentially paying Apple the "dealer residuals" on each
>> iPhone contract, and locking their entire dealer network out of a hot-
>> selling phone possibly to prevent "double-dipping" of residuals.
>
>I know that AT&T's dealers are very upset about not being able to sell
>the iPhone,

You know that how? How many have you talked to? Or is this something
else that you think must be true so you say it's true?

>however I'd speculate that it was the revenue sharing and
>not the residuals that caused Verizon to pass on the iPhone.

Verizon actually lost out to AT&T.

>> Agreed, but it was a spike nonetheless. Frankly, for all the noise about
>> the JesusPhone, all of the other carriers (except Sprint) are doing well in
>> net adds- at last year's level or above, so the iPhone exclusivity isn't
>> exactly crippling the competition.
>
>True, I originally thought that the iPhone would enable AT&T to overtake
>Verizon in new retail additions, but in fact Verizon continues to widen
>its lead. ...

There is no such "lead" without cooking the books. AT&T is the largest
carrier in the USA.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

Todd Allcock wrote:

> I'm certainly just as guilty as most of us lately- I need to restrain
> myself better and follow your filter-and-ignore policy. It seems to have
> worked for our iPhanboy Oxford, but of course he didn't have as much
> history invested here as He Who Must Not Be Named.

After a while you forget about the filters and don't think about why the
S/N ratio improved so much, then you go back and look at the filter log,
and wow!

Besides filtering specific posters, a few subject filters does wonders:

Subject words and phrases to filter:

"CHARTER"
"FAQ for AT&T/Cingular Wireless"
"Motorola cell phones FAQ"
"Navas"
"Oxford"

(all the permutations of MI5 subject words)


Posters to filter:

"spamfilter1@navasgroup.com"
"jarjar@nospam.com"
"noone@home.com"
"rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com"


In Thunderbird you want to be sure to do the global filters, not the
newsgroup specific filters.

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

> I have had nothing but excellent customer service from Verizon and I have used
> it a few times [mostly related to my Daughter breaking phones or a temporary
> but significant period of overage where I didn't want to commit to a new
> higher plan for only two months of service.

My experiences have been that they took care of whatever issue I had,
but that the issue should have not occurred in the first place. I.e. I
got a new handset and explicitly stated that I didn't want to change
plans, but they changed my plan anyway. One call fixed the problem, but
it was a problem that shouldn't have happened. I've known people to
receive incorrect information on roaming, i.e. the infamous, "we have no
roaming in Alaska, it's or 50th state you know," when in fact they did
have free roaming (besides the fact that Alaska isn't the 50th state).