I would refer you to this post where i respond to some of your statements about "free market" policies. i've been waiting for your reply.

https://www.phonescoop.com/carriers/forum.php?fm=m&f ... »

i have taken a college level economics and i think you have to. the difference between us is that you didn't apparently learn anything.

i think you highly overestimate the current demographic of people that would pay $500 to $700 for their device. Compare the sales of the Nexus One to the Motorola backflip on the ATT network, or to the sales of any other android phone for that matter.

The origional iphone was also highly subsidised and was released in a different market environment, there were no devices like the iphone whe...
(continues)

You make *A LOT* of stupid comments.

I think you vastly *UNDER ESTIMATE* the amount of suckers that would DIE to have a CDMA iPhone.

Every day I have people ask "when is Verizon getting the iPhone", Sprint, T-Mobile, etc... If there wasn't a demand - people wouldn't be asking.

There's as much logic in his post as is in yours. You think Apple's best bet is to stay with AT&T... He thinks that Apple can, at the very least, still make money (more or less is debatable) eslewhere.

Both arguments have their merits.

But we wouldn't want to admit that would we?

Naw... You go ahead and claim Verizon don't have enough T1 lines to support the iPhone...

You go ahead and claim WiMax isn't 4G and that Sprint users will hit their bandw...
(continues)

Yes people would like CDMA iphones. But apple making CDMA iphones is more complicated than that.

No carrier pays a subsidy on any phone like ATT pays on the iphone. No phone has a lower retail markup than the iphone. That's the quid pro quo of the exclusive agreement.

Let's say verizon got it, exclusivity ended, and the phone got a subsidy like every other phone, $150 - $200 with both ATT and Verizon. That would make iphones $300 - $650 with both carriers. As opposed to their current pricing of $100 - $300. They have a new customer base but are their sales hurt by the increased price? The alternative scenerio for apple is to to bring down the price of their phones, that hurts their margins. So ending exlusivity might lower sale...
(continues)

Right now... iPhones, on contract, are $1-300. OFF of contract, they are what... $200 more? $300 more?

How would that be different at Verizon? Sprint? T-Mobile?

Basically, if I understand you correctly, you are trying to say that if the iPhone was no longer an AT&T exclusive - we would no longer get the "contract discount" or the subsidy - as a customer, from AT&T, Verizon, etc...


I can get a blackberry on AT&T, Sprint and Verizon for the same price...

Why would it be different for the iPhone?

Sure... Apple and AT&T might have to adjust their deal. or the others might charge more/less to price match. Or... any number of options.

But to say that the $100 iPhone today would cost $300 tommorow if AT&T lost it's exclusivity?
...
(continues)

ATT's Subsidy $400

Current subsidized pricing:

Iphone 3G - 8 Gig - $100
Iphone 3G S - 16 Gig - $200
Iphone 3G S - 32 Gig - $300

Unsubsidized (No Commitment) Pricing

Iphone 3G - 8 Gig - $500
Iphone 3G S - 16 Gig - $600
Iphone 3G S - 32 Gig - $700

Why would loss of AT&T exclusivity mean no longer AT&T subsidized iPhones???

AT&T will still give you a discount with a two year contract...

Or do you seriously think that a magical part of the exclusivity deal?

Hint: blackberries/backflip/samsung... Etc... are sUbsidized... Without exclusive contracts.

I'm stupified that your implying loss of exclusivity would end discounts on two year contracts.

the phones youre talking about have a retail markup of 30% to 100% and recieve a retail subsidy of $150 to $250.

The retail markup of the iphone is closer to 10% or 15%, and the subsidy ATT pays is $400 off the retail price.

This is not a normal subsidy, no phone by any manufacturer on any carrier recieves this kind of a subsidy.

Why does it recieve so much? It's part of the agreement with ATT to be the exclusive carrier.

I'm not talking about the end of subsidization, i'm talking about the end of the massive subsidization that no other phone recieves anywhere.

So apple is getting a good deal, a better deal than rim, motorola, htc, etc.

Now if apple wanted to throw their weight around they could maybe say that if verizon...
(continues)

to complicate something that's overly simple 🤣 🤣 🤣

If the iPhone is profitable for AT&T at those prices... they'll be profitable for Verizon at those prices.

If they are profitable for Apple on AT&T at those prices... they'll be profitable for Apple on Verizon at those prices.

In my opionion... Apple has more to lose than anyone. Once Android, or anything else, gains enough traction - Apple risks being marginalized yet again.

How would Apple not be profitable at similar price points on different carriers? They have enough clout to make that happen, even if the price/subsidy/% points are different.

Rather than rehashing what i've been posting but you're not paying attention to....

Let me ask you this:

If there is no benifit for apple to be exclusive, why are they doing it?

They don't play well with others?

Steve Jobs fears the lack of Control?

Catering exclusively to the number 2 spot is a comfort zone for Apple?

I just think you are wrong.

I could also ask you:

if you think Apple's way is so right, why is their market share stalling?

If exclusive deals are so awesome, why is Android doing so well? Why is Android doing 10x better than when they were exclusive? Why did Palm fail in their exclusive deal?

There obviously is a short term benefit for Apple and AT&T to stay exclusive.

There are also obvious PROBLEMS with Apple staying AT&T exclusive.

I think the short term benefit phase is ending (has already ended?)... and now they are seriously at risk via long term PROBLEMS with exclusivity.

Maybe Apple loses a little margin on the subsidy and sale of the iPhone - but they will lose MORE if they don't gain/maintain market-share.

...
(continues)

Wait, you not only (claim to) have a degree in mass communication, but you also (claim to) have taken courses in business economics? Do I feel the BS piling higher?

If Sprint + Verizon roaming "nearly doubles" (your words) their network, wouldn't that mean that Sprint owns MORE THAN HALF of the network coverage? It would have to double their network or more for Verizon to have the upper hand. Which is contradictory to what you stated in the other post of yours which I recently replied to in the Verizon forum. Go back to the school you claim to have come from, and sue the hell out of them for your lack of education. Anybody who took business economics should know basic math.

ATT's network is behind on everything except voice. Accept it....
(continues)

go to the sprint website and look at their coverage map. grey indicates roaming.

http://coverage.sprintpcs.com/IMPACT.jsp?INTNAV=ATG: ... »

and you misunderstand roaming agreements. some carriers will trade coverage to fill each others gaps.

This is not the case for the sprint verizon roaming agreement. Verizon gets very little roaming from sprint. Sprint gets huge amounts of geographic coverage from verizon. The reason Verizon gets very little is b/c their primary network already covers virutually all of sprint's primary network. Sprint is paying verizon, it's not a even trade.

They also have 3G data roaming which makes their footprint much, much larger than it really is.

They don't sell sprint in the grey areas of th...
(continues)

Don't tell me that I 'misunderstand' roaming agreements, I didn't state anything about my knowledge of them. I was pointing out blatant flaws in your claims.

FFS, you aren't worth my time anymore.

and it required a 2 year contract.

You can't compare unsubsidized android performance (because there are subsidized options available) but if you are someone on sprint or verizon and you WANT the iphone, you'll pay for it. Plus, since verizon and Sprint operate on the same networks, if they get the ESN's approved they can sell to both.

You have no idea how many people want an iphone but refuse to leave their current networks. On top of that, a company like sprint is desperate for subscribers, which means they'd be more willing to bend to apple's demands.

Sprint's roaming agreement with verizon is almost excusively 1x/voice, NOT data. Their data network dwarfs att and tmobile, and where available, has much higher reliability.

W...
(continues)

After further research I did find that the original iphone was not subsidized. I was not able to locate something stating as to whether or not it required a 2 year agreement. The origional iphone predates my employement so i was not aware of this.

The fact that it was not subsidized does provide an interesting case study with regard the topic at hand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IPhone_sales_per_q ... »

The sales skyrocketed when the phone started recieving the $400 subsidy.

So if nonexclusivity produced a reduced $200 subsidy, would there be a increase in sales or would there be a loss of sales?

The question is not wheather or not it would sell, the question is what will make apple more money.

Non exclusive won't reduce the subsidy.

Apple already stated that their payoff didn't change when they went to non-exclusive in other countries, so as long as other companies are willing to meet apples demands.

The only thing limiting their profit are those demands

so are you speaking on behalf of the verizon company saying that verizon will pay apple a subsidy 3 times greater than they pay to any other phone manufacturer?

And are you also speaking on behalf of ATT saying that the company will not normalize the phone's subsidy and the ATT will continue paying vast sums without an exclusive deal?

Europe is interesting for making comparisons but the European market is different from the American market. There are business models that work in one country but not another. Saying that nonexclusivity did not affect subsidization levels in europe does not prove that the same thing would be true in the U.S. market.

deepskyblue said:
so are you speaking on behalf of the verizon company saying that verizon will pay apple a subsidy 3 times greater than they pay to any other phone manufacturer?

And are you also speaking on behalf of ATT saying that the company will not normalize the phone's subsidy and the ATT will continue paying vast sums without an exclusive deal?

Dear Blue--- are you not YET the King of Overhypothesization (sic)? Do you have to keep trying so hard?

Could you not just simply respond to what the man just said rather then trying to tell him what he just said?

Nothing you said there makes any sense at all with regard to Menno's commentary. Menno and I are talking about basic, simple, univers...
(continues)

No company can sell the iphone (until it goes LTE/WIMAX) for more than 199 on contract. That is a Set price for consumers. Paying more than that anymore is pretty much a joke.

You know how many phones Verizon offers for more than 199 (after rebates)? One. The Casio Brigade, which is a Waterproof Feature phone. ALL smartphones are 199 or lower. Do you REALLY think they'll increase the cost on a single device?

Same goes for ATT. How many phones do they sell for more than 199?

Seriously dude. Please look at the market you claim to be a part of.

And Apple is Apple. You really think they'll take a cut to their profits to get on another carrier? They don't care how business is done here, or in Europe. their policy is always ...
(continues)

how many phones does verizon sell with a retail price of $500 or more?

Iphones retail btwn $500 - $700 (no commitment pricing)

Pre Plus, Droid, Incredible, Storm2 (at launch), Casio Brigade, I'm assuming the LG Ally, The WINMO 7 devices will all be over 500.

Not to mention that they do a lot of BoGo sales, which push the retail costs up to almost 1k or more. I dont think apple would allow a Bogo.. but you get the point that Verizon has quite a few things that push their prices past that 500 price mark.


Verizon also has a 350ETF which makes bigger discounts a lot safer.

deepskyblue said:
After further research I did find that the original iphone was not subsidized. I was not able to locate something stating as to whether or not it required a 2 year agreement.

I know you just created your phonescoop profile 3 weeks ago-

...I didn't realize you'd only been working at AT&T for 6 weeks. You need some serious, serious background education before you start taking on the big topics like this one.

But, hey, thanks for keeping things lively around here. Been getting kinda boring since AvgJoe disappeared.

The first iphone didn't have an app store? I didn't know that!

Yes, it's true. Apple was actually extremely anti-app at the time the phone was introduced. They wanted developers to just write website code that was optimized for SafariJunior and let everything be a web-based app formatted to work on the 3.5" screen. Then they made two discoveries:

1) Web-apps really suck, especially pre-HTML5 web-apps in 2007. The user experience was marginal at best and borderline terrible in many cases.

2) They could make a ton of money locking the phone down and becoming the sole supplier and gatekeeper of apps on their hardware.

Hence... the iTunes App Store.