Why did Apple choose GSM for the iPhone?

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:26:20 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>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

---

› See More: Why did Apple choose GSM for the iPhone?

In article <[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>, SMS
> <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote in
<200220081241077002%[email protected]>:

>In article <[email protected]>, SMS
><[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Charles wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, SMS
>> <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>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