NEWS: Android Outsells Apple iPhone
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: Introducing Poken Take your Social Network Offline
Next: Desperate Help Needed!! WIRELESS SHARING
From: SMS on 16 May 2010 19:35 On 16/05/10 3:32 PM, Dennis Ferguson wrote: <snip> > I'd note that AT&T's $30/month plans don't provide service equivalent > to their 3G dongle (or tethering) plans since the $30 plans are NATted > (which makes WiFi tethering double-NATted, which can break even more > stuff) while the higher priced plans aren't. It is the case that iPad > users are unlikely to notice the difference but from a laptop it may > matter to you. This is true, and would effect anybody that tries to turn their iPhone (or iPad) into a 3G wireless modem/router. > If correlation implies causality in this case then AT&T's exclusive > arrangement with Apple has been incredibly valuable for AT&T > when compared to their peers (which is the only comparison it makes > sense to make). I can see why AT&T would bend over backwards to > keep it, and I can see why Verizon would express a strong desire > to see it end. It was very valuable, but now AT&T's growth is slowing (1Q2010) which is why you see the push to expand the distribution to additional carries. U.S., Germany, and Spain are the only major markets where only one carrier distributes the iPhone. That was okay when there was no real alternative product, but with Android experiencing huge growth and AT&T's growth slowing, it's unlikely that Apple can afford to continue with only AT&T. Even with the iPhone, Verizon still has had higher postpaid net adds than AT&T nearly every quarter. The Google tablet on Verizon will likely have data pricing similar to the iPad, though of course it won't have the applications base, at least at the time of its introduction. But you can be sure that Verizon will find a way to cripple the Google tablet unless Google has the power to stand firm. The thing is that Apple can, at a time of its choosing, change the whole market by releasing the iPhone and iPad to other carriers. When it's the optimal time to do this they can bring some big hurt to Android.
From: Dennis Ferguson on 16 May 2010 20:52 On 2010-05-16, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <slrnhv0skg.5e.dcferguson(a)akit-ferguson.com>, Dennis > Ferguson <dcferguson(a)pacbell.net> wrote: > >> I'd note that AT&T's $30/month plans don't provide service equivalent >> to their 3G dongle (or tethering) plans since the $30 plans are NATted >> (which makes WiFi tethering double-NATted, which can break even more >> stuff) while the higher priced plans aren't. It is the case that iPad >> users are unlikely to notice the difference but from a laptop it may >> matter to you. > > that affects almost nobody and the 3g dongle i've used on at&t gave me > a 10.* ip if i recall. i haven't had a problem using vpn over it > either. The dongle doesn't give you the address, you need to configure a different APN into the laptop software (or whatever the dongle is plugged into). You'll also get higher speed from AT&T's network if you do away with the NAT, in my experience. I run stuff (both VPN and other esoterica) which is broken by the single NAT the way they do it, let alone a double NAT. There must be some demand for real addresses even with non-tetherable iPhones since AT&T will sell you that for a $15/month uplift in the data charges, and the internet services in most of the hotel rooms I've stayed in recently have offered real addresses as an option, so I'm not sure the fact that you haven't had a problem means "almost nobody" will. >> If correlation implies causality in this case then AT&T's exclusive >> arrangement with Apple has been incredibly valuable for AT&T >> when compared to their peers (which is the only comparison it makes >> sense to make). I can see why AT&T would bend over backwards to >> keep it, and I can see why Verizon would express a strong desire >> to see it end. > > at& loves it. they do not want it to end because they know that the > iphone is attracting customers from other carriers. if someone can get > an iphone and stay with their existing carrier, they probably will, > which means at&t won't get as many new subscribers. > > hopefully that means the monthly rates drop, with the various carriers > competing for subscribers. Actually one might have expected Verizon to be dropping prices right now (beyond just enabling their resellers to sell cheaper), since they're the one now suffering from their equipment selection and in need of some other competitive advantage. It is the case, however, that AT&T and Verizon compete on just about everything except price, and I wouldn't expect that to change; this frequently happens in an oligopoly market. Dennis Ferguson
From: nospam on 16 May 2010 21:02 In article <slrnhv14rb.4q.dcferguson(a)akit-ferguson.com>, Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson(a)pacbell.net> wrote: > The dongle doesn't give you the address, you need to configure > a different APN into the laptop software (or whatever the dongle > is plugged into). You'll also get higher speed from AT&T's network > if you do away with the NAT, in my experience. like i said, when i did it, it was a natted address. they may offer non-natted, but it affects very few people > I run stuff (both VPN and other esoterica) which is broken by the > single NAT the way they do it, let alone a double NAT. i was able to use ipsec vpn without any problem. i also did the same on t-mobile. > There > must be some demand for real addresses even with non-tetherable > iPhones since AT&T will sell you that for a $15/month uplift in > the data charges, and the internet services in most of the hotel > rooms I've stayed in recently have offered real addresses as an > option, so I'm not sure the fact that you haven't had a problem > means "almost nobody" will. the question is how many of those do they actually sell. > Actually one might have expected Verizon to be dropping prices right > now (beyond just enabling their resellers to sell cheaper), since > they're the one now suffering from their equipment selection and > in need of some other competitive advantage. two droids for the price of one is a drop in price. > It is the case, however, > that AT&T and Verizon compete on just about everything except price, > and I wouldn't expect that to change; this frequently happens in > an oligopoly market. that's probably why sprint and t-mobile tend to have lower prices.
From: Dennis Ferguson on 17 May 2010 02:09 On 2010-05-16, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > with only AT&T. Even with the iPhone, Verizon still has had higher > postpaid net adds than AT&T nearly every quarter. I think we had this discussion before: you can't know that because Verizon has never (until this quarter at least) reported postpaid net adds. The instead report retail net adds, i.e. postpaid plus InPulse. Only AT&T has consistently reported postpaid net adds. Even if we compare the available numbers (which aren't comparable), however, there's no way that "Verizon still has had higher postpaid net adds than AT&T nearly every quarter", so you're making me wonder if your biases are somehow changing how you compare numbers. Here's the numbers they reported from the last 4 quarters: VZ postpaid + InPulse AT&T postpaid 1Q10 284,000 512,000 4Q09 1,200,000 910,000 3Q09 1,051,000 1,385,000 2Q09 1,145,000 1,153,000 --------- --------- Total 3,680,000 3,960,000 AT&T's postpaid net adds for the past year exceed Verizon's postpaid net adds plus their retail prepaid net adds. And note that even this understates the difference. Verizon also includes data-only devices, like data cards, in "retail postpaid", but AT&T in the most recent quarter started to split that out. The number of "connected device" customers added in 1Q10 (in addition to the 512,000 handset additions) was 1,052,000 which, if included above, would make the difference even bigger. In their most recent 10-Q Verizon did, for the first time, report the quarter's retail postpaid adds (as well as the normal postpaid plus InPulse numbers) for an obvious reason: the number of postpaid net adds was 423,000, compared to 284,000 for postpaid+InPulse. Since InPulse is now losing customers (AT&T's retail prepaid service is still adding them, but slowly) maybe Verizon will continue to report the postpaid-only number. Dennis Ferguson > > The Google tablet on Verizon will likely have data pricing similar to > the iPad, though of course it won't have the applications base, at least > at the time of its introduction. But you can be sure that Verizon will > find a way to cripple the Google tablet unless Google has the power to > stand firm. > > The thing is that Apple can, at a time of its choosing, change the whole > market by releasing the iPhone and iPad to other carriers. When it's the > optimal time to do this they can bring some big hurt to Android.
From: Bogey Man on 17 May 2010 09:26
"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote in message news:08ntu55fb0se33mu4n1bubv4scb3f8nv90(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 15 May 2010 10:21:20 -0700, John Navas > <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>Or wrong, depending on whether you care more about profits or about >>delivering value to customers. History teaches that mass market premium >>price strategies often work well in the short run only to fail in the >>long run. And then there's hubris. > > Well, are stock prices any indication of preceived loyalty? > <http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=1y&s=AAPL&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=att> > AT&T is fairly flat while APPL has doubled in the last year. Stock prices have nothing to do with loyalty to a product and not much to do with a companies actual performance. Stock prices are just set by people gambling on whether or not someone in the future will pay more for the stock than they paid for it. All stock markets are just casinos in the financial district that use stocks instead of chips. |