I dont know the numbers but I dont think the market for un-subsidized phones in the US is very big. Most people wait for their two years to be up before they buy the next subsidized phone. The monthly contract is the same whether or not you get the cheaper phone so there is not much reason to pay extra for a full-price phone. Of course, there are some that pay the full price but I think it is pretty small and usually because they want a new phone before the contract lets them get a subsidized phone.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhone Accounts for 77% of Smartphone Sales, 62% of All Postpaid Phone Sales at AT&T in 3Q 2012
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I dont know the numbers but I dont think the market for un-subsidized phones in the US is very big. Most people wait for their two years to be up before they buy the next subsidized phone. The monthly contract is the same whether or not you get the cheaper phone so there is not much reason to pay extra for a full-price phone. Of course, there are some that pay the full price but I think it is pretty small and usually because they want a new phone before the contract lets them get a subsidized phone.
Even if they were priced around the same they are different enough that if you want a pocket sized player with the most up to date specks you would go for the iPod touch. If the iPod mini was on the same page it would be a little different unless you still want a ultra portable player which I imagine will be an issue for some.
Key word being "constraints." If Apple were able to ramp up production to meet demand, that 77% AT&T share (and presumably Verizon's share as well) would be higher. So how could Apple increase production?
Now: increase iPhone 5 production capacity
Later: simplify iPhone 6 (2014) design and manufacturing process
There's no big hurry. The market will still be there years from now, ripe for the taking.
for this reason i wont buy anything apple. they are simply too big and i do not agree with their business model to fleece the consumer. They are sitting on too much money (more than the gdp or many countries) and i am afraid of what they can do with it (like pretty much buy up companies such as AMD/ Nvidia and put the apple spin on things). I know many people will not agree with me but this is my opinion. I like their products but cannot agree with their business model, last straw was lawsuit business
"Roughly" is the key word here, as all articles are comparing activations vs. sales:
Activations include both new and used iPhones, of all models.
Usually a fair number (up to 20% in years past) of buyers sell or hand down their previous iPhone to be activated on another number, which counts towards the total.
It would be useful to know exactly how many iPhone 5s were sold.
4,700,000 activations x $36 = $170,000,000 in revenue just on activation fees.... c'mon AT&T build those towers!
I agree. After all, that $170,000,000 will pay for between 17 and 34 towers, after factoring in all of the the environment impact studies, zoning permits, and other bureaucratic red tape that is actually the cause of towers not being built as fast as we (or they) would like.
The lead time between discovering the need for an additional tower somewhere and getting it built is on the order of 2-6 years, depending on various factors outside the control of the cellular companies. Of that, roughly a month or less is actually taken up by construction and installation of the tower and equipment.
Believe it or not, they're building as fast as they can.
They do make more money with the iPhone than without, but the iPhone taxes its network more per percentage of users. I forget the figures I read a while back, but just think along the lines that the iPhone was 25% of AT&T phones in service, they used 50% of the network capacity. Again, I don't recall the exact figures but it was extremely disproportionate.
Who the heck is dumb enough to sign up with AT&T.
Their network and handful of cities with LTE are no match for Verizon.
Sprint is best for the value. For those who can afford it, Verizon for the solid LTE Network and being ranked number 1 in customer service too.
Their network and handful of cities with LTE are no match for Verizon.
Sprint is best for the value. For those who can afford it, Verizon for the solid LTE Network and being ranked number 1 in customer service too.
No one is being fleeced. Consumers who want cheap plastic crap can buy android and get what they pay for. Those who want well made, quality products that last, and last (lots of original iPhones still in use) are more than happy to pay up for Apple products. In the long run, because of useful lifetime, limited downtime, and higher resale, Apple products generally end up being less expensive. Cheaping out never saves.
I agree. I ditched the 4s for a 9930 Bold and you're right, RIM's hardware is quality and one of the only companies that can viably compete with a comeback against Apple. Android devices have glitchy vulnerable OSes and the handset makers will cram Android into any hunk of cheap plastic they can to save money.
Only Apple and RIM focus on quality product and I think that speaks volumes on the importance of having a phone software and hardware components all made by the same company.
BB10 will save RIM and will take a little market back from Apple, but it'll take a few years. One thing that could save RIM is that when people get bored of the iPhone's lack of innovation in a year or two and get tired of Android's flaws and cheap handsets, RIM will be the company worth another look.
If you travel a lot (a national news reporter, salesman, truck driver, etc) then I would agree. Verizon is going to serve you better in more places.
I do not travel and AT&T is excellent where I am. Verizon is not as strong but they are still good here. If the Verizon iPhone 5 allowed you to talk and use data at the same time I would get it, mostly for the few times I go to NYC; I would really love to have Verizon with me.
Most of the new activations were for existing customers. AT&T got meager 151K new customers in Q3 compared to 1.5 million for Verizon which shows how irrelevant iPhone actually is. Verizon sold much fewer iPhones than AT&T yet got 10x more new customers. Imagine what would happen if Verizon dropped iPhone altogether? They could have used money saved from paying fat iPhone subsidies to subsidize all other phones and all their subsidized phones would cost from $0 to $100.
Doesn't happen very often in the US. 3 of our 4 carriers charge you the same price for service whether you sign a contract to get the phone or not so for the most part there is no point in buying your phone without the subsidy since the rate plans are the same anyway.
In Brazil, there's no reason for buying subsidized phones since the phone's full retail price (without any discount or bargain I usually get in retailers) is embedded in the contract.
For example, an iPhone 4S 16GB costs around USD 1000,00 in the non-subsidized version, but I can get up to 10% discounts buying through a phone call to the online AppStore, so the final price is around USD 900,00.
If I get the same iPhone in a contract, I have to pay around USD 500,00 for the phone plus an 1-year plan that costs $100-150 monthly. I can get the same plan without the annual contract for $50-60.
On Oct 18, Verizon implied that 21% of their iphone sales were LTE (iphone 5) coming in the last few days of the quarter.
.
The number of people buying unsubsidized phones outside the US is not that big either. Outdated information coupled with exaggerations by tourists going to tourist areas (often in Europe) and seeing all the pretty unsubsidized phones in store displays and came to a false conclusion that the local people buys these things.
UK used to be described as an unsubsidized phone paradise with millions of people on prepaid --- yet last year, UK's telecom regulator had to ban 3 year mobile contracts because they became so popular in UK.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/may/26/ofcom-bans-three-year-contracts