Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

U.S. Cellular Turned Down iPhone over 'Unacceptable' Terms from Apple

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
67,490
37,777



us_cellular_logo.jpg



FierceWireless reports on comments from U.S. Cellular CEO Mary Dillon, who claims that the mobile phone carrier turned down a proposed deal to offer the iPhone because it considered Apple's terms to be "unacceptable". The decision is not final, however, and U.S. Cellular could offer the iPhone at some point in the future if a deal can be struck.
U.S. Cellular turned down Apple's iPhone because it did not make sense for the company economically, CEO Mary Dillon said on the company's third-quarter earnings conference call.

Dillon said that the carrier had the opportunity to sell the iPhone but that Apple's "terms were unacceptable from a risk and profitability standpoint." Dillon added that the potential strain on the company's network was not a factor in the decision, and that U.S. Cellular remains open to carrying the iPhone in the future.
Click to expand...
U.S. Cellular, headquartered in Chicago, is the sixth-largest mobile phone company in the United States with over 6 million subscribers. Behind the top tier of Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile USA lies a group of so-called "super-regional" carriers led by MetroPCS, U.S. Cellular, and Cricket. Interest in the possibility of these super-regional carriers being able to offer the iPhone was sparked by last month's announcement from C Spire Wireless that it had landed a deal for the iPhone. C Spire ranks at the lower end of the super-regional group, with under a million customers on its network.

Earlier this week, the Czech arm of Telefonica/O2 announced that it would be dropping the iPhone entirely after it was unable to reach a deal with Apple for the iPhone 4S. The company cited Apple's "business terms" as the reason for the discontinuation, and U.S. Cellular's disclosure today adds further evidence that some carriers simply don't see the economic advantage to offering the iPhone even as other carriers are working hard to land the device.

Article Link: U.S. Cellular Turned Down iPhone over 'Unacceptable' Terms from Apple
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/11/04/u-s-cellular-turned-down-iphone-over-unacceptable-terms-from-apple/
That's fine. US Cellular, while being decent in customer service, is generally considered a regional "budget" option similar to Cricket. If they want everything to be free and loaded with crapware, they are more than welcome to keep selling the janky phones they currently carry.
 
Wonder if they were given a quota for how many phones to sell and display to qualify for the iPhone? Seems that even if the phone is more expensive than the average phone on their plans, that having the ability to sell it helps them retain entire family plans etc. Sprint finally started getting the iPhone, but not before about 14 members of the extended family moved to ATT. Have about 2 people left on Sprint that are on grandfathered voice plans and want to keep them. Other than that, everyone left. Will be interesting to see the impact of iPhone at CSpire and how that plays out for their expansion.
 
"U.S. Cellular today announced that it hates money and doesn't want any more customers."
 
iMikeT said:
Very foolish of them. It's their loss.
Click to expand...

you sure about that. Apple could be requiring them to bet the farm and then some on it.
It going to show that Apple is really abusing it power. Verizon and AT&T can push back because of their size but the smaller guys are getting walked.

I kind of want to know what Apple terms are and compare them to what they get and give to other OEMs
 
samcraig said:
Maybe. Maybe not. If the model wasn't proving profitable for them - then it's not their loss.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't have been very profitable. They tend to cater to lower-income customers. If you look at their homepage, a huge chunk of their phones are free, and they REALLY like to have their company logo on devices, from what I've actually seen over the years here in Chicago.
 
iMikeT said:
Very foolish of them. It's their loss.
Click to expand...

I don't know much about US Cellular, but maybe they're more of a budget carrier and the subsidy they would pay for each iPhone is too high to be profitable?

I know a "budget" carrier in Canada that has some great rates & options compared to others in the country, but to get a subsidized iPhone with them you have to choose a plan that's more expensive than their usual options.
 
Rodimus Prime said:
you sure about that. Apple could be requiring them to bet the farm and then some on it.
It going to show that Apple is really abusing it power. Verizon and AT&T can push back because of their size but the smaller guys are getting walked.

I kind of want to know what Apple terms are and compare them to what they get and give to other OEMs
Click to expand...

It's simple: You offer it at a certain subsidized price, you don't alter the device, and you install none of your own junk on it or alter the device in any way. Also, you have a decent display rather than toss them into a bargain bin with a bunch of other junk.
 
Makes you wonder if Sprints alleged 20 billion over 5 years is the entry price to get the iPhone on a network.
 
There will be more carriers saying no.

The newness of the iPhone wears off, the Samsung phones are a strong competitor.

Another sign that Apple shouldn't put all its eggs in the gadget basket and finally turn their attention back to serious users of their computer hardware.
 
profets said:
I don't know much about US Cellular, but maybe they're more of a budget carrier and the subsidy they would pay for each iPhone is too high to be profitable?

I know a "budget" carrier in Canada that has some great rates & options compared to others in the country, but to get a subsidized iPhone with them you have to choose a plan that's more expensive than their usual options.
Click to expand...

This is from their financials:
Smartphones: The company said 40 percent of the devices it sold in the quarter--356,000 units--were smartphones, up from 23.6 percent in the year-ago period, or 216,000 units. U.S. Cellular added that 26 percent of its postpaid subscriber base now has a smartphone, up from 12.1 percent in the year-ago quarter.

ARPU: Total average revenue per user climbed to $58.09, up from $53.53 in the year-ago period. Postpaid ARPU climbed to $52.41 from $50.82 in the year-ago quarter.

Totally budget.
 
So it wants to bleed customers to its competitor.

Don't worry, in a year or two you'll be begging Apple for the iPhone.
 
No one knows the terms Apple was discussing. Maybe Apple required a guarantee of 20 million up front - or whatever the amount was and USC just didn't want to or have that money to gamble.

Amazing how some people here immediately condemn them just because they didn't sign a deal with Apple as if it's a sin.
 
compared to carriers apple makes lots of money.

they just do not share with anyone (carriers, supplies, retailers, and so on).
 
Kaibelf said:
It's simple: You offer it at a certain subsidized price, you don't alter the device, and you install none of your own junk on it or alter the device in any way. Also, you have a decent display rather than toss them into a bargain bin with a bunch of other junk.
Click to expand...

Proof of your claim. I can point to Sprint had to bet the farm to get an iPhone from Apple so clearly that is not the case and killing your entire argument.

The subsidized price might be to much for them to make a profit at all on the contract but beside that I can still point back to Sprint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back