Verizon CEO Reveals That He Has Asked Apple for iPhone Rights

[kryptonianjorel]

It could be argued that VZW still made the wrong choice back in 06. Sure, they haven't lost any subscribers since the iphone release, however, if they had accepted the iPhone, then AT&T probably wouldn't exist today (or it would be relegated to a budget carrier status ala Sprint). Why Verizon decided to ignore Apple is absolutely astounding, even considering hindsight. Just from the success of the iPod, Verizon should have realized that Apple really had something big up their sleeve and should have certainly given them much more attention. So from a competitive standpoint, VZW lost big.

I understand the point you're making, but I disagree with it. Would you feel the same way about the G1 if this happened with VZW? Just because of the success of the google search engine doesn't mean their first entry into the phone world would be good, let alone great.

The terms Apple got out of AT&T were pretty harsh, and I'm glad VZW stood their ground and didn't roll over for Jobs. Sure, maybe some of Apple's demands could have been met, but they were asking way too much.

 

[LagunaSol]

I'm glad VZW stood their ground and didn't roll over for Jobs. Sure, maybe some of Apple's demands could have been met, but they were asking way too much.

Ah, so you were involved in the negotiations then?

And Verizon "standing their ground" has definitely benefitted consumers over the years, huh?

 

[kryptonianjorel]

Ah, so you were involved in the negotiations then?

And Verizon "standing their ground" has definitely benefitted consumers over the years, huh?

Assuming they had to make the same concessions AT&T did, yeah.

You may not like the way they've done things, and ive got some bones to pick with their decisions too, but its better to make your own business decisions that bending over backwards for Jobs and Apple

 

[icyfire]

I understand the point you're making, but I disagree with it. Would you feel the same way about the G1 if this happened with VZW? Just because of the success of the google search engine doesn't mean their first entry into the phone world would be good, let alone great.

The terms Apple got out of AT&T were pretty harsh, and I'm glad VZW stood their ground and didn't roll over for Jobs. Sure, maybe some of Apple's demands could have been met, but they were asking way too much.

By not conceding to Jobs, Verizon pretty much let their biggest rival, not only stay afloat, but get ahead of them in many ways (with a much crappier network to boot!). When you have people who stick with a lackluster network because of a phone, than I'd say you would have been a complete idiot to pass up on said phone. Verizon came out of the losing end on this situation, not just neutral. I'm sure had Verizon given Apple more consideration, Jobs would have stuck with Verizon even if they could have extracted slightly better terms from AT&T. After all, they went to Verizon first .

 

[schwell]

Assuming they had to make the same concessions AT&T did, yeah.

You may not like the way they've done things, and ive got some bones to pick with their decisions too, but its better to make your own business decisions that bending over backwards for Jobs and Apple

You must be a Verizon employee. My condolences.

 

[christian_k]

The only reason GSM became popular (and eventually the world standard) was because CDMA liscening fees were too high and by that point of time (mid 90s to 2000), the world was split pretty evenly between CDMA and GSM. So all the new providers went with GSM for lower costs.

There other reasons that are very important:

Before GSM there were several analog systems in use in Europe so devices were incompatible and roaming was not possible in most cases. The European Union did not want the same in the digital age so they preferred an official unified solution over anything that was designed by a single country or company. The new system should also integrate well with the then upcoming Euro-ISDN system (ISDN was much more polular in Europe than in the US).
GSM was standardized by CEPT (an organization of all major telcos in Europe with strong support from the European Union) during the 1980s. So it became an official European standard that ensured compatibility and roaming all over Europe while cdmaOne (the 2G version of CDMA) was a development of a single company (Qualcom).

But another reason is probably even more important: cdmaOne was simply too late. It was published inn 1995. Many of the European GSM networks were build in 1991 and started commercial service in 1992.

Btw. GSM also added a mode ("half rate") in the late 90s that allowed twice as many active calls over each frequency. But this is rarely used today.

Christian

 

[aristotle]

Verizon simply is not as important as some of you believe and only a small percentage of Verizon's subscribers would buy a smart phone let alone an iPhone. Subscribers who are willing to pay beyond just a text and voice plan would have to be at their hardware subsidy renewal time. I don't expect that many people would willingly pay an unsubsidized price of 600-800 for a phone that only works in the US on Verizon and possibly on the slower old EVDO networks in Canada.

Verizon has a lot of subscribers != Verizon has a lot of smart phone users willing to get an iPhone.

In the grand scheme of things, Apple is looking at the international market and what they can get for the smallest amount of R&D and production costs. A "world" phone would add to the cost of the iPhone without adding any benefit for subscribers on GSM networks or Apple would have to have a "world" phone production run just for the few remaining CDMA carriers in the US and another GSM/HSPA+ production run of the rest of the world and AT&T.

Canada's CDMA carriers are not clamouring for a CDMA iPhone because they switched to HSPA+ and are just keeping the CDMA network around to support legacy customers. Verizon should table LTE until it is ready and go HSPA+.

 

[Eric S.]

Verizon simply is not as important as some of you believe and only a small percentage of Verizon's subscribers would buy a smart phone let alone an iPhone.

What do you base that conclusion on?

 

[bks691]

Any coincidence that all of this Verizon chatter is happening this week?

Maybe there will be an announcement this Thursday during the 4.0 preview.

No coincidence, Ivan Seidenberg can't stop the bleeding and he knows his days are pretty much over at verizon.

 

[rdowns]

No coincidence, Ivan Seidenberg can't stop the bleeding and he knows his days are pretty much over at verizon.

The fact that he went public tells me he'll never get the phone.

 

[aristotle]

What do you base that conclusion on?

Number of subscribers on GSM/HSPA networks versus CDMA and number of smartphone/BB users on each type of network. The percentage of smartphone/BB users on CDMA is much lower than on GSM/HSPA network because of a lack of handsets and that smartphone users typically like to travel with their gadgets outside of North America. The largest group of CDMA smartphone users are probably corporate and those guys tend to go through BBs rather quickly due to wear and tear. Because of this, BB handset sales numbers are not an accurate gage of subscriber number or popularity if they don't filter out warranty replacements.

Outside of the US, CDMA is on the way out. In Canada for example, Bell/Telus is heavily promoting the HSPA+ network to all current smartphone users looking to renew or new prospective customers. Talk and text customers are being kept on the CDMA network for now because they don't need fast data and don't travel with their phones outside of North America typically. If Bell ever was to get the company I work for back as a customer, they would have to sell us a good deal on HSPA BB handsets because we switched away from Bell to Rogers because their devices did not work internationally when our execs needed them to work.

If Apple looks at not just the total number of subscribers but the potential Total Addressable Market for the iPhone on Verizon, it does not add up to enough. Back in 2007, it was a different story but now international sales of iPhone are greater than US sales so Verizon would be a drop in the bucket assuming even in the best case scenario of everyone using smart phones on Verizon magically dropping their android and Blackberry phones in the trash and buying an iPhone. We know that this is not going to happen.

 

[pipmaster1971]

There other reasons that are very important:

Before GSM there were several analog systems in use in Europe so devices were incompatible and roaming was not possible in most cases. The European Union did not want the same in the digital age so they preferred an official unified solution over anything that was designed by a single country or company. The new system should also integrate well with the then upcoming Euro-ISDN system (ISDN was much more polular in Europe than in the US).
GSM was standardized by CEPT (an organization of all major telcos in Europe with strong support from the European Union) during the 1980s. So it became an official European standard that ensured compatibility and roaming all over Europe while cdmaOne (the 2G version of CDMA) was a development of a single company (Qualcom).

But another reason is probably even more important: cdmaOne was simply too late. It was published inn 1995. Many of the European GSM networks were build in 1991 and started commercial service in 1992.

Btw. GSM also added a mode ("half rate") in the late 90s that allowed twice as many active calls over each frequency. But this is rarely used today.

Christian

One of the things that people seem to also confuse is the term "GSM" when it refers to the 2G TDMA air interface, vs. "GSM" that is often used as a keyword to define the set of telecom standards defined by 3GPP (including GSM 2G, W-CDMA, HSPA, LTE, MAP, CAMEL etc). The GSM 3G data standard, (HSPA), uses W-CDMA as the air interface a CDMA air interface (a 5MHz channel vs a 1.25MHz channel). Likewise people seem to forget the term "CDMA" when it refers to Verizon/Sprint is also a set of standards that includes 1xRTT, CDMA2000, EV-DO, WIN, IS-41 etc.

Basically, in the 3G world both "GSM" and "CDMA" use a CDMA air interface.

Likewise LTE that most global operators are adopting for 4G (including AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon) is part of the "GSM family".

 

[kdarling]

Interesting Forbes speculation here:

Apple pops ten percent if gets Verizon iPhone

We estimate that a total of 60 million smartphones will be sold in the US in 2011 and that Apple will sell about 18 million iPhones through AT&T in 2011.

Based on AT&T's ratio of iPhone sales to total subscribers, we estimate that Verizon, in a best case scenario, would be able to sell as many as 20 million iPhones in 2011.

If sales of iPhones on Verizon have minimal cannibalization of AT&T iPhone sales, then Apple's global mobile phone market share could increase to 5.9% rather than the expected 4.4% in 2011.

 

[ChocolateOne]

That is my experience. I hate talking to people on AT&T. Frankly, whenever I talk to any of my friends on their iPhones it sounds awful. I am hoping that the problem is AT&T and not the iPhone.

In my experience there IS quite a difference, but I am really sensitive to audio quality. I tried bluetooth headsets for years and only a year ago did I find one that I thought sounded acceptable.

When I talk to most people on iPhones, they end up sounding like a crappy low-bitrate MP3. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but that's my experience.

I REALLY want an iPhone, but there is NO way I will use AT&T as my provider. Period.

That makes no sense what you just stated..... if the iphone is the problem when you are talking to your friends, would it matter what network they were on?

 

[Prof.]

If the verizon ads are true, and they have 5x more 3G coverage than at&t, why wouldn't Apple go with verizon? I'd rather have the 2nd fastest 3G network with the most 3G coverage than have the fastest 3G network with barely any 3G coverage.