Verizon Loses Ground to AT&T's iPhone as RIM and Palm Fade

[tigress666]

You can also rule out any phone with a stylus. You can lose it. That isn't smart.

The iphone was the real original smart phone as we know it. Before that, the so called smart phones were phones with some features.

Are you serious? Just cause you didn't like the form doesn't make them not smart phones. A smart phone is a phone that is designed to do more than just call out but to be used as a web browser (no, that doesn't mean cause it has some web browser makes it a smart phone. Plenty of dumb phones have those but they really weren't aimed at people wanting to browse the webs, it's just there in case you really want to).

You can't just decide cause you didn't like the format it means it doesn't fit a definition so it's more convenient to call the phone you like the first smart phone.

And honestly, I had a PDA, it was not hard to keep track of the stylus (just put it in the little slot when you weren't using it). And you didn't have to use the stylus if you didn't want to, you could use your fingernail or even finger. It just smudged the screen (one reason I didn't warm up to the iphone when first introduced... I was imagining having a constantly smudged screen all the time. Which I do but I got over it, yes, I do have an iphone. I'm on my second iteration even. I love it so don't think I'm arguing this cause I dislike the phone but it was not the first smartphone by a long shot).

 

[kirk26]

Who is talking about the razor? I'm pretty sure there were blackberries and I know there were windows phones (cause I was resisting getting a PDA/phone combo for the longest time preferring a pure PDA). And I believe Palm as well.

The iPhone was not the first by far.

I used to have the Motorola MPx220 with windows lol.

 

[brewcitywi]

commodity?

Does this begin to show that all the Android platform phones are becoming a commodity. In that, it's just another new android cellphone, mixed in with all the others, no real discriminating features or personality. iPhone remains a distinctive brand, with one product, continuing to gain market share and brand position.

The more android platform phones released, the more commodity it becomes.

 

[kirk26]

You can also rule out any phone with a stylus. You can lose it. That isn't smart.

The iphone was the real original smart phone as we know it. Before that, the so called smart phones were phones with some features. The features were nice but hardly differentiated them from the pack. Before the iphone came along, the game major selling point seemed to be the physical size of the phone more than anything.



I disagree. The so called smart phones before the iphone were not really smart phones in any sense compared to the iphone. I mean compared to phones of decades ago, the ability to send a text message would make a phone "smart" to some.

Thanks! Funniest post of the day!

 

[Amnak]

Now correct me if im wrong because im young and sure as heck don't know the history of it all but....weren't most smart phones like PDAs or PDAs themselves....wasnt the Newton like one of the first PDA's?

 

[a.gomez]

They forgot to mention that ITG came out yesterday and said that the numbers do not include any sales from any Verizon Store in the US... guess why they updated the article with

"the conclusions below should be taken with a grain of salt"

 

[iansilv]

Once the iphone is available on other networks in 2012, the iphone will dominate the US market. Anyone who wants a smart phone, wants the original; the iphone. Some refuse to admit it though.

yup! 'nuff said!

(yeah but the droid is like better for having like not being locked to apple blah blah blah.... won't have too much meaning when people can buy an iPhone!)

 

[parapup]

They forgot to mention that ITG came out yesterday and said that the numbers do not include any sales from any Verizon Store in the US... guess why they updated the article with

"the conclusions below should be taken with a grain of salt"

Actually Horace Dediu - the author of the article - should put those words in his name - Horace "Take with huge grain of salt" Dediu. The guy has morbidly habitual history of taking *any* news or non-news and turning it into a battlefield victory for Apple or an incoming complete World Take Over by Apple.

 

[Popeye206]

Does this begin to show that all the Android platform phones are becoming a commodity. In that, it's just another new android cellphone, mixed in with all the others, no real discriminating features or personality. iPhone remains a distinctive brand, with one product, continuing to gain market share and brand position.

The more android platform phones released, the more commodity it becomes.

From a marketing standpoint, this is 100% correct. As more and more Android compatible phones come out, they will become vanilla with consumers. Also, although there are good phones out there for Android, it will be up to each manufacture of each phone and each model to make the consumers experience a positive one. Although Android may be a good platform, if the support and hardware is inconsistent, then the reputation will waver. Although Apple's control can be seen to be a bad thing by geeks who like to play with gadgets, most consumers just want it to work and work well. This is where Apple will bring people back.

Overall, as time goes on, it's not about who will win this market - there is room for several players - but which companies will continue to innovate and maintain quality and ease. Consumers are fickle. They will buy a Android today (or an iPhone) and switch tomorrow if something cooler comes along. So, its a perpetual market as the market keeps renewing. So it's all about just being one of the top choices and Apple is there right now as well as several Android phones.

The big winner in the long run will be the company with the best overall experience and the one who can keep consumers happy with innovation and new candy.

 

[notabadname]

The iPhone doesn't sell so much because everyone wants iOS4. They sell because of the hardware and style and how it functions with a good OS. But people don't run around saying, "I want an iOS4 phone". Therein lies Android's problem. It is software. And it has been diluted by countless hardware options to experience Android via. It is like buying a computer because it has Vista or Windows 7. So what. There are great PCs to run Vista or Windows 7 on, and there is, well, junk. So Android suffers from a lack of differentiation, market dilution, and association with the junk hardware as much as the good hardware. (and yes, there are some great Android phones). Consumers need it simple and most importantly, consistent. You buy an iPhone, and you generally get one hardware option (aside from memory) that gives a consistent and repeatable owner experience. You buy an Android phone and your head may explode just trying to figure out which one to get.

 

[res1233]

The iPhone doesn't sell so much because everyone wants iOS4. They sell because of the hardware and style and how it functions with a good OS. But people don't run around saying, "I want an iOS4 phone". Therein lies Android's problem. It is software. And it has been diluted by countless hardware options to experience Android via. It is like buying a computer because it has Vista or Windows 7. So what. There are great PCs to run Vista or Windows 7 on, and there is, well, junk. So Android suffers from a lack of differentiation, market dilution, and association with the junk hardware as much as the good hardware. (and yes, there are some great Android phones). Consumers need it simple and most importantly, consistent. You buy an iPhone, and you generally get one hardware option (aside from memory) that gives a consistent and repeatable owner experience. You buy an Android phone and your head may explode just trying to figure out which one to get.

That's usually true, but come to think of it, there are some consumers that buy products solely based on what people they know use. Those people are pathetic to be honest, but they also don't care which phone they buy, so long as it gets them in the "in" crowd.

 

[ten-oak-druid]

Are you serious? Just cause you didn't like the form doesn't make them not smart phones. A smart phone is a phone that is designed to do more than just call out but to be used as a web browser (no, that doesn't mean cause it has some web browser makes it a smart phone. Plenty of dumb phones have those but they really weren't aimed at people wanting to browse the webs, it's just there in case you really want to).

You can't just decide cause you didn't like the format it means it doesn't fit a definition so it's more convenient to call the phone you like the first smart phone.

And honestly, I had a PDA, it was not hard to keep track of the stylus (just put it in the little slot when you weren't using it). And you didn't have to use the stylus if you didn't want to, you could use your fingernail or even finger. It just smudged the screen (one reason I didn't warm up to the iphone when first introduced... I was imagining having a constantly smudged screen all the time. Which I do but I got over it, yes, I do have an iphone. I'm on my second iteration even. I love it so don't think I'm arguing this cause I dislike the phone but it was not the first smartphone by a long shot).

How can a phone be smart if you can lose part of it. Seriously?

 

[HitchHykr]

Plus denial is a big thing too. There are quite a few people that actually think Microsoft innovates more than Google and Apple. Just nod and walk away.

I guess you could add to that people who think that the iPhone was the original smart phone

BTW, those graphs are a horrible way to represent data.

 

[notabadname]

That's usually true, but come to think of it, there are some consumers that buy products solely based on what people they know use. Those people are pathetic to be honest, but they also don't care which phone they buy, so long as it gets them in the "in" crowd.

I agree with you. I think that works to the same argument though. I would never recommend or be enthusiastic about any product to friends or associates unless I felt confident they would have a good experience with it, anymore than I would recommend a bad wine or a bad restaurant. And the Android's impression on the consumer has been mixed due to my previous point of inconsistent hardware. So instead of a unified "Chorus" of generally satisfied consumers, encouraging friends and associates to make the same purchase, Android gets a grade-school choir reading different pages of sheet music. Inconsistent, fatiguing to the ear and generally causing one to seek a different performance.

 

[HitchHykr]

How can a phone be smart if you can lose part of it. Seriously?

How can a phone be smart if you have to hold it just right to make a phone call?

 

[yg17]

How can a phone be smart if you can lose part of it. Seriously?

The problem is you're comparing 6 year old phones to phones that are out today. Given the technology available back then (before capacitive touch screens, etc), a stylus based touch screen was the best available, and compared to dumb phones, they were quite smart.

 

[ten-oak-druid]

How can a phone be smart if you have to hold it just right to make a phone call?

And if my Grandmother could surf the web she would be a smart phone.

 

[ten-oak-druid]

The problem is you're comparing 6 year old phones to phones that are out today. Given the technology available back then (before capacitive touch screens, etc), a stylus based touch screen was the best available, and compared to dumb phones, they were quite smart.

The consensus seems to be that surfing the web makes a phone a smart one. I had a motorola phone from 2003 that could surf the web and it certainly wasn't a smart phone.

 

[smithrh]

From a marketing standpoint, this is 100% correct. As more and more Android compatible phones come out, they will become vanilla with consumers. Also, although there are good phones out there for Android, it will be up to each manufacture of each phone and each model to make the consumers experience a positive one. Although Android may be a good platform, if the support and hardware is inconsistent, then the reputation will waver. Although Apple's control can be seen to be a bad thing by geeks who like to play with gadgets, most consumers just want it to work and work well. This is where Apple will bring people back.

Overall, as time goes on, it's not about who will win this market - there is room for several players - but which companies will continue to innovate and maintain quality and ease. Consumers are fickle. They will buy a Android today (or an iPhone) and switch tomorrow if something cooler comes along. So, its a perpetual market as the market keeps renewing. So it's all about just being one of the top choices and Apple is there right now as well as several Android phones.

The big winner in the long run will be the company with the best overall experience and the one who can keep consumers happy with innovation and new candy.

Good post; I'd add that with commoditization comes commodity pricing.

There's a downward spiral here; as the product becomes more of a commodity, margins at the companies producing the product drop.

Then there's less money to spend on R&D to fight the lack of differentiation between the products, and the temptation is to simply price it better than the competition, thus leaving even less funds for R&D.

Mind you, Google doesn't care about the health of the companies making Android phones. They are pawns in this fight for the mobile space. As long as people still buy Android phones, Google will get data and they'll be happy.

The manufacturers will battle it out with the end result most likely being solid hardware at a reasonable cost (good for the consumer) but really nothing polished or horribly sexy. A few devices will be nice flagships but I don't see a lot of BMWs and Audis, I see Chevys and Fords.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

Um, when you mention Windows Mobile, do you mean to say that you're seriously comparing a legacy OS that's been discontinued, to the actively developed iOS, or do you mean that you're comparing Windows Phone, which isn't even available for Verizon yet?

A statistician would have a field day with the manner in which these reports get spun in favor of Apple!

 

[HitchHykr]

And if my Grandmother could surf the web she would be a smart phone.

Oops! my bad. I thought that you were over 12, not that your reasoning lead me to believe that.

 

[croooow]

...Windows Mobile...Windows Phone...

I love that Microsoft's promotion for their new phones seem to be based on the idea that you shouldn't actually want to use the phone for more than a few seconds. Just pull it out of you pocket, update your Facebook status and put it away!

I guess they see that since Apple's ads showing how much you can do with your phone there must be a market for not doing anything with your phone.

They do have a point about people using their smartphones in strange/dangerous/annoying situations (at dinner with a loved one/bottom of escalator with people behind you/etc)

 

[Rodimus Prime]

yet again the entire thing is worthless as their is always a drop in 3Q right after a new iPhone is released. Get back to be if it keeps it up for 4Q and 1Q afterwards.

 

[jayducharme]

If the iPhone wasn't an iPod touch as well, I'd just get the most simplified mobile phone possible. That's probably a unique position to take these days.

That's the path I originally tried to follow. I really don't make many phone calls, but I use a lot of data services. I had a really simple Motorola for years. But with no data plan and no tethering, my Touch was functional only as an iPod unless I could find a hotspot. So for me, the iPhone made perfect sense. I got everything I wanted in one device.

 

[tbrinkma]

I got this from a guy at ITG saying the data was just an analyst guess and might not represent actual numbers:

We would like to correct some assertions in your Verizon post.

ITG Investment Research did not and does NOT receive any material nonpublic information from Verizon or any other company we cover.

The information you were referring to comes from point-of-sale data at independent wireless retailers across the United States. To be clear, we do not misappropriate or improperly obtain nonpublic information.

Our methodology is explained in more detail here: http://www.majesticresearch.com/index.php/research/telecom_handset_manufacturers

The original blogger who made the false claim about a "leak" has corrected their post - see here: http://www.asymco.com/2010/12/13/verizon-strikes-out/

We would be grateful if you would address this matter, as the incorrect speculation that we would obtain and publish material non-public information from a public company is a serious matter.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.


Regards,​

Um... Wow... Where to start...

Ok, first off, the text you've included here *doesn't* say the data is inaccurate (contrary to your own text and the subject you gave your post). It says they aren't using "material non-public information" (aka: stuff that would get them in trouble for *insider trading*), just publicly available stuff.

Second, the "point-of-sale data at independent wireless retailers" means it doesn't include numbers from Verizon stores. (And likely not AT&T or Apple, as they wouldn't be considered independent in this context either.)