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

[URFloorMatt]

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)

It's the same advertising message that they're sending in those Bing ads. It cuts through the clutter so you can do what you need to do and get back to your life.

This is partly co-opting the "It just works" message that Apple has been sending for years, but also an attack on the Apple faithful, i.e. "Buy a Windows Phone if you want a phone that just works but doesn't also define your life."

The Windows Phone is for people who hate the people who spend all their time on their phone. Those people are probably not in the market for an iPhone.

 

[BaldiMac]

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.

Ahhh... the old "dismiss it all because it doesn't support my viewpoint." The majority of the analysis is about Verizon, and the mix of devices on Verizon which does not include the iPhone. It's about a lack of significant growth created by Android in smartphone subscribers for Verizon. The iPhone's huge quarter is just a cherry on top.

 

[fabianjj]

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.

If I'm not mistaken, the most common definition of smart phone used to be the ability to install native apps (not including those simple java apps that would run on every dumb phone).

But since the iPhone came out Apple-fanboys started to bend that definition just so that the iPhone would be included

 

[res1233]

I just had a great idea for a drinking game! Have a drink for every time you read the word "fanboy" and if you see it twice in one post, that deserves 3 drinks! 3 times in a post 5 drinks, etc.

 

[poppypiggy]

What's a Smartphone?

If I'm not mistaken, the most common definition of smart phone used to be the ability to install native apps (not including those simple java apps that would run on every dumb phone).

But since the iPhone came out Apple-fanboys started to bend that definition just so that the iPhone would be included

There is no agreement as to what constitutes a smartphone. According to Wikipedia, IBM's 1992 "Simon" was the world's first smartphone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_(phone)

It included a touch screen and combined the features of a mobile phone, a pager, a PDA, and a fax machine.

 

[notabadname]

It's the same advertising message that they're sending in those Bing ads. It cuts through the clutter so you can do what you need to do and get back to your life.

This is partly co-opting the "It just works" message that Apple has been sending for years, but also an attack on the Apple faithful, i.e. "Buy a Windows Phone if you want a phone that just works but doesn't also define your life."

The Windows Phone is for people who hate the people who spend all their time on their phone. Those people are probably not in the market for an iPhone.

Huh? Anyone buying a Windows phone, as with the iPhone, is tech savvy and is going to use the phone for many more functions, outside dialing. Otherwise, they would get a "flip-phone" that essentially just makes calls. Your quote "Buy a Windows Phone if you want a phone that just works but doesn't also define your life." doesn't even make sense. How would placing a call, checking your inbox, a stock price or the location of the nearest Sushi restaurant on a Windows phone make it define your life less than the same tasks on an iPhone? That quote sounds like something from a rejected greeting card.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Ahhh... the old "dismiss it all because it doesn't support my viewpoint." The majority of the analysis is about Verizon, and the mix of devices on Verizon which does not include the iPhone. It's about a lack of significant growth created by Android in smartphone subscribers for Verizon. The iPhone's huge quarter is just a cherry on top.

no it is more the huge fan boy screaming about it. This is not the first time that the iPhone 3Q numbers where not sustained and like it or not 3Q numbers for the iPhone are worthless. Apple gets a huge spike 3Q every year but it never seems to sustained by the end of 4Q it drops back to were it was.

I could go with your statement of putting ones head in the ground and complete ignoring the facts. Good grief the drop lines up with the release of the iPhone 4G. To mean that means nothing and only worth anything if it is kept up for 4Q and 1Q. I consider the iPhone and have for a few years 3Q data as worthless due to the spike in it. I would need 12 months total sales to compare with others everyone needs 12 months and then it gives you a much better picture. But using 3Q numbers from Apple is complete BS. Apple release its new phones 3Q and normally you see a the others not release as much 3Q.
Their big stuff is during 1Q every year. They do not have much going on in the beginning of 3Q.

 

[yg17]

If I'm not mistaken, the most common definition of smart phone used to be the ability to install native apps (not including those simple java apps that would run on every dumb phone).

But since the iPhone came out Apple-fanboys started to bend that definition just so that the iPhone would be included

Apps, web, e-mail, etc. Those are what define a smart phone.

 

[BaldiMac]

no it is more the huge fan boy screaming about it. This is not the first time that the iPhone 3Q numbers where not sustained and like it or not 3Q numbers for the iPhone are worthless. Apple gets a huge spike 3Q every year but it never seems to sustained by the end of 4Q it drops back to were it was.

I could go with your statement of putting ones head in the ground and complete ignoring the facts.

How about you read my post and the article again. It has very little to do with Apple's 3Q market share.

It has to do with limited growth of smartphone subscribers on Verizon. It includes data for more than the 3Q. 3Q is just the most striking example for the reasons you listed. Android is not driving significant growth in smartphone subscribers for Verizon. iPhone numbers are not involved in that analysis.

normally you see a the others not release as much 3Q.
Their big stuff is during 1Q every year. They do not have much going on in the beginning of 3Q.

How about the Droid 2? Released August 12.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

How about you read my post and the article again. It has very little to do with Apple's 3Q market share.

It has to do with limited growth of smartphone subscribers on Verizon. It includes data for more than the 3Q. 3Q is just the most striking example for the reasons you listed. Android is not driving significant growth in smartphone subscribers for Verizon. iPhone numbers are not involved in that analysis.



Like the Droid 2? Released August 12.

Looking over it again it really means nothing. Rim and Palm are were the drop came from. Palm lets face it needs to update their phone.

Rim 3Q is normally a slow Q for them. They do not have any of their big stuff coming out them. The Torch as AT&T for the most part and they still have not really release much of the next generation of stuff for CMDA guys.

So again 3Q does not mean much. Palm needs to update. Rim historic slow quarter between releases. Mix with iPhone coming out.

As for you Droid 2 point. I might like to point out that only gives 1/2 a quarter worth of sales and unlike Apple produces require a lot less spike and hype removal to see how it is really doing.

 

[BaldiMac]

Looking over it again it really means nothing. Rim and Palm are were the drop came from.

That's the whole point! Android is converting other smartphone owners to Android on Verizon. That is not particularly helpful to Verizon. They need a device that will convert non-smartphone owners to smartphone owners to increase the sale of data plans.

Palm lets face it needs to update their phone.

Rim 3Q is normally a slow Q for them. They do not have any of their big stuff coming out them. The Torch as AT&T for the most part and they still have not really release much of the next generation of stuff for CMDA guys.

So again 3Q does not mean much. Palm needs to update. Rim historic slow quarter between releases. Mix with iPhone coming out.

As for you Droid 2 point. I might like to point out that only gives 1/2 a quarter worth of sales and unlike Apple produces require a lot less spike and hype removal to see how it is really doing.

Wow. Again, this has very little to do with 3Q numbers. (3Q numbers are just the most striking in comparison to the iPhone.) This is an ongoing trend. Notice the graphs are for all of 2010, not just 3Q. Smartphone subscriber growth on Verizon does not change significantly from Q1 to Q3.

 

[ten-oak-druid]

If I'm not mistaken, the most common definition of smart phone used to be the ability to install native apps (not including those simple java apps that would run on every dumb phone).

But since the iPhone came out Apple-fanboys started to bend that definition just so that the iPhone would be included

Oh dear. Another "fanboy" hurler. Don't you get tired of projecting your irrationally strong emotions about these products onto others?

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

Lame

 

[ten-oak-druid]

Someone posted that Jobs referred to other "smart phones" when introducing the iphone.

These were actually self proclaimed iphones.

In all actuality, they were not smart phones.

Steve Jobs would agree with me. Go ahead and email him.

 

[seashellz]

SPRINT is panting at the possibility of getting the iPhone in June pending a block by VERIZON; iPhones will RULE the market

Notice how SPRINT diss ATT in their ads carefully showing some sympathy for the iPhone
ALL advertising is good advertising






Id rather be an APPLE fanboi than a GATES a**licker!

 

[lilcosco08]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7)

Is it just me, or is the scale on the graph weird?

e.x. 2000 thousand androids
Kind of odd.

 

[firewood]

I would argue that the first mass-market smartphone was the Palm Treo.

I agree.

At one point in time, Palm had over 80% of the mobile tablet market, tight hardware/software integration, name recognition ranking up with Apple's, sales of 10's of millions of devices, and 10's of thousands of developers flocking to the PalmGear App store and filling it with tons of new apps.

How fast just a few years of mismanagement can drive a winning position into the ground. Sad really...

 

[Geckotek]

I used to be a total Palm fanboy. It's so sad that they couldn't keep up.

 

[URFloorMatt]

Huh? Anyone buying a Windows phone, as with the iPhone, is tech savvy and is going to use the phone for many more functions, outside dialing. Otherwise, they would get a "flip-phone" that essentially just makes calls.

It's not 2007. Plenty of people now buy smartphones just for the mobile Internet. You don't have to be tech savvy anymore. Virtually every phone on prominent display in the stores is a smartphone.

Your quote "Buy a Windows Phone if you want a phone that just works but doesn't also define your life." doesn't even make sense.

It doesn't make sense to you, but that's not important because it's not marketed to you.

How would placing a call, checking your inbox, a stock price or the location of the nearest Sushi restaurant on a Windows phone make it define your life less than the same tasks on an iPhone? That quote sounds like something from a rejected greeting card.

You visit this forum and you have to ask that question? The Apple faithful have a bit of a reputation out among the normal people.

Point is, nobody buys a Windows Phone to show off to others that they have a Windows Phone. The same cannot be said for the iPhone. That doesn't make the iPhone a bad product (in fact, it's the best smartphone available and I couldn't live without it), but it allows Microsoft to make appeals that Apple can't make in its advertisements.

This ad isn't targeted at Apple per se, either. It's also targeted at the Crackberry phenomenon. But the message is similar enough, and serves cross-purposes: "Don't be one of those people. Buy a Windows Phone."

 

[redkamel]

Exactly. Verizon probably wants/wanted control over branding, preloaded apps, the appstore, etc.....

Anyways, this is what prevented Apple from going to Verizon in the first place. Verizon wanted control over the handset, experience, branding, etc. The iPhone wouldn't be where it was today if it weren't for AT&T's willingness to let Apple take control. If this report is correct, that means Verizon customers may receive a true iPhone, not the Verizon-bastardized version.
.

thats 100% correct. I am usually not a vindictive person, but I really enjoy seeing Verizon suffer for their shortsightedness and desire for control.

Its one thing to desire control for quality and money (Apple). Its another to desire it only for money (Verizon). Their crippled phones were the bane of my experience and I am glad they are paying the price for their stupid decision to pass up the iphone. I don't even see how you could call it a "business decision"...ok ok rant off

 

[redkamel]

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?[/QUOTE
Well, "smartphone" is actually a definitionless marketing term. Originally, it was used as "phone to perform your basic business needs". Anyways, I imagine the most widely accepted answer to your question would be:

Yes. A PDA and a smart phone are actually very similar.

IMO Smart phones and PDAs generally both have calendars, can run and install programs, store data/images/videos and edit/view "normal" computer files like word. A PDA may or may not have internet/fax access. A smart phone has all of the previous and phone ability.

For all the people saying "everything before the iphone was not a smartphone"...thats wrong. Thats like saying everything before the internet was not a computer. Or a ENIAC was not a computer because it didn't use a keyboard. A computer computes. A smartphone organizes data and daily/business information, and performs basic to advanced computing with phone calls

The iphone may be leading to "real" smartphones, the kind that are easy to use and truly smart, but that makes it predecessors no less smartphones than computers these days make the punch card computers "not computers".

 

[SandynJosh]

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

Dude, in your example, I don't think the phone is the "dumb" part of the problem.

 

[SandynJosh]

Point is, nobody buys a Windows Phone to show off to others that they have a Windows Phone. The same cannot be said for the iPhone. That doesn't make the iPhone a bad product (in fact, it's the best smartphone available and I couldn't live without it), but it allows Microsoft to make appeals that Apple can't make in its advertisements.

That the iPhone case design puts it up in the category of a work of art, or the user experience is so exhilarating to a new user that they can't help but love to show it off, is less of a fault of the owner then it is of the craftsmanship and design of the manufacturer.

If "nobody buys a Windows Phone to show off to others" that says to me it's unremarkable to own or to admire. If that "allows Microsoft to make appeals that Apple can't make," then I wouldn't want to spread that around too much.

 

[ten-oak-druid]

Dude, in your example, I don't think the phone is the "dumb" part of the problem.

No, the stylus is.

 

[croooow]

Someone posted that Jobs referred to other "smart phones" when introducing the iphone.

These were actually self proclaimed iphones.

In all actuality, they were not smart phones.

Steve Jobs would agree with me. Go ahead and email him.

That was me. Jobs said the then current crop of smartphones were not very smart. And I think we all agree the iPhone changed the face of the smartphone market and their phone is much smarter. I don't think I need to email Jobs to ask him what a smartphone is

So if you are saying that they are just "self proclaimed" smartphones, then so is the iPhone. There is no official definition or certification for "smartphone" it's just a term people use for a device that is a phone but does more than other phones.

I don't know why you insist that the iPhone be the first smartphone, but if it makes you happy then so be it. You can tell people that it was the first, but they will either correct you or laugh at your ignorance to the truth, unless they just don't know better. There is no real definition of "smartphone" but most people's definitions will include phones made before 2007.

I don't think Apple wants to have the title of first smartphone, I think they want the title of best smartphone.

 

[kdarling]

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. - ITG

That bears repeating. Their sales data came from independent retailers only. Most people I know with Android phones bought them directly from Verizon, and those sales are not included in their report.

This goes back to when Verizon denied the iPhone originally. Verizon wanted to have control over it, and Apple didn't want that. The App Store would be under Verizon control.

There was no App Store at the iPhone launch, and especially not when Verizon first heard about the idea of a phone with only Apple apps on it.

For that matter, back in 2005 when Apple approached Verizon, there was no iPhone... not even a prototype. Just a vague concept of an iPod phone that was better than the ROKR, and that would be under total Apple control.

Even AT&T didn't sign with Apple when they first heard about the idea even months earlier than Verizon. In fact, it wasn't until mid 2006, well into actual iPhone design, that AT&T signed a contract that was way in their favor.

As for Verizon, as they said back in early 2007, they had nothing bad to say about Apple or the iPhone, they just couldn't go along with the restrictions and control that Apple wanted... most of which Apple later gave up (e.g. third party sales, subsidies, royalties).

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

On the contrary, there were plenty of full-fledged smartphones with capabilities that the iPhone didn't get for years... and some that it still doesn't have.

Heck, a year before the iPhone came out people were using WinMo phones with Google Maps, Slingplayer over 3G, built-in IR remote control app, tap to zoom browsers, and WVGA screens.

In fact, without those previous smartphones collecting cell tower info along with GPS coordinates, the early iPhones would have had no Google location capability.