Tag Archives: Verizon

Whoa. IPhone accounts for more than 80% of AT&T smartphone sales

IPhone accounts for more than 80 percent of AT&T smartphone sales:

AT&T posted its fourth quarter results for 2011 on Thursday and highlighted smartphone sales in particular, which reached a record high of 9.4 million devices, beating the standing company record by 50 percent. Apple should be very happy with those results, too, since 7.6 million, or 80.9 percent, of those smartphones were iPhones.

So 80% – eighty per cent! - of the smartphones AT&T sold were iPhones. More than 50% of the smartphones Verizon sold were iPhones. Yes, this was a quarter with a fair amount of pent-up demand for iPhones, given the “delay” to the iPhone 4S, but remember that phone buyers tend to have to wait until their contracts run out before buying – something which tends to smooth out the spikes a little.

UPDATE: As the inestimable Richard Gaywood pointed out to me on Twitter, this is conflating two types of figure: 9.4m smartphone sold and 7.6m iPhones activated. You might not think there’s much difference, but there is: activations include second-hand iPhones, hand-me-downs, and so on. That doesn’t meant that Apple didn’t make AT&T very happy bunnies, but it does mean that it’s less than 80%. How much less? No one outside of AT&T really knows.

(Via jkOnTheRun)

My one comment on the Google/Verizon net neutrality announcement

I don’t have enough time to do a long post on Google and Verizon, but I will say this: claiming you’re preserving network neutrality on the Internet by redefining what “Internet” means isn’t going to wash. If “Internet” can be defined as “wired-only” and “not including any random ‘Premium’ services we might think of”, then it’s meaningless.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why you should take reports of an iPhone on Verizon with a pinch of salt

Remember this report about how the iPad was a cert for Verizon?:

“The tablet will be supported by multiple [mobile] carriers,” said Brian Marshall of Broadpoint AmTech, citing unnamed sources he said were close to the situation. “Verizon and others,” he continued. “Definitely Verizon. I’ve been told that’s a certainty.”

As I said at the time, there is more chance that Apple will expand to another US carrier which uses GSM than it will build hardware tailored to a single US network.

Proof that thinking about the Apple tablet makes you stupid

Gregg Keizer draws the short straw with this story:

‘”The tablet will be supported by multiple [mobile] carriers,” said Brian Marshall of Broadpoint AmTech, citing unnamed sources he said were close to the situation. “Verizon and others,” he continued. “Definitely Verizon. I’ve been told that’s a certainty.”‘

Yes. Because the one thing that Apple will do with a product which it wants to sell globally is tie it to a CDMA network, rather than the global standard of GSM. Because Apple is renowned for not giving a damn about economies of manufacture, and so will build two versions of a product for different markets, or sabotage its ability to build to a lower cost (or increase its margin) by equipping it with dual CDMA/GSM radio capabilities.

There is more chance of an Apple tablet being available only on T-Mobile than Verizon. Seriously.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Idiot post of the day (The Return of TechCrunch edition)

OK, I wasn’t going to do this. Even I had got bored. But MG Siegler’s post on how “Apple and Google just tag teamed the US Carriers” is just breathtakingly stupid.

MG, I know that you’re desperate to justify your earlier breathless hyping of the Nexus One, but seriously – contradicting yourself in the same sentence is pretty good going. To wit:

“But Google goes farther, because they already have multiple carriers (in this case, T-Mobile and Verizon, coming this Spring).”

If it’s “coming this spring”, they don’t ALREADY have multiple carriers. They “will have” or “plan to have” or “will be launching on”. They may even have “already signed up”. But they don’t “already have”.

Seriously, this is basic English we’re talking about here.

Then there’s this:

“Google has these guys in their pockets because it’s not like they’re going to team up with Apple to make a device (Motorola tried, and failed).”

Yeah, because Google can STOP HTC and Motorola building Android phones. They really really need Google! Oh no wait, they can’t! It’s free! It’s open source!

Of course Motorola and HTC are going to appear on stage with Google. They are a major, important partner. But claiming this means that Google has them in its pockets is just bullshit.

And finally…

“They’re taking the traditional mobile model in this country, where you first choose your carrier, and then choose your phone, and turning it upside down.”

Yes, because people are so dumb that they can’t chose things this way round for themselves. No one ever thought of, say, going to AT&T because they wanted an iPhone. Or Verizon because they wanted a Droid.

Or an N97. Actually, scrap that, no one wanted an N97, on any network.

(Image from Laughing Squid)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]