Slashdot Mirror
The iPhone Is a Nightmare For Carriers
New submitter HungryMonkey writes "According to the latest EBITDA numbers from AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon, the subsidies they have to pay Apple in order to carry the iPhone are drastically reducing their profits. From the Article: '"A logical conclusion is that the iPhone is not good for wireless carriers," says Mike McCormack, an analyst at Nomura Securities. "When we look at the direct and indirect economics that Apple has managed to extract from the carriers, the carrier-level value destruction is quite evident."' So one money sucking leech has attached itself to another money sucking leech?"
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2012/01/82-percent-of-atts-q4-2011-sales-are-smartphones-66-percent-are-iphones.ars
Yeah. 66% of AT&T's 4th quarter sales were iPhones. I was on Verizon for years, switched to AT&T only for their iPhone, and stuck with them only for their GSM capabilities worldwide. Sure, your margins are less when you offer a better service. Would you prefer no sales though?
I can't see the problem with this. Phone carriers, internet carriers too since many seem to be doing both, should be dumb pipes. There's no dark side to that.
Don't carriers drop Apple? "We'll lose money on every transaction but make it up in volume" has nevevr worked.
Or, is it that profits are reduced, not eliminated? Value destruction means losing money, not reduced margins. Pretty important to distinguish. If they were losing huge buckets of money, we wouldn't see carriers clamoring to carry the devices. OTOH, selling at reduced margins at high volume can potentially be profit maximizing (e.g., Wal*Mart).
Its an expensive phone. Are Apple forcing them to give it away? sounds more like "Carriers business model is destroying their profits"
Apple drug these backward-ass bozos kicking and screaming into the modern phone era, so cry my a river.
When I think of the punitive overage changes these carriers have for data, roaming, SMS texting... It warms my heart to think of their financial discomfort.
For what we pay for cell service in the US we should have a state of the art infrastructure and widespread 4G access.
Carriers are crying all the way to the bank. Anyone selling the iphone has seen their sales jump as people ditch their carriers in a mad scramble to get the hottest phone on the market.
A story came out last week detailing that Apple is now one of the biggest phone makers on the planet. This is from a company who's primary market was computers. Clearly, they are doing something right if everyone wants what they are selling.
If the carriers don't like the iPhone, stop selling it, and watch all your business dry up. That's how the free market works, capitalist pigs.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Which tells me it must make business sense to do so.
#DeleteChrome
Between 2009 and 2010, Verizon (VZ, Fortune 500) averaged EBITDA service margin of 46.4% per quarter. In the first quarter that the iPhone went on sale, that fell to 43.7%. Last quarter, when Verizon sold a record 4.2 million iPhones, its margin plunged to 42.2%.
Gee, margin "plunged" from 46.4% to 42.2%. It sounds like their profits have dropped from really, really obscene to just really, really obscene. I need to get out my tiny violin and start playing it for them.
How is this Apple's fault? The carrier needs to buy the phones from Apple, and they have a cost.
In order to get people to sign up for contracts, they give you the handset at a cheaper price, but you have them locked into a 2 year (or whatever contract).
If Microsoft (or anybody else) came out with the new Super Duper Happy Fun Phone that everyone suddenly wanted ... they'd be in the exact same boat. Because most people aren't going to pay the full cost of a new phone outright. Phones have always been expensive.
Subsidizing the phone cost is a loss leader, which is exactly what is happening. However, over the next two years, how much profits are they going to make by gouging people for the wireless service/bandwidth they've signed up for? I bet it far outstrips the cost of the phones ... it just happens that a lot of people are moving to those kinds of phones right now.
The problem is that the carriers have been unwilling to invest in their own infrastructure to keep up with growth, and now they're whining that the device that people want to have costs more than they can afford in one shot.
I fail to see why Apple (or any phone manufacturer) needs to come down on the price in order to ensure the carriers make money. They can raise the price they sell the phones for, or let another company do it and lose out on the potential business.
If the carriers are giving too much of a subsidy ... well, that's kinda their problem, isn't it? Apple never told them to give it away.
I'm betting the latest, shiniest phones from Microsoft, Samsung, Nokia, and pretty much everyone else are pretty damned spendy. If you give away expensive things, that's what happens.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
So one money sucking leech has attached itself to another money sucking leech?
It's more like a "Human Centipede" relationship.
Falls to "ALMOST nearly 50% margin."
Fuck me gently with a chainsaw, Heather. I fail to weep.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Even better, if mobile phone carriers stopped selling phones altogether. Most of the smaller ones in the UK have stopped already. Just buy a phone, buy a SIM, combine the two yourself.
Of course, if you look at SIM-only plans, you see how much you're actually paying for the 'free' phone. My carrier, for example, offers a £12 SIM-only plan and an identical £30 smartphone plan. The SIM-only deal is a 1-month contract, the smartphone plan is a 12-month contract. So, if you use it for the minimum period, you've paid £216 more than if you were on the SIM-only plan. The smartphone plan comes with a few choices of phone. The first one I looked at, the HTC Desire S, costs £154 (new) unlocked, on Amazon. Probably less if you shop around.
So, the 'subsidised' 'free' phone actually works out as a loan with an APR of about 40%. If you buy it now on your credit card and pay the bill at the end of the year, you'll still be better off...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The carrier subsidy on the Android phones, especially the fancy ones, also appears to be huge. An unlocked 8 GB Galaxy S2 at Amazon is $600, while a 16 GB iPhone 4S from apple is $650.
Yet AT&T charges $150 for the S II, and $200 for the 4S. So if the carrier subsidy is related at all to the gap between the contract price and no-contract price, the carrier subsidy for an iPhone is no worse than an Android phone.
So its probably not the "iPhone", but just the general trend to expensive smartphones compared with lower subsidy needed feature phones.
Test your net with Netalyzr
Yep! Check your account options in the upper right. People used to take advantage of this feature to block the infamous "personalities" JonKatz and michael.
I work for one of the UK network operators which had made me develop a new level of hatred for iPhones.
One of the way the iPhone is hurting carriers is that Apple only offer a 12 month warranty as standard, sure you can extend it with Apple Care, but no one bothers even if they take out the iPhone as part of a 24 month contract.
A customer will phone up over 12 months into an 18 or 24 month contract to say their iPhone is faulty, all we can offer is a chargeable repair as the phone's out of warranty, naturally they're not very happy ("I got it from you, not from apple!") and they'll either want to cancel their contract without any sort of termination fee or get a working phone, 99% of the time if they complain enough they'll get a free of charge replacement iPhone just to keep them happy in the hopes that they'll upgrade at the end of their term (and it works out cheaper than having the call escalate further). This is happening hundreds if not thousands of times a day where I work, sure it happens with other brands too, but to a lesser extent and normally with lower price handsets.
I'm shocked that so many people are willing to accept a 12 month warranty on a product that markets its self as the best in the market.
...the subsidies they have to pay Apple in order to carry the iPhone are drastically reducing their [insanely high, customer gouging] profits.
There, fixed that for you.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
Carriers shouldn't have any control over which phones work on their network. They should stop selling cell phones altogether.
Sell sim cards. Period. Offer some cheapo phones you don't really care about in your store. But make it obvious that users should really get the actual phone somewhere else especially if it's a smart phone.
AT&T used to sell or even rent land line phones in the early days. If you wanted a phone you had to buy one from the phone company. Today, if you want a landline phone you pick one up at practically anywhere for between 10 dollars for the cheap ones to 200 for the really fancy ones. That's what the wireless carriers need to do.
When they do that apple can't charge a fee anymore. It's just selling a phone. A bit of hardware. And the carriers aren't selling a phone. They're selling a data plan. Because I imagine that "minutes" are going to be a thing of the past at some point. At what point does it become more practical to just skype everything? Does skype cost the carriers more money then a regular phone connection? I wonder. They're obviously turning it all into data anyway. In any case, once all phones have internet the typical phone/voice connection becomes redundant. Just give everyone a data plan. People will stick to email and text most of the time to save on connection charges and that has to use much less bandwidth then a voice conversation.
Just sever the relationship entirely between phone and carrier. Sell sim cards. Then the carriers can anti trust apple or something if apple gets snippy about letting some carrier's sim cards work and others not.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Wow, first the RIAA complaining about unfairness, and now telcos complaining they don't make enough profit.
I think the store just ran out out of Worlds Smallest(tm) violins!
. . .That was sales not actual devices active. In other words because a huge number of people updated their iPhone in that time period they sold more than Android did. It didn't change the US market share makeup. Apple is still hovering around 30% and Android around 50%.
Sprint announced a large upswing in new customers last quarter -- all because of the iPhone. However, their losses increased, too -- all because of the iPhone.
The losses are a single quarter. The revenue the new customers bring lasts for two years.
And after that there's a great chance Sprint gets to keep them as customers (if they manage things well).
So it can make a LOT of sense to take some loss now for quite a lot of potential future gain (and a lot of the gain is not just potential, but pretty much assured).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley