Slashdot Mirror
Why Verizon Doesn't Want You To Buy an iPhone
Hugh Pickens writes "Sascha Segan writes that although Verizon adamantly denies steering customers away from Apple's iPhones in favor of 4G LTE-enabled Android devices, he is convinced that Verizon has a strong reason to push buyers away from the iPhone. 'Here's the problem,' writes Segan. 'Verizon has spent millions of dollars rolling out its massive LTE network' but the carrier can't easily add capacity on its old 3G network. Since the iPhone isn't a 4G phone, sales of Verizon iPhones just crowd up their already busy 3G network while their 4G network has plenty of space. 'The iPhone is a great device. But it's making a crowded network more crowded. Until the LTE iPhone comes along, to rebalance its network, Verizon may quietly push Android phones.'"
Subsidy. The iPhone has a bigger one than any other device. That's it. If it doesn't affect the wallet, they really don't care.
Tim Cook is not amused.
Too bad they're not also pushing (or even offering) the Lumia 900. It's also a 4G/LTE phone. And pushing more people on it would help create more competition in the market place. I think we could do with three major players instead of just two (one of which is more or less a 'copy of/me too' of the other).
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Add an unlimited plan that applies to 4g only. That'll give Android users some bragging rights for at least a few months. Then, when the iPhone gets 4g, Verizon won't need the plan and can drop it, and that'll allow Android users to blame the iPhone for ruining the party.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Why Apple has no 4G iPhone.
Considering the ONLY Windows Phone handset they have is the HTC Trophy which is pretty poor compared to modern handsets on Android or iOS.
-B-
Since the iPhone is more expensive than most Android phones and isn't 4g, it seems like they wouldn't have to try too hard to push people in another direction.
All I hear is, "we're making money hand over fist, but it's not all perfect...". Meanwhile they paid a negative federal tax in 2011 [1] and are lobbying for even lower taxes and local subsidies.
The iPhone is their best selling device. The next iPhone will have LTE support (like the iPad today). Verizon just sounds like a whiny child who didn't get *everything* they wanted for Christmas.
In short, fuck them and their entitlement complaints.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
My iPhone says it's 4G! /snark
As an Ex Rogers employee, they tended to steer people away from the iPhones, because of the hefty warranty that the company had to pay to Apple on the phone
Not to mention the enormous subsidies that the carriers pay Apple to get the iPhone and that Apple gets a cut of the monthly subscription charge. It's a double-edged sword. Verizon gets more customers, but they pay through the nose if the customer chooses an iPhone. Also, Verizon had to bulk up their EVDO coverage, which cost millions if not billions, for the iPhone as they saw what happened to AT&T when the iPhone was released.
I have a 4G/LTE capable Android phone (Samsung Conquer on Sprint). 4G is fast, where it's available, but I leave it off except when I really need more speed than 3G can provide and I don't have Wi-Fi available, because it kills battery life. About 90% of the time, I have Wi-Fi, and most of the remainder, 3G is fast enough. So, if and when 4G/LTE chipsets can provide the speed without a major hit to battery life, that will be a viable option. Not so coincidentally, that's exactly the reason Apple gave for not supporting LTE yet.
So, from technical perspective, it may appear to make sense to push customers to 4G/LTE phones, many will do as I have and turn off 4G eliminating the technical advantages. Many of the others will complain about the battery life, it's not necessarily good customer relations.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Our enterprise Verizon rep has openly admitted to this same fact, though the primary reason she gave was the paltry profit they make from Apple devices. They'd much rather sell a BB or an android... there's more money in it.
in a new shiny chrome welcome box and the they flock to it.
The newwwww Alante booty shake, booty shake, booty shake....
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
This article misses a major clue -- people who are buying iPhones are not doing so because their carrier steers them towards them. As many people know about the iPhone as know about Verizon. There are people who wouldn't switch to Verizon because they didn't offer the iPhone. Name another phone that people do that for. The truth is, if Apple pushes people away from Verizon it will make a bigger difference for Verizon than it will for Apple if Verizon steers people away from iPhone.
Currently hooked on AMP
Verizon may quietly push Android phones.
Or they may not.
I'll just quote from the source articles and let you make up your own minds.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/03/technology/verizon-iphone-sales/
Anecdotal evidence is stacking up on chat forums and other outlets...
http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/03/technology/verizon-iphone-sales/
A pretty hot story is going around, stoked by CNNMoney...
[give some facts]
Maybe those are minor factors, but they aren't the primary reason.
[reach any conclusion you want]
MAYBE it's true, maybe it's not, but I fucking hate "new media".
This past spring I was shopping for a new small business account. My contract for my iPhone had expired with AT&T so I did my shopping. One of the major things I wanted was tethering so I could connect my laptop or iPad (wifi only) when I needed to on the road.
Sprint sold me on a mobile plan for the iPhone which is about $70 a month plus a 3g/4g Mobile hotspot instead of tethering. Even with both lines it's still about $40 a month cheaper than either AT&T or Verizon with 6GB of transfer vs 4GB for "tethering". Not to mention the deposit for a new small business account was a lot less with Sprint vs. AT&T or Verizon.
So I have 4G speeds with the iPhone via the hotspot if I want them. Or if I'm getting close to my data limit, I can do more of my business with the iPhone's unlimited data at 3G speeds.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
A few months ago, I was switching from AT&T to Verizon. As an iPhone user of many years, I wanted to try Android. I told this to the Verizon salespeople and they told me to stick with iPhone because I wouldn't be happy. I didn't listen because relying on salespeople for technology advice is not a good practice. I went with the Thunderbolt. The 4G was incredibly fast, but so was the speed at which my battery drained. I gave Android a serious shot for about a week, then I had to go back to iPhone. I went in and they refunded everything and swapped me out for an iPhone with no hassle. The salespeople were right, but just this once.
If they'd get a move on rolling out their 4G network I might care. There still isn't a single solitary one in my entire STATE.
Verizon's 3G network has been crappy for years and that's a major reason why the company wouldn't make concessions for the iPhone. Even with superior technology (and albeit marginally worse coverage), AT&T had enough trouble handling the iPhone traffic—and not just some iPhone traffic but all of it in the USA.
On an iphone, the 30% cut goes directly to Apple. On an android, the 30% cut goes to the carrier. This bribe from Google was obviously a component in the widespread adoption of android by the carriers - although I've no idea how large of a component. I wonder how much that affects marketing issues like this. I don't see why they wouldn't be throwing a few more advertising dollars in favor of the phone that nets them a higher income.
Not to jump on SpryGuy or anything but I have noticed a bunch of people posting about Windows Phone on here.
It's really not a very interesting OS, what Nokia had previous to the Microsoft "buyout" was: http://swipe.nokia.com/
I do agree we need more competition doing well in the marketplace than Android and iStuff, but can we not get stuck with another propriatary OS that doesn't even allow GPL licensed software to compete?
The Lumia 900, #7, was released last month in the US. The Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, #4, was released in September of last year.
The Lumia 900 is more than six months newer than the Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch which, with the rate smartphone innovation is going, is half a lifetime. Yet that older S2 release with its older specs is beating the 900. What is going to happen to the 900 when phones like the Samsung Galaxy S III become available? The S3 is going to become available in Europe at the end of this month, and will soon be available in the US as well.
It's all about money, not the network. The iPhone is going to be the lowest margin product, because Apple takes all the money. They have the market power to do this. Any salesman know to push the high margin products, which is why they suggest android. The network has very little to do with this.
Does this answer your question? Spryguy has been at this game a long time.
CAPTCHA: circus...how appropriate.
LTE capability is just part of it. The direction is to get off of dedicated telephony transport systems and move to an all IP solution. LTE to the carriers is not just bandwidth and a different spectrum but also the promise of controlling future costs by getting away from systems that have to be replaced every couple years with a new technology.
Phone design becomes simpler and the telephony application is disentangled from the physical system (towers, radios, cell management, etc etc). Most people are not aware of just how much infrastructure the cell providers have gone through in the past decade.
Not feeling sorry for them as there is always a profit in there but it does help explain why your carrier may not come out with your much anticipated latest device as quickly as you like. Often there are hidden system changes that have to be invested in and implemented: all of which requires investment, resources and time.
There is a payoff from convergence for the user as well. You may not know it but that old CDMA or whatever phone may have better coverage than your GSM iphone simply because your carrier chose not to upgrade/add/replace hardware on all towers. Lots of fragmentation in the cellular coverage because of the many different "standards" that have come and gone.
IP convergence has been a religious mantra in the wireline world for a long time now but it also is hugely important in the wireless world.
Your phone becomes a pure data device where the telephone is essentially just a canned VOIP application.
I was qualified to upgrade my Incredible after 2 years recently. Out of the blue, I got a text saying I qualified for a $100 discount on ANY LTE phone in addition to my 2 year upgrade discount. I wasnt interested in the iPhone, but the Verizon rep did comment that they were incentivising high data users (I was around 3 GBs a month) in congested areas (Dallas) to upgrade to 4G phones to ease the load on the crowded 3G networks. It's not specifically the iPhone, but all 3G phones they're avoiding selling.
I'm sure your cheaper HDMI cables *still* cost a massive amount more than a comparable cable from, say, Monoprice? So who cares, really? The honest answer would be to recommend the guy order one online and save a bundle, but if he was there strictly for the convenience factor "need one NOW"? Then buy the cheapest one the shelf and he'll be fine.
Most people are in range of wifi most of the time.
Then what do you propose for the rest of the people and the rest of the time? I spend a lot of time commuting to and from work on public transit, and I don't feel willing to pay $600 per year to have Internet access on the bus. So instead of a tablet, I bought a netbook, and I can run PC applications that are designed to work offline.
Do you really need to make a phone call anywhere at any time?
Yes, and that's why I carry a $7 per month Virgin Mobile dumbphone in case I need to be picked up somewhere.
Do you really need to check that email immediately?
No, and that's why I carry a netbook that can download e-mail over Wi-Fi before I leave so that I can read and reply while I'm riding the bus.
Forget the steering, you want to know why Verizon stresses Android over iPhone? As sales people, we're paid more. When the iPhone was ATT only, they could count on volume and accessories to make up the difference in commission. When the iPhone came over to Verizon, we already had an entrenched Android base as an alternative option. Then you factor in that we are paid a flat commission that is tiny in comparison to other smart phones, or even basic phones on some plans, and you have a recipe that spells Android. Top that off, any features we sell on out other phones, like texting or hot spot? Yeah we get paid for that. Sell it on an over priced iPhone? Nada.
"Why Verizon Doesn't Want You To Buy an iPhone"
Why I Care What Telecoms Want:
... hmm, sorry, coming up dry on this one.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Bonus money is paid for sales of 4g phones.
Upgrade a customer from a basic phone to a 4g devise adds to the monthly bonus.
Upgrade a customer from a basic phone to a 3g device you get.... Nothing.
Haven't been to a Verizon store lately eh? Pretty LOUD to me. All those nice expensive phones. Android is just fine. BEtter in MY opinion than your apple products.
I've had a bunch of 4G Androids on Verizon. 4G itself is mighty fast but Verizon bogs them down with so much bloatware that the additional speed feels pretty useless. I recently ditched the Android for an iPhone and even with the "slower" 3G service it feels comparatively fast. I've been told a million times "You need to use an alternative version of Android". I work in insurance and handle a lot of private data. I don't feel comfortable downloading some random alternate install of Android from who-knows-where on my phone.
But yes it will be a neat day when you can get a 4G iPhone for Verizon.
What's happening with LTE is that most implementations are opting for OFDMA. OFDMA can squeeze in more bandwidth than CDMA, but requires even more processing power. Until recently, microprocessors weren't powerful enough to decode it on a cell phone without severely impacting battery life (this is the reason early LTE implementations have a reputation for being power hogs). Because it's OFDMA, it requires a different radio. That's old hat for GSM phones - just add a third radio for LTE. But it's something new for CDMA phones - CDMA radio for voice and 3g data, add a second radio for LTE. (And yes, this means you can talk and use LTE data simultaneously on a CDMA phone.)
If CDMA adds a second radio for LTE, why would the first one still bother about handling 3g data? Wouldn't that be rather redundant? It would seem logical that any data transmissions automatically default to the LTE radio, while the voice one be dedicated to just voice. Or are you talking about just the capability of the GSM radio?
Also, by extra radio, did you mean another radio circuitry to deal w/ a completely different new band in the spectrum?
GSM and CDMA have nothing to do with LTE technologically; it is just the standard they've decided to use for 4g data. In both cases, a completely new radio has to be added to the phone to handle LTE traffic. GSM using LTE is not a concession to CDMA, and CDMA using LTE is not a concession to GSM. Theoretically, if you expanded the operating frequencies, an LTE tower should be able to service 4g data for both GSM and CDMA phones (the whole point of LTE was to standardize a lot of the underlying technologies for compatibility). But until GSM ditches TDMA for voice and/or CDMA ditches CDMA for voice, there will be no convergence.
Assuming that at some point in future, GSM ditches TDMA and CDMA ditches CDMA, would that mean that a single OFDMA radio chip would handle both LTE voice and data, or would they likely leave it separate so that one can talk while using the tablet simultaneously on an all-LTE phone?
Verizon discourages users from purchasing an iPhone because it costs more for them to subsidize iPhones than it costs them to subsidize other phones. It has nothing to do with 3g or 4g.
With 20 minutes and the internet, the bloatware is easily removed and the speed issues disappear. I didn't install any "alternate" version, I just deleted the bloatware.
I just bought a non-LTE phone (in Japan, on NTT Docomo's network). I did this with no plan to actually use the 3G data, though, since I have a mobile LTE router, and the phone has WiFi.
You might want to check your math.
If the market grows, and you grow as fast as the market, you can have continual growth.
And in the past, the market has grown continual and compound at around 5%. I know some sharp people who say that the future growth in industrial countries is going to continue at 2 to 3%. Oddly enough, in the long run, the value of stocks tends to grow about at the same rate as the overall GNP - which makes sense if you think about.
Now, why does GNP grow? Because of changes, and sometimes big changes.
I think what you want to say is that exponential growth - where growth is accelerating at an increasing rate (1st and 2nd derivative is positive) can only be held for a short period of time - 10 to 20 years - in a single industry - is true.
I mean, if the exponential growth held on for much longer for a single company then that then it would dominate the economy - which does not grow exponentially.