Hacker News Reader

Comment by mattmaroon | Hacker News Reader

It's irrelevant. Saying the iPhone has been losing marketshare to Android due to any hardware specs is like saying Coca Cola was losing marketshare to Pepsi in the 80's due to Pepsi tasting better. It seems logical, but it's just not the problem. That's why New Coke was a disaster, and it's why Android will outsell iOS soon (if it's not already).

Android is gaining because of carriers. What Apple really needed to announce (and why their share price dropped when they did not) was launching on Verizon.

View on HN

Note that in the UK, iPhone 4 will be simultaneously available for three carriers: O2, Orange, and Vodafone.

Does anyone have any insights as to how AT&T is maintaining its iPhone exclusivity in the US? It's obviously great for AT&T, but seems to be very bad for Apple.

Does anyone have any insights as to how AT&T is maintaining its iPhone exclusivity in the US? It's obviously great for AT&T, but seems to be very bad for Apple.

Yes: Apple signed a contract that gave them exclusivity until 2012. I'm guessing AT&T lawyers did a good job wording that clause.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/10/confirmed-apple-and-atand...

I had always thought it was a 3-year deal expiring in 2010. I didn't see this news when it broke last month. So, no great mystery here.

Well, the UK situation involves three GSM carriers. In the United States, the only prominent GSM competitor to AT&T is T-Mobile, and they have no need or intention to get their phone on a budget carrier. With Verizon, they'd have to design different hardware and deal with the fact that EV-DO Rev. A on CDMA is on the way out and LTE is going to be lit up for about 100M subscribers by January 2011.

So in other words, everyone in the world will be using the iPhone with their favorite carrier, and thus competes equally with Android, except for people in the States who will be stuck with AT&T for a few more years.

Bad for Apple how? AT&T is paying quite a bit for this privilege. As high as $18 / mo / iPhone according to http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9803657-37.html

Right now I think Apple cares more about the image AT&T is giving the iPhone than the money their paying for the privilege. The iPhone is not just for 5 Christmas's...

With both AT&T and Verizon rolling out LTE networks over the next year, it makes little sense creating a CDMA version of the iPhone only to have an LTE iPhone replace both GSM and CDMA iPhones. I think its more likely that the next iPhone could be on Verizon first, then AT&T since Verizon is rolling out their LTE network faster than AT&T.

Apple has benefited far more than AT&T... look at the stock prices or revenues gained. I'm not saying they're benefitting specifically from exclusivity... they would make more with more carriers to be sure... but the notion that it's "bad for Apple" doesn't seem to float.

The carrier straight jacket is the big one. I know plenty of people that won't switch from Verizon or Sprint because ATT's network is horrible or nonexistent for them. Allowing ATT to have a 1/2 decade grip may be the biggest mistake of all.

Except Apple probably didn't have a great deal of choice at the time. Remember, at the time, the best thing people had to compare the iPhone with was the Newton (and many of those comparisons were made).

AT&T was either extremely smart or extremely lucky for making the deal they did. I'm sure Apple gave up way more than they wanted to just to get the phone out the door.

Fair, but I remember one of the major sticking points was how much the carriers were willing to subsidize the cost of the phone at launch. Verizon wasn't willing to give as much as att on their contracts. There was certainly give/take, but the generosity of the lock-in is starting to be stretched. At least there are other markets that are less restricted to allow growth outside the US market.

You're stealing my analogy. But I believe Bing is Pepsi and Google is New Coke. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1400311

It looks like Apple takes 20% market share by size and 80% by revenue. Android takes 80% market share by size and 20% by revenue. The carriers are giving away Android phones to price sensitive customers.

That looks like Apple's strategy with respect to iAds, too. It looks like iAds will be focused on large, mainstream consumer brands and AdMob will be focused on affiliate links for boner pills.

Big advertisers don't want to advertise to price sensitive customers and App developers can't sell to them.

Completely agreed. There is too much value placed on market share. To a business what should be more important? Market share or profit?

It's pretty obvious to me.

What revenue is it that apple is getting 80% of to android's 20%?

Hardware? Manufacturers still get $hundreds per phone even when they are "free."

Software? If Android gets 80% of the market by size (they don't, and won't soon, but might in five years) then that 30% of app revenue will add up.

That was the whole point of the keynote today. Google is trying to lure developers by being free and open. Apple is try to lure developers with cold, hard cash that they are paying out.

The keynote mentioned that Apple has paid out $1 billion to developers through the App Store and advertisers have committed to $60 million dollars so far to iAds. Developers get 60% of this.

I see or hear no numbers from Google. Google hasn't even rolled out Google Checkout worldwide, yet. The Android devices that Google is selling are being given away by the carriers. A customer that received a free device and has not input their credit card into a payment processor is probably not the type of customer that I want.

I don't know what Android devices you're talking about. Most of the ones I see when I walk into the Sprint store cost the same as an iPhone.

The bulk of the manufacturer's revenue comes from the contract premium anyway which the buyer does not see. Even a "free" Android handset might net the manufacturer $400.

I'm mostly interested in it from a technical / end user perspective. I don't own stock in Apple or Google so I really don't care that much about market share. I think it's interesting to see which software/hardware issues they're focusing on and how much progress is being made.

I'm not sure why you are getting down voted. Your explanation is logical and the lack of iPhone carriers is a big issue for marketshare. Up voted.

Agreed. Apple needs to get on other carriers to reach more people and keep momentum.

What is so special about Verizon other than its practice of charging 200% of what other carriers charge? I would have much preferred an announcement about T-Mobile support.

I have owned both.

In my last 2 residences, I had no problem with Verizon, and big problems with AT&T. In both locations, missed and dropped calls on the AT&T network were common. Additionally, I never see the 3G icon displaying on my iPhone in my home, and this morning I could not email 4 pics from my iPhone to my wife. They are still sitting in my out box.

I had a dropped call with a client earlier today. With Verizon, I rarely had any issues. I would pay 2x to have this phone be usable to me.

Verizon's plans and charges are almost dollar for dollar the exact same as AT&T, their global web/email services are actually a bit cheaper. Apple would have no interest in partnering with T-Mobile, heck, their service is worse and spottier than AT&T.

" Apple would have no interest in partnering with T-Mobile, heck, their service is worse and spottier than AT&T."

I've had the opposite experience. And T-mob customer support is far nicer.

In Raleigh, NC I had a lot of issues with T-mobile. The problem would be magnified any time I entered a building, on a variety of phones. Having switched to Verizon, I've only found two places in the area where I have poor service. (Too bad it's my research lab and my summer job...)

I had AT&T in Phoenix AZ, and then in Manasass VA, and when I moved back to Phoenix I gave T-mobile a shot. They had 21-day trial thing so I got a phone and drove all over the place, especially checking places I knew I would likely be, checking reception and such, and overall the quality beat AT&T.

It may be , though, that what works best depends on the particular region. Still happy with their customer support; they helped me in assorted ways and it was quite pleasant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com