Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikeash | Hacker News Reader

It's completely ridiculous. 30 million iPhones over 4 years is about half the rate at which AT&T is currently selling iPhones in the US. Why would Apple give exclusivity to a lagging carrier in exchange for a promise to purchase phones at only half the rate that one of their current partners is selling them?

It seems likely to me that Sprint made this commitment in order to get access to the iPhone at all. But an exclusive on their network makes no sense at all for the relatively small deal (from Apple's perspective) being described here.

View on HN

I wouldn't say it's ridiculous, given that:

- It may not possible to produce an LTE iPhone 5 for either Verizon or AT&T right how (or for any other country), as the LTE chipsets are not ready and LTE deployments are limited. However, it may be possible in six to nine months.

- WiMAX chipsets may be more mature than LTE, and Sprint's LTE deployment may be widespread, making it possible to produce such a phone for Sprint.

- Sprint has promised to buy 7.5 million iPhones a year, which is a whopping 31% of US iPhone sales

- The depth of the Sprint commitment effectively means there is no room for Android on that carrier.

So, if Apple's choices are:

a) Produce non-LTE phone for AT&T and Verizon, only to obsolete it six months later in order to compete with LTE phones running Android.

b) Give Sprint temporary six to nine month "exclusivity" to a phone that they could not produce for anyone else anyway in return for 30% more U.S. sales and killing Android on Sprint

... then it's plausible for them to choose b.

Yes, but WIMAX is pretty much dead, even Sprint's dropping it for LTE. I just don't see Apple producing a new phone with WiMAX and having to test a completely different radio technology when they pretty much know it won't last for more than a few years.

There are several LTE phones out already, and Verizon is rapidly expanding coverage zones. Although, I suppose battery drain is the unresolved issue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com