newyork4me

No, they wouldn't. If the current 5x5 carrier was widened to a 10x10 carrier, the devices in question wouldn't connect at all. The only way to add the capacity without leaving said devices in the dark is to add a second 5x5 carrier. Which means there would be 2 5x5 carriers rather than 1 10x10 carrier.

 

-Anthony

Seriously? This is elementary stuff. 

The G-block isn't going to be widened anyway. It's its own little obscure block outside of Sprint's other spectrum range in Chicago. 

Spring inherited some nice new spectrum from US Cellular that would have been enough to deploy 10x10. And a 10x10 in PCS A-F would not have affected the ability of the other devices from connecting to PCS G.

Sure, they may be in the minority, but if Sprint were to make their current 5x5 carrier in Chicago into a 10x10 carrier, all of those "crappy" Samsung devices would instantly go from having LTE to only being able to connect to 3G. Sprint is already hated enough by most people in the country; how much more do you think they will be hated if they all of a sudden make it so that all those Samsung devices couldn't connect to LTE? The media would lose their minds if that were to happen.

 

-Anthony

 

Edit: Removed St. Louis because AJ stated a 10x10 wouldn't be possible there.

This isn't true. The Samsung devices would still connect to the PCS G-block spectrum. They just wouldn't connect to the additional carriers.

Stupid question time, are there any markets where Sprint could deploy a 10 MHz PCS carrier (as a second PCS carrier)?

Yes, Chicago and St. Louis. They should have done so too...the wider carrier is more efficient, and the customers with the (crappy) Samsung phones that only support 5MHz channels are in the minority (and will only get smaller).

I phone 4s. I can get I tunes radio, pandora, etc fine at my work in Carlsbad, CA but streaming is nearly impossible in Oceanside, CA and definitely not while mobile.

This is probably not the answer you were looking for, but if you upgrade to an LTE phone, you'll find the network to be pretty good down there. 

Of course, you are probably being smart and waiting for the iPhone 6 and its likely tri-band radio...in which case, I hope it comes out soon for ya.

Forgive the dumb question, but is there a reason that this problem doesn't seem to afflict Verizon subscribers? Have they done something different with their network, or does the red flavor-aid mask any of these issues?

Oh I agree with the fingerprint vs face unlock I just feel like they didn't really impress me I guess this time ya know?  Usually when an iphone is released I feel like I absolutely have to have it.  This one I definitely don't feel that way.

I was actually quite impressed--it exceeded my expectations by a large margin.

That said, if they had just taken the 5 and added an AWS radio for Verizon I would have felt like I absolutely had to have it.

I have a Galaxy Nexus, Nexus 4, Galaxy S4, and LG F3 too, but the 5S will undoubtedly be my preferred device. Not to mention, Android devices can't access my work because they are a security cesspool. 

Yeah.... Just ignore the LG G2 tri band.....

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

Will I be able to buy that in 10 days? 

Last I checked, pre-orders for the G2 start October 11th for Sprint. And they said it will arrive "in time for the holidays". That's potentially months behind the iPhone release. 

I too encourage them to seek the data themselves. You do owe me, since you came into my forums and claimed that AT&T and Verizon now sell the iPhone at 70%. Then you cite an AT&T article that you cannot get a firm percentage on and give a link to a Verizon article that says they are selling them at 55% currently.

 

So Verizon does not NOW sell them at 70% as you claimed, nor have they ever averaged 70% since February 2011 in any year. The best you have shown was a past quarter where they once almost hit that. But your language that was challenged is "now." You're initial comment is inaccurate and your cited data proves that.

 

Just admit your were over zealous in your initial claim and we can then get down to what's accurate. If you don't want to defend yourself, that's fine. But the bottom line is your original premise that AT&T and Verizon sells the iPhone at 70% now has already been disproven by your links. Verizon now sells at 55% and AT&T cannot be determined on the info you've provided.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Okay, I thankfully am going into a meeting so I can't see this anymore.

But, I said "combined". That means between the two. Not that each sell 70%. It means together.

If A sold 0% and B sold 90%, and each moved 10 units, combined they would be 45%.

Combined. Now. Both words that I said originally and that matter.

Edit: Thanks to all those who sent me PMs on HoFo. Much love to you all.

I don't accept your premise that activations and sales are interchangeable. Also, your quote doesn't mean anything.

 

The only thing I will accept from you is to provide iPhone sales number percentages from AT&T and Verizon since February 2011 for every quarter. Let's see them, and average them out. This will take the spikes right after new models and the dips. We can then see the trend and total percentages over a long period of time. It will show that to get 70% and 80% iPhone penetration numbers you have to cherry pick quarters.

 

Digiblur was right to call you on this. Put up the sustained data to prove your point that iPhone numbers are so grandiose. A sustained 80% market share would be the end of all other platforms. Yet, they are thriving more than ever before.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Robert,

An AT&T spokesman confirmed the numbers don't change much in using activations or sales. Point resolved.

Again, reread what I said. I said they are *now* selling 70%. That means currently. I provided data covering the last 6 months of sales in detail. The last year is roughly the same.

Also, I owe you nothing for data. You have access to all the same public info that I do, and I am not going to post the confidential info that I am privy to. You do realize I'm the same person who gave the carrier market shares, right? I've got a lot more data than the average bear.

And, now you contort my statement again by saying a sustained 80% market share. I never said that either. I said 70% combined at AT&T and Verizon now. And the last 6 months of data, i.e. now, verify that.  AT&T is at 80%, now.

I'm done with this. I tried to be helpful in correcting misinformation for the benefit of this forum's readers--and both digiblur's and your main point of an overall trend downwards in iOS marketshare is demonstrably false (again: http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-apple-iphone-us-sales-gains-latest-quarter-20130708,0,7744078.story )--but this is ridiculous. I have wasted too much time trying to explain this already, and my billable rate is far too high for this nonsense.

I hope you have a lovely rest of your day.

And to all the readers who have been following this topic, I encourage you to seek out the raw data for yourselves. It truly is interesting.

You're just rehashing your old statistics. It does not prove that Apple has a 70% share in the U.S., either the past quarter, the past year or ever. AT&T still has not said that they are selling 80% iPhones even in the source you linked. It's not accurate. You are comparing their total iPhone activations against total sales. That's an apples to orange comparison.

 

You then extrapolate what is going on inaccurately at the two largest carriers across the whole country. That is also faulty logic. iPhone penetration is not above 50% nationally and likely never will. And selling 55% Verizon share for the most recent quarter sure is heck not going to get them to a 70% national share. Your deductions are stratospherically off course.

 

Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Robert,

Please reread what I claimed. 

I said:

Nowhere in there do I:

• "[E]xtrapolate what is going on inaccurately at the two largest carriers across the whole country"
• Claim "iPhone penetration is not above 50% nationally"; or
• Say the premium carriers are "going to get them to a 70% national share"

I simply said that at the premium carriers, AT&T and Verizon, the iPhone is making up a combined 70% of sales.

Edit: Updated: Also, should you continue to be hung up on the AT&T "activations" language:

AT&T spokesman on this issue:

 

"In this quarter, the number of activations from things like gifted iPhones doesn't change the math much. We aren't sharing a number, but gifted phones is a relatively small portion of total activations."

"Doesn't change the math much". There you go.

You come into my forums and ask me to eat crow? Even if you were right, you should at least respond in a respectful tone. You are a troll. Let me dish some up crow for you. The Verizon article clearly states iPhone sales were just over 50% the last quarter, with the highest quarter reported around 66%. The AT&T article can't even be compared, because they cite iPhone activations versus total sales. To come up with a percentage you need iPhone activations to total activations, or iPhone sales to total sales. You are cherry picking quarters and data to make a false point and make it seem like these percentages represent all year. I am not an iPhone hater by any means. But the facts do not support your outlandish 70% share claims. I have proven you to be mistaken. Any other disrespect or shots across my bow and you will be banned. You could have responded to my point without having to be a provocateur. You can provide further evidence to support your claims if you like, but do so in a respectable way that does not make you look like a douche. Robert from Note 2 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Wow. Obviously you were reading on a mobile device, because otherwise you would have clearly have seen the emoticon at the end that indicated it was a good-natured jest. The entirely factual post meant no disrespect. And, as far as I know, it's hard to troll with entirely factual posts. 

Next, I am still correct.

You say that the Verizon article mentioned they sold ~50%. That's exactly what my numbers confirmed. 4.1 million/7.8 million= 52%.  AT&T's was 80%, and combined they are nearly 70%. Exactly as I said the first time. And the second time. And now the third time.

As for the AT&T numbers, AT&T interchangeably says net activations or sales for their devices. Feel free to investigate their financials and conference calls, but the numbers are spot on. Here is the Verge reporting the same 4.8 million in sales: http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/23/4253874/att-new-1-2-million-smartphone-q1-2013-financials

As for cherry picking quarters---hardly. I just used the most recent two. They account for half of a year, and are also the only full ones that have the iPhone 5 in it. Additionally, my original statement was that the iPhone now makes up a combined 70% of sales at Verizon and AT&T. Such language implies currentness, and is bolstered by my use of the most recent data. If you look back over the past year, the figure only changes slightly to around 67%.

And I'm not an iPhone fan. I don't care about either device one way or the other. The fact is my share claims are not outlandish, and are 100% supported by actual data. I welcome you or anyone else to show where any of the facts are incorrect.

In summary, here are the plain facts:

• The iPhone now makes up nearly 70% of all smartphone sales at AT&T and Verizon.
• The iPhone made up 52% of sales at VZW and 80% of sales at AT&T for a combined total of nearly 70% last quarter
• The quarter prior had combined sales at 72% of all smartphones.

ETA: Here is an article from now one YEAR ago detailing the iPhone's performance across carriers: http://www.mobileworldlive.com/iphone-outselling-android-at-top-three-us-carriers

AT&T: 4.3 million iPhones / 5.5 million total smartphones

Verizon: 3.2 million iPhones / 6.2 million total smartphones

(4.3+3.2)/(5.5 + 6.2) = ~65%. 

Even a year ago, the iPhone was 65% of the combined premium carrier's sales.

Also, you originally said they couldn't even muster 70% of all sales the month after a new product launch. I think providing two quarters [sIX (6) months] of sales data showing otherwise is more than sufficient to have fully refuted that.

And as far as iOS "steadily los[ing] share over time"... http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-apple-iphone-us-sales-gains-latest-quarter-20130708,0,7744078.story

Apple is up 3.5 percentage points year over year.

All this math doesn't add up... if indeed VZW and AT&T are both apparently selling Iphones like hotcakes well above and over the other handsets, how do they not have more than 50% of the market share in the US.   Something doesn't quite fit here.  Everyone putting their own little spin on things based on which type of device they like and which carrier they like.  Brand loyalty...meh...

The math adds up perfectly. There is no spin. The premium carriers, AT&T and Verizon, are moving iPhones like hotcakes. Their generally more affluent users eat them up, which is consistent with all demographic research indicating HHI users to prefer iPhones.

Sprint has been moving them more slowly. T-Mobile is as well. Metro/US Cellular/many regionals could not offer the iPhone to their subscribers during these periods, and thus only could sell Androids. This is why the entire US marketshare for iPhone is around 42%, despite the premium carriers overwhelmingly selling iPhones as the smartphone of choice.

Moffett may be wrong (I generally expect him to be), but somebody else has picked up on this too.

 

http://news.investors.com/technology/071113-663305-apple-verizon-seen-renegotiating-iphone-purchase-commitment.htm?p=full

Oh goodness. Stupidity is contagious.

Both "analysts" are pulling the "commitment" number of $24.7 billion from a 10-K filing last year that discusses Verizon Communication's purchase commitments--not just Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless. Unfortunately, reading comprehension must not be a strong suit of either of them. The actual language from that section is as follows:

 

We have several commitments primarily to purchase handsets and peripherals, equipment, software, programming and network services, and marketing activities, which will be used or sold in the ordinary course of business, from a variety of suppliers totaling $51.1 billion. Of this total amount, we expect to purchase $22.8 billion in 2012, $24.6 billion in 2013 through 2014, $3.1 billion in 2015 through 2016 and $0.6 billion thereafter. These amounts do not represent our entire anticipated purchases in the future, but represent only those items for which we are contractually committed. Our commitments are generally determined based on the noncancelable quantities or termination amounts. Purchases against our commitments for 2011 totaled approximately $13 billion. Since the commitments to purchase programming services from television networks and broadcast stations have no minimum volume requirement, we estimated our obligation based on number of subscribers at December 31, 2011, and applicable rates stipulated in the contracts in effect at that time. We also purchase products and services as needed with no firm commitment.

 

In fact, the most recent 10-K has changed the numbers to:

 

We have several commitments primarily to purchase handsets and peripherals, equipment, software, programming and network services, and marketing activities, which will be used or sold in the ordinary course of business, from a variety of suppliers totaling $41.8 billion. Of this total amount, $29.6 billion is attributable to 2013, $7.5 billion is attributable to 2014 through 2015, $4.2 billion is attributable to 2016 through 2017 and $0.5 billion is attributable to years thereafter. These amounts do not represent our entire anticipated purchases in the future, but represent only those items that are the subject of contractual obligations. Our commitments are generally determined based on the noncancelable quantities or termination amounts.

Regardless of the amounts--though the analysts are clearly using outdated numbers--they are classifying the entirety of all of Verizon Communication's purchase commitments as solely attributable to the Apple iPhone contract. 

Instead, this $29.6 (new number) for 2013 purchase commitments includes not only Apple, but Samsung, HTC, and Motorola for handsets BUT ALSO Verizon landline commitments and even marketing contracts. 

Sheesh. Why can't anyone get their facts right these days?!

No way in the world that 70% of all of AT&T and Verizon smartphone sales are iPhones in 2013.  No way in the world.  Apple probably couldn't even muster 70% of all sales the month after a new product launch, let alone every month of the year.  iOS has steadily lost share over time.  They are not gaining it.

 

Robert

So sorry, but you are very, very wrong.

The most recent quarterly results are 1Q 2013. 

During that quarter:

AT&T sold 4.8 million iPhones and 6 million total smartphones. 80% of AT&T smartphones were iPhones.

VZW sold 4.1 million iPhones and 7.2 million total smartphones. Nearly 60% of Verizon smartphones were iPhones.

Combined, the two sold 8.9 million iPhones and 13.2 million smartphones. That's ~70% (68%) of all smartphone sales on AT&T and VZW as iPhones.

It's an even higher percent for 4Q 2012. (72%, to be exact)

The investor reports are timing out for me right now, but here are two alternative sources with the same info:

http://www.wirelessweek.com/news/2013/04/t-grows-margins-despite-record-1q-smarpthone-sales

http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/18/verizon-activated-4m-iphones-in-q1-2013-50-iphone-5-and-50-older-devices/

I've never had to eat crow. Please tell me how it tastes. 

Moffett has his facts wrong.

A $23.5 billion commitment for 2013 alone would mean that VZW would need to sell around 35 million iPhones just this year, at the average sale price of just over $650 per iPhone.

It should be obvious, but VZW never agreed to such a thing. That's nearly 9 million iPhones per quarter, which is roughly the total volume of smartphones that Verizon is moving. Moreover, in 2010 that volume of smartphone sales was unheard of. 

Digiblur is, however, no more correct in stating that the market share of iPhones is dwindling--at least in the U.S.

iPhone market share has been increasing--consistently too--at all of the carriers. AT&T and Verizon now sell the iPhone at a rate of roughly 70% combined of all their smartphone sales. (and AT&T is around 80% iPhone sell-through alone).

The Hill says that 2 out of 3 are in favor of the deal. But that they're still negotiating with last one. Negotiating for what? Spectrum divestments?

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/309109-majority-of-fcc-backs-softbank-purchase-of-sprint

It's been fully approved by 3 out of 3.

The last member had concerns about the language used regarding spectrum ownership.

FCC approved today

Ugh.

Isn't a lot of New Mexico kinda, uh, 'fringe' in their thinking? I swear there must have been a free bus route from Berkeley to New Mexico at some point... {and it would have had to have been non-stop, since Arizonans are much more normal}

Interestingly, Sprint spent $1.7 billion on CapEx last quarter compared to VZW's $1.9x billion.

Given their relative sizes, if that doesn't show Sprint's commitment to their network, I don't know what does.

Is that real? You have used 319 GB of data in half of your billing cycle? If so, you are a data abuser and a jerk to your fellow Sprint subs. You are violating your Ts and Cs, and I hope that Sprint terminates your account with extreme prejudice.

 

AJ

Yes, it is real. And this is also not the highest usage I've ever done. However, it is on Verizon and with the 'unlimited hotspot/tethering' add. You also have no idea how many lines I have and my total monthly with them, but I can tell you that VZW is most happy to have me as a customer.

I have two VZW accounts. This is indeed a VZW account usage screen shot. I live and die by mine. Because it doesn't say unlimited, but rather 4GB on my account. I'm always checking it...paranoid that I'm going to go over. But generally end up using 2-3GB on it.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

Yep, VZW it is. As irev has already asked, is there a reason you don't try to assume an unlimited plan for your personal hotspot usage?

AJ in your opinion, at Sprint's current pricing, how much data usage on a phone would you consider abuse? You seem very knowledgeable and this is a genuine question.

I assume he wouldn't like this:

So, I tried to post the full marketshare numbers, but I think my posts were eaten by my iPad when I tried to edit them.

Anyway, you can get the top 50 marketshare numbers by just googling for "Number of VZW subscribers (and other carriers) per market".

I published this year's numbers back in June elsewhere on the interwebs.

Here is the remainder of the top 50 (it didn't all fit in one screenshot): Notice OKC numbers!

Here are the market share numbers for the 4 main carriers that I posted back in June on another forum (http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1766584)

VZW:

AT&T:

Sprint:

T-Mobile

Well, Verizon is the standard for under promising and over delivering.

 

It was an interesting choice that they decided not to go with RRU's. It seems like they don't need the extra coverage and don't want the extra capex/opex.

 

I think the true test for Verizon (which they nailed with EVDO, relatively speaking) is to see how they add capacity as load increases.

 

Their first step was coverage, second step will be adding capacity.

 

It truly is amazing to see VZN LTE speeds take a dive though. But, as you say many many times, the average customer doesn't care about 3mbit or 30mbit... they just want it to work wherever they are - and for that, verizon scores points.

Verizon opted not to use RRUs because they were concerned about reliability. Their long term durability from exposure to elements, natural disasters, etc., has not been proven sufficiently for VZW to stake their "most reliable network" reputation on it.

Option #2

...start deploying LTE AWS. This is a good option that can start now. However, VZW still is not selling AWS devices. I have been bewildered why VZW did not start selling AWS LTE devices in Mid 2012. They could have. AT&T has. T-Mobile even has the GS3 and Nexus 4 capable of AWS LTE and they do not even have any markets running yet.

 

VZW was probably trying to keep AWS LTE devices down as long as possible trying not to give other companies any advantage in LTE bands supported. If so, that bet is now backfiring on them.

 

But at any rate, Verizon could be adding AWS LTE now as hotspot overlays throughout their network. But only iPhone 5 customers will get to appreciate it. It is not known when VZW will ever start pushing AWS LTE on its other devices.

One minor clarification, the VZW iPhone 5 does not support AWS.