Barrett Garese

  • Essays And Rants
  • Business
  • Politics
  • Blip Networks
  • Archive
  • RSS
  • Ask me anything

Carrier dynamics

marco:

There’s an interesting dynamic between the U.S. cellular carriers, Apple, and Palm if you pay attention and read between the lines a bit.

Sprint has been teetering on the brink of death for years. But they managed to get the Palm Pre exclusive, seemingly for at least 8 months.

Palm is effectively betting their company on the Pre. By most accounts, it’s the only current phone that has a good chance of taking marketshare away from the iPhone. Palm needs it to succeed, so they’re challenging Apple on one of the iPhone’s biggest drawbacks and possibly the biggest remaining reason why many people don’t buy it: the mediocre AT&T network that it requires.

In the U.S., that leaves T-Mobile (smaller and slower network than AT&T), Sprint (bleeding customers like crazy), and Verizon Wireless. Verizon would be the obvious choice: usually, people who don’t like AT&T’s network are comparing it to Verizon’s, which has wider and more consistent coverage with much faster and more reliable data service.

Sprint is an improvement over AT&T for data service, but not for overall coverage. While their CDMA towers, like Verizon’s, cover larger areas than AT&T’s GSM towers, they have significantly fewer of them than Verizon.

Clearly, Verizon is the much more desirable network to get the exclusive for both Palm and Verizon. Palm needs to kick Apple’s butt in carrier quality, and Verizon needs a killer device to win back a lot of the customers they lost to AT&T for the iPhone.

Think of how different the Pre’s launch and first year would have been as a Verizon exclusive, especially now that iPhone users are increasingly feeling the limits of the strained AT&T network. It would have been a very strong competitor to the iPhone and the cause of a great deal of worry for Apple. But with Sprint, it’s much more tame, and it’s not really causing a significant disruption.

So why didn’t Verizon get the Pre exclusive?

I can think of two explanations:

  1. Sprint paid Palm a lot of money or made other extremely significant concessions in Palm’s favor. But I don’t think Sprint could pay Palm enough to make up for the value of a Verizon exclusive.
  2. Verizon refused.

The latter is a much more interesting possibility, and I think it’s more likely. Verizon is notoriously difficult to work with, and has exhibited a consistent delusion in the past that they don’t need specific blockbuster devices and can make their own knockoffs that are just as good. But I don’t think that’s what happened this time. Verizon has lost enough customers specifically to the iPhone that I think they finally noticed at a very high level and are taking steps to fight back.

I think Apple gave Verizon an incentive to turn Palm away.

The public assumption so far is that Apple will never make a CDMA iPhone, waiting instead until the big move to LTE — but that’s still many years away from practicality. I’m betting that Apple will release a CDMA iPhone next year. They’ll face a few inconvenient issues by making a CDMA version in parallel with a GSM version, but the massive Verizon customer base makes the cost well worth it.

Remember the rumors a few months back that Apple had been meeting with Verizon? I think this was why, not the “iPhone mini” that rumor sites assumed.

I think Apple offered Verizon the iPhone — not some other device, and not a cut-down version, but the real iPhone — for 2010, and part of the negotiation was that Verizon wouldn’t take the Pre exclusive. Apple needs to be on Verizon before the Pre gets there, and they’ll do anything to make that happen. Similarly, Verizon needs the iPhone, having potentially lost 5 million subscribers to it so far.

I can’t think of any other explanation that makes sense. And this one makes a lot of sense for every party involved.

While I thin your assessment is probably accurate, I wanted to point something out regarding coverage:

While their CDMA towers, like Verizon’s, cover larger areas than AT&T’s GSM towers, they have significantly fewer of them than Verizon.

The above statement is true, however sprint phones, when away from a sprint tower, roam on verizon’s network without any additional roaming fees.  So yes, Sprint has fewer towers overall, however Sprint handsets use other towers transparently as well.

Source: marco

  • 2 years ago > marco
  • 42
  • Comments
  • Permalink
  • Share
    Tweet

42 Notes/ Hide

  1. sabine-ritter liked this
  2. mike-fischer liked this
  3. internetabzocke liked this
  4. collectedwisdom liked this
  5. amir-gr liked this
  6. abie liked this
  7. dears reblogged this from marco
  8. paint-it-vivid reblogged this from marco
  9. elbles reblogged this from marco and added:
    outright refused,...be honest. Instead, I think...would have...
  10. d-min liked this
  11. tywillis reblogged this from marco and added:
    device was good enough...hope you’re right though,...only...
  12. fredericguarino reblogged this from marco and added:
    theories Marco !
  13. cwj liked this
  14. enamu liked this
  15. ebichuhamster reblogged this from marco and added:
    the carrier/cellphone business, can anyone make an understandable summary of how these work? In my head (where...
  16. christmasgorilla liked this
  17. executivecontour liked this
  18. singulus reblogged this from marco and added:
    More ‘In The Publics’ Service …...Our Continued Thanks To:Marco Arment♥ 17  Yes. I’ll get...
  19. marco reblogged this from spytap and added:
    Spytap in response...Carrier dynamics:...This is true, but...
  20. adventices liked this
  21. rinsespin liked this
  22. craigz liked this
  23. spytap reblogged this from marco and added:
    thin your assessment...probably accurate,...point something...
  24. midoriw reblogged this from marco and added:
    I’d say this is...rather plausible theory, but it’s one that breaks my heart - I would...
  25. karsen liked this
  26. singulus liked this
  27. xoxosweetheart liked this
  28. brainofg reblogged this from marco
  29. dwineman liked this
  30. 2arrs2ells liked this
  31. dawnowar liked this
  32. eduardoe liked this
  33. tightgrip liked this
  34. bijan liked this
  35. ffffone reblogged this from marco
  36. milquetoastintolerant liked this
  37. marco posted this

Recent comments

Blog comments powered by Disqus
← Previous • Next →

About

I do lots of things. I'm kind of weird that way.

First and foremost, I'm the Director of Content Partnerships at Blip, where you can discover the best in original web series.

Before that, I ran a consulting company focused on entertainment and government entities called Spytap Industries. In a previous life I helped create United Talent Agency's online division - the first major agency division devoted to representing and monetizing online content.

I also contribute to Here's Some Awesome, a collaborative video curation site that showcases the awesome in online video.

From time to time I write essays on topics of interest from politics, to the future of mass media, to the effects that online content and piracy are having on traditional media. They normally go here. (Latest example: "On Bullying")

This is my personal blog, So while it probably doesn't need to be said, all of the opinions here are solely my own or those of the people I reblog.

Email me: Spytap at spytap dot net

Ask Me (Almost) Anything

Me, Elsewhere

  • @spytap on Twitter
  • Facebook Profile
  • spytap on Foursquare
  • My Skype Info
  • Linkedin Profile

Twitter

loading tweets…

Following

  • RSS
  • Random
  • Archive
  • Ask me anything
  • Mobile

Effector Theme by Carlo Franco.

Powered by Tumblr