Curious, how big do people think this will be? Will Apple double its US userbase or will it be an incremental bump? I tend to think incremental.
The people in the US today who really want an iPhone have moved to ATT. The holdouts are those that:
1) Hate AT&T.
2) Are on a business plan who is tied to Verizon.
3) Those on a family plan, but aren't calling the shots.
For most of the people in 1-3, they already have a Verizon smartphone, and likely a relatively new one. So they'll trickle over the next year to 18 months.
Completely new accounts will go to the store and look at the phones. The iPhone looks less good, side by side, compared to the Droid X. With that said, there's no brand like the iPhone brand.
In any case, I think the sales on Verizon will be telling. Did people move to ATT to get the iPhone, or is there still tons of demand on the other carriers for the iPhone (obviously there's demand, but is it proportionate to the amount of demand that exists on ATT).
4.) Not having an AT&T carrier in the area.
Being from a state where AT&T is not an available phone service (South Dakota), this is a big deal. I'm not sure how many other states have this issue. We have been waiting for this since the iPhone was released. It will be great to finally have another smart phone option from a big player. Though I'll probably stick to my Android phone.
AT&T is converting Alltel's network in the Dakotas to UMTS. You can see the coverage at http://www.att.com/network/ (just click on the coverage tab at the bottom). Alltel had served rural western markets well for many years and the network will likely be stronger than Verizon's once it's launched (likely later this month).
Because of the way cellular licensing was done (two licenses in each market and 700ish markets in the country), it meant that many carriers were left with large holes in their networks over the years. Sure, later on a bunch of other license were made available, but something like a 1900MHz license isn't useful for rural coverage because the signals don't travel as far as lower frequency signals. So, in most rural communities you got the choice between two carriers. Now, some rural communities only have one real option due to mergers and the relaxation of the rule that no company can control both cellular licenses in a market.
Suffice it to say, Alltel's network in your area will soon be running UMTS/HSPA under AT&T's ownership. AT&T really couldn't enter the market without buying their way into the 850MHz licenses in the area. Alltel and Verizon owned them. Now Verizon and AT&T own them.
If you really want to see the state of rural wireless improve, write to the FCC or your state utilities commission and tell them that you want to make sure that one or two companies can't control all of the low-frequency spectrum required for rural coverage. Right now, AT&T and Verizon have merged their way into becoming the only two companies with the licences needed to provide rural coverage. Even looking at the 700MHz auction, it's clear that the situation won't change much. AT&T and Verizon took the majority of the licenses with smaller bidders getting some scraps. So, the far-penetrating spectrum is being concentrated in the hands of two carriers. If you'd like that situation to change, demand that new low-frequency spectrum go to carriers other than the big two. It's one thing for Verizon and AT&T to say that they need more spectrum in major metro areas because they have more customers. It's another thing to say that they want to have an oligopoly on the spectrum that can serve rural areas.
Where I live, It's rural and all the GSM and CMDA are in the kinda sorta 1 bar on a good day category. The only one that works everywhere around the island is Sprint's IDEN network (which they got from Nextel), but the phones are really expensive, the plans are worse, and there's no coverage anywhere else.
I grew up and went to college in Rapid and still have family and friends there. AT&T already has pretty good coverage in Rapid City, and my friends (working at Golden West Telecom) tell me that full 3G will be available within a few months. Don't know about rural areas.
It sounds like they are pretty serious about expanding their network there (which is good for me as an AT&T customer that regularly travels to Rapid City).
Exactly. Same case up in North Dakota. AT&T now owns Altel and has finally rebranded it, making it the second biggest carrier here behind Verizon. But, as far as I know, they're still running Altel's CDMA network. Not sure if they're ever planning on building out a GSM network.
> "In any case, I think the sales on Verizon will be telling"
Somehow I get the feeling that they won't. Armchair observers opining on the internet have never felt the need to rely on data before. They've long since drawn their conclusions and simply shop for justification; freely inventing some if acceptable evidence doesn't present itself.
So no-one's mind is going to be changed, regardless.
If you were bullish and it tanks, then Apple's 'premium' segment is assumed to have already moved to ATT. If you were bearish and it takes off, then it's the usual "marketing" and "cult" arguments again. The very marks of 'tank' versus 'incremental' versus 'wild success' will be subjectively twisted all to high hell. It won't matter if Apple sells 6M or 12M.
Just watch the reactions when the inevitable avalanche of pre-orders and launch-day lines are reported. "macolyte" and "marketing circus" will get bandied about again, along with suggestions that once the early movement is cleared out then the real measuring of Apple's success on Verizon can begin...
So no-one's mind is going to be changed, regardless.
I think people's minds will be changed. Just the most outspoken, like Gruber or Siegler, dominate the conversation and their minds never change.
For example, I thought the iPad would be a modest success and a disappointing product (after seeing the launch). Now, it is obviously a huge success. But more importantly I think it fundamentally changed how we think about computing devices -- in a good way.
of course, I don't have a great pulpit to speak from, nor do I like to blather on about how wrong I was, but nevertheless minds do get changed... even if quietly.
In that case, either they sell a million on day one or they don't (this presumes that we are ever told or can divine a semi-reliable sales estimate). His opinion doesn't enter into it.
I'd say part of the reason he is and remains popular is that he pretty consistently tries to present the data or line of reasoning behind the opinion, and on occasion adjusts to fit the new data...and but says so when it happens.
People moved to AT&T to get the iPhone, but a lot of them think the experience is subpar, and will prefer not to renew their contracts as things stand.
I expect there's a decent chunk of holdouts who'll have a good appetite for the VZW iPhone immediately, and there'll also be a steady stream of people switching from AT&T to Verizon as their contracts expire.
But kenjackson is looking at it from Apple's perspective. Sure a number of people may switch to Verizon from at&t but if they already had iPhone's Apple doesn't see any increase.
The people in the US today who really want an iPhone have moved to ATT. The holdouts are those that:
1) Hate AT&T. 2) Are on a business plan who is tied to Verizon. 3) Those on a family plan, but aren't calling the shots.
For most of the people in 1-3, they already have a Verizon smartphone, and likely a relatively new one. So they'll trickle over the next year to 18 months.
Completely new accounts will go to the store and look at the phones. The iPhone looks less good, side by side, compared to the Droid X. With that said, there's no brand like the iPhone brand.
In any case, I think the sales on Verizon will be telling. Did people move to ATT to get the iPhone, or is there still tons of demand on the other carriers for the iPhone (obviously there's demand, but is it proportionate to the amount of demand that exists on ATT).