Tag Archives: Verizon

Verizon’s iPhone numbers

Posted on by
Reply

According to Verizon, the company sold 6.3 million smartphones in the first quarter of 2012.  Of those sales, 3.2 million were iPhones, and 3.1 million were other smartphones. So, at least at Verizon, the iPhone outsold all the Android phones combined.

This is interesting in that the current iPhones do not support LTE, the high-speed wireless data technology that Android manufacturers tout as a major feature. It seems that the attractiveness of the iPhone without LTE is enough to beat out Android with LTE.

And the next iPhone will likely add LTE functionality.

Disclosure: I am long AAPL.

Related articles

How long does your mobile carrier keep your data?

Posted on by

Sometimes indefinitely. Check out the details from this formerly secret Justice Department memo.

The nation’s major mobile-phone providers are keeping a treasure trove of sensitive data on their customers, according to newly-released Justice Department internal memo that for the first time reveals the data retention policies of America’s largest telecoms.

The single-page Department of Justice document, “Retention Periods of Major Cellular Service Providers,” (.pdf) is a guide for law enforcement agencies looking to get information — like customer IP addresses, call logs, text messages and web surfing habits – out of U.S. telecom companies, including AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon.

Here we go again (updated)

Posted on by

Consumer Reports is back on the case of the iPhone.

You will remember last year, when the iPhone 4 was launched, Consumer Reports refused to recommend the phone because of a claimed antenna problem. The problem was very minor, and typical of handheld phones.  Consumer Reports action had little or no affect on iPhone sales and Apple sold more than 46 Million iPhones in 2010.

Well, now, following the launch of the CDMA iPhone 4 on Verizon’s network, Consumer Reports announced yesterday that once again it will not recommend the Verizon iPhone 4 because of the alleged antenna issue.  Here is a link to their bogus claim, but there is really no need to give them the traffic by clicking on it.

By the way, Apple shares closed up $5.28 at 348.16 yesterday

Disclosure: I own Apple stock.

Update: Here is Verizon’s response to these claims.

Verizon Wireless, however, said it hasn’t seen any problems with the iPhone.

“We do know the product is performing well on our network,” spokesman Marquett Smith said.

He said that less than 0.05% of iPhone calls were dropped, which leads the industry. The call performance is better in major cities, he added.

 

 

Related articles

How ready is Verizon for the iPhone?

Posted on by

Before starting to take pre-orders for the iPhone, Verizon claimed that its systems and networks were fully prepared for the strain in both ordering and providing data to iPhone users.

Perhaps, though, Verizon is not quite ready enough. Yesterday, the company announced that it was beginning to throttle (slow down) the speed of data provided to the heaviest top 5% of its users. This is the first time Verizon announced such an action.  And the supply of pre-order iPhones is sold out and Verizon’s online ordering system was unable to handle the crush of first day orders for the iPhone.

All of this may be bad for Verizon, but the strong demand for the iPhone is certainly good for Apple.

Related articles

Verizon iPhone reviews

Posted on by

Verizon and Apple are now taking pre-orders for the iPhone. And early reviews of the performance of the iPhone on Verizon’s network are coming in and it appears that this phone and network drop far fewer calls, although data is slower than on AT&T.

David Pogue:

… to answer everyone’s question, the Verizon iPhone is nearly the same as AT&T’s iPhone 4 — but it doesn’t drop calls. For several million Americans, that makes it the holy grail.

***

Even if Verizon’s network is the best in America, its policies and prices are still among the worst. This is the company, after all, that admitted to billing $2 every time you accidentally hit the up-arrow button. (Verizon refunded $52 million and paid the Federal Communications Commission a record $25 million fine.) This is the company that just eliminated its “new phone every two years” discount policy, that just cut its new-phone return policy to 14 days from 30, that doubled its early-termination fee (to $350 if you cancel your two-year contract before it’s up).

Walt Mossberg:

On the big question, I can say that, at least in the areas where I was using it, the Verizon model did much, much better with voice calls. In numerous tries over nine days, I had only three dropped calls on the Verizon unit, and those were all to one person who was using an AT&T iPhone in an especially bad area for AT&T: San Francisco. With the nearly identical AT&T model, I often get that many dropped calls in one day.

***

What about the trade-offs? Chief among them is data speed. I performed scores of speed tests on the two phones, which I used primarily in Washington, and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs, and for part of one day at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport. In these many tests, despite a few Verizon victories here and there, AT&T’s network averaged 46% faster at download speeds and 24% faster at upload speeds. This speed difference was noticeable while doing tasks like downloading large numbers of emails, or waiting for complicated Web pages to load. AT&T’s speeds varied more while Verizon’s were more consistent, but overall, AT&T was more satisfying at cellular data.

MG Siegler:

Yesterday, I made a 45-minute phone call from my office.

This seemingly unremarkable statement is remarkable for two reasons. First, I was able to place a call from my office — something which was impossible for me to do a week prior. Second, I made it through the entire 45-minutes without the call being dropped once. Again, this was impossible a week prior.

So what changed? Well, my iPhone changed.

John Gruber:

It’s the same phone. The only difference is the network. And Verizon’s network is better.

That’s it in a nut.

Related articles

Android sales frozen in US? (updated)

Posted on by
Image representing Android as depicted in Crun...
Image via CrunchBase

Quite possibly. That is if the WSJ is correct in stating that Apple is working on a CDMA iPhone and if (a possibly big if not specifically addressed by the WSJ) Verizon has agreed to sell it. Here is what the Verizon CEO said today after being asked about the WSJ article:

Apple is really the one that has to make that kind of announcement. At some point our business interests are going to align… I fully expect it, but I don’t have anything to say [at the moment].

If a deal has been cut with Verizon and it is confirmed, I would say it would put a big dent in Android sales beginning (at the latest) on the date of confirmation from Apple.

Disclosure: I own Apple stock.

Update: On Thursday, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that Verizon “will” sell the iPhone early in 2011, “according to people familiar with the matter.”

Related articles by Zemanta

Be careful what you wish for

Posted on by
Image representing MG Siegler as depicted in C...
Image via CrunchBase

MG Siegler has a great essay on the risk that the hoped-for Verizon iPhone might end up being crippled or even ruined by Verizon restrictions. This is a real risk and maybe enough for Apple to refuse a deal with Verizon.

Verizon can no longer laugh at Apple’s ideas, but instead the prospect of the iPhone as it is currently constituted on their network probably scares the hell out of them. Sure, they’d add billions in revenues from new contracts, but they’d essentially be a dumb pipe for this device. As they’ve proven with all of their other devices — including the RAZR and now their Android phones — they don’t want to be that. They want to be in control of not only the network, but at least some of the content on that network.

So now the question in my mind is whether or not Apple is willing to make any concessions to Verizon? Would Apple allow them to include a V CAST app standard on every iPhone, for example? One that couldn’t be deleted? What about apps in the App Store that only work with Verizon iPhones and not AT&T iPhones (just like Skype for Android)? What about interface changes (either software or hardware) that show more prominently that this is a Verizon phone? Or what about a cut of all apps sold and all music/movies/tv show downloaded?

Old Google v. New Google

Posted on by

Google has announced an “agreement” with Verizon which, if it became effective, would limit Internet neutrality to services existing on today’s Internet. Future services could be restricted. Does that seem consistent with this announcement produced by Google in 2006?

More available from the anti-Google/Verizon site Voogle Wireless and MG Siegler at TechCrunch.

Google and Verizon: favoring “net neutrality”

Posted on by

So Google and Verizon today unveiled their version of “net neutrality.” Dan Gillmor, who thinks harder about the Internet and its business ramifications than anyone else, outlines his doubts. As bad as it is, they explicitly carve out wireless access as something completely different and apparently with no need for any neutrality rules whatsoever. Think about how much you use wireless access today and how much more you will use it tomorrow.

Read it.

Their suggestion? Essentially, it was to insist that the Internet should remain open and freely available, with enforcement teeth to ensure what most people would call network neutrality, the idea that carriers can’t discriminate against one content provider in favor of another.

But the proposal went further. It would promote the expansion of new services, not part of the  Internet as we know it now, that would go beyond anything we have today. These new services, if Congress and regulators enacted the companies’ proposal, could not be designed to be end runs around net neutrality; they would have to be genuinely new.

But here’s the rub: You should not trust Verizon or other carriers, or Google for that matter, to follow through in ways that are truly in the interest of the kind of open networks the nation needs. Throughout the conference call, we kept hearing references to the “public Internet” — an expression that leads inescapably to something else.

***

The other big news in today’s announcement was Google’s clear retreat on network neutrality when it comes to wireless networks. As Susan Crawford, professor at Cardozo Law School and an expert on all things Internet, explains: ”That’s a huge hole, given the growing popularity of wireless services and the recent suggestion by the Commission that we may not have a competitive wireless marketplace.”

Google and net neutrality

Posted on by

A level playing field, according to which all traffic flows with equal priority to all points, and with no data sources being favored in exchange for money or other consideration, is critical to maintaining the openness of the Internet. This level playing field is called network neutrality (although more nuanced applications of the terms are sometimes used). It is this openness that allows initially small operations to be accessible to all users which leads to the success of new ideas, including ideas that weaken or destroy the then-curent successes.

A good example of the benefits of network neutrality is Google itself. Back in the early days of the Internet, the most popular search tool was AltaVista, which launched in 1995, and by 1997 AltaVista was running more than 80 million searches a day.  Then it all went bad. Why? One word: Google.

But consider what might have happened had AltaVista, owned by Digital Equipment Corporation, cut a deal with the then major internet backbone providers to either speed AltaVista search data or slow down its search competitors data. Google might not have a stood a chance.

Now there have been reports (here, here and here, for example) that Google and Verizon have been engaged in talks that could spell an attack on network neutrality. Each denies that agreements have been reach, but all the denials are weak and more in the nature of non-denial denials than reliable endorsements of net neutrality. From The Economist:

Let’s leave aside for a second the question of just how terrible of an idea [a Google/Verizon agreement] is, and just how likely it is to throttle innovation by small actors on the web as it prioritises the work of better-capitalised companies. Let’s focus instead on a more basic question: why does America have regulators?

If companies always agreed with regulators’ rules, there would be no need for regulators. The very point of a regulator is to do things that companies don’t like, out of concern for the welfare of the market or the consumer.

Unless and until the full details of any such agreement are released to the public, we should be wary of the motives of both Google and Verizon. We should also insist that regulators insist that the public utility of the Internet not be destroyed by huge corporations acting purely in their own self interest  Support a strong FCC

Goodbye net neutrality (updated x2)

Posted on by

How would you like Internet service providers to begin to charge more for premium service? And what would an Internet made up of various private agreements between large companies without public input or standards? If this sounds good to you, you will love this.

Google and Verizon, two leading players in Internet service and content, are nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are willing to pay for the privilege.

* * *

The prospect of a Google-Verizon agreement infuriates many consumer advocates, who feel that it would concentrate in a few corporations control of what to date has been a free and open Internet system in which consumers decide which companies are successful.

And there is this from The Hollywood Reporter:

Verizon Communications Inc. and Google Inc. have agreed to a deal over how Internet traffic will be treated, two people familiar with the agreement said Wednesday.

The deal centers on a set of rules, called net neutrality, that determines how Internet traffic moves over land lines and to wireless devices involving payment by Internet companies seeking a faster traffic.

Verizon will not block or slow Internet traffic over land lines but could do so to wireless devices, one source said.

Update: I have said it before, but I will now say it again. Google is evil.

Update 2: More from GigaOm.

A coalition of public interest groups that included Public Knowledge, New America Foundation, Media Access Project and Free Press issued this statement:

As the major public interest groups in Washington involved in the struggle to protect an open Internet, we are united in our dismay about an agreement reportedly reached by Verizon and Google.   It is unseemly and inappropriate for two giant companies to decide the future of the Internet and how Internet will work for millions of users.  It would be inappropriate for Congress and the FCC policy makers to use this agreement as the basis for public policy.

The public and policymakers should not be fooled.  This agreement cannot be enforced by any governmental agency and will provide no protection against the types of abuse we seen from large Internet Service Providers.  The Internet belongs to all of us, not to Verizon and Google.  There is widespread public support for an open Internet.

We call on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to abandon its ‘negotiations’ with Google, Verizon and other large companies. Instead, the Commission should move ahead with legally enforceable, binding rulemaking that would govern not only the open Internet, but also ensure the Commission’s authority to reform Universal Service, and to make policy in cybersecurity, privacy, device compatibility and other critical issues involving broadband services.

Rumor: Apple developing CDMA iPhone? (updated)

Posted on by

The Wall Street Journal is reporting (subscription $ required) that sources tell them that Apple is developing a CDMA iPhone, compatible with Verizon’s network in the US, which could be available in September. Apple stock is up strongly after hours on the rumor.  Apple has, as of now, not confirmed this rumor.

If this is correct, this is a major blow to RIMM and to Android. As of now, approximately 6:30 pm Eastern, AAPL is up 2.5%, RIMM is down 2.3% and Verizon is up 3.7% in after hours trading.

Disclosure: I own Apple stock. Nothing on this website should be construed as investment advice.

Update: Probably as a result of this rumor from the WSJ, Apple set another new all-time closing high today, March 30, 2010. Apple now has a market cap higher that Wal-Mart (again).