I am sure. You shouldn't build your argument off of conjecture.
post the stat.
Again, building your argument off of conjecture isn't ideal. Anyway, what you're saying now conflicts what you said earlier. First you said they had the technology and infrastructure to accommodate the iPhone and now you're saying They could not handle the growth. The truth is that AT&T simply did not have the network to support the iPhone at all. Verizon didn't want to deploy iPhones the way Apple wanted to. Keep in mind Verizon phones don't use sims. There were other sticking points, but that's there one I remember.
At all? This is hyperbole. Regardless, no one predict the boom in cell phone data. Sorry, but people were aware of the possibility.
You're misinformed. Verizon and Apple both wanted control over marketing, determining subsidies, and retail presentation. AT&T was willing to concede these points Apple so Apple went to the inferior network. Apple has demonstrated that it is not opposed to selling phones without Sim cards. Look at the Verizon iPhone 4.
Look at how many iterations it took to do so. Selling phones with simcards made it easier for Apple to produce phones, but also to gave Apple other benefits to be used internationally, or sold. I remember at the time it was pretty big sticking point for Apple.
AT&T would have sold an Apple phone on their network regardless of exclusivity.
Why wouldn't a company sell a phone? Exclusivity benefits the parties involved.
The only thing this deal gave Apple was money and power. It's basic economics. Apple could only sell its phone to AT&T users. Everyone that was not on AT&T's network was given a barrier to entry to buy their phone. If Apple wanted to maximise sales, it would have made its phone accessible to as many people as possible (which they eventually did).
It's not that basic economics. They also needed to limit the launch because they didn't know how successful it would be. Also, internet usage in phones was very low. Part of their business model was increase internet consumption in mobile devices beyond what was seen prior. I think you're discounting the fact AT&T was very good partner for them. Because they worked through the growth phase of their product. The barrier of entry is self serving for Apple though, but also necessary, it gave them time to perfect the product and the manufacturing process. Even if a deal was reached, I don't believe Verizon had the personality/culture to truly work with Apple the way they needed. That's an example of conjecture. The AT&T deal was pretty awesome for Apple.
You're missing the point. I'm obviously not talking about exclusivity as a whole. This is about mobile carriers and their relationships with smartphone makers. So yes, carrier exclusive phones are outdated. Look at what happened to Palm. Their allegiance to Sprint is widely regarded as the thing that killed them. Remember when John Legere ridiculed Jeff Bezos for signing the AT&T exclusivity contract for the Fire Phone? Legere wasn't the only person laughing. Media consumption is completely irrelevant (I don't even know where you're going with that). Exclusivity puts a hard ceiling at your target market and lowers the total amount of potential customers you have.
Exclusive phones aren't outdated. But this current iteration of phones are filled with iPhone clones. A company would need to create a mobile device that is truly innovative or new. We haven't seen that device yet. Apple's biggest innovation was just combing two of it's own devices. We'll see what the future brings.
It is relevant. Apple sells a phone globally. AT&T US operates in just one of their markets. Attributing Apple's global success to a regional carrier makes no sense.
If Apple doesn't successfully launch the iPhone on AT&T they wouldn't have success with it globally, or for that matter their company brand. Unfortunately, that's an immutable fact.
The reason you're being downvoted is because a lot of what you're saying does not really make sense. Maybe take a chance to read over what this article is saying and what the reality of the situation is.
What's the reality of the situation?
AT&T assisted Apple in selling the iPhone initially, and bent over backwards do so. And now the company that AT&T helped, is now replacing them. That's odd to me.. That'd be like you helping someone younger than you in a company, and they replace you in that company. It's an odd situation, but also business.
Actually, people get down voted because they don't fit with hive mind, not because of sense or correctness. Such is reddit.