First off, I'm not going to let you dodge the fact that you've been contradicting yourself. You have to pick a side
First you said
they had the technology and infrastructure to accommodate the iPhone
and now you're saying
They could not handle the growth.
post the stat.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2009/10/mapforthat.jpg There are plenty of more detailed features on this if you get the chance to Google it.
At all? This is hyperbole. Regardless, no one predict the boom in cell phone data. Sorry, but people were aware of the possibility.
Nitpicking my word choice does not make you correct. The fact that you've largely ignored my points indicates you're conceding that to me. Your statement about the possibility doesn't make sense to me in this context.
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.
I'm sorry but I do not think you know what you're talking about. Apple was willing to compromise on Sim cards for Verizon because it had the largely superior network. The amount of generations it took Apple to concede to Verizon largely means nothing when we're talking about exclusivity contracts. Obviously Apple was not in a position to break that contract.
It's not that basic economics. They also needed to limit the launch because they didn't know how successful it would be.
This literally makes no sense whatsoever.
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.
No it was not.
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.
What? They don't manufacture anything. Foxconn was their supplier at the time and Tim Cook's chokehold over the supply chain management side of things translated directly to the phones.
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.
This is nonsense. It doesn't matter if you believe Verizon would not have been a good partner for Apple.
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.
The business model of exclusive phones are outdated and you've shown nothing to suggest otherwise. Once again, I'm going to cite Jon Rubinstein and Jeff Bezos. Also, you're not paying attention to the smartphone market at all. The market is hardly saturated with "iPhone clones". It's market is saturated with low-end phones because that's an easier way for companies to distinguish themselves. Also, if you think the biggest innovation of the iPhone was "combing two of it's own devices" (spot the errors), then you have a fundamentally flawed understanding of the technology sector.
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.
What?! How is that a fact? Apple had launch partners beyond AT&T. And there is nothing to suggest an iPhone that launched on AT&T AND other carriers would be less successful than an iPhone with a limited market. Also, you're discounting the entire re-birth of Apple in the early 2000s. The iMac G4 and the iPod both provided Apple with plenty of success and strengthened their brand tremendously.
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.
Sure AT&T bent over backward to accommodate the iPhone but Apple does not owe its success with the iPhone to AT&T. Again, I'm going to cite the fact that Apple sold the iPhone GLOBALLY. America isn't even the iPhone's largest market. It's great that the dynamic is odd to you. Your logic is odd to me.
Actually, people get down voted because they don't fit with hive mind, not because of sense or correctness. Such is reddit.
Do you tend to find yourself in situations where everyone else is wrong but you? If so, I think we're at a stopping point.
