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 drag to resize or shift+drag to move There are plenty of more detailed features on this if you get the chance to Google it
That's not a stat that's a picture. You can't use an advertisement as evidence. :)
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.
That's an interesting assumption. Except no carrier was ready for the boom in mobile internet consumption.
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.
Then why didn't they? The sim card was an important part. Sim cards literally make manufacturing easier for Apple, especially when it comes to international selling/usage. They didn't want to budge on that point. We can go back and forth on this point, but if you think that making multiple different phones is better than fewer, then you're wrong. Making Verizon phones, without sims, would have made it tough to get manufacturing advantages. Branding iPhone with AT&T gave the iPhone added cache. As AT&T is one of the most respected, and oldest, brands in the world.
This literally makes no sense whatsoever.
Limited launches have several benefits. One of which is you can produce fewer products and higher margins/prices. Once the supply chain, distribution chain, and manufacturing is perfected, profits can be gained as long as the company maintain the originally set price. The other benefit is that it allows a company to perfect a product and supply chain, so that in larger launch or relaunch you can maintain your profit levels, or grow them.
No it was not.
Why do you think it wasn't?
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.
Um? How do devices go from concept to manufacturing? There's a total process to that. It has to perfected and adapted over time.
This is nonsense. It doesn't matter if you believe Verizon would not have been a good partner for Apple.
I gave you an example of conjecture. So you could more easily recognize it.
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.
Apple iPhone originally value proposition was to combine phone and music together. At the time most people had iPods, and if they were smart phone users they'd have a blackberry. Blackberry was fantastic at phone core functions, plus it had huge network of BBM users. What it could not do was internet, which Blackberry eventually fell behind on. So yes, biggest and most pervasive innovation for iPhone was the combination of phone and music together. This was tried many times, but failed miserably by all manufactures. Mainly because other manufactures didn't have an easy way to get music on to the phone. That one innovation laid the ground work for other innovations. In fact, iTunes itself made aps a natural consequence, and also a decided advantage for iPhone users, and Apple.
You just don't remember the people of that time.
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.
There's no way to know what would have happened. But you can't change that their alliance with AT&T was key factor in the success of iPhone.
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.
Eventually. it was a success globally. Well that could be debated, but at any rate it helped strengthened Apple's brand. Additionally, Laid further ground work for other products. But the Alliance with AT&T helped facilitate that global trend, that's hard to ignore. You know that AT&T has alliances around the world, right?
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.
My point is only that it's odd. It's hard to be wrong in this situation. You could just say it isn't odd. That's really your only argument.
Do you feel that insulting improves your argument?
