- Posts tagged Verizon
- Explore Verizon on posterous
Sprint's first shot at derailing the AT&T and T-Mobile deal misses the mark
Sprint has already fired a shot in an attempt to sway regulators to kill the proposed AT&T and T-Mobile merger. There are a number of things regulators can look at to squash this deal, but I don't find Sprint's current points convincing.
AT&T and Verizon are already by far the largest wireless providers.
Correct, and that wouldn't change (though they'd swap places).
A combined AT&T and T-Mobile would be almost three times the size of Sprint, the third largest wireless competitor.
Verizon is almost three times the size of T-Mobile right now, did Sprint complain about this?
If approved, the merger would result in a wireless industry dominated overwhelmingly by two vertically-integrated companies that control almost 80% of the US wireless post-paid market.
The wireless industry is currently dominated by two vertically integrated companies that control over 70% of the US market. Again, where were Sprint's complaints?
From a US market standpoint, #2 buying a distant #4 does not alter things as radically as Sprint implies.
Sprint's concern seems mostly driven by their own desire for T-Mobile, and knowing this deal can spell trouble for them. Going to the feds so quickly after they got outplayed and outbid may be the only action they think they can take right now, but it doesn't make these particular arguments valid.
Smartphone OS Upgrades: iPhone's "can" vs. Android's "can't"
TechCrunch's post shows a huge discrepancy of smartphones running the latest versions of Android vs. iOS. The numbers will surprise no one that follows mobile tech, but I believe there's a larger point that doesn't even need a chart to make. What should be discussed is how many phones it's even possible to upgrade. That's the real story.
It's well known (if not well reported) that upgrading an Android device is hit or miss. It could be because of the carrier, or the manufacturer, or a combination of both. One thing's certain: Google has no control over the process for any phones other than their own Nexus-branded models, and there's only two of those.
Recently, Computerworld examined carrier and manufacturer "trust" in terms of upgrading Android phones, and the conclusions are dismal. For manufacturers, HTC took top honors:
50 percent of its Android phones having been bumped to Froyo within 2010. Its average upgrade time is also relatively impressive, at 56 days.
Only half their phones were upgraded, but other manufacturers were worse.
Meanwhile, for carriers Verizon took the crown:
A third of the carrier's qualifying Android phones received Froyo within the software's first six months on the market. On average, it took Big Red 58 days to get those updates delivered.
Only a third of the eligible phones are upgraded, yet it's King among carriers.
If you had an HTC phone on Verizon, you had about a 17% chance (one-third of 50%) of upgrading to Froyo last year. And that was your best shot since other manufacturer/carrier combinations were worse.
For the iPhone things are easier. Put simply, 100% of current and -1 generation phones are eligible for upgrades. Apple has even made upgrades available for -2 generation phones, though some features are not available.
It's not just that these iPhones are eligible, but that the carriers have no involvement in the actual upgrade. Just connect the iPhone to iTunes and let it upgrade. That's it. Further, the upgrades are available on the day a new OS is released, not two months later, which is the best Android's manufacturers/carriers can manage.
The mobile market tends to treat their devices as semi-disposable, so it may be unrealistic to discuss models over two years old, but in Android's case "old" models aren't needed to skew the numbers. There are models only five or six months old seemingly "abandoned". This makes Apple's major upgrade to each generation of iPhone, twice, all the more impressive.
About The Verizon iPad Ad
Tonight Verizon began airing an ad for the iPad's availability on their network. It's unusual to see an ad ostensibly for an Apple product look so un-Apple like, but I think the ad was important for both Apple and Verizon.
Apple handles iPhone and iPad promotion for AT&T, so there are no AT&T ads for Apple products. This works out great for both parties. AT&T can spend ad dollars elsewhere and still get their logo at the end of Apple's ads, and Apple controls how their product is presented (face it, most device ads from carriers suck).
With Verizon and the iPad, it's different. This isn't a CDMA version that will run on Verizon's network. Instead, Verizon is selling the WiFi-only iPad paired with their MiFi portable hotspot. The MiFi turns Verizon's 3G signal into a WiFi signal the iPad can use.
In other words, using the "Verizon" iPad as a cellular device requires an extra piece of hardware from Verizon. I doubt Apple wanted anything to do with promoting that somewhat awkward solution, let alone someone else's hardware, so they let Verizon do their own ad. Verizon's fine with it because it gets people in their stores and sells hardware, and Apple's fine with it because it's more iPad exposure for the holiday season.
The iPad is actually shown very little in the ad. It assumes the iPad is so well-known that a glance or two and mention of the name are all the audience requires, then it shifts gears to focus on Verizon's network. In short, Apple is still carrying the ball on promoting the iPad, while Verizon gets the word out that you can buy one on their network.
Wonder why Verizon is working with Apple despite Android's supposed success? Now you know.
[Verizon] added a modest 997,000 cellphone customers during the summer compared to AT&T's 2.6 million and was enough to put the two carriers' total bases nearly even
Verizon (and others) can trumpet Android's popularity all they want, but internally Verizon obviously knew they were losing the war to AT&T. Now everyone else does.
No wonder Verizon partnered with Apple for iPad and MiFi combinations with especially nice pricing for the hardware and data plans. Also, no wonder we're hearing more credible rumors about a Verizon iPhone. Without these things, it's entirely possible AT&T will be the #1 US carrier in a quarter or two.
Verizon's Android app store is about choice? Yes, Verizon's choice.
It’s not about preventing other app stores, or preventing apps to be downloaded through the browser or other means; this is about choice for our customers.
It's difficult to believe this is the real reason for Verizon's app store. Verizon chose their words carefully; those who buy into the Android "open" saga love the word "choice". Maybe it'll fool some of them, but with 80,000 apps on Android's market place there seems to be quite a bit of choice already.
So what's a more realistic explanation?
Verizon once aspired to be a player in the mobile app game, making money—and maybe keeping people on Verizon phones—via BREW apps. I bought a few myself back in the day. But it didn't work out for Verizon because BREW apps mostly sucked and were too expensive. There simply weren't that many good enough to care about, let alone worry about leaving behind.
I believe with Android as the base OS, Verizon thinks it'll be a lot different now. Hence the new store.
Verizon opens a separate Android app store: outrage! Verizon said they might do it a year ago: oh, then it’s fine.
News of Verizon opening their own app store on Android phones appeared to break yesterday. There was much speculation and concern about how this proved Android wasn’t really open, how little control Google has, and how Verizon was ruining the platform.
The outrage was a little over the top. My biggest concern was mostly that it showed Verizon was holding onto the pre-iPhone carrier model as tightly as possible, and that Google doesn’t really care.
Then today we receive news that the news about Verizon’s app store isn’t really “new”. In their usual thorough style, jkOnTheRun reported that Verizon said they might do this a year ago. With this news, the pendulum has swung the other way; it seems everybody can relax.
I don’t understand this.
While the outrage at the first news was overblown, the lack of concern that seems to have replaced it with the second bit of news is equally off base. There are implications of a Verizon App Store that exist no matter when Verizon said they might do it:
- Definite confusion in the process of acquiring Android apps.
- Extra development effort (even if Verizon’s store accepts "standard" market place app, a developer still has to submit twice, etc.)
- “Android” apps that do not exist on many (actually, at this time, most) supposedly Android phones
- Losing the ability to update your apps (if they even work at all) when you move to another “Android” phone on another carrier (or even some models on Verizon).
Besides, Verizon making the claim a year ago was hardly definitive. It's already "late," and it isn’t hard to be a bit surprised Verizon actually went through with it. Put another way, one should not have been shocked if Verizon did not follow through:
- Their claim was made a year ago, before most of Android’s meteoric rise.
- With no real competition on their network (the best Android phones are clearly the cream of Verizon’s crop), Android is now selling like mad. Verizon is raking in money.
- Aside from the perception that they have the best network, there’s now a perception that Verizon has phones people actually want to own.
- Verizon has their own aisle in the existing market place, so they already grab a few extra dollars that way.
In other words, the way things are going you couldn’t blame Verizon for not messing with a good thing. The risk in getting greedy and wanting a separate store comes with (or should come with) bad PR, and is it worth it when they’re finally successfully taking on the iPhone?
To me, this is just another example that Verizon can’t take a huge success as being good enough. Instead of being happy, they have to tinker with it to eek out even more potential revenue. No, it's hardly the end of the world, but the implications are real, and it makes their actions a concern no matter when they announced the desire to do so.
Google On Net Neutrality: Then (2007) and Now
So what changed? Google did. In 2007, Android wasn't a major mobile OS, and Google didn't have multi-billion-dollar wireless advertising relationships with Verizon and AT&T. You'll also recall that Google had hopes of bypassing the carrier retail experience completely -- hopes that flamed out rather spectacularly with the death of the Nexus One and their online phone store. The policy shift is clear and indisputable, as is the motivation: Google doesn't want consumer protections (be they privacy, or network neutrality) to impact wireless ad revenues.
Great article. Google and Verizon are doing handstands to try to distract from the obvious, but it won't go away.
I'm hoping Google's dog and pony show today about new Android 2.2 features—of little use because the vast majority of Android users do not have 2.2, and can't get it—will not distract the tech press from continuing to focus on Google's complete reversal of their position on net neutrality.
Verizon and Google Justifications Don't Add Up
there's an immense arrogance in assuming the public can't do the simple math on why neither company wants neutrality applied to wireless networks.
Yesterday I thought the Google/Verizon deal might not get enough attention. I'm sure Google and Verizon thought the same or they wouldn't have made such a bold announcement.
Personally, I'm happy to see that many aren't letting this go by so easily. I think the first day's reaction was enough for both companies to get a bit defensive but, as witnessed by the above article, not everyone's buying it.
For some other views of the Google-Verizon deal in the first 24 hours, see these:
So Google sold the tech world out as it hopes to keep one of the largest pushers of its Android operating system happy.
CDT:
spotty proposal from two companies is no substitute for real action that serves the public interest
They announced a new policy recommendation that would kill the Internet as we know it, if implemented by FCC Chair Julius Genokowski and other policy makers.
The Google/Verizon statement is intentionally vague about what these new services would be and who would build them and what would be on them.
But principles are easy to discard, it seems, when one’s in search of the next goldmine. “Don’t Be Evil” can become “Just Don’t Be Stupid” when you’re in first place.
