No Soup for You!

With all the buzz surrounding the Droid and Verizon’s counter-iPhone advertising campaign, many industry analysts are clamoring for Apple to release their iPhone on Verizon’s network. Others are reporting various rumors that Apple is ending their exclusive arrangement with AT&T or will be releasing iPhones for Verizon in 2010. Up until this point, I believed that Apple would not release an iPhone for Verizon until at least 2011. But even I was starting to be swayed by all the hype into thinking that maybe Apple would release an iPhone for Verizon in 2010. That was until I read this excellent article detailing how successful Apple has been with their single-vendor strategy.

The article is rather long and detailed, so I’ll sum up some of the main points here:

1) The technology in Verizon’s current network (CDMA) is different than what AT&T uses (GSM), so it would require designing a new iPhone, along with all the regulatory headaches, and then would require Apple to split their manufacturing, hurting their economies of scale. This would all be for a technology that will be obsolete in a few years. The next generation (4G) of Verizon’s network (LTE) will be the same as AT&T’s, but that will likely not be built out sufficiently until 2011 at earliest.

2) Comparison to Blackberry sales, which are sold on multiple carriers, shows that Apple is neck-and-neck. Apple simply doesn’t need to sell on multiple carriers at this time.

3) Apple would do better growing their global market than trying to capture the Verizon market in the US. Why should Apple spend their resources on a much more technologically challenging and expensive project like a Verizon iPhone, when they can keep their focus on getting more customers in the global GSM market?

4) One reason Apple has been successful is precisely because they followed a single-carrier strategy. This allowed them to dictate more favorable terms, simplify their product lineup, and successfully execute a focused marketing campaign. Other vendors must cede concessions to the carriers, have complicated product matrices, and fracture their marketing efforts across those carriers and products. Had Apple simply copied the more established vendors’ strategies, they would likely have been just another phone vendor. Instead, Apple chose not to follow the herd and single-handedly created an entirely new market.

The article also notes that Google’s strategy for their Android phones is reminiscent of the old, failed way. This does not bode well for success against the iPhone.

You Can Pick Your Friends …

I’ve observed that Verizon has been running an ad campaign for a couple of weeks subtly attacking the iPhone. The campaign basically claims that Verizon’s network is superior to AT&T’s network by such a large margin that you should forget about any phone that doesn’t run on Verizon’s network. As they claim, “before you pick a phone, pick a network”. Obviously, the underlying message is “forget the iPhone – it doesn’t run on Verizon”.

I think this is actually a very good campaign because the message is clear and Verizon is playing on the perceived strength of its network. It can definitely make people think twice about buying an iPhone if they have any qualms about AT&T’s network. The question will be if the message resonates with enough people to put a dent in iPhone sales. I believe it boils down to whether or not people are more swayed by the marketing of a network or the marketing of devices. Personally, I think it is pretty clear that the mainstream is more apt to gravitate to an exciting, fun device than the relatively boring technology of a wireless network.

I think Verizon realizes this, however. What should not be missed is that Verizon has recently started the Droid campaign. It seems that Verizon is attempting a one-two punch at the iPhone. 1) our network is much better, and 2) we have devices that are better than the iPhone. I’ll write more on the Droid campaign in another article. The question for now is whether Verizon actually believes that Google Android phones are better than the iPhone, or if they are using this campaign to pressure Apple into releasing an iPhone on their network. Likely, Verizon knows that this strategy is their best chance of success either way.

If Verizon grows its customer base large enough with this campaign, they are in a much stronger position to negotiate with Apple, if they feel they even need the iPhone anymore. If enough customers switch away from AT&T (and the iPhone) because of their network, or if Google Android phones start to develop a significant enough following on Verizon’s network for Apple to notice, then it puts pressure on Apple to develop iPhones for Verizon’s network. The risk to Verizon is if this campaign isn’t very successful, it cements the iPhone’s dominance in the market and puts Apple solidly in the driver’s seat in any negotiations.

M-M-M-M-MMS

After much anticipation, Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS) has been enabled on the AT&T network for iPhone 3G and 3GS owners (sorry – original iPhone users are left out). There was much dismay when Apple announced that the iPhone 3.0 software would support MMS, but would not be available in the US until AT&T would allow it. AT&T claimed that they were preparing their network to handle the expected flood of MMS traffic. Most of us just assumed that MMS usage would greatly increase the traffic on AT&T’s network. However, a very interesting article questions that assumption.

Notably, the article argues that MMS has been available for years on other phones and has not been used very much. In fact, MMS only made up 2.5% of all messages sent in 2008. So it wouldn’t seem that MMS on the iPhone should add all that much traffic. Yet AT&T expects “record volumes” of MMS traffic now that the iPhone has MMS. The article also mentions that one factor in the lack of acceptance for MMS has been the unwieldy interfaces of other phones. The iPhone definitely makes it a lot easier to send MMS messages. So after all is said and done, this situation becomes an interesting case study in how user interface affects the acceptance of technology. As usual, stay tuned …

Sprint's Take on the Pre … Is this what Palm Wants?

I just saw a commercial for Sprint where they highlight the Palm Pre. Two things I remember from this commercial is that they mention the “revolutionary Web OS” and running multiple live applications at the same time (which sounds neat, but do average users know or care enough to make this a big selling point?) and that Palm Pre users save a significant amount over AT&T iPhone users.

I must wonder if this is what Palm wants their Pre to be known for – being cheaper than the iPhone. Certainly the “money-saving” theme is very popular in today’s economy, but are smartphone buyers the right target market for a money saving ad? My initial thought is that if someone cares more about the cost of a plan than the actual phone, they probably aren’t shopping for a Pre or an iPhone. But if they were, would they care more that they are saving about $50/month or that there is a $99 iPhone as compared to the $199 Pre? Positioning themselves as the low-cost player could backfire in this case, and it certainly does not help them out in the long run.

On a side note, as I type this Jimmy Fallon is now doing a skit where he parodies iPhone apps. I can’t imagine this happening with any other phone (or any other tech device for that matter). I’ve said this before and I’ll keep saying it – no other device stands a chance of unseating the iPhone until they can compete with the Apple App Store. And if the iTunes music store serves as any sort of precedent, it may be a good long while before they can.

Pin It on Pinterest