New wireless subscribers down sharply at AT&T

[Goelz83]

The customer buys an iPad, and AT&T pays nothing for that. Then the customer starts paying AT&T for monthly service. AT&T didn't have to put any subsidy out, yet they get the monthly fee. Sounds like a good deal to me.

I'm not even counting the ones AT&T sells at the store, I'm just thinking the ones that Apple sells, and then come to AT&T.

Yeah, Moto's AT&T products suck. That's part of AT&T's Android problem.

AT&T knows the take rate on the iPad, but even if it's low on average, it doesn't matter, as it's no risk to AT&T because they didn't subsidize it in the first place.

You are missing my point (and the point of this thread). The iPad is not a contracted sale because you cannot sign a contract with the iPad. Other tablets can be purchased on-contract, which WOULD count as a contracted sale. That was the only point I was making up front.

Then you state that the iPad has huge margins for AT&T. The iPad itself, does not have a large margin when it comes to what AT&T pays when they buy the tablet from Apple, compared to what they charge the customer. AT&T will make a lot of money if the customer pays them for monthly service, but with the iPad, there is no requirement that the customer must pay AT&T each month. Other tablets purchased on contract are a guaranteed revenue stream, whereas the iPad is not.

I don't see AT&T having an Android problem because one manufacturer (which you seem to be quite fond of) cannot get their **** straight. If the other manufacturers make quality smartphones (on AT&T), and one manufacturer cannot produce a quality smartphone (on AT&T), who would you pin the blame on?

[GSMinCT]

Agreed, it shouldn't be counted in contract numbers (and hopefully isn't).

They have high margins because, even with a relatively low take rate, AT&T isn't on the hook for any subsidy. As long as the network is running well, the cash will flow in off those things. It was really dumb to not do MHS on the iPad though like Verizon did...

They have always had lackluster Android phones. It's not that Moto can't get their sh*t together, it's that Moto sold the exclusivity on all their flagship devices to Verizon. Moto smartphones on AT&T are good quality, they just don't have high-end stuff on there. The latest was the Atrix 2, which is looking pretty dated now. And whatever AT&T gets otherwise seems to suck. The SGS II is supposedly pretty good, but it's not a high-end device.

[ilvla2]

I am a large male with large hands. That thing isn't close to fitting in my large hands. Imagine someone more average or small-sized! It would be hopeless! That, and talking into the thing makes you look ridiculous. It's too big! Way too big! If you look at human anatomy, about 3.5" is the anatomically correct size for a smartphone. Maybe 4" for medium-to-large hands, but beyond that is too big. 4.3 is doable, even though it's a bit over the correct size, but beyond that is just ridiculous.

I think it would be kind of cool as a wifi tablet, as the S-Pen is neat.

Again, your opinion only.

[Wireless Junkie]

Ah yes I do like it, but I'd prob never want one (a screen that large is too risky for my MTB riding).

Yea I killed mine Dirtbiking . Thankfully I had BestBuy protection and didn't have to pay a dime.

Im selling the replacement and putting that towards the One X

[johnhere]

I wouldn't be so sure. AT&T's churn and postpaid adds both say they are bleeding more customers and gaining fewer customers than Verizon, the latter in large numbers. With Sprint and T-Mob both showing "eh" contract adds, people have to go somewhere. For example:

Verizon got the iPhone in February of 2011. In quarters before Q1 2011, AT&T had modest postpaid adds:

Q1 2010: AT&T: 512,000 Verizon: 423,000
Q2 2010: AT&T: 496,000 Verizon: 665,000
Q3 2010 AT&T: 745,000 Verizon: 584,000
Q4 2010 AT&T: 400,000 Verizon: 872,000

However, once the VeriPhone came out in Q1, 2011, this happened:

Q1 2011 AT&T: 165,000 Verizon: 906,000 (5.5x more contract adds)
Q2 2011 AT&T: 331,000 Verizon: 1,300,000 (3.9x more contract adds)
Q3 2011 AT&T: 319,000 Verizon: 882,000 (2.8x more contract adds)
Q4 2011 AT&T: 717,000 Verizon: 1,200,000
Q1 2012 AT&T: 187,000 Verizon: 501,000

Further underlining my argument are the churn rates from both carriers from the same times:

Q1 2010: AT&T 1.07 Verizon: 1.07
Q2 2010: AT&T: 1.01 Verizon: 0.94
Q3 2010 AT&T: 1.01 Verizon: 1.07
Q4 2010 AT&T: 1.15 Verizon: 1.01

Q1 2011 AT&T: 1.18 Verizon: 1.01
Q2 2011 AT&T: 1.15 Verizon: 0.89
Q3 2011 AT&T: 1.15 Verizon: 0.94
Q4 2011 AT&T: 1.21 Verizon: 0.94
Q1 2012 AT&T: 1.01 Verizon: 0.96

Sure, not all AT&T goodbyers went to Big Red, but a large portion did. Over the last 2+ years, Verizon has far outpaced AT&T in contract adds and more recently, smartphones sales. The gap of smartphones on each carrier used to be huge, but now it is even. When the iPhone 4S came out, we saw AT&T sell 7.6 million iPhones compared to Verizon's 4.3, but this was also the time when the 3GS was dropped to $99. Simultaneously, AT&T's churn jumped from 1.15 to 1.21, and Verizon added 1,200,000 more contracts. Seeing as how AT&T bleeds more and signs less customers than Verizon, and that the ratio of AT&T to Verizon iPhones is closing in on 50/50 (55/45 as of this writing), I'd say its hard to argue AT&T hasn't seen large numbers jump ship.

Smartphones make up a large portion of carrier contracts, and with Verizon outpacing AT&T so much on contract adds, we had to realize the day would come when Verizon catches AT&T. Should the "contract adds per carrier" trend continue, Verizon will be far ahead in smartphone users in no time, especially once their LTE network is complete, thanks in part to Verizon's tremendous marketing. Expect to see part two of that oh-so-effective "Map For That" campaign.

After seeing the number comparisons , I can see why vz doesn't offer services like any mobile nationwide. They have the customer gains even without the extra perks that the other carriers have.

[Goelz83]

They have always had lackluster Android phones.

I'm pretty sure that Apple had something to do with that. Once the iPhone became available on Verizon, AT&T started to bring out mediocre Android smartphones. I believe the Samsung Captivate was one of AT&T's first Android smartphones with a capacitive touchscreen. The Backflip came out around/before then, but that phone was junk.

Verizon invested in Motorola/Android early because they had to have something to try and compete with the iPhone. AT&T was most likely prohibited from carrying anything that would directly compete with the iPhone. I personally think that AT&T offers a decent selection of Android devices, but I also would be happy to see them bring more high-end phones to market.

[GSMinCT]

Again, your opinion only.

Actually, it's based on a scientific dimensional analysis of human anatomy.

I'm pretty sure that Apple had something to do with that. Once the iPhone became available on Verizon, AT&T started to bring out mediocre Android smartphones. I believe the Samsung Captivate was one of AT&T's first Android smartphones with a capacitive touchscreen. The Backflip came out around/before then, but that phone was junk.

Verizon invested in Motorola/Android early because they had to have something to try and compete with the iPhone. AT&T was most likely prohibited from carrying anything that would directly compete with the iPhone. I personally think that AT&T offers a decent selection of Android devices, but I also would be happy to see them bring more high-end phones to market.

Sort of. I don't think Apple directly had anything to do with it, but it's because they were riding fat and happy on the iPhone sales, that they didn't invest in Android at all at first. Soon as the VeriPhone came out, AT&T started really beefing up their Android. We ultimately have Verizon to thank for Android, they made it what it is today. I still believe that if Apple had released on 3 or 4 US carriers right off the bat, Android would look a lot more like WP7 than iPhone. Maybe even less.

[Goelz83]

We ultimately have Google to thank for android, they made it what it is today.

ftfy......

[Trocks797]

Soon as the VeriPhone came out, AT&T started really beefing up their Android. We ultimately have Verizon to thank for Android, they made it what it is today. I still believe that if Apple had released on 3 or 4 US carriers right off the bat, Android would look a lot more like WP7 than iPhone. Maybe even less.

Perfect! Couldn't have said it better. Android would be nowhere without Verizon and/or the AT&T/Apple competition.

[ilvla2]

Actually, it's based on a scientific dimensional analysis of human anatomy.

[Goelz83]

Perfect! Couldn't have said it better. Android would be nowhere without Verizon and/or the AT&T/Apple competition.

Yeah, since Android isn't available anywhere outside of the United States:



Source: IDG

[Trocks797]

Yeah, since Android isn't available anywhere outside of the United States:



Source: IDG

Ok I see your point but Apple is the reason Android is so advanced today and Verizon is the reason it is so widespread in the US. Verizon embraced Android and ran full throttle with it.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[mpossoff]

Ok I see your point but Apple is the reason Android is so advanced today and Verizon is the reason it is so widespread in the US. Verizon embraced Android and ran full throttle with it.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

I never experienced an Android that can compete with iPhone except maybe the One X. All the Androids hardware is crap compared to the iPhone. The One X is comparable to the iPhone.

[ilvla2]

I never experienced an Android that can compete with iPhone except maybe the One X. All the Androids hardware is crap compared to the iPhone. The One X is comparable to the iPhone.

More personal opinion, not very objective or helpful. On the hardware thing, boy are you wrong.

[Goelz83]

Ok I see your point but Apple is the reason Android is so advanced today and Verizon is the reason it is so widespread in the US. Verizon embraced Android and ran full throttle with it.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

I agree with you on both points. Although you have to admit that Android has caused Apple to advance there product as well. Android was the first to do voice recognition and Apple just improved it with Siri. Android was also the first to have pull-down notifications. I imagine that it's only a matter of time before you see widgets on iOS. Both companies have advanced their products because of competition. That's what competition is supposed to do.