1. ekafara's Avatar
    As I understand Apple gets to set the rules with the carriers. It seems RIM has to try and deal with them and come to an agreement on things with them. How does RIM get the same deal Apple has? Maybe I have it wrong. What's everyone think?

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    07-09-11 01:26 AM
  2. howarmat's Avatar
    make 1 phone that sells appx 60 million devices a year and see what kind of power you get
    K Bear and n8ter#AC like this.
    07-09-11 01:31 AM
  3. ekafara's Avatar
    That's what I was thinking but RIM sells a lot per year, but it's all different styles. :s

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    07-09-11 01:36 AM
  4. sleepngbear's Avatar
    That's what I was thinking but RIM sells a lot per year, but it's all different styles. :s

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Might be a variety of models, but it's still a lot of phones, which equals a lot of two-year contract commitments. Even though RIM is losing market share, carriers would be nuts to just dismiss the third-highest-selling brand. RIM may not have the same kind of clout as Apple, but they're still in a decent position to negotiate.
    07-09-11 01:54 AM
  5. T
    Apple gets to set the rules?

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    07-09-11 06:52 AM
  6. andyahs's Avatar
    make 1 phone that sells appx 60 million devices a year and see what kind of power you get
    Apple laid down their law before they sold the first iPhone - just ask at&t.
    K Bear likes this.
    07-09-11 07:20 AM
  7. K Bear's Avatar
    RIM had this ability before iPhone. I really don't see them getting it back unless they start releasing cutting edge devices again like they did years ago. Otherwise, you are going to see RIM pushed further and further out of the consumer market. The danger then will be further competition in RIM's bread and butter- business and world governments. That market is slowly being eroded, especially by Apple, Microsoft, & to a smaller extent, Android (although this share could change if Ice Cream Sandwich can deliver).
    07-09-11 07:31 AM
  8. kbz1960's Avatar
    Bribery?????
    07-09-11 07:34 AM
  9. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    Apple doesn't have that much control. VZW turned down the iPhone because they didn't like the deal, before Apple even made an offer to AT&T. And VZW did just fine without it. And now that the iPhone isn't exclusive to AT&T anymore, the grip Apple had on AT&T has somewhat diminished.
    JBenn911 likes this.
    07-09-11 09:46 AM
  10. darkmanx2g's Avatar
    They are in the mercy of the carriers. Obviously apple has huge leverage because having the iPhone on atheir carrier will boost subscribers and profits. Even though the iPhone went to Verizon, att still sold. More iPhones than before.
    They have such a compelling product I don't think RIM can ever get to that level. Apple offers so much more to the plate. Movies, music, battery life ,cutting edge screen. Lets face it RIM does not want to go in a spec battle. They will always serve the business market. Consumer market is not their priority.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    07-09-11 12:44 PM
  11. Economist101's Avatar
    Apple doesn't have that much control. VZW turned down the iPhone because they didn't like the deal, before Apple even made an offer to AT&T. And VZW did just fine without it. And now that the iPhone isn't exclusive to AT&T anymore, the grip Apple had on AT&T has somewhat diminished.
    Apple never really had a "grip" on AT&T. It's why AT&T took their time supporting tethering, MMS, etc. Apple's control isn't over the carriers; it's over the iPhone itself. As an example, the only place you see "Verizon" on the Verizon iPhone is on the status bar, yet "Verizon" appears on the bezel of every other smartphone on Verizon's network, including every single BB model they carry. It's also why there's no included crapware, and why they control the timing of software updates. The strategy is simple; make the devices desirable (if not indispensable) to carriers, then demand a $400 per device subsidy (resulting in a total price of $600-700) but retain full control over the devices themselves. The carrier gets to decide which features they support, but that's really it.

    As an aside, Verizon denies ever turning the iPhone down, and certainly based on their statements (addressed below), it was Verizon reaching out to Apple.

    Charlie Rose Talks to Verizon CEO Seidenberg - BusinessWeek

    How did this Apple tieup come into being? What changed?
    I don't think anything changed. It all started with Apple (AAPL), and Apple decided that it wanted one carrier in every major market. So Apple and AT&T consummated a deal three years ago. And because Apple was more focused on a single technology—the GSM technology—they chose AT&T. We had good discussions with them, but it was clear to us that they weren't looking to make a device for both sets of technologies.

    Did you think they made unreasonable demands at the time?
    No. That was all part of the sort of mating dance they were going through. But most of that [was] used not against us, but used against the carriers they ended up signing with, all right? So no, I didn't think the terms were all that serious because we were never in the running. Now, over the course of the last three years, particularly if you go to Europe and some of the Asian countries, Apple expanded to a second carrier. And it was time for them to expand to a second carrier here. So yeah, we did have a lot of discussions with them over the last couple years. We even installed antennas on their campus, and they tried our technology. When they were ready to make a decision to add a second carrier, we made sure that they had a favorable impression.

    But did Ivan initiate this by calling up Steve and saying, "Let's take another look at this"?
    Yeah. Well, I did. I did call up Steve and go visit him. Lowell McAdam [Verizon Wireless president and COO] called up [Apple COO] Tim Cook and went to visit him. So it was not just a one-person thing. We consciously reached out to them more than once. This was the view that we had that...eventually their interests would align with ours.
    07-09-11 01:32 PM
  12. n8ter#AC's Avatar
    Apple doesn't have that much control. VZW turned down the iPhone because they didn't like the deal, before Apple even made an offer to AT&T. And VZW did just fine without it. And now that the iPhone isn't exclusive to AT&T anymore, the grip Apple had on AT&T has somewhat diminished.
    How do you now VZW turned down the iPhone and it wasn't Apple turning down Verizon for wanting to infect their devices with branding and bloatware.

    Allowing AT&T to retain exclusivity on the iPhone would have been an idiotic move on the part of VZW. AT&T isn't that far behind. They really didn't have a choice but to take it on Apple's terms else every customer who wanted one had no choice but to jump from Verizon and AT&T, and may had already proven they were willing to do that even with the AT&T dropped calls, data speed, whatever crap floating around...

    Not only does the iPhone sell ridiculously well, but it's also cheap as **** for carriers to support...
    07-12-11 07:45 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD