By Katherine Noyes MacNewsWorld Part of the ECT News Network
01/29/07 1:49 PM PT
Apple reportedly offered Verizon Wireless a deal to be the exclusive distributor of its iPhone, but the cell phone carrier declined. Apple demanded a percentage of monthly service fees along with control over the customer relationship and distribution specifics, said Jim Gerace, a vice president at Verizon.
eMarketer Whitepaper: Optimizing the E-Commerce Experience
From the Web to the Contact Center, are you prepared to proactively engage and keep your savvy customers? Read how e-commerce leaders are optimizing their sites with ratings, reviews, live help, Web analytics, mobile and more.
Verizon Wireless declined a deal that would have made it the exclusive distributor of Apple's (Nasdaq: AAPL) iPhone, according to a report in Monday's USA Today.
"We said no," said Jim Gerace, a vice president at Verizon Wireless. "We have nothing bad to say about the Apple iPhone. We just couldn't reach a deal that was mutually beneficial." Apple demanded a percentage of monthly service fees along with control over the customer relationship and distribution specifics, Gerace explained.
As a result, AT&T's (NYSE: T) Cingular won the spot of exclusive distributor for the wildly hyped devices, due to be released this summer. Verizon is the No. 2 cell phone carrier in the United States, and Cingular is No. 1.
Control Issues
Apple spokesperson Natalie Kerris would only confirm that the company had chosen Cingular for a multi-year exclusive partnership. "Apple chose Cingular because it is the best and most popular cell phone carrier in the United States," she told MacNewsWorld.
Besides the financial obstacles, one deal-breaker in the possible agreement with Verizon was the fact that Apple wanted to control distribution of its iPhones -- a move that could have left Verizon distributors including Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) and Best Buy (NYSE: BBY) out in the cold, according to Gerace.
Another contributing factor was Apple's insistence on control over customer care and support. "They would have been stepping in between us and our customers to the point where we would have almost had to take a back seat ... on hardware and service support," he said.
Cingular Care
Apple's Kerris declined to disclose details of the arrangement with Cingular, but Cingular spokesperson Mark Siegel stressed that iPhone users would be Cingular customers, first and foremost.
"This is not a [mobile virtual network operator] arrangement, where the underlying wireless carrier is not disclosed. [iPhone] customers will be Cingular customers. They will be billed by us, and if they have any issues, they will call us directly," he told MacNewsWorld.
Regarding distribution, Siegel would only say that iPhones would be distributed through Cingular and Apple stores.
An Open Question
"I think it's widely known that Apple is not only proprietary, but wants to control the experience," commented Neil Strother, research director for mobile devices, content and services with NPD Group. "Apple and Verizon both wanted control, which is not a bad thing, but one of them had to give."
"I don't think it's that big a deal for Verizon," added Julie Ask, research director at JupiterResearch. "In the longer term, if the iPhone is a hit, it will make sense for it to be on more than one network in the United States, especially as it comes down to a price point that more people can afford."
Indeed, the success of the US$500 to $600 iPhone will likely determine how any distribution arrangements play out down the road.
"Verizon has enough strength in the market to be able to say to Apple, 'we'll pass for now,' and not be hurt too badly," agreed Strother. "If the iPhone clobbers everyone, Verizon will look stupid. But I don't think it will. The battle has yet to be decided because there will be alternatives."
iPhones, iPains and iProblems January 26, 2007
At a time when a little Google research is all that's needed to find out who owns what trademark and how many others are using a similar name, it is amazing that billion-dollar companies spending millions on promotional campaigns still get caught up in iStupid games.
Related Stories
Verizon Rides Wireless Strength Despite Profit Drop January 29, 2007
Verizon Communications said it earned $1 billion in the final quarter of 2006, or 35 cents per share, compared with $1.7 billion, or 59 cents per share in the fourth quarter of 2005. Verizon's fourth-quarter revenue of $22.6 billion was 26.1 percent more than Q4 2005 revenue, and its full-year revenue for 2006 was $88.1 billion, nearly 27 percent higher than 2005.
Has the World Really Been Waiting for the iPhone? January 26, 2007
The iPhone will likely draw some smartphone users who like its productivity applications such as push e-mail and calendaring. It will also attract music lovers with its true iPod functionality and appeal to the fashion-conscious with its eye-popping design. It is "destined to become the premier device for people who gather digital content from a variety of sources," Gartner analyst Mike McGuire said.
Related News Alerts
More by Katherine Noyes
FOSS and the Google Question November 19, 2009
How FOSSy is Google, really? "I find it kinda funny that folks tout that Google uses Linux when the most useful tool they have developed -- the Google FS -- they keep internally and therefore don't have to share the code!" observed Slashdot blogger hairyfeet. "So how exactly is Google different from MSFT and Apple, who have both in the past locked up free code for themselves?"
Can T-Mobile Get Its Groove Back? November 18, 2009
T-Mobile may have a hard time pulling itself out of a swamp of customer discontent if it doesn't reverse course soon. The wireless carrier has been having some bad luck that has only been compounded by some poor decisions. "It takes a long time and much effort to build customer confidence, but a very short time to lose it," remarked telecom analyst Jeff Kagan.
Microsoft Goof - One Small Snag in a Code-Licensing Quagmire November 17, 2009
Microsoft will open source the code to a Windows 7 tool in order to rectify the erroneous inclusion of code licensed under the GPL. Redmond's response to the problem "does indicate a growing maturity with respect to free and open source licenses," said RedMonk analyst Stephen O'Grady.