Originally Posted by
Kgmm77
Slightly confused by the terms "financial and strategic cost".
The iPhone carrier in the UK and Ireland (O2) has benefited significantly from a revenue, market share and profit perspective from signing the exclusivity deal with Apple to be the first to carry the iPhone. Is this not the case with ATT?
The deal let a device manufacturer break the customer-carrier relationship for the first significant time. You only have to look at how the carriers reacted against device manufacturers trying to break this relationship in the past to see how significant this is.
The deal was also the first time a device manufacturer was able to more or less dictate terms to a carrier. Previously the carriers had had a significant amount of power in that relationship. They killed products they didn't like, they made data use uneconomic, they refused to carry phones with Wifi or VOIP or whatever.
Of course several of the networks carrying the iPhone have enjoyed a boost in share and profits. But it has come at a strategic cost.
Originally Posted by
Dubai Stu
I don't think anyone can accurately call this without a whole heap of inside knowledge. The rumors are conflicting and ATT does have an exclusive agreement until 2011.
Agreed. But there are good reasons out there for Verizon refusing the Apple pie originally.