« Murdoch: Page 3 WSJ Girls, Free WSJ, and More | Main | Travel, Travel »
Latest Stories
- Excel Wankers and Recession Averages
- Sorry, New York is Closed. Check Back Later.
- Catching Falling 2009 Earnings Estimate Knife
- Survivorship Bias in Global Markets
- Talking Positions on a Lazy-ish Retirement Portfolio
June 28, 2007
WSJ OpEd Tomorrow
I have an editorial in tomorrow's (Friday's) Wall Street Journal. The subject is Apple's iPhone marketing campaign (which is much less remarkable than people think), and the concurrent rebellion going on in mobile telephony.
Sphere It
|
Digg it
|
Bookmark it
|
Stumble it
|
Facebook it
Deborah -- It's putting the focus on devices, and away from the VZ/Sprint/ATT axis. This their last gasp, and they're going to be increasingly marginalized from here on in via data-centric devices exploiting unlimited data plans and wifi.
Glad to see someone with their eye on the power dynamic in the mobile market, Paul - from a broad perspective the introduction of a device like the iPhone was inevitable and, frankly, overdue.
If the handset manufacturers weren't so beholding to the carriers and had a smidgen of Apple's marketing vision, something like this could have come from Nokia, Sony/Ericsson or even HTC years ago.
My question is, are the unbundled industries of handset manufacturers and wireless carriers worth more than the currently bound-together model? Does uncoupling device from network shift value disproportionately to one or the other?
Agree and disagree with Paul. It does put the focus on devices in that it will make some people choose a service based on their offering (or not) of a specific device - much like it's been with Verizon missing out on a few customers by offering great coverage/quality of service but crappy selection of the latest and greatest TREO, then Blackberry, etc. However, service/network will continue to matter and be a decision factor as long as it's a differentiator and not a commodity, as is the case now. There's clearly a difference in service quality among carriers, with voice, data, and coverage areas, so that will still make a lot of people's minds up for them, regardless of a cool product that won't work as well for them based on the network it's restricted to.
Congratulations Paul! My blog post analyzing Apple TV and the future of the DVD player may be of some interest to you in pondering where mobile is going: http://www.mathoda.com/archives/168
@worth: "clearly a difference in service quality among carriers" -- really? I defy you to come up with a consensus ranking of the quality of service available from N.American carriers. The one constant is that everyone hates at least one carrier.
I would argue that Apple too are maintaining 'fascist control of software' that can run on the iPhone - a point that many of us are blind to
URL: http://www.nik.com.au/archives/2007/06/28/no-third-party-iphone-love/
Is it possible to see the full article on your site, I don't subscribe to Wall Street Journal.
Ron Maltiel
Semiconductor Consulting
www.maltiel-consulting.com









iPhone is really a piece of jewelry. While I agree w/ the points you make in the WSJ article, the deal AAPL made w/ T as a 5 yr. exclusive only creates further stickiness for customers as they're bound to T to use the iPhone. Customers who don't have good T coverage in their area and/or don't like T won't get to use the iPhone, so how is that going to change carrier policies?