Analyst: non-exclusive iPhone could dominate world

Analyst: non-exclusive iPhone could dominate world

Summary: Apple's iPhone could dominate the world's smartphone market - if the company can dump those exclusivity deals, such as the one it has with AT&T in the U.S.

SHARE:

Apple's iPhone could dominate the world's smartphone market - if the company can dump those exclusivity deals, such as the one it has with AT&T in the U.S. I've more or less said that in the past, too - that exclusivity deal with AT&T in the U.S. is holding the iPhone back. This time it's Morgan Stanley analyst Kathryn Huberty, normally a bit of an Apple bear, who's talking about Apple's iPhone potential in an unusually bullish note to investors today. According to a post on Fortune's Brainstorm Tech blog, Huberty wrote:

We expect Apple to broaden iPhone carrier distribution over the next two years and believe this opportunity is under-appreciated by the investment community. This total opportunity is substantial — it adds up to an incremental 20.3M iPhone units and $3.76 in adjusted EPS, 100% and 41% of iPhone units and adjusted EPS respectively.

She notes, in particular, the 136 percent market share gain in France after the iPhone's exclusive deal with Orange ended. New markets in China, as well as as expanded carrier agreements in the U.K. could deliver similar growth. But don't expect multi-carrier deals in the U.S. right away. Huberty doesn't expect a deal with Verizon until sometime in 2011 when the company rolls out its 4G services.

Personally, I hope she's wrong on that front. I'm looking for a deal with Verizon in 2010 - and am currently sitting on a no-commitment contract with Verizon, waiting - like a fool - for the big day to arrive.

I know... What a sucker.

Also see: AT&T: The iPhone's anchor

Analyst: Apple to offer iPhone on U.S. carriers within a year; replace cable with iTunes subscriptions

Topics: iPhone, Apple, Hardware, Mobility, Smartphones, Verizon

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

33 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Spreading the joy

    I had Verizon for years. Very good coverage, excellent service, but the
    control they insist upon over apps and such makes Apple's app store
    look like a Linux convention. I've read within these hallowed pages
    speculation that Verizon was where Apple first tried to set the iPhone
    but Verizon, with their typical bottom line arrogance couldn't come to
    terms with the idea of a free app or a free download that they couldn't
    tax or control. ATT uses the international standard GSM chips whereas
    Verizon is the only carrier that doesn't. While it's rumored that both
    will begin using the LTE technology in the 4G system, that's not on the
    near horizon. I'm apparently in one of those markets where I've never
    gotten a dropped call with ATT and 3G coverage is excellent, even in
    suburban Indianapolis.
    dheady
    • I actually had heard here, among others

      That it was Apple's arrogance that led to Verizon not showing interest in the iPhone, as Apple wanted some "control" over Verizon's network, something AT&T gave them, but Verizon refused.

      The Google voice app is a perfect example of the arrogance: Apple wanted to decide exclusivelly what could run on the iPhone, regardless of whether it impacted the carriers or not, as long as Apple made the money from the App Store.
      GuidingLight
      • I think you heard wrong...

        Apple didn't want control over Verizon's network. Apple wanted
        control
        over their phone.

        Verizon is well known for demanding that phone manufacturers
        hobble
        their phones and disable features. My Motorola RAZR was the perfect
        example. Verizon forced Motorola to disable the phone's ability to
        download photos to a computer. Verizon charged (I believe) $0.20 per
        picture (which is why I never used MMS with Verizon).

        [u]http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-
        iphone_x.htm[/u]

        By the way, I don't believe most of what I hear here.
        msalzberg
      • Warped spin.

        But nice try. Apple wanted control of things like:

        Music Distribution. Verizon charges $2.50/song. They did not want iTMS.

        App Distribution. Free apps? Not a chance.

        Control of phone functions and features. Verizon (great network) locks down and disables most features of a phone.

        Control of Contacts. Verizon only Syncs through Verizon's web sites for many phones.

        And so on. Where is the arrogance located?
        Bruizer
        • You could be correct.

          Apple approaches Verizon with their iPhone, and demands that Apple's hardware be treated differently on Verizon's network then their competitors.

          I don't think Apple likes the idea of sharing, either, which brings me to the part where Apple wanted to do things their way, regardless of the impact on the carrier (partner).

          Like other phones on Verizon's network, the vendor makes money from the phones, Verizon from the use of that phone on their network.

          Apple wanted both.

          GuidingLight
        • Agreed. Verizon were extremely arrogant with their limitations.

          A shame, really.
          AzuMao
      • Excellent post

        It is clear that Apple is the arrogant party here.
        NonZealot
    • GSM isn't a standard ... not by a long shot.

      CDMA has double the market share of GSM and is a better technology. Verizon and Sprint and all the companies they have gobbled up are all CDMA now... and T-mobile will be soon when it is finally combined with Sprint.

      CDMA is everywhere except Europe. Big Deal.

      Apple needs to make a CDMA Version with a slider and real keyboard. Call it the iSlider and sell it on Verizon and Sprint in 2010.

      Create a slightly different product and sell it on the other carriers...Just like every other phone maker does.
      condelirios
      • CDMA is an American thing

        the rest of the world, here in Europe, Africa, Asia, its all GSM. thats why before these phones can be sold in other part of the world, a GSM version has to be made
        nessrapp
        • CDMA >>> GSM.

          I will take CDMA over GSM any day of the week. Bummer the iPhone is GSM and it is back to downgraded voice quality.

          Sprint and Verizon voice quality far exceeds any thing I have heard from any GSM handset. This includes several phones I have used on O2 and Orange in Europe as well as TMob, AT&T and Cincular in the US.
          Bruizer
          • CDMA is the better standard

            but Europe picked the GSM/WCDMA(UMTS) direction so they could pay lower royalties to Qualcomm. As a result most of the world is stuck with an inferior and more expensive to install standard.

            CDMA only really exists in the U.S., Korea, and China. Lucky them unless they want to travel elsewhere.
            jorjitop
          • CDMA is history already

            CDMA is an archaic local standard in the US. GSM took over the world long time ago, and will do the same in the US.

            Check the figures here:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_mobile_phone_standards
            koekayttaja
      • And what galaxy have you just come from?

        You are SO wrong.

        Courtesy of WikiPedia:

        Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM, around 80-85% market share) and IS-95 (around 10-15% market share[1]) are the two most prevalent mobile communication technologies.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_mobile_phone_standards
        ths40
      • LOL!

        Clearly, someone doesn't know how to use 'the Google'. Either that or you've just arrived from an alternate universe. Pick any destination - First World, Third World - you name it. You're going to find GSM everywhere you go. CDMA is a niche technology.
        eMJayy
        • Sorry... In North America.....

          CDMA is the dominant technology. And in China, my phone worked perfectly on CDMA!

          In the US, you cannot really find GSM... because it sucks eggrolls and the signals drops every 10 feet. Believe me, I have friends who use those iPhones. It should be a crime to make such an awesome device and then completely cripple it with such a worthless technology called... GSM!
          condelirios
          • my gsm experience

            I had a GSM phone in Italy for about six years and
            rarely experienced the problems with dropped calls
            and poor signal strength that I have experienced
            here in the USA with both CDMA and GSM carriers
            (Verizon and T-mobile). I suggest that whatever
            problems one might have with GSM are not due to
            the technology so much as the lack of adequate
            infrastructure.
            hoosier_guy
  • Actually, Sam, it won't...

    ...as Australia's phone market where the iPhone is available on five operators bears out.

    It does well but it doesn't dominate.

    Research is always better than sensationalist blogging don't you think?

    Oh and it's good to see Huberty is as amusing as ever - the increase of 136% has a lot more to do with the release of the 3G than the availability of carrier.
    Sleeper Service
  • It's $600 without contract

    So,
    NO IT WON'T
    laxmanb
  • Something Google (Android) understands well.

    Do you think Apple will catch on?
    No_Ax_to_Grind
    • Except Android's market share is 2%

      And the UI and apps store are not even close to
      Apples.
      GoPower