Apple gets money every month for iPhones purchased

AT&T is paying Apple $3 or $11 per month for every iPhone, a business analyst says. According to Gene Munster, Apple gets $3 per month for existing AT&T customers, and an additional $8 per month for transferring customers.

"We believe the monthly revenue sharing involves $3 per month for service and data fees related to all iPhone users, and AT&T gives Apple an additional $8 per month for iPhone customers who transfer service to AT&T in order to use the iPhone."

News source: ZDNet

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

uTorrent 1.7.2 build 3458

Next Story

Confirmed: No X07

29 Comments

View more comments

you forgot the part that VZW is bunch of gready ******* who like to customize everything THEIR ways. If Apple's demand was that they cant change the user interface, of course VZW is going to back out.

ziggie216 said,
you forgot the part that VZW is bunch of gready ******* who like to customize everything THEIR ways. If Apple's demand was that they cant change the user interface, of course VZW is going to back out.

I will have to agree with you there. I got a Motorola V710 with VZW (was my carrier at the time anyhow) and oh man the stink about Bluetooth being crippled beyond belief was very warrented. Took a nice phone and made it no better than most phones at the time available.

I think that may of been the reason Apple wants to lock it down to a specific provider, so they can force the provider to pay up.

the iphone if it ever comes to au will fail so badly good on them for getting some money of at&t like to see them try with telstra ehahaha

/* Edit this out: I'll bet there will be at least 20 trolls bashing Apple for this, without realising this is just a freaking business agreement */

someone messed up?

/* Edit this out: I'll bet there will be at least 20 trolls bashing Apple for this, without realising this is just a freaking business agreement */

Was there any need for this?

Antaris said,

Was there any need for this?

Exactly, that comment is silly.
Apple makes the iPhone available exclusively on AT&T, someone with common sense should expect there is such a business agreement.

Yeah. I was just complaining about how Neowin reacts to pretty much every Apple news, and whoever reviewed the news decided to keep that in. Oh well.

wctaiwan

I could see a one time payment but monthly dues are a condition only Apple could get away with.

Does AT&T pay monthly dues to any other device manufacturer?

This is no difference between this agreement with apple and any agreement Verizon, ATT, Sprint, T-Mobile have with manufacturers like samsung, sanyo, lg, nokia and motorola. They all get similar bounties on sales of their phones. This is a common agreement, apple is no different than any other phone manufacturer.

do you have numbers that prove the deals between apple and AT&T are similar to those with other manufacturers/providers?

Excuse me everyone, but as it's stated in the article, "The details of AT&T’s iPhone revenue sharing pact with Apple are secret" and "We believe the monthly revenue sharing involves [...]" (emphasis mine). The article title even has a big question mark. So, it's just pure speculation, not something confirmed from either of the party involved. I'm not saying it couldn't be true; but treat it for what it is - speculation.

That brings up the question: Why did Neowin choose to remove the question mark from the title of the article? That changes the tone of the entire article.

roadwarrior said,
That brings up the question: Why did Neowin choose to remove the question mark from the title of the article? That changes the tone of the entire article.

Oops, my bad.

/* Edit this out: I'll bet there will be at least 20 trolls bashing Apple for this, without realising this is just a freaking business agreement */

Makes you look like the troll.

indeed. "freaking business agreement"s aren't always just or correct.

in this case its probably what at&t had to pony up for the exclusivity of the phone to their network, which seems fair to me since apple can't be on other networks, but being a business agreement doesn't make it right.

the comment looks juvenile and makes him no better than the trolls he's bashing, because he's showing blatant fanboy'ism without giving any reason what-so-ever.

Hate to say this... But no it wasn't XD. Actually the reaction so far is kind of unexpected, I thought people would be whining about Apple ripping the consumers off. I was proven wrong.

wctaiwan

About the edit: that was my thought exactly. It seems that internal business practices that shouldn't concern the general public at all are more and more commented about these days. There is absolutely no way to comment on these numbers, NO way.

I'm not that excited myself about the iPhone but they could lose 100$ or make 200$ on each phone that I wouldn't care less.

Personally I think the IPhone is a bit of a rip off really.

I mean who makes a cellphone where you can't change the battery?, its almost unheard of.

Also the platforms to closed, For a smartphone it really needs people to be able to make applications for it it should be down to the user what applications they run on their device.

Maybe at somepoint they'll make a new revision where the battery can be changed, and rethink the whole closed architecture thing.

Then it will be worth looking at, until then its just another cellphone and I really don't see what all the hype is about.

Just because it's unheard of to not have a removable battery... does that mean it shouldn't be done? Just because it's closed platform... does that mean it shouldnt be made available? Is it a bad business action to take? Maybe... but it doesnt seem to have hurt iPod sales that much... and the iPhone isnt exactly selling badly right now.... And as long as they make money on the product... who are we to say what is and is not a bad decision. Apple knew theyre would be a market for it, even with these, what we've described as limitations.


Anyways... its hardly on the topic really is it... If AT&T agreed to the terms stated by Apple... that's thier problem... if they had said no... would it be different with other companies? Would Apple have been forced to remove certain aspects of thier agreement just so that the money and time spent on development wouldnt turn sour? We'll never know.

Commenting is disabled on this article.