[mattmaroon]

Wrong and wronger. You can't say that because the iPhone sells very well, network choice isn't hurting it. There might be 2x as many iPhones in consumers hands in the U.S. if they were on Verizon too, and 3x if it were on the other majors on top. I'm clearly just making those numbers up, but they seem reasonable.

The exclusivity was about a lot more than visual voice mail. It had to do with sales channel and profits from ongoing contracts as well, which were probably far larger issues and ones Verizon has absolutely no reason to cave on. And my point was that it might be in both Verizon and Apple's best interest to not work together.

The network is a huge part of the product when it comes to phones. A phone that is constantly dropping calls, one of the iPhone's biggest complaints, or out of fast data range is an inferior product through no fault of its own. In the mobile industry by being on a better network you have a better product.

Nonetheless, the best and worst thing about capitalism is that inferior products win all the time when the salient point of competition isn't product "quality" as you're meaning it here. We in the tech industry love the idea of a Google or an Apple making a better mousetrap and slaying the entrenched competition, but the reality is that for every one story like that, there are 20 of a better product that died due to vendor lock-in, marketing, or some other form of differentiation. Apple's been on both sides of that equation.

[unalone]

I didn't say network choice wasn't hurting it, Matt. I said network choice wasn't hurting it enough to make a difference to Apple.

I agree that part of a product is its network. However, neither Apple nor its competitors manufacture networks. It would be incredibly lazy to hope to make money solely because you use one third-party network rather than another. In this case I agree with you, it might work, but Gruber doesn't just want a phone that makes money. He wants a phone that competes.