Why do the carriers fight to have the iPhone when it hurts their bottom line? Sprint will lose billions in the next few years just for the privilege of selling the iPhone. It has hurt all of their bottom lines. Why do they even bother subsidizing the phone? Why not let Apple sell the phone and the carriers sell service? Is this good long term business sense?
Full article: http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/08/technology/iphone_carrier_subsidy/index.htm?iid=HP_LNNEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The iPhone may be great for consumers, but takes a nasty toll on wireless carriers' bottom line.
The price of Apple's (AAPL, Fortune 500) iconic smartphone is heavily discounted by carriers. Those subsidies almost single-handedly devastate profit margins for Verizon, AT&T and Sprint.
Since Apple's iPhone debuted on Verizon's network in February 2011, Verizon's "EBITDA service margin" -- a closely watched metric that carriers use to measure their core profit as a percentage of their sales -- has tumbled.
Between 2009 and 2010, Verizon (VZ, Fortune 500) averaged EBITDA service margin of 46.4% per quarter. In the first quarter that the iPhone went on sale, that fell to 43.7%. Last quarter, when Verizon sold a record 4.2 million iPhones, its margin plunged to 42.2%.
Verizon had just one "good" stretch this year: The third quarter, when its margin bounced back up to a record 47.8%. That's the same quarter in which iPhone sales stalled, as customers waited for Apple to unveil its heavily anticipated new model.
AT&T (T, Fortune 500) and Sprint suffered an even worse fate. AT&T posted a stunning 28.7% EBITDA service margin last quarter, compared with 37.6% a year earlier. One contributing factor: AT&T sold nearly twice as many iPhones as Verizon last quarter.
After selling nearly 2 million iPhones last quarter, Sprint's adjusted wireless margin fell to 9.5%, down from 16% a year ago. The company said Wednesday morning that its margin was significantly lower than it would have been without the iPhone subsidy.
Last edited: