Verizon earnings

If you see a Verizon executive walking around today whistling a happy tune, it's because the company's fourth-quarter 2011 earnings were just announced. Big Red recorded a 7.7 percent increase in revenue compared to Q4 2010, for its wireless (as in mobile) and wired (mainly FiOS) combined.

On the wireless side, Verizon saw $18.3 billion in total revenue, up 13 percent year over year. Data revenue was up 19.2 percent to $6.3 billion, and Verizon saw 1.5 million (net) new subscribers, its largest increase in three years. The vast majority of those new subscribers -- 1.3 million -- are of the traditional postpaid variety. Verizon now has 108.7 million total "connections," the company reported, 6.3 percent higher than Q4 2010.

Smartphones make up 44 percent of Verizon's customer base, compared to 39 percent for for the final three months of 2010. It didn't break down how many are Android, and how many are iPhone.

Source: Verizon (pdf)

 
There are 36 comments

Anytime I see things like this I always wonder if Sprint would ever come out of that black hole of losing subscribers/gaining Contract Subscribers....

Unibrow says:

drop unlimited data, offer a limited time 2x's the data for the same low price deal along with the 4s, Nexus, Razr and Rezound = recipe for success.

jimmiekain says:

I wish people would stop joining VZW. As long as we keep signing up to give them our money they will continue to think its ok to charge as much as they charge. They are not competitive at all. Having a great network is only half of the pie. People want value. Give us Unlimited data or "Any Mobile" (like sprint and att)... I agree they are the best (in California where I live) but they have priced themselves out of contention.

onezerofive says:

I don't know where you live, but in the I.E (Southern California), T-mobile is 4x's faster than Verizon (conducted many speed tests with my buddies).

lmao . . . Okay, you and your Buddies must be proud. Be quiet

onezerofive says:

okay keyboard warrior.. go take some protein; your fingers are getting rough from all that bad@ss typing you do...

orlanka says:

I have unlimited data on VZW and better coverage across the country than any other carrier. Even if I would have had the data promo plan they ran at the end of the year, I would still be happy with VZW. Until any of the other carriers can match the coverage and the customer service that VZW provides, their prices are worth the alternative.

Sleerts says:

Wait till Sprint rolls out LTE and also begins offering tiered plans for LTE phones.

badams1 says:

They are gonna scratch their phone's screen if they keep laying it face down on a bunch of coins!! Amateurs... :-)

How come you didn't mention that Verizon finished the quarter with a $2 billion loss?

Rob White says:

That's the crux of the biscuit good sir! Verizon posted a net LOSS because of... Drum roll please.........

The iPhone!

Yep turns out that all the people lining up to grab this ancient & dated LG Prada knockoff cost more money than they bring in for their initial contract. And people willingly pay the 'Apple Tax' like lemmings.

Yeah, I doubt that's what it is

Commodus says:

Wow, you bought the whole "iPhone is an LG Prada clone" myth line, hook, and sinker.

The Prada was briefly *spoiled* by an IF Design Award in December 2006. It wasn't made official until February 2007. And either way, it was impossible for either side to have known what the other was doing.

Plus, given the design philosophies of either, I'm pretty sure Apple was being original here. LG never had more ambitions than making a dumbphone with a touchscreen; Apple wanted the iPhone to be a smartphone (although it arguably wasn't until 2008 and third-party apps that this became completely realized).

Rob White says:

And you bought the Apple myth of their superiority hook line & sinker. Nice rebuttle though. Care to now defend their legal position too?

Commodus says:

No, I didn't. I covered the Prada news when it broke; it was much simpler than the iPhone and didn't even have a competent web browser, let alone the support for third-party apps the iPhone would get a year later. It wasn't until the Prada 3.0 late in 2011 (which uses Android) that it actually switched from dumbphone to smartphone.

When the iPhone launched, it started behind in multiple areas, but where it was ahead, it was most definitely ahead (web, media playback, even just having a usable touchscreen interface). Remember, Android circa 2007 looked like a BlackBerry clone; when it shipped in 2008, it looked much more like an iPhone UI (I won't say clone, but it was clear Apple had skewed the market in favor of touch).

Rob White says:

Oh good. So we go from my statement that LG had theirs out first, a fact dumb phone or smartphone, the design language is clear to see. Apple come pretty damn close to flat out copying it, but as you say it's impossible for either side to have known what the other was up to. Fair enough so we'll agree to disagree.

Explain for us all then how it is that Apple Photo Shopped pics of the Galaxy S & Galaxy Tabs to make them look more like Apple products for frivolous lawsuits? I'm holding an iPhone 4 & a Samsung Fascinate right here in my hand. I'm struggling with the copy aspect.

So if I bought the 'copycat' myth hook line & sinker what exactly does the above mean to your point?

Commodus says:

They did not clone the LG Prada (nor did LG clone the iPhone). There is no debate about this. None. It was technically impossible short of deliberate corporate espionage -- iPhone work started in 2005.

If you're naive enough to think a company can completely design a phone from scratch in one month's time, well, you've lost any argument you will ever make on this subject.

I studied the Apple/Samsung lawsuit claims as part of my job. Yes, there's one picture each in the collections where the ratios (but not the content) are distorted. That's one of numerous examples that include unaltered photos. The judge saw what the device looked like in reality; if Apple was trying to manipulate the court, it was to show the relatively short leap to a similar look by stretching dimensions. I'll add that if I were Apple, I wouldn't have sued in the first place, or at least not for anything beyond some of the more obvious, distinct factors (see below).

As for the iPhone 4 versus Fascinate, look at the iPhone 3GS -- that's what the design target was for Samsung (the Galaxy S was only unveiled right as the iPhone 4 was showing up, so it was impossible to have known much). Also, look at international Galaxy S and S II releases; they have a big, centered home button that's not at all common from other Android makers but, mysteriously, looks much more like an iPhone. Samsung changes that design to Google's actual, reference four-button layout only for North America... any guesses as to why?

Rob White says:

My my my... You recited Florian Mueller almost word for word. And you preach about copying & who was first with what. And your claims about no way of knowing without corporate espionage also fall short. It was a little of that, umm lets call it, underhanded sneaky corporate theft that led to the Mac. After all Steve Jobs openly advocated theft.

Ok now I'm looking at a 3G iPhone. I still don't see the copy cat aspect. But nice try. No further need to debate your facts or mine being right. Back to Imore.

Commodus says:

The burden is on you to provide evidence Apple spied on LG. Not me. You can't make an accusation that deep without any support for it. Public facts don't support you, because the likelihood of concurrent development based on that kind of trick is very slim.

Not the least of which is that you're factually wrong about Apple stealing from Xerox for the Mac, too; PARC knew engineers were coming in and knew Apple would be making a graphical interface based on what it learned there. Xerox's lawsuit against Apple was shot down because it didn't appear to understand what it had actually done years later. It's like a car designer giving away a free car to a rival automotive engineer and being upset when that engineer builds a superior car years later; you waive the right to sour grapes if you voluntarily gave away your technology.

Florian actually looked at the documents in the Samsung case and is a professional lawyer. You're an Android fan cherry picking to protect a fantasy that Samsung closed its eyes from 2007 through 2010 and emerged with a completely original design... for goodness' sake, Samsung even copied the BlackBerry with the BlackJack. The company has several years' history of copying others' successful products.

On the Fascinate... here's the international Galaxy S versus the iPhone 3GS: http://blog.appboy.com/wp-content/woo_uploads/572-iphone4-vs-galaxy-s-he...

Look familiar?

Rob White says:

Nope. A nice Photoshop render as the Galaxy S is actually LARGER than the iPhone. And also that render shows the APP drawer of the Galaxy S NOT the home screen. Apples and oranges. Try Apples to apples. Nice that you cite an Apple fan blog on an Android site. You lose again.

And that Florian character isn't much of a professional lawyer. He claims to be a "Patent Expert."

One engineer from PARC tried to exonerate Apple. The rest of the team said otherwise. Read the book where ALL the key people involved where interviewed on the record it also includes the official court transcripts. 'Birth of the Mac' or something like that is the title. Even Jobs at the time told the Apple board don't ask where the tech came from. So said John Sculley.

Now I'm done proving you wrong. You are on your way to becoming the official spokesperson of wrong. Go back to Imore.

Wow you fail hard sir. The overall Verizon loss has NOTHING to do with the Wireless end (of which they actually only own 55% of)

The took a pre-warned PENSION charge this quarter.

"Verizon had warned that the big pension charge was coming. Excluding the pension effect and another one-time item, Verizon earned 52 cents per share"

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46106691

Premium1 says:

Do you mean Verizon's land-line division?

Rob White says:

No. Read the full press release. Verizon says themselves the iPhone is the reason for a loss of $2 b.

Perhaps it's you that should read the actual release...

Rob White says:

Good advice bucko.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57364565/verizon-posts-$2b-4q-loss-on-pension-adjustment/

Says it right there & in Verizon's statement that iPhone cost them. The "Pension Adjustment" part of the headline makes a nice blame the unions intro.

It's you that failed here.

O rly? No it doesn't. It just said the iPhone hurt margins in current term. ok? That's how all phone subsidies work. it says in black and white without the pension charge, Verizon made $.52 a share PROFIT.

It's you that couldn't have failed any harder here. Hate the iPhone, but don't make up your own news.

Rob White says:

"Verizon paid dearly to put iPhones in the hands of subscribers in the latest quarter, holding back its profits in the hope that its customers will rack up higher monthly bills and stay loyal."

LMAO... First line of the article I linked. Get that glasses prescription updated.

Darkseider says:

Thank God for T-Mobile and Sprint. After having VZW for years and the OG Droid making the switch to T-Mobile has been the best move I have ever made. Excellent service both signal and customer service. Excellent pricing. Lastly, excellent Android handsets.

Commodus says:

Verizon already did reveal the percentage of iPhones to Android phones; CFO Fran Shammo said that ahead of time at a conference.

They sold 4.2 million iPhones out of 7.7 million total smartphones, so 54 percent of its entire smartphone sales were Apple's. Every 4G device combined (phones, hotspots, tablets) amounted to 2.2 million, so every Galaxy Nexus, Droid RAZR, and Rezound put together was about half of what Apple managed.

Like it or not, Verizon is now like AT&T: the iPhone comes first. Not good for Android, and heaven help us if LTE iPhones take off.

Premium1 says:

The only difference is verizon is still offering high end android choices, at&t never did that when they had the iphone and only did it once they lost exclusivity.

jimtravis says:

Did this quarter's results include the release of the 4S? If so, no wonder it outsold Android for this quarter with all the 3GS / 4 customers upgrading / switching carriers to the latest, and greatest iPhone. It will be interesting to see the full year results for 2012. I suspect for the year, Android will be the biggest seller, or at least quite a bit closer than Q4 2011.

hmmm says:

It amazes me that people complain about them being the most expensive yet they post numbers like this. Yet, Sprint is having a rough time. It is too bad really since this just solidifies their pricing and tiered crap.

vic6string says:

I've had Sprint since they started way back in the mid nineties, and I can say I have never had any complaints about customer service. My iPhone buddies, however (most of which are VZW) complain all the time about their customer service. I don't come anywhere close to using my minutes because most of my calls are covered by the any-mobile plan, and I never even give a second thought to my data use, which is substantial. Now Sprint has iPhones, and is rolling out LTE, so VZW might be seeing some more big loss numbers in the near future if they don't get off their high horse and start competing plan-wise.

dabaum says:

It's pretty simple, if you don't like Verizon then don't use them. Just shut up. It's so damn annoying to hear you people bitch and complain. I along with the other 108.7 million subscribers obviously don't mind this evil company. If people would stop saying "first", stop correcting the authors typos (and mocking them while they do it) and finally, stop the stupid argument of who's carrier is better then this forum would be so much better. Sorry for the rant, just grow up.

kandiman1224 says:

Im a HUGE fan of verizons service but loathe how much theyve changed, why just WHY are people flocking to them is beyond me :( verizon is just gonna get worse with no real competitor to keep a knife at their throat.