O2 UK Results

2456713

Comments

  • jabbamk1jabbamk1 Posts: 8,942
    Forum Member
    japaul wrote: »
    As you say, no 4G customer totals, only a coverage figure (38% outdoor with a target of >60% by the end of the year).

    I think the service revenue fall probably looks worse than it is. Whilst they are hit by regulation (termination rates, roaming) like the others, in O2's case the way Refresh is accounted for also hits service revenue as you get higher handset revenues initially but lower service revenues.

    My estimate was +700k so technically you win but after a stewards enquiry you lose due to changing your mind. :D

    Where I went wrong and what surprises me is how they hang on to their PAYG base. No net change at all in the quarter and less than 200k drop YoY. They now have more PAYG customers than EE. I guess this big PAYG proportion has something to do with the low smartphone figure. They could raise it just by shedding a load of PAYG customers!

    Well I changed my prediction before today. So.... technically I was closer :D

    And yeh, surprised as well to see PAYG customers not drop even slightly. I was expecting Voda, EE and O2 to lose PAYG customers slightly and Three to gain some customers.

    Three are tomorrow so lets see if they do as well as last year. I'm once again expecting growth in both revenue and customer numbers + smartphone penetration.
  • japauljapaul Posts: 1,727
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jabbamk1 wrote: »
    Well I changed my prediction before today. So.... technically I was closer :D

    And yeh, surprised as well to see PAYG customers not drop even slightly. I was expecting Voda, EE and O2 to lose PAYG customers slightly and Three to gain some customers.

    Three are tomorrow so lets see if they do as well as last year. I'm once again expecting growth in both revenue and customer numbers + smartphone penetration.

    Three don't usually give us smartphone figures so we might never know that one.

    OK, I've looked at your estimates in the EE results thread and it seems your final estimate was the same as your first one so your appeal is accepted and you win a 300Mb/s 4GEE PAYG sim with no inclusive data :D

    Also in that thread are the estimates for Three which for the record are:

    Me: +750k
    You: +650k (unless you change your mind again) :D
    enapace: +450k-490k (saying a range means automatic disqualification):D

    Anyone else?
  • joelukenjoeluken Posts: 250
    Forum Member
    joeluken wrote: »
    Even though giffgaff is owned by Telefonica ?

    "We also have several "specialist" brands focusing on specific businesses:

    Telefónica has other virtual mobile brands in several countries, including giffgaff (UK), fonic (Germany), tuenti móvil (Spain) and quam (Argentina)."

    http://www.telefonica.com/en/about_telefonica/html/telefonica_brands/at_identidad_marcas.shtml
  • japauljapaul Posts: 1,727
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    japaul wrote: »
    No, they or any MVNOs are not included in the totals.

    Sorry just to correct myself there as I was thinking of MVNOs generally. Yes I think giffgaff is included in the O2 UK customer numbers. Generally though MVNOs are not, even Tesco Mobile which is 50% owned by O2.

    I did ask a question recently in another thread as to whether giffgaff should be regarded as an MVNO or just another O2 brand.
  • joelukenjoeluken Posts: 250
    Forum Member
    japaul wrote: »
    Yes I think giffgaff is included in the O2 UK customer numbers.

    That may go some way to explain the prepaid customer numbers.
  • japauljapaul Posts: 1,727
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    joeluken wrote: »
    That may go some way to explain the prepaid customer numbers.

    It certainly helps a bit but there must be more to it. giffgaff have say 1 - 1.5 million customers in total after 4 years. EE had a net loss on PAYG of over 2 million just in the last year.
  • Everything GoesEverything Goes Posts: 12,972
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    CEO Ronan Dunne "We’re also building a faster, smarter and stronger network which is bringing tangible benefits to our customers every day, whether that’s We’re also building a faster, smarter and stronger network which is bringing tangible benefits to our customers every day, whether that’s better call quality, faster download speeds or greater network coverage. In 2014, we’ll be even more relentless in giving customers more reasons to join and stay with O2.’, faster download speeds or greater network coverage. In 2014, we’ll be even more relentless in giving customers more reasons to join and stay with O2.’

    Are they going to do HD Voice :o Doubt it but you never know.

    http://www.mobiletoday.co.uk/news/industry/28506/o2_records_best_postpay_performance_in_four_years_as_a_million_sign_up_in_2013.aspx
  • japauljapaul Posts: 1,727
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭

    According to that it says "O2 also announced that it had reached the milestone of one million customers paying for and using 4G"

    Don't know if it's correct or not.
  • jabbamk1jabbamk1 Posts: 8,942
    Forum Member
    japaul wrote: »
    According to that it says "O2 also announced that it had reached the milestone of one million customers paying for and using 4G"

    Don't know if it's correct or not.

    That is indeed correct.

    But its misleading. Because o2 enabled all those customers for 4G for free. O2 had 1m customers on contract with a 4G phone.

    How many had paid extra for 4G before January though? We don't know. I'm guessing it was a very poor number. Hence why they made it free and got all 1m customers with 4G phones on contract to migrate over.

    Anyway, o2 are aiming for 60% 4G population coverage by the end of the year which isn't that great actually. I'd expect Three to overtake them by then.

    Also another interesting this to note is that there is now a difference of 1125k between EE and O2's customer base. Someone will tell me the exact figure but I'm fairly certain the gap was around 4000k+ a few years ago.
  • japauljapaul Posts: 1,727
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jabbamk1 wrote: »
    That is indeed correct.

    But its misleading. Because o2 enabled all those customers for 4G for free. O2 had 1m customers on contract with a 4G phone.

    How many had paid extra for 4G before January though? We don't know. I'm guessing it was a very poor number. Hence why they made it free and got all 1m customers with 4G phones on contract to migrate over

    I know but if they said previously one million had a 4G phone how could they all be 'using' 4G. A lot of them won't be in 4G coverage.
  • jabbamk1jabbamk1 Posts: 8,942
    Forum Member
    japaul wrote: »
    I know but if they said previously one million had a 4G phone how could they all be 'using' 4G. A lot of them won't be in 4G coverage.

    Perhaps a better term is "enabled for 4G".

    The article is just PR talk.
  • japauljapaul Posts: 1,727
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jabbamk1 wrote: »
    Also another interesting this to note is that there is now a difference of 1125k between EE and O2's customer base. Someone will tell me the exact figure but I'm fairly certain the gap was around 4000k+ a few years ago.

    he he that someone might be me.

    OK, when Orange and T-Mobile merged at the end of Q1 2010, they had 27.021m. At that point O2 had 21.356m so the diff was 5665k. EE did initially increase numbers to 27.2m at the end of 2010 but O2 had increased theirs even more so I think the gap was at its largest when the merger took place.
  • Everything GoesEverything Goes Posts: 12,972
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Here is last weeks results from EE with this weeks O2 results fop side by side comparison. Thanks to japaul.

    EE

    Mobile Customers - Total: 24.774m (2013 Q3: 25.123m, 2012 Q4: 26.148m)
    Mobile Customers - Postpaid: 14.350m (2013 Q3: 14.156m, 2012 Q4: 13.594m)
    Mobile Customers - Prepaid: 10.424m (2013 Q3: 10.967m, 2012 Q4: 12.554m)

    Smartphone penetration (postpaid only): 88% (2013 Q3: 85%, 2012 Q4: 78%)

    O2

    Mobile Customers (Total): 23.649m (2013 Sep: 23.427m, 2012 Dec: 22.864m)
    Mobile Customers (Contract): 12.884m (2013 Sep: 12.662m, 2012 Dec: 11.901m)
    Mobile Customers (Prepay): 10.765m (2013 Sep: 10.765m, 2012 Dec: 10.963m)

    Smartphone penetration: 49% (2013 Sep: 48%, 2012 Dec: 45%)
  • qasdfdsaqqasdfdsaq Posts: 3,350
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jabbamk1 wrote: »
    That is indeed correct.

    But its misleading. Because o2 enabled all those customers for 4G for free. O2 had 1m customers on contract with a 4G phone.

    How many had paid extra for 4G before January though? We don't know. I'm guessing it was a very poor number. Hence why they made it free and got all 1m customers with 4G phones on contract to migrate over.

    Anyway, o2 are aiming for 60% 4G population coverage by the end of the year which isn't that great actually. I'd expect Three to overtake them by then.
    Well not all of them, but quite how many I guess we'll never know. I know I was at least one of them.

    What's dubious though is *when* they reached 1m customers on 4G. They announced it with the Q4 2013 results, but they did not start giving customers free 4G until Q1 2014.

    As for 60% population coverage, that's not a lot lower than EE's 70% coverage after the same amount of time, but O2 are also covering larger geographical areas and rural locations with low population over large cities where you can get huge population figures with very few transmitters. So you might get a lower population figure but a much larger geographical figure even with the same number of masts.

    Case in point dozens of towns and suburbs around Edinburgh launched with 4G coverage last November on O2, most of which still have no 4G coverage on EE well over a year after they launched. Another example being Polmont/Grangemouth/Livingston, it took EE a full year before they had any coverage there whereas O2 brought coverage to the same area using the same masts 2 months after launch.

    They'll be contributing very little to O2's population coverage figures despite the geographical coverage area being much larger.
  • jabbamk1jabbamk1 Posts: 8,942
    Forum Member
    japaul wrote: »
    he he that someone might be me.

    OK, when Orange and T-Mobile merged at the end of Q1 2010, they had 27.021m. At that point O2 had 21.356m so the diff was 5665k. EE did initially increase numbers to 27.2m at the end of 2010 but O2 had increased theirs even more so I think the gap was at its largest when the merger took place.

    Oh damn! I was way off. Really surprising to see how many customers EE have lost, and also surprising to see that O2 have gained a lot of customers!

    And just to clear up what I said before, I expect Three's revenue and profit to grow, but I expect their growth to decline. It'll still be a very positive number, but I have a feeling that O2 will have gained more customers this year and that Three's growth is under last years growth of +833k.(Japaul, can you verify this number for 2012 me?) But hey, I could be wrong. We'll find out tomorrow.

    Just to expand on everything goes post, here is all major networks figures all in one post
    • UKTelecoms Q4 results-

    EE
    Mobile service revenue: £1445m (2013 Q3: £1446m, 2012 Q4: £1467m)

    Mobile Customers - Total: 24.774m (2013 Q3: 25.123m, 2012 Q4: 26.148m)
    Mobile Customers - Postpaid: 14.350m (2013 Q3: 14.156m, 2012 Q4: 13.594m)
    Mobile Customers - Prepaid: 10.424m (2013 Q3: 10.967m, 2012 Q4: 12.554m)

    4G Customers: 2.0m

    Smartphone penetration (postpaid only): 88% (2013 Q3: 85%, 2012 Q4: 78%)

    O2
    Mobile service revenue: £1124m (2013 Jul-Sep: £1168m, 2012 Oct-Dec: £1197m)

    Mobile Customers (Total): 23.649m (2013 Sep: 23.427m, 2012 Dec: 22.864m)
    Mobile Customers (Contract): 12.884m (2013 Sep: 12.662m, 2012 Dec: 11.901m)
    Mobile Customers (Prepay): 10.765m (2013 Sep: 10.765m, 2012 Dec: 10.963m)

    4G Customers (Q1 14): 1.0m (free upgrade scheme from Feb)

    Smartphone penetration: 49% (2013 Sep: 48%, 2012 Dec: 45%)

    Vodafone
    Mobile service revenue: £1045m (2013 Jul-Sep: £1058m, 2012 Oct-Dec: £1107m)

    Mobile Customers (Total): 19.368m (2013 Sep: 19.469m, 2012 Dec: 19.544m)
    Mobile Customers (Prepaid): 7.849m (2013 Sep: 8.141m, 2012 Dec: 8.514m)
    Mobile Customers (Contract): 11.519m (2013 Sep: 11.328m, 2012 Dec: 11.030m)

    4G Customers: 0.37m

    Smartphone penetration: 60.5% (2013 Sep: 57.9%, 2012 Dec: 53.3%)
  • qasdfdsaqqasdfdsaq Posts: 3,350
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    japaul wrote: »
    Where I went wrong and what surprises me is how they hang on to their PAYG base. No net change at all in the quarter and less than 200k drop YoY. They now have more PAYG customers than EE. I guess this big PAYG proportion has something to do with the low smartphone figure. They could raise it just by shedding a load of PAYG customers!

    Yeah, the smartphone penetration figure is a bit skewed by that although I'm not sure what the importance of that figure is anyway.

    EE's smartphone penetration on contract being 88%, that gives them 12.6m smartphone customers on contract and an unknown number on PAYG or in total.

    O2's smartphone penetration overall being 49%, that gives them 11.6m overall. Even if 3's smartphone penetration were 100%, which it is not, it'd still give them less smartphone customers in total. Since the birth of the modern-day smartphone in the mid 2000's 3 still hasn't gained as many smartphone customers as O2, which seems odd.
  • jabbamk1jabbamk1 Posts: 8,942
    Forum Member
    qasdfdsaq wrote: »
    O2's smartphone penetration overall being 49%, that gives them 11.6m overall. Even if 3's smartphone penetration were 100%, which it is not, it'd still give them less smartphone customers in total. Since the birth of the modern-day smartphone in the mid 2000's 3 still hasn't gained as many smartphone customers as O2, which seems odd.

    Well they do have like 13m customers less than O2... So that would go some way to explaining why they don't have that many smartphone users.

    It's quite hard for a network with under 10m users to have over 11.6m users with smartphones.

    So there is nothing odd about that. Once again you're being negative for no reason.
  • qasdfdsaqqasdfdsaq Posts: 3,350
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Once again you're being an ignorant bully and missing the point. Try reading posts without your tunnel-visioned tactic of trying to deliberately construe every post by certain members as negative and you might realise nothing I have said is negative towards any network outside of your own imagination.

    The whole point is they've gained less smartphone customers over the last seven years as O2 irrespective of the total.
  • jabbamk1jabbamk1 Posts: 8,942
    Forum Member
    qasdfdsaq wrote: »
    The whole point is they've gained less smartphone customers over the last seven years as O2 irrespective of the total.

    Right... Except O2 started off with 17.7m customers in 2006 whilst Three only had around 3 million. Three have gained almost 7m customers in the last 8 years where as O2 gained 6m customers in the last 8 years. So fairly similar growth. Except O2 have over 23m customers now, where as Three have around 10m customers now. So because O2 have more customers, it's not hard to see that they will have more smartphone users than Three even with 40% penetration. Even though Three have been growing at a faster rate, they do not have more smartphone users because they have significantly less customers than O2.

    Maybe my explanation isn't good but you should know what I mean.

    It's not surprising at all that O2 have more smartphone users. They are growing as well. Why would you be surprised that Three have less smartphone users? Pretty much all phones on sale these days are classed as smartphone. It's not just something that Three sell.
  • qasdfdsaqqasdfdsaq Posts: 3,350
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Once again missing the point.

    If 3 are such a great network for smartphone users, and O2 such a terrible network for smartphone users - as many people repeatedly like to make out - why are O2 gaining more smartphone users over the same time period than 3?

    If O2's network is so terrible for data how come they've gained over 11m smartphone customers over the last 8 years, while competitors such as 3 have gained less than 7m in total?

    You do like to repeatedly criticize their low smartphone penetration after all, but the underlying figures show they're actually acquiring more smartphone customers than 3 are - for whatever reason.
  • AlecRAlecR Posts: 554
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    qasdfdsaq wrote: »
    Once again missing the point.

    If 3 are such a great network for smartphone users, and O2 such a terrible network for smartphone users - as many people repeatedly like to make out - why are O2 gaining more smartphone users over the same time period than 3?

    If O2's network is so terrible for data how come they've gained over 11m smartphone customers over the last 8 years, while competitors such as 3 have gained far less?

    Because, unfortunately, O2 is still seen as 'premium' compared to Three.
  • qasdfdsaqqasdfdsaq Posts: 3,350
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Wouldn't being premium make people move away from a network, if people cared about price or value?

    Or do you mean premium in terms of perceived service rather than pricing? Because if this forum is anything to go by that doesn't seem to be the case.
  • jabbamk1jabbamk1 Posts: 8,942
    Forum Member
    qasdfdsaq wrote: »
    Once again missing the point.

    You're missing the point.

    What you're saying is like this.

    That 50% of the American population have smartphones
    And that 80% of the UK population have smartphones.

    So in the USA that's around ~150m people, and in the UK that's ~50m people. Depsite the UK having a lower number, the percentage is higher which shows that in the UK, a higher percentage are more likely to buy a smartphone.

    So in this case, more people on EE, Voda and Three are more likely to get a smartphone than those on O2. It's nothing to do with how many customers a network have.

    And why are you painting me with the same paintbrush as "others". It's clear that people will buy smartphones on all networks, not everyone will just join Three. All networks sell smartphones. It's just clear that the uptake on O2 is much lower compared to other networks. For Three customers, the number of smartphone users in relation to total customers is probably fairly high.

    Your logic is flawed.
  • AlecRAlecR Posts: 554
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    qasdfdsaq wrote: »
    Wouldn't being premium make people move away from a network, if people cared about price or value?

    Or do you mean premium in terms of perceived service rather than pricing? Because if this forum is anything to go by that doesn't seem to be the case.

    No, O2 = (seen as) premium therefore people stay with them, Three = (seen as) cheap and nasty, so people stay away.

    But you're a troll anyway so there's never any getting through to idiots like you.
  • jabbamk1jabbamk1 Posts: 8,942
    Forum Member
    AlecR wrote: »
    But you're a troll anyway so there's never any getting through to idiots like you.

    Careful, Qsadfdsaq will report you and get you banned for that. He doesn't like being called a troll despite the fact he's been banned 3 times for trolling and causing arguments.

    The facts are that O2 have a lower smartphone penetration than other networks. That's the whole reason they give the figure as a percentage and not as a number, that way it can be easily compared across networks.
Sign In or Register to comment.