iPhone 3G finally reaching supply and demand balance

[AppleInsider]

After more than six weeks of almost constant iPhone 3G shortages, Apple is finally known to be getting a grip on its retail supply and has virtually every model in stock everywhere.

Research by analyst Ben Reitzes of Lehman Brothers reveals that, as of Tuesday evening, all US Apple retail stores had 16GB iPhones in either color ready to sell for the following morning -- a feat which Apple hasn't managed since Lehman first began canvassing the stores just days after the July 11th launch.

Even the 8GB model, which for several of the reports was often in the shortest reply, showed 99 percent availability across the electronics giant's retail network.

"We have seen a major improvement in iPhone availability in the US throughout August," Reitzes says. "It appears as though supply has met demand entering September (as expected)."

The equilibrium isn't seen as slowing demand and instead simply reflects Apple stepping up its production, he adds, reiterating his belief that earlier estimates of 3.8 million iPhones sold during the September quarter are "very conservative" and that this surge of sales could spill over into Apple's fiscal 2009.

Further tracking by Lehman also suggests unusual activity among iPods. While supply of most iPods at Best Buy dipped at least slightly lower from a stock check two weeks ago, availability of the 32GB iPod touch dropped from 94 percent of stores to just 82 percent this week ,or its lowest point since the surveys began in mid-June.

Reitzes maintains that Apple will need to target the iPod touch at a different price bracket now that the iPhone is as inexpensive as it is; the opinion gained momentum over the weekend with a detailed rumor from Digg head Kevin Rose implying that Apple would not only modify the iPod touch but slash iPod prices across the board to bring them into step with the newly discounted cellphone.

Supplies at Apple's online store, however, don't hint at any imminent upgrades; besides steady iPod supplies, all Macs remain at their usual 24 hour availability outside of normally delayed special order iMac and MacBook Air models.

Sources for AppleInsider maintain that Apple will have new iPods in early September, followed by new MacBooks and then iMacs before the end of the year.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[DistortedLoop]

I took two friends to the Apple Store in Northridge, CA last Sunday for iPhones. The store was packed, but no lines. When we asked about getting an iPhone, they told my friends to stand in a certain part of the store and as soon as someone qualified to sell phones was available they would come get them. There was no one ahead of them in that queue; but it took a good 10-15 mins for someone to get free.

Both got 16gb white; but the Apple employee tried to talk one of them into an 8gb based on the fact that he doesn't keep a lot of mp3 music on his phone. My friend went with white for the aesthetics, It crossed my mind to wonder whether the guy was truly trying to save my friend some money, or to manage stock levels of the more popular 16gb model for those who would walk away without one...

[noirdesir]

Here in Europe, I am still on a waiting list of my provider (but actually got an iPhone via an Apple retailer).

[Shaun, UK]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Reitzes maintains that Apple will need to target the iPod touch at a different price bracket now that the iPhone is as inexpensive as it is; the opinion gained momentum over the weekend with a detailed rumor from Digg head Kevin Rose implying that Apple would not only modify the iPod touch but slash iPod prices across the board to bring them into step with the newly discounted cellphone.

Lowering the price would be welcome, but what I'd really like to see is iPod Touch versions with more capacity to provide an alternative to the iPod Classic for those of us with large music collections. A 128Gb or more version would be ideal.

Also, now that more video content is becoming available in iTunes it would be great if there was a larger screen size option iPod Touch aswell. I'm sure a 7 or 10 inch screen version would sell well.

[markspain]

>> Apple is finally known to be getting a grip on its retail supply ... <<

Great news for someone trying to transfer their contract via celltradeusa.com or cellswapper.com. If you sell the family plan (and phone numbers) and cannot walk into an Apple store or AT&T store and immediately buy replacements, you are up the wrong kind of creek, especially when your wife learns that her cell phone does not work anymore!

Alas, if you want a case for your iPhone, you'll have a hard time comparing the offerings at an Apple store, since they keep ALL of them packaged. All are encased in plastic, and the customer cannot make a viable comparison. It can be hard to determine, with a particular case, if the screen of the iPhone will be covered or uncovered. And wouldn't you want to know how it feels IN YOUR HAND?

"Hockey puck mouse" thinking is alive and well at Apple.

[11thIndian]

I don't get all this talk of bringing the iPod Touch in line with the iPhone. The iPhone is SUBSIDIZED at that price. The iPhone still clinically costs $499/$599. Am I missing something?

[NasserAE]

I guess now it doesn't matter if SJ said they will sell 10 mil. iPhone in 2008 or by the end of 2008

[NasserAE]

Originally Posted by Shaun, UK

Lowering the price would be welcome, but what I'd really like to see is iPod Touch versions with more capacity to provide an alternative to the iPod Classic for those of us with large music collections. A 128Gb or more version would be ideal.

Also, now that more video content is becoming available in iTunes it would be great if there was a larger screen size option iPod Touch aswell. I'm sure a 7 or 10 inch screen version would sell well.

128GB!! The 128GB flash drive itself cost more than $500 and 7 to 10 inches screen is no longer an iPod. What you want is a tablet not an iPod. 7 inches iPod won't fit in your pocket as well.

You do know that iPod/iPhone movies are typically less than 500MB, don't you? My 16GB iPhone carries all my music library, photos, and 2 to 3 movies with more than 4GB free space. You don't need to have all your movies on your iPod/iPhone, you can transfer what you want when you need it.

[noirdesir]

Originally Posted by NasserAE

You do know that iPod/iPhone movies are typically less than 500MB, don't you? My 16GB iPhone carries all my music library, photos, and 2 to 3 movies with more than 4GB free space.

The average is so low because the iPod has been reaching beyond the music aficionados for quite some time now. All those people who bought the 10 to 40 GB iPods (before the iPod minis were introduced), got it because it allowed them to have all or at least most of their music with them. I would bet that five years ago the average iPod had much more music than today.

You don't need to have all your movies on your iPod/iPhone, you can transfer what you want when you need it.

How do I know what song I want to listen to the next day? My iTunes library contains 38 GB (w/o movies), 14 GB of which are on my iPhone. A 32 GB iPhone would be most welcome, and I add probably between 1-2 GB per year to it.

[Shaun, UK]

Originally Posted by NasserAE

128GB!! The 128GB flash drive itself cost more than $500 and 7 to 10 inches screen is no longer an iPod. What you want is a tablet not an iPod. 7 inches iPod won't fit in your pocket as well.

You do know that iPod/iPhone movies are typically less than 500MB, don't you? My 16GB iPhone carries all my music library, photos, and 2 to 3 movies with more than 4GB free space. You don't need to have all your movies on your iPod/iPhone, you can transfer what you want when you need it.

I didn't know flash memory was that expensive but hopefully prices will fall as production increases (it's usually how it works). Maybe a 64Gb version would be more realistic for this year. Maybe we could have a 5" iPod Touch option and a 7"/10" Mac Tablet. I've seen a few 5" media players around which look ok.

The only problem with jumping from the current iPod Touch to a Mac Tablet is cost. How much would a Mac Tablet cost? I don't need all that functionality. I just want to watch the odd movie on my travels. Ideally we need both options to cater for everyone's needs.

[noirdesir]

Originally Posted by 11thIndian

I don't get all this talk of bringing the iPod Touch in line with the iPhone. The iPhone is SUBSIDIZED at that price. The iPhone still clinically costs $499/$599. Am I missing something?

In my country, they even sell it for $1250 w/o a contract (but still SIM-locked).

[dasein]

Originally Posted by 11thIndian

I don't get all this talk of bringing the iPod Touch in line with the iPhone. The iPhone is SUBSIDIZED at that price. The iPhone still clinically costs $499/$599. Am I missing something?

True, but I think they're worried about the iPhone cannibalizing the iPod line. Since most people MUST sign a contract with a cell phone deal anyway, why not just get an iPod included not only in the same deal but the same item. Otherwise, now you've got two items to always carry around with you...unless it was reasonably cheaper.

[noirdesir]

Originally Posted by dasein

Otherwise, now you've got two items to always carry around with you...unless it was reasonably cheaper.

I think it was clear from the beginning of the iPod that once phones become as good as iPods in handling music, the iPods would disappear from the scene (except for those people not carrying a cell phone at all or not carrying a cell phone all the time, eg, while doing sports).

The same will be true for the low end market of cameras. For sure, there are limits to size minimisation (eg, photon count noise) and user interface advantages about having custom, physical controls.

[nagromme]

I doubt they can drop the Touch THAT much, since AT&T isn't covering it to the tune of hundreds of dollars of subsidies. Hundreds. Apple can't just absorb that to make Touch "seem" to be priced in line with the iPhone. (Which of course it isn't: no monthly plan means it's already far cheaper.)

But nearly everything drops in price with time, and I expect the Touch to get SOME price drop at least.

I also still really like the Touch for being thinner, shorter top-to-bottom, and coming in 32 GB. If they add HD models (dumping the Classic) then that too will be a reason to keep selling them.

[foobar]

Originally Posted by 11thIndian

I don't get all this talk of bringing the iPod Touch in line with the iPhone. The iPhone is SUBSIDIZED at that price. The iPhone still clinically costs $499/$599. Am I missing something?

Exactly. It would be plain stupid for Apple to compete with itself like this. They should be happy about everyone who buys the "cheaper" iPhone, and lets the telcos pay the difference. Why would they eat the difference themselves?

Of course they will lower prices slightly. Flash prices have dropped. But no giant price cuts...

[wizard69]

Originally Posted by Shaun, UK

Lowering the price would be welcome, but what I'd really like to see is iPod Touch versions with more capacity to provide an alternative to the iPod Classic for those of us with large music collections. A 128Gb or more version would be ideal.

Also, now that more video content is becoming available in iTunes it would be great if there was a larger screen size option iPod Touch aswell. I'm sure a 7 or 10 inch screen version would sell well.

As currently configured I don't think Apple has much of a choice but to lower the price on the low end Touches. The problem then becomes what do they do to the Touch that would alllow for a lower price and still be acceptable to consumers. In other words I hope that they don't remove to much functionality or performance.

Taking that into consideration I do believe that Appl needs a model in the current price range that addresses a number of wants and needs. That would be capacity, analog in along with out, bluetooth and USB. In other words I have nothing against a low cost Touch but I do want something at the higher end that expands on the whole concept.

As to the larger Touch that should also be a big priority at Apple. But there is no way a 7-10 device should be a member of the Touch family of devices. At that size you might as well deliver a complete OS. No what I'm talking about here is growing the current iPhone by an inch or so in length and maybe three quarters in hieght. Yeah the idea is to be able to play movies beter but let's face it Touches need to be very portable devices. If it can't live in a pocket or on a belt it might as well be a Mac OS device. Also with the way integration is going the Touches won't need to get larger to solve our capacity and I/O needs; it is rather a human factors need in the larger screen. More area just makes view movies more rewarding as it does when it comes to interaction on the web. You just can't give up portability though or you don't have an iPod.


Dave

[mdriftmeyer]

Originally Posted by Shaun, UK

I didn't know flash memory was that expensive but hopefully prices will fall as production increases (it's usually how it works). Maybe a 64Gb version would be more realistic for this year. Maybe we could have a 5" iPod Touch option and a 7"/10" Mac Tablet. I've seen a few 5" media players around which look ok.

The only problem with jumping from the current iPod Touch to a Mac Tablet is cost. How much would a Mac Tablet cost? I don't need all that functionality. I just want to watch the odd movie on my travels. Ideally we need both options to cater for everyone's needs.

By the end of 2009.

[Booga]

Originally Posted by Shaun, UK

I didn't know flash memory was that expensive but hopefully prices will fall as production increases (it's usually how it works). Maybe a 64Gb version would be more realistic for this year. Maybe we could have a 5" iPod Touch option and a 7"/10" Mac Tablet. I've seen a few 5" media players around which look ok.

The only problem with jumping from the current iPod Touch to a Mac Tablet is cost. How much would a Mac Tablet cost? I don't need all that functionality. I just want to watch the odd movie on my travels. Ideally we need both options to cater for everyone's needs.

A hard-disk based touch would be very reasonable today. But it wouldn't be slim and sexy, so probably won't happen.

[NasserAE]

Originally Posted by noirdesir

The average is so low because the iPod has been reaching beyond the music aficionados for quite some time now. All those people who bought the 10 to 40 GB iPods (before the iPod minis were introduced), got it because it allowed them to have all or at least most of their music with them. I would bet that five years ago the average iPod had much more music than today.


How do I know what song I want to listen to the next day? My iTunes library contains 38 GB (w/o movies), 14 GB of which are on my iPhone. A 32 GB iPhone would be most welcome, and I add probably between 1-2 GB per year to it.

I was talking about movies. I doubt you watch the same movie on your iPod/iPhone everyday if you even watch a movie everyday. I agree that 32GB is welcome but I was responding to someone who wanted a 128GB iPod Touch, which I think won't happen anytime soon.

iTunes have a very nice feature that enable you to sort songs by play count. I used it few times when with my 8GB iPhone to deselect songs that I have never rarely play.

[mello]

Originally Posted by NasserAE

128GB!! The 128GB flash drive itself cost more than $500 and 7 to 10 inches screen is no longer an iPod. What you want is a tablet not an iPod. 7 inches iPod won't fit in your pocket as well.

You do know that iPod/iPhone movies are typically less than 500MB, don't you? My 16GB iPhone carries all my music library, photos, and 2 to 3 movies with more than 4GB free space. You don't need to have all your movies on your iPod/iPhone, you can transfer what you want when you need it.

I got that beat. I have seasons 1-3 of Arrested Development, seasons 1 & 2 of the Venture Brothers,
The Incredibles & Office Space on my iPhone. Along with my photos, music, podcasts, & 48 apps.
I still have 2 1/2gigs available on my white iPhone.

Best friggin' phone I ever had!

[BrianH]

Originally Posted by Shaun, UK

L what I'd really like to see is iPod Touch versions with more capacity to provide an alternative to the iPod Classic for those of us with large music collections. A 128Gb or more version would be ideal.

Check out the iPhone (iTouch?) app "Simplify" at the App store. It will stream your large music collection to your iPhone (iTouch over WiFi?) without the need to store it in your mobile device. Works wherever you can access the Internet. This is COOL!!

Now you only need enough memory to hold that small set of music that you might want when you can't connect - on an airplane, e.g. And if you think that we're heading towards ubiquitous internet access, even that small amount of memory won't be needed.

[noirdesir]

Originally Posted by NasserAE

I was talking about movies.

Sorry, my fault. I conveniently overlooked that despite quoting you almost sentence by sentenc.

iTunes have a very nice feature that enable you to sort songs by play count. I used it few times when with my 8GB iPhone to deselect songs that I have never rarely play.

Yes, that makes a 16 GB iPod (ehm, iPhone) bearable. Mine is set to a play count of three or more or a play count of two + at least a 2-star rating + all new music from the last six months to give new stuff a fighting chance.

[winterspan]

Originally Posted by Shaun, UK

Lowering the price would be welcome, but what I'd really like to see is iPod Touch versions with more capacity to provide an alternative to the iPod Classic for those of us with large music collections. A 128Gb or more version would be ideal.

Also, now that more video content is becoming available in iTunes it would be great if there was a larger screen size option iPod Touch aswell. I'm sure a 7 or 10 inch screen version would sell well.

128GB of flash and a 10" screen?? Woah, are we living in dream land... Do you know how much that would cost? Not to mention, something that big wouldn't be an iPod. It would be a tablet of some kind.
If you don't care about the internet part of the iPod touch, then you should really look into a harddrive based video player with a 4-6" screen. I believe Archos is a popular brand, and there are many other..

[winterspan]

Originally Posted by BrianH

Check out the iPhone (iTouch?) app "Simplify" at the App store. It will stream your large music collection to your iPhone (iTouch over WiFi?) without the need to store it in your mobile device. Works wherever you can access the Internet. This is COOL!!

Now you only need enough memory to hold that small set of music that you might want when you can't connect - on an airplane, e.g. And if you think that we're heading towards ubiquitous internet access, even that small amount of memory won't be needed.

Although this could work in certain situations for different people, there are some problems to think about:

1) Wifi on an iPod/iPhone, and *especially* 3G/UMTS on an iPhone sucks down battery power much faster than playing a music file from the local storage.
2) Many places where you would be listening to music, you can't get a cell signal.

[macarena]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Reitzes maintains that Apple will need to target the iPod touch at a different price bracket now that the iPhone is as inexpensive as it is; the opinion gained momentum over the weekend with a detailed rumor from Digg head Kevin Rose implying that Apple would not only modify the iPod touch but slash iPod prices across the board to bring them into step with the newly discounted cellphone.

Add an IR Transceiver - if people like using the iPhone, iPod as WiFi remotes, how much more happier would they be, to use the iPod Touch as an IR Remote?

I think just adding this one item would make the iPod Touch differentiated enough for people to justify buying the Touch, even if they already have an iPhone - and buying it at current prices, without any price cuts from Apple.

Of course, this would end up "breaking" the app store - because some devices would be IR capable, and some wouldn't be. But the next upgrade to the 3G can support IR - for transferring contacts, etc. And the same IR capability can be used for remotes.

Today, a decent Universal remote is about $200 at least. And a good one is over $300 USD. And the best one today, would not be anywhere near as good as a half decent app on the iPhone.

The hardware itself is very small, and can be easily integrated into the Touch. Would not change profile of the phone, or the battery consumption. It is a no-brainer for Apple to do this.

Another thing Apple can do with the touch, is to make it a full blown wireless multi-touch pad for the Mac. This would work especially well with the Mac Mini (when used as an entertainment center, hooked up to a TV), and for the Apple TV. Basically, whatever App is active on the Mac, it can be controlled by Multi-touch gestures from the Touch. Of course, whenever a keyboard is required, it will serve as a keyboard too.

A low end Touch, with just 128MB Flash, and sold for 149 USD could be marketed very effectively - so each home could find a need for several of these devices - one for each room, or even more! Everything from reading recipes in the kitchen, to controlling TV, music, air con, lights, etc - can be done from the Touch. Down the road, this can also be integrated into home automation systems. Wouldn't you just love to use multi-touch gestures to open the blinds!

Today X10 pretty much owns the home automation business. But only a very small portion of the geek crowd even considers serious home automation. If Apple were to be the 800 lb gorrilla in this business, you can be sure home automation would take off - firstly because Apple would make it simple and convenient, and secondly because Apple can make sure that anything it does, gets a lot of attention. If they can jump into the pool with sharks like Nokia and RIM, when it comes to the mobile business, the home automation business should be a walk in the park for them. Plus they should design the software interface to be available only from the Mac -- that is the kind of app that will force even the diehard Windows users to consider the Mac.

Apple has built a lot of impressive pieces of hardware. But if they can manage to combine all these impressive bits, then the sum of parts could be even more impressive.

Imagine -- iMac/Mac Pro based home computer, center of the entertainment/automation universe in your home, Multiple iPod Touch access units, throughout your home - to be used as wireless remotes, home automation controllers, etc. iPhone to be used as controller when you are out of the home (using BackToMyMac VPN networking), Apple TV as the end point to feed content into your TV.

I guess this could be called the iDream!

[hillstones]

Originally Posted by NasserAE

You do know that iPod/iPhone movies are typically less than 500MB, don't you? My 16GB iPhone carries all my music library, photos, and 2 to 3 movies with more than 4GB free space. You don't need to have all your movies on your iPod/iPhone, you can transfer what you want when you need it.

Your movies must look pretty lousy if you are compressing them down to 500MB. The default setting on Handbrake for iPhone/iTouch averages 1 GB for a 2 hour movie. Also, you must have a very small music collection if you have your entire collection with photos and 3 movies with 4 GB to spare. Most users have a music, video, and photo collection that far exceeds the capacity of the 16 GB iPhone. I would love to have a 128 GB (or more) iPhone or iPod Touch. My iPod 160 GB Classic carries the entire collection and my 16 GB iPhone carries a portion of music, movies, music videos, and photos.

[hillstones]

Originally Posted by Booga

A hard-disk based touch would be very reasonable today. But it wouldn't be slim and sexy, so probably won't happen.

It wouldn't be any thicker than the current iPod classic and those are already slim and sexy. The hard drives in the iPods are very small.

[hillstones]

Originally Posted by winterspan

Although this could work in certain situations for different people, there are some problems to think about:

1) Wifi on an iPod/iPhone, and *especially* 3G/UMTS on an iPhone sucks down battery power much faster than playing a music file from the local storage.
2) Many places where you would be listening to music, you can't get a cell signal.

Where do you go to listen to music where you don't get a cell signal? Underground hole? Whenever I listen to music, I always have a cell signal, unless it is an airplane.

[NasserAE]

Originally Posted by hillstones

Your movies must look pretty lousy if you are compressing them down to 500MB. The default setting on Handbrake for iPhone/iTouch averages 1 GB for a 2 hour movie. Also, you must have a very small music collection if you have your entire collection with photos and 3 movies with 4 GB to spare. Most users have a music, video, and photo collection that far exceeds the capacity of the 16 GB iPhone. I would love to have a 128 GB (or more) iPhone or iPod Touch. My iPod 160 GB Classic carries the entire collection and my 16 GB iPhone carries a portion of music, movies, music videos, and photos.

You don't need to have high quality setting for a 3.5 inch screen. I use VisualHub with bit-rate of 500 kbps and default iPhone setting. Anything more than that is waste of space if you want to watch it on your iPhone or iPod. I will email you a sample if you want, just private me your email.

Yes my music collection is very small compared to other mostly due to HD crashed when I used PCs over the years. What I have now is what's left.

[mello]

Originally Posted by hillstones

Your movies must look pretty lousy if you are compressing them down to 500MB. The default setting on Handbrake for iPhone/iTouch averages 1 GB for a 2 hour movie. Also, you must have a very small music collection if you have your entire collection with photos and 3 movies with 4 GB to spare. Most users have a music, video, and photo collection that far exceeds the capacity of the 16 GB iPhone. I would love to have a 128 GB (or more) iPhone or iPod Touch. My iPod 160 GB Classic carries the entire collection and my 16 GB iPhone carries a portion of music, movies, music videos, and photos.

I did a little test with handbrake by ripping Pixar's, "The Incredibles" multiple times with different
bitrates. I made versions with the average bitrates set at 1000kbps, 750kbps, 500kbps, 400kbps,
& 250kbps. When I viewed them on my iPhone I noticed jpeg artifacts at 400kbps & lower.