or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple predicted to introduce lower cost iPhone models in June
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple predicted to introduce lower cost iPhone models in June - Page 2

post #41 of 82
Who is this moron blowing to keep her job?
post #42 of 82
iPhones aren't $99 and this article just repeats the same line Apple said at the time. In many markets that aren't so contractually moribund, the actual walk-away price is about $600-700.

The $99 is just a magic but total BS number prepared by marketing that neither Apple or the carrier are going to let you have the phone for.
post #43 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by eAi View Post

There's a massive market of young people who can't afford the cost of an iPhone, and more importantly it's contract. These are traditionally a big market for the iPod, so it'd make sense to try to get a phone that could be approaching the iPod Touch's price - hard, but not impossible.

It would be AT&T that would need to budge more than Apple. Apple *could* drop their price to AT&T some, but would AT&T be willing to pass that along?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roc Ingersol View Post

Lowering handset price further makes no sense. As mentioned, specials already hit $50. Taking that down to $0 is going to have a limited effect.

What would help, is offering the iPad's 250MB/mo data plan on the iPhone. My guess is AT&T really doesn't want to do that though, as most iPhone owners are going to be under 250MB/mo, so they'd be leaving $15/mo on the table.

I would benefit from a $15 250MB/mo plan. My phone shows 45MB of use of data since mid-December. Even if that's off by a factor of 5x (seems unlikely), I would be well within the plan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iGuessSo View Post

I know it's silly to choose a non-iPhone because the handset is $50 or $100 less when you're facing several thousand dollars of contract fees, but based on my experience running a cell phone store a few years ago, that's exactly what many many people do.

Going for a non-iPhone might mean going for a non-smartphone too, that's where the biggest savings would be, if not going for a prepaid plan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

First of all, no one is accessing these sites on an iPad. It hasn't shipped yet.

True, but I don't know how that changes it. That person probably mentioned it because, despite not being released, we already know isn't going to fundamentally change how the site in question works, the biggest reason being no flash.

Quote:
While you can access Facebook on an iPhone via a dedicated app, there is still a large number of users accessing the site from Internet Explorer on a Windows box.

You can use the main Facebook site on Safari. Just not the games and videos.
post #44 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post

So the 3Gs is the more popular of the two models despite the higher price; therefore Apple should release a cheaper phone. The logic simply doesn't match the data.

I agree it's more about the data plan pricing than anything else, however I thought contracts in countries other than the US were generally allot less expensive comparatively. So obviously she's only talking about the US or is she somehow using US data to extrapolate international pricing?

I agree, this analyst is way off base. A sub $99 phone doesn't seem like a good fit for a premium brand like Apple.

You'd probably sell allot of Mercedes sub $20k too, but you don't see it happening.

Also, I'm tired of people who say flash is a must. I don't even use flash on my desktop or laptop anymore. Why would anyone want it on their mobil? All I can gather is that anyone who cries about flash watches way too much porn. As far as games go; flash games are horrendous, not designed for touch UI's and there are far better games (even at .99) Apple would rather you buy from their store and support their developers.

I suppose lack of flash killed the Nintendo DS and the PSP as well? Please explain to me what flash games and video content are so important, because I can't find anything that I'd want to use that's flash based, let alone a flash based something or other that is a "must". I truly want to know what you guys are talking about because it's beyond me. Perhaps the naysayers would understand your perspective if you told us what you "must have" that you cannot without flash.

i take it you don't have any kids

and apple with all the cheapo stuff they sell at wal mart has stopped being a premium brand a long time ago
post #45 of 82
I don't think price is a key. Many of my friends that cried about the price acted odd when the $99 model was released, they bought the 3gs. I suspect it is human nature not to grab the lowest model. In the end, price had little to do with the decision.

I do agree there should be a family data plan.
post #46 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by doyourownthing View Post

not every person lives in the us

an unsubsidized iphone is very expensive, specially in developing countries

Yes, and even in the US it is nice to load the whole family with phones. The iPhone doesn't lend itself to that task very well price-wise. Blackberry, on the other hand, had a 2 for 1 deal that was simply great and propelled their market share. If I can get them for $50 a piece then that would be dandy.
post #47 of 82
I completely disagree of Apple iPad success, iPad as it is is so limited that in my opinion won't sell much, it as no USB, it just can't run two apps on the same time, so no messenger or itunes while surfing the net, it's just ridiculous, no camera for video call, no Java, no Flash, wow, for what do you really need it?

For what do I need such huge GPS? Can't even get it on my network free Holliday House because it's network dependent!

For me it's just a very expensive Digital Photo Frame!

And for the money it sells I can get so much better!!!
post #48 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

i take it you don't have any kids

and apple with all the cheapo stuff they sell at wal mart has stopped being a premium brand a long time ago

Just because they sell cheapish iPods in Walmart does not support your conclusion at all. First, those iPods are still expensive vs. the competition (Sandisk etc.) so within the Walmart ecosystem, they are still absolutely premium. You can't count the flood of cheap iPod accessories made by other people (cases, cables, speakers etc.) - that has no bearing on the premium nature of Apple stuff.
Secondarily, all the data around >$1000 computers - Apple owns that market. That is the very definition of the premium market for the industry Apple is in. I bet Apple owns the >$2000, and >$5000 markets too. It used to be that Corporations bought $3000 laptops for road warriors but these days, the standard roadwarrior laptops (e.g. a Lenovo T410/510) are costing about $1000 or less in bulk.

Apple is the very definition of a premium brand by all metrics for its industry - yep - it ain't Rolex with very limited distribution and sky high absolute prices but for its market (music players/phones/computers) it is THE premium brand. In general, Rolex owners will own Macs (probably at the high end) since there is a perception that Apple is THE premium computer brand. What else - premium gaming rigs, high end media PCs? All small beer...

Sorry if you were being sarcastic -couldn't tell
post #49 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltWater View Post

I completely disagree of Apple iPad success, iPad as it is is so limited that in my opinion won't sell much, it as no USB, it just can't run two apps on the same time, so no messenger or itunes while surfing the net, it's just ridiculous, no camera for video call, no Java, no Flash, wow, for what do you really need it?

For what do I need such huge GPS? Can't even get it on my network free Holliday House because it's network dependent!

For me it's just a very expensive Digital Photo Frame!

And for the money it sells I can get so much better!!!

This has been covered ad infinitum in so many other posts - don't beat a dead horse. Your opinion is just yours and makes no difference to the overall market perception of the iPad.

Whether you buy one or not has no bearing on success in the broader market where there are 100 non-technical/casual/style-driven potential buyers for everyone like you or me. That is the iPad target market and it will probably sell like hotcakes to that much larger market.

Just leave it alone - it is just not interesting any more and about 4 weeks late...
post #50 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ Web View Post

Who is this moron blowing to keep her job?

I have often thought the same thing...

The data is pathetic (2008???). Depending on when in 2008, the iPhone was not in many markets, where it was it was often unsubsidized e.g. US until June 2008 and had super premium pricing even where subsidized to the early adopters.
These days, the iPhone is free with a decent post-paid contract (e.g. in the UK/France) and well subsidized with a low (20GBP per month) contract.

However it is better to be lucky than good... as some have noted, in pre-paid markets, the iPhone is still super-expensive because it is a high-priced piece of kit under the subsidy but that is constantly improving too. NOTE - the iPhone is not crazy expensive vs. the competition in the unlocked market - high end BBs, and even POS Nokia N-series also cost hundreds of $s and most high-end Android phones are only just trickling to the unlocked market and command similarly high prices (see Google N1 unlocked).

However, as China is showing, there is still a sizeable market even in developing countries for premium phones and as iPhone costs fall (as they do every quarter), and incomes rise there will continue to be more aggressive pricing, particularly off contract. Remember, Apple succeeds on its margins, not its market share - they won't sacrifice those (quite rightly) to grow volumes since you can never get those $s back.
post #51 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

I know we probably don't have any real investment types visiting this forum but I would like to know if analysts like this Huberty suffer any consequences when their predictions and models prove to be wrong. It would seem that investors who make their buy/sell decisions based on analyst's reports would be impacted negatively by bad information. For example, Huberty has turned a 180 on Apple. Now she thinks it's the cat's meow. So what about those Morgan Stanley customers who lost out on Apple's big run up? Do they complain to Huberty's boss or file lawsuits for incompetence?

Consequences to those on Wall Street for misleading people or causing financial losses? Are you new here?
post #52 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capnbob View Post

Just because they sell cheapish iPods in Walmart does not support your conclusion at all. First, those iPods are still expensive vs. the competition (Sandisk etc.) so within the Walmart ecosystem, they are still absolutely premium. You can't count the flood of cheap iPod accessories made by other people (cases, cables, speakers etc.) - that has no bearing on the premium nature of Apple stuff.
Secondarily, all the data around >$1000 computers - Apple owns that market. That is the very definition of the premium market for the industry Apple is in. I bet Apple owns the >$2000, and >$5000 markets too. It used to be that Corporations bought $3000 laptops for road warriors but these days, the standard roadwarrior laptops (e.g. a Lenovo T410/510) are costing about $1000 or less in bulk.

Apple is the very definition of a premium brand by all metrics for its industry - yep - it ain't Rolex with very limited distribution and sky high absolute prices but for its market (music players/phones/computers) it is THE premium brand. In general, Rolex owners will own Macs (probably at the high end) since there is a perception that Apple is THE premium computer brand. What else - premium gaming rigs, high end media PCs? All small beer...

Sorry if you were being sarcastic -couldn't tell


the iPod Shuffle starts at $59 just like all the cheapo MP3 players out there. Apple is selling cheapo stuff because that's how competitors start to take your marketshare. that's how MS drove everyone else out of business. NT 4 was cheap and good enough for everyone. Now Windows Server 2008 R2 is finally getting features that UNIX has had for years.
post #53 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbonner View Post

I don't think price is a key. Many of my friends that cried about the price acted odd when the $99 model was released, they bought the 3gs. I suspect it is human nature not to grab the lowest model. In the end, price had little to do with the decision.

I do agree there should be a family data plan.

i tell this to people. the difference over 2 years between a 3GS and a 3G is $100 to $200 depending on which on you get. it's not worth it buying a 3G since the monthly cost is the same.
post #54 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

I'm disappointed that you are unable to see this yourself, but there are two sites on the Internet that drive the use of Flash: YouTube and FaceBook.

It will be years before HTML5 can pry the cold claws of Flash off the face of the Internet (especially on the desktop), but hopefully the lack of Flash on mobile devices will accelerate this transition.

Hmm... As far as I know, Google has completely revamped its YouTube so that it will work with the iPhone and iPod Touch -- so that its videos may be viewed without Flash.

Similarly, Facebook has created its site so that it will work with the iPhone and other iPhone OS based mobile products. In fact many commercial sites. e.g., NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Baseball, etc. as well as non-commercial sites have developed Apps so that their site contents will be viewed in iPhone OS mobile products.

Commercial sites will not ignore the much more well off owners of iPhone and other iPhone OS products. It will be what will force them to change. just to reach these audience.

A friend if mine is "addicted" to YouTube, and does most of her "internet" interaction now via her iPhone, and never complained that there were sites she could not view because the iPhone has no Flash. More than likely, she would blame a site for not "working" if it will not show up properly. And she will just browse another site.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

Yes, FaceBook games are enormously popular and some of them are highly profitable. That's why Flash is so important on that site.

For YouTube, yes, I realize that there is h.264 support and the content is accessible in a variety of ways from a variety of hardware and browser platforms, but most desktop computer users are still visiting the site with Internet Explorer on a Windows machine. They will need Flash for a considerable amount of time.

Just a few years ago, Yahoo sites were the most popular destinations, they no longer are. In fact, Yahoo finally buried the last remnants of its greatest investment of around $4billion acquisition sometime in late 1990s -- Geocities, if ever heard of it -- because they did not innovate.

Sites do change to adjust to technological changes that they think is the future direction of any industry or field of endeavor. Even Microsoft has announced recently that it will revamp its "mobile computing" software completely because its prior Mobile 6.5, which it insists is a very popular system is losing many of the companies that make mobile devices.

So nothing is permanent. They will change if it is the direction of the future. If not, they will be doomed.

"One more thing"... Apple's main intention is not to be the most popular product, it has never its main intention to reach everyone... its main intention is to make a good product to reach those that matter and make a lot of money in the end. That is why they have more than $40billion cash and no debt.

Tell me a company that can make a similar state of health, as a company.

CGC
post #55 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capnbob View Post

This has been covered ad infinitum in so many other posts - don't beat a dead horse. Your opinion is just yours and makes no difference to the overall market perception of the iPad.

Whether you buy one or not has no bearing on success in the broader market where there are 100 non-technical/casual/style-driven potential buyers for everyone like you or me. That is the iPad target market and it will probably sell like hotcakes to that much larger market.

Just leave it alone - it is just not interesting any more and about 4 weeks late...

In other words, if Apple thinks it's right, it's right according to Apple Insider forum posters. If Apple doesn't offer it, then you don't need it and your a fool to even want it, right? Matte Screen, Flash, Blu Ray, MMS, Verizon, etc etc.

If Apple wants to sell more iPhones, they could lower the price. Or they could try opening the phone up to other carriers. But as you say, that has been covered ad infinitum in so many other posts.
post #56 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyingSun View Post

I find it quite funny when I see US customers complaining about the iPhone's price. Do you have any idea how much you have to pay for a 32Gb 3GS over here (Portugal)? 700! That's around $950!!! You may eventually get a deal (with a new contract) for about 400, but that's still $550, almost twice as much as in the US.

So don't tell us, in Europe at least, about the iPhone being expensive...

Acabei de voltar de la... sim vida esta cara. Mesmo assim o pessoal vive bem e nao vi ninguem a viver na rua.
post #57 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post

Hmm... As far as I know, Google has completely revamped its YouTube so that it will work with the iPhone and iPod Touch -- so that its videos may be viewed without Flash.

Similarly, Facebook has created its site so that it will work with the iPhone and other iPhone OS based mobile products. In fact many commercial sites. e.g., NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Baseball, etc. as well as non-commercial sites have developed Apps so that their site contents will be viewed in iPhone OS mobile products.

Commercial sites will not ignore the much more well off owners of iPhone and other iPhone OS products. It will be what will force them to change. just to reach these audience.

A friend if mine is "addicted" to YouTube, and does most of her "internet" interaction now via her iPhone, and never complained that there were sites she could not view because the iPhone has no Flash. More than likely, she would blame a site for not "working" if it will not show up properly. And she will just browse another site.



Just a few years ago, Yahoo sites were the most popular destinations, they no longer are. Sites do change to adjust to technological changes that they think is the future direction of any industry or field of endeavor. Even Microsoft has announced recently that it will revamp its "mobile computing" software completely because its prior Mobile 6.5, which it insists is a very popular system is losing many of the companies that make mobile devices.

So nothing is permanent. They will change if it is the direction of the future. If not, they will be doomed.

"One more thing"... Apple's main intention is not to be the most popular product, it has never its main intention to reach everyone... its main intention is to make a good product to reach those that matter and make a lot of money in the end. That is why they have more than $40billion cash and no debt.

Tell me a company that can make a similar state of health, as a company.

CGC

demographically the US is in a baby boom. every kid website requires flash. going forward every smartphone is going to need flash since kids will be using it
post #58 of 82
No, it's the lack of multitasking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OnePotato View Post

I though the biggest barrier to greater iPhone adoption was it's inability to play Flash video or games.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #59 of 82
SOME Facebook games are Flash based, I play Mafia Wars from an iPhone quite a lot and there are quite a few things you can do with Farmville without loading the Flash components.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

Yes, FaceBook games are enormously popular and some of them are highly profitable. That's why Flash is so important on that site.

For YouTube, yes, I realize that there is h.264 support and the content is accessible in a variety of ways from a variety of hardware and browser platforms, but most desktop computer users are still visiting the site with Internet Explorer on a Windows machine. They will need Flash for a considerable amount of time.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #60 of 82
It won't sell well to SOME geeks <5% of the overall market.

Enjoy your generic Win 7 netbook.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltWater View Post

I completely disagree of Apple iPad success, iPad as it is is so limited that in my opinion won't sell much, it as no USB, it just can't run two apps on the same time, so no messenger or itunes while surfing the net, it's just ridiculous, no camera for video call, no Java, no Flash, wow, for what do you really need it?

For what do I need such huge GPS? Can't even get it on my network free Holliday House because it's network dependent!

For me it's just a very expensive Digital Photo Frame!

And for the money it sells I can get so much better!!!
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #61 of 82
The past quality of Huberty's AAPL analysis speaks for itself. For first quarter fiscal 2010, her estimate vs. actual was 18% low for EPS and 15% low for iPod unit volume. In those categories they were the furthest off among 20 Wall Street analysts.

http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune....eets-big-miss/

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply
post #62 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

demographically the US is in a baby boom. every kid website requires flash. going forward every smartphone is going to need flash since kids will be using it

One thing we must never ignore is the dynamism of technology: What is considered the norm yesterday may not be the standard today, as today's cannot be guaranteed to still be prevalent in the future.

Where is IBM's card puching computing these days (once the standard of mainframe comouting).. Where is DOS these days, once thhe standard of MIcrosoft system. Why did Microsoft accept defeat and decided to start anew instead of insisting that its once mighty Mobile OS for the mobile computing is still relevant?

Even the incandescent bulb -- which for more than a century. is the standard way of lighting -- is on its way out. People may want to light their home, but no, they will not iosist on keeping the incandescent bulb as the way of the future, simply because it is the "universal standard" today. The telegraph technology was once the standard but already phased out.

The other thing is for competing technologies to "co-exist" sometimes almost foreover -- film, radio, television and internet and other multimedia -- as sources of information and entertainment. Sometimes, such competition lead to the demise of one system over another. At times, it is not even the "superior technology" that would survive, because of the impact of other market forces and human prejudices.


The average person may not know, or even if they do, they may not care less what technology they use. Take the case of social networking sites for example. Once it was AOL Inow almost viritually non-existent) Once it was Geocities in the late 1990's up to early 20000s (where's Geocities now?), then MySpace, then now FaceBook. Do you think they will exxist "foreover"?

As to people and internet sites. It is more their experience when visiting a siteer that matt. As to kids of today, if I am not mistaken, they are the major consumers of iPods, and You Tube, and Apple Apps, and visitors of Facebook, Baseball's MLB, etc. All these sites have deemed it prudent to make sure that their sites are compatible with the iPhone OS -- no Flash already for almost three years and counting.

Why do these commercial and non-commerccial sites (like BBC, PBS, etc) "waste" their time porting to iPhone OS?

Why don't these companies and institutions not use their clout to insist that Flash be made a "standard", like many of your kind seem to suggest? Two simple reasons. Flash is proprietary. And more important, rightly or wrongly, no one can ignore the more than 120 million iTunes "card" members and the more than 70 million iPhone and iPod Touch owners -- soon to be increased further by the incoming iPad owners.

Thus, if they do not ignore the more "affluent" Apple products consumers, then these companies, organizations, institutions must create alternative sites that are compatible with a system that will not accept Flash. Note that these sites did not dismantle their "Flash" rich sites. They just provided alternative modes of viewing the same content -- much like they will provide alternative sites for other mobile computing devices -- if they think they will make money doing so.

Will these guarantee that the iPhone OS will rule "foreover"? NO.

If all of you who seem to parrot the mantra about "Flash" or whatever technology you wish to espouse fully realize these, you may realize how foolish to be making such "pontifications", e.g., "Flash is universal", as I often read here and in many sites.


Nothing is constant like the inevitability of change..

CGC
post #63 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

Cost is the greatest barrier? Cheapskates can get refurb'd models for sub-$100. Hell, Best Buy had 16GB 3GS phones for $50 this week.

http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1882030

Total cost (including contract) was barrier for me. I don't talk much on the phone so the total talk/data price is just extortive in my case. So I am using a pay as you go dumb phone and an iPod Touch for data wherever wifi is available. If Apple/ATT want me as an iPhone customer, they have some price trimming to do.
post #64 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

First of all, no one is accessing these sites on an iPad. It hasn't shipped yet.

While you can access Facebook on an iPhone via a dedicated app, there is still a large number of users accessing the site from Internet Explorer on a Windows box.

My comments are about Flash technology in general, not about Flash on a specific platform or device.

One thing to bear in mind is that Facebook isn't in the Flash business, they're in the user eyeball business. If a non-trivial number of those users are on devices that don't do Flash, Facebook will accommodate them (there have already been some remarks to that effect from the Facebook people).


This isn't a repeat of the Mac platform being obliged to conform to "industry" (read, Windows) norms, because their small market share meant the industry was unlikely to oblige them. The iPhone/iPod Touch/(soon to be)iPad juggernaut has an enormous and growing online presence. It won't be long before there are hundreds of millions of users of these devices, and Facebook isn't going to simply write off hundreds of millions of potential customers.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #65 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

the iPod Shuffle starts at $59 just like all the cheapo MP3 players out there. Apple is selling cheapo stuff because that's how competitors start to take your marketshare. that's how MS drove everyone else out of business. NT 4 was cheap and good enough for everyone. Now Windows Server 2008 R2 is finally getting features that UNIX has had for years.

Al, give up already. You have no argument even at Walmart. The iPod shuffle is the only "cheap" thing Apple sells and even that is 2-3x the price of the equivalents at WalMart - see the Coby and GPX equivalents sold there ($19 and $25). The ematics nano clone is $28.

One could argue that no brand on sale at Walmart can be premium but it is hard to ignore a retailer with sales of $400Bn per year - Sony can't and nor can Apple - but both only at the lowest end of their ranges. Neither are hurt in their overall brand dynamics and value - just like it doesn't hurt Armani to have lower ranges (AX, AJ etc.) and outlet stores - all part of basic price discrimination. Buy a shuffle in WalMart and save up for a basic MacBook later... I've seen it happen - Macs are very aspirational.
post #66 of 82
Not this crap again. Every spring.
post #67 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerseymac View Post

In other words, if Apple thinks it's right, it's right according to Apple Insider forum posters. If Apple doesn't offer it, then you don't need it and your a fool to even want it, right? Matte Screen, Flash, Blu Ray, MMS, Verizon, etc etc.

If Apple wants to sell more iPhones, they could lower the price. Or they could try opening the phone up to other carriers. But as you say, that has been covered ad infinitum in so many other posts.

No it has nothing to do with what either of us say - the market will decide - we just have different views of the market.

As for selling more - again - ad infinitum... Apple only wants to sell more at its exceptional margins - that is not opinion but fact based on everything they've done since the first iMac. They do competitively price most things against direct competition but of course no-one prices them against that but vs. nearly equivalent but cheaper things e.g. Q-core desktops vs. Xeon workstations, 4.5lb aluminum laptops vs. 5.5lb plastic ones etc.
The market decides and has clearly endorsed Apple's strategy by making it the most successful PC and CE company of the moment (in growth, profitability, segment share, etc.). Dell and HP may sell more units but would kill for Apple's margins since that is what drives stock price and investment capability (cash piles).
For all the things you mention there are solid reasons - ones you or I could argue against but not invalidate them from Apple's POV.
1) Blu-Ray - Apple's not interested in supporting offline competition and wants to kill it in favor of iTunes HD downloads
2) Flash - Apple wants to kill it to avoid flash apps and avoid the massive performance hit - it is a PIG on my Macs and my PC (via firefox)
3) Matte - market research proves that very few non-pro people care, fewer will pay extra and there are 3rd party solutions. Pro users are a decreasing and small minority of Mac users these days. Apple sells 5x more Macs now than back in 2003 when Pro users may have mattered and almost none of that growth has come from pros.
4) Verizon - want to make only 1 phone for the world, why back a dead technology, Verizon animosity, etc.

None of these reasons you have to agree with but they are part of Apple's agenda and rational from their POV. Several of them are clearly a long game - (BR/Flash) but Apple seems to like to play those these days...

My main point is that Apple is not necessarily stupid for doing things you or I don't agree with and the market has largely proved them right so far... We'll see how that continues.
post #68 of 82
Where is hate for Flash coming from all of a sudden? Flash is great, it just needs to be optimized...a lot. It's Adobe that is the problem not Flash. They just need to optimize it.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #69 of 82
BEWARE: We all know how this game is played.....Microsoft minions are already starting to raise expectations for the next iPhone so that it will become a disappointment when the phone comes out at the same price as before. This is part of the tarnishing of Apple's reputation by MS insiders.

Curious how abruptly the writer of this article had "changed her mind" about Apple, and decided to give them a very POSITIVE outlook. Look what raising expectations did to kill the excitement of the new iPad.
post #70 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post

Where is hate for Flash coming from all of a sudden? Flash is great, it just needs to be optimized...a lot. It's Adobe that is the problem not Flash. They just need to optimize it.

On the Macintosh side of things, there has been hate for Flash for a long time because of its performance issues. I think the "all of the sudden" notion that you mention is due to a great deal more discussion of the issue lately, caused in part by the increasing awareness of Apple's refusal to allow it on their ever-growing mobile platform.
post #71 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by dillio View Post

The problem is not the price of the handset itself (unless it was sold unsubsidized).

The problem is the voice and data plan, and lack of tethering. I don't know about anyone else, but it's pretty hard to justify $100/month (plus taxes/fees) for cell phone service.
.

Isn't the price of the handset hidden in the price of the contract, thus inflating the voice and data plan and possibly influencing the lack or availability of tethering as well?

A comparison to show the point: The unsubsidised price for an iPhone 3GS 32GB is 800 Euros, when the competition (Highest-end Samsungs and Nokias) with touchsceens, good UIs and better tech specs are 450. In many places subsidies are forbidden so the question they face is "Will I plunk an extra 480 USD to get the iPhone or will I buy the other phone, which seems to do the same stuff (i.e. touchscreen, fast, good looking, top tier of vendor)". And if we don't look at the tech specs, just the appearance and touchscreen, the competition is at the 170-300 Euro range (cheapest iPhone 3G 8GB is 560 Euros) gives a 350-530 USD difference.

So there's no point in Apple lowering the price of the iPhone if they want more revenue via volume? Especially, when exclusive contract with operators end and operators don't want to subsidise as much anymore because they can't get the subscribers just "because we're the only ones that can give you the iPhone"

Most people after all are not tech freaks or blind fanboys like many of us here on the forum that will buy the iPhone just because it does some unique features known by us (but not necessarily the crowd).

Also remember that increasing iPhone's penetration via lower cost (even though many claim Apple is not interested in massive market share, just quality) means Apple also gets a bigger installed ecosystem for their iPhone/iPad/future devices and services.

Regs, Jarkko
post #72 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by eAi View Post

There's a massive market of young people who can't afford the cost of an iPhone, and more importantly it's contract. These are traditionally a big market for the iPod, so it'd make sense to try to get a phone that could be approaching the iPod Touch's price - hard, but not impossible.

It's really easy actually. From the first release I clicked with what would happen. People thought up all sorts of bizzare ideas, iPhone nano for example.

1) 2007 is the tech test model to work out issues
2) 2008 is the global model
3) 2009 starts to stratify the iPhone into a range, the 3G is $99, the 3GS is $199
4) 2010 locks it in $49 3G, $99 3GS, $199 iPhone 4

instead of smaller models, Apple will sell older models, it's still a feature stratified range like the iPod, but it's a different product and market. How the heck is Apple going to release a meaningful "shuffle", obvious, the older model. The 3G is currently the Nano.

Next will be the iPod. The shuffle will stay. The Nano is last years iPod Touch, the "premium" model is the current Touch, then it moves right to the iPad. The classic only exists because flash ram costs too much, this year though? The 128gig Touch, classic is gone. The shuffle is 4 and 8 gig, 16 and 32 gig Touch mid range, 64 and 128 premium.

Part of this is to extend the AppStore and direct buy iTunes to all models, lots of reasons for that.

The iPhone range is the 3G version of the Touch, like with the iPad. After the iPad you plow into the MacBooks or desktops. iPad bridges both as a cross over product and the point between pocket and not. It's desktop and laptop, not just a small laptop.

3 in each range, all bases covered.

Only thing that might shake this up is Voice Control removing the need for displays, but I think that will just make the 8gig shuffle logical. The Appstore and in your hand iTunes is the key because it is finally what Apple has lacked, volume in OS and Software. Media Content is the other key, all iPods must have it in 2010. Instant content.

Then while the analysts spend another year missing the point, still comparing desktop sales as market share. Apple will be voluming out it's OS at the combined rate of iPod, iPhone, iPad and Macs. The analysts still don't get that Apple didn't move 3 million macs, they moved 13million copies of the OS.

They also don't get the 3 tiers of computers that are unfolding. Consumption, creation and distribution.

It's all pretty obvious. Has been for oh more than a decade.
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
post #73 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltWater View Post

I completely disagree of Apple iPad success, iPad as it is is so limited that in my opinion won't sell much, it as no USB, it just can't run two apps on the same time, so no messenger or itunes while surfing the net, it's just ridiculous, no camera for video call, no Java, no Flash, wow, for what do you really need it?

For what do I need such huge GPS? Can't even get it on my network free Holliday House because it's network dependent!

For me it's just a very expensive Digital Photo Frame!

And for the money it sells I can get so much better!!!

You must either not be a very tech savvy person or just trolling.

It's a very cheap and powerful thin client, it's exchange ready, secure, portable and a desktop. It's like uber system for companies. It's the ultimate ridiculously cheap front end for sound studios, and theatre lighting rigs. It's the best system for education, lock it down, remote wipe, custom apps, portable, cheap...

It's a data collector, sales rep unit, presentation and demo tool. It's a point of sale unit. It's about the best system admin tool for data centres and corporate help desk.

Via virtualization it can run as a windows client with office and NONE of the issues.

It's an artist tool, it's a multitouch interface for macs or even winbox.

Oh it also happens to play games, music, videos and read books in case you get bored using it productively non stop.

What you say? They didn't show that during launch.. Nah they said it in one sentence. "it's compatible with almost all of the 140,000 apps in the AppStore". They then let the media show just how dumb it is as none cod think outside the presentation. Take a look at the pro apps in there, it's bleedingly obvious what is about to happen.

As for simulatenous 3rd party apps. That's a software upgrade or a jailbreak away. People really show their clueless ways about this, all iPhone OS devices multitask. There are big issues in providing as secure a system while letting anything run amok. One ponders Apple's solution that/if it is released will suddenly enable some 70million devices and counting to do exactly that.

The only annoyance I've ever had on my iPhone is do with apps not saving their last state when I exit and having to swipe to get to apps I'm bouncing between. Oh that and the bloody phone accept which knocks out active apps instead of a pop up and letting the call happen in background without doing it youself. That wears thin.
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
post #74 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickE View Post

BEWARE: We all know how this game is played.....Microsoft minions are already starting to raise expectations for the next iPhone so that it will become a disappointment when the phone comes out at the same price as before. This is part of the tarnishing of Apple's reputation by MS insiders.

Curious how abruptly the writer of this article had "changed her mind" about Apple, and decided to give them a very POSITIVE outlook. Look what raising expectations did to kill the excitement of the new iPad.

This doesn't need a conspiracy theory to explain. All it needs is people airing out their wishlists, someone picking it up, thinking it's a rumor, someone else picking it up and thinking it's likely, and someone picking it up as if it's going to happen. All it takes is a pack wanting click traffic. No Microsoft conspiracy theory necessary to explain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltWater View Post

I completely disagree of Apple iPad success, iPad as it is is so limited that in my opinion won't sell much, it as no USB, it just can't run two apps on the same time, so no messenger or itunes while surfing the net, it's just ridiculous, no camera for video call, no Java, no Flash, wow, for what do you really need it?

For what do I need such huge GPS? Can't even get it on my network free Holliday House because it's network dependent!

For me it's just a very expensive Digital Photo Frame!

And for the money it sells I can get so much better!!!

I think a larger-screened GPS would be nice, tiny screens feel cramped.

A photo frame with a 10" IPS screen? It's probably worth the price just for that! All the cheaper ones I've seen so far are garbage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cy_starkman View Post

Via virtualization it can run as a windows client with office and NONE of the issues.

With what virtualization system?
post #75 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbonner View Post

I don't think price is a key. Many of my friends that cried about the price acted odd when the $99 model was released, they bought the 3gs. I suspect it is human nature not to grab the lowest model. In the end, price had little to do with the decision.

I do agree there should be a family data plan.

I would gladly pay full price for a I-pod touch / phone . I will not pay $30.00 a month for the data plan. Just give us the option of the not so smart I-phone, with wi-fi, I-Tunes and all the capabilities of the I-Pod touch. This is a product that I believe there would be a viable market for those of us that don't need the internet on our persons at all times. This would give Apple more market share, and the rest of us the I-Phone experience without the added cost of full time internet.
post #76 of 82
Well, the stock price can either go up, stay the same or go down, so she's going to be right 1/3 of the time...
post #77 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

the iPod Shuffle starts at $59 just like all the cheapo MP3 players out there. Apple is selling cheapo stuff

The iPod shuffle is not cheap, it's inexpensive. I've owned cheap MP3 players and the feel between them and the shuffle is night and day.

And what elitism that if Walmart sells something it's no longer as valuable or has lost value? How shallow do you have to be to be worried about what store sells a product vs. the merits of the product itself?
post #78 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerseymac View Post

In other words, if Apple thinks it's right, it's right according to Apple Insider forum posters. If Apple doesn't offer it, then you don't need it and your a fool to even want it, right? Matte Screen, Flash, Blu Ray, MMS, Verizon, etc etc.

No, by refusing to try to be all things to all people, what they do focus on can be done extremely well.

Hence their tremendous success and $40B in the bank.

Quote:
If Apple wants to sell more iPhones

Why would they want to lower price just to sell more iPhones? All indications are they can barely keep up with demand now - just listen to our overseas friends complain about constrained supplies.

Apple isn't obsessed with market share - and thank god! It keeps them from doing stupid things out of hubris. Rather than go after market share for market share sake with cheap tricks like pricing gimmicks, they are going after market share by actually earning it. Controlled growth. A steady and methodical plan. Everyone thought they were nuts with their 10 million iPhone goal, but they did it. They didn't come out like Palm and claim they were going to bury their competitor - they focused on reasonable, obtainable goals and they did it.

Notice they rarely talk about their competitors, wax poetic about features or otherwise engage in the inane babble that plagues other tech companies? There's a reason for it and it's a good thing
post #79 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

demographically the US is in a baby boom. every kid website requires flash. going forward every smartphone is going to need flash since kids will be using it

Some of the largest "kid" properties are Disney. It will be interesting to see if there is any movement with them with the iPad coming out...
post #80 of 82
THE nano phone is coming
beep beep beeeep



9
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple predicted to introduce lower cost iPhone models in June