or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Verizon soaking high end Android buyers to make up for iPhone subsidies
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Verizon soaking high end Android buyers to make up for iPhone subsidies - Page 5

post #161 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by neverclutch View Post

PS: I just easily accessed every song in my library on my mp3 player, smart phone, tablet and computer seamlessly all by logging into Google Music without purchasing or downloading a single song or program and have been doing so for quite a few months.



The difference is that Google is evil while Steve was a saint.
post #162 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me View Post

I think people ignore the contract because the contract would be the same no matter what. Perhaps things are different in Canada where monthly rates differ by OEM, but in my market the contract price for all phones is equally high.

What puzzles me are the folks who pay the same data plan prices but dodge the higher upfront cost by going with a lower spec but "free" phone.

I don't know how it is in the US. But here's what happens in our Canadian oligopoly. They have flanker "discount" brands. When you go there, most phone are on 2 year contracts. iPhones carry three year contracts. On 2 year contracts, you can get a hardware upgrade after one year. On 3 year contracts, it's 2 years till a HUP. And when it comes to hardware upgrades, carriers are far more willing to negotiate discounts on Android devices (which generally reduce in price as time goes by) than on Apple gear.

Then there's the plans. Everybody knows that you never pay the advertised price for a plan. That only applies when you sign up. After a few months you start calling and bugging customer service to give you retentions plans. And here's where the difference happens. iPhone users never seem to get as many concessions as other devices. Moreover, iPhones are usually the first device being pushed on you (because of the automatic 3 year contract).

And the ultimate kicker, is the fact that Apple devices simply aren't sold on the recent entrants into the telecom market. These are the carriers with the most phenomenal prices. My plan for example includes unlimited (you read that right) data, unlimited calling in North America (24/7 no time of day restrictions), unlimited global SMS, unlimited North American MMS, Caller ID and voicemail for $40 per month flat with a new carrier (Wind Mobile). A similar plan with our most popular iPhone carrier (Rogers) would literally run into several hundred dollars per month. In the context of Canada's telecom oligopoly, to me choosing an iPhone with a 3 year contract with very limited service buckets, is about the worst financial decision one can make. Nice phone with limited service is essentially an expensive paperweight.
post #163 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

Without profits, there will be advancement. Thanks for proving you don't know much about tech or business.

I know this is a fashionable idea. But how do you explain the fact that computers have continued to advance despite Wintel commoditizing the PC?
post #164 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by knightlie View Post

There's no light of hand - the chart showed breakdown by manufacturer. You've produced a chart showing different data. That's the slight of hand.

Really?

Look at the original chart posted. The numbers at the bottom indicate the total Android % as 44.2, but what area of the chart is given over to the Android block? Significantly less than 44.2%

Visually the difference in area between Apples 28.6% and Androids 44.2% has been disguised by misrepresenting their proportions. All I have done is create a chart where the area actually matches the numbers.
post #165 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

Really?

Look at the original chart posted. The numbers at the bottom indicate the total Android % as 44.2, but what area of the chart is given over to the Android block? Significantly less than 44.2%

Visually the difference in area between Apples 28.6% and Androids 44.2% has been disguised by misrepresenting their proportions. All I have done is create a chart where the area actually matches the numbers.

No you haven't. You made Android's share larger while keeping Apple's the same size without increasing its share despite changing the original value from "Apple iPhone OS" to "iOS".

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #166 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

No you haven't. You made Android's share larger while keeping Apple's the same size without increasing its share despite changing the original value from "Apple iPhone OS" to "iOS".

True, but if the chart were labeled smartphone OS, rather than just OS, which was probably the implied intent, would that not be correct?
post #167 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post

It doesnt because Apple fixes its prices. Carriers CAN NOT sell the iPhone for anything different then what Apple allows it. Android on the other hand does not make these demands therefore the carriers are free to sell for whatever they can get. And right now they are getting paid. Android must be doing something right if people are willing to pay these obviouly high prices??

No, they're really really not. Of all the misstatements you've made this is the most blatant falsehood. Apple absolutely owns profitability in the smartphone market. You say "market share is all people care about." Oh? You can't take spend marketshare. You spend profit. And Apple has it. All of it. The reason you're here posting on AI instead of running your own company is because you don't have the basic business sense to realize this.
post #168 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

No you haven't. You made Android's share larger while keeping Apple's the same size without increasing its share despite changing the original value from "Apple iPhone OS" to "iOS".

Do you have Aspergers? Seriously, and not meant negatively.

I couldn't be arsed getting the labeling so that it would fit in, so I shortened it. I thought anyone would get it. Obviously I was wrong for people who read it as being blindly literal. Of course I made the Android area bigger, I made it a true 44.2% of the area with the "Apple iPhone OS" area a true 28.6% of the area. The original chart was visually misleading in terms of the area given over to each section.

Oh, and I used the drawing component of Appleworks, numerically inputting each object size.
post #169 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

True, but if the chart were labeled smartphone OS, rather than just OS, which was probably the implied intent, would that not be correct?

If he did that then he wouldn't be perpetuating the inaccuracy he seems so offended by. I see two simple avenues to make the chart accurate instead of just making it inaccurate in a less useful way.

Personally, I read the data. I have never copied an image brought up an app with rulers and then figured out if the sections of a graph are exactly where they should be to represent the image I know the article states Android OS has 44.2% on smartphones and iOS for iPhone has 28.6%. Those are figures I care about being correct, not some blocks with primary colours of if some forgot to colour in the lines.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #170 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

I couldn't be arsed getting the labeling so that it would fit in, so I shortened it.

Oh yeah. No way to note it was for smartphone marketshare or to write iPhone above or below iOS in it's 28.6% space. Completely impossible with AppleWorks. Gotcha!

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #171 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Personally, I read the data.

. . .While some simply look at the pretty picture and make a judgement, which is the hope of some of these chart creators. You already knew that was a fairly common tactic used to confuse and obfuscate.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #172 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

I don't know how it is in the US. But here's what happens in our Canadian oligopoly. They have flanker "discount" brands. When you go there, most phone are on 2 year contracts. iPhones carry three year contracts. On 2 year contracts, you can get a hardware upgrade after one year. On 3 year contracts, it's 2 years till a HUP. And when it comes to hardware upgrades, carriers are far more willing to negotiate discounts on Android devices (which generally reduce in price as time goes by) than on Apple gear.

Then there's the plans. Everybody knows that you never pay the advertised price for a plan. That only applies when you sign up. After a few months you start calling and bugging customer service to give you retentions plans. And here's where the difference happens. iPhone users never seem to get as many concessions as other devices. Moreover, iPhones are usually the first device being pushed on you (because of the automatic 3 year contract).

And the ultimate kicker, is the fact that Apple devices simply aren't sold on the recent entrants into the telecom market. These are the carriers with the most phenomenal prices. My plan for example includes unlimited (you read that right) data, unlimited calling in North America (24/7 no time of day restrictions), unlimited global SMS, unlimited North American MMS, Caller ID and voicemail for $40 per month flat with a new carrier (Wind Mobile). A similar plan with our most popular iPhone carrier (Rogers) would literally run into several hundred dollars per month. In the context of Canada's telecom oligopoly, to me choosing an iPhone with a 3 year contract with very limited service buckets, is about the worst financial decision one can make. Nice phone with limited service is essentially an expensive paperweight.

Wow and I thought our process sucked. Is a 3 year contract cheaper per month? I just don't see how they can sell that given what else you've described. People must REALLY want the iPhone to put up with that.

I finally swapped out my 3GS for a 4S when they appeared even though it means my handset won't have 4G until the next generation. I was pretty happy with my 3GS for the last 2 1/2 years but at three years I would definitely want to upgrade.
post #173 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

If he did that then he wouldn't be perpetuating the inaccuracy he seems so offended by. I see two simple avenues to make the chart accurate instead of just making it inaccurate in a less useful way.

Personally, I read the data. I have never copied an image brought up an app with rulers and then figured out if the sections of a graph are exactly where they should be to represent the image I know the article states Android OS has 44.2% on smartphones and iOS for iPhone has 28.6%. Those are figures I care about being correct, not some blocks with primary colours of if some forgot to colour in the lines.

Agreed - it was poorly done. But more to the point, it reopens the question of whether "Android" is a legitimate market segment, when the hardware is split between many different manufacturers. It is certainly an ecosystem (is that the accepted word?), but that is not necessarily the same thing. The functional entities making, selling and profiting (or losing) are the individual manufacturers. You could argue that the producer of Android is really playing in a different market altogether.
post #174 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Oh yeah. No way to note it was for smartphone marketshare or to write iPhone above or below iOS in it's 28.6% space. Completely impossible with AppleWorks. Gotcha!

You really want everyone to believe you didn't see the bold blue 20 point type that said:
Manufacturer operating system share - Smartphone

above the first chart? The OP was really clear that all he was doing is representing that same data in a different method different chart. At least it was clear to me and I've been accused over and over of being obtuse.

Yet you thought he had changed to discussing OS's on all devices rather than smartphones-specific?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #175 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Agreed - it was poorly done. But more to the point, it reopens the question of whether "Android" is a legitimate market segment, when the hardware is split between many different manufacturers. It is certainly an ecosystem (is that the accepted word?), but that is not necessarily the same thing. The functional entities making, selling and profiting (or losing) are the individual manufacturers. You could argue that the producer of Android is really playing in a different market altogether.

I would argue that Android for Google is strictly a defensive advertising play that has some opportunity dominance rather than just a plurality of smart phones. Of course it will come at the expense of their OEMs.

It is also exceptionally vulnerable to leveraging (embrace and extend) as Amazon has demonstrated by sucking up low-margin content profits in the small tablet space.
post #176 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post

I wish I got paid for pointing out the obvious. If you can dispute what I wrote do so, but the facts are the facts, the iPhone has not fundmentally changed since its debut. Screen size, demensions, nothing.


It's the software, stupid.

The hardware is only there to perfectly support the resource demands of the software and provide the phone functionality.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #177 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post

I am saying in 5 years, Android will have the majority of the market and Apple will not. A simple prediction based on how fast Android is expanding its gap. Android has doubled in less than a year. It will be Mac/Windows all over again when it comes to phones. Even now though, 28% is not allot.

Why should Apple care? The goal at iPhone launch was 1% of the global phone market. Apple has dramatically surpassed that.

Go ahead and work up your ego, but dollars be dollars, and Apple is only collecting them way faster than anyone else. The mentality of marketshare wins all was proven to fail in the bursting of the internet bubble. None of those arguments work despite being trotted out over and over. But I'm sure you'll use your astroturfing abilities to come up with a suitably weak and pithy response.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #178 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me View Post

I would argue that Android for Google is strictly a defensive advertising play that has some opportunity dominance rather than just a plurality of smart phones. Of course it will come at the expense of their OEMs.

It is also exceptionally vulnerable to leveraging (embrace and extend) as Amazon has demonstrated by sucking up low-margin content profits in the small tablet space.

Agreed, although I'm not sure if it was entirely defensive - advertising is Google's core business, so it would have been a smart move under any circumstances.
post #179 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me View Post

Wow and I thought our process sucked. Is a 3 year contract cheaper per month?

Nope. Same price. Canada should be a cautionary tale to anybody who thinks more mergers in the US will result in any semblance of a competitive market. The way it works in Canada, is if one of the major telcos introduces a policy, the rest acutally follow, even if said policy was bad for the consumer. About a decade ago, the telcos started with 3 year contracts arguing that they let consumers get better devices for cheaper prices. Eventually they became the norm. Now a current gen iPhone costs the same on a 3 year contract in Canada as it does on a 2 year contract in the US. The plans are significantly more expensive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me View Post

I just don't see how they can sell that given what else you've described. People must REALLY want the iPhone to put up with that.

The thing is 3 year contracts are normal up here. And what most folks do is HUP 2 years in. So you sign a 3 year contract, but you get a new phone every 2 years. The third year is only relevant if you want to leave your career. This is now a situation a ton of users are facing. Many would love to switch to newer carriers which may charge as little as half of what the big guys do, but they would have to run out a 3 year contract.

It also show how captive an audience, iOS users are. They almost never change carriers because the penalty to break a contract is usually $20 per month. So even breaking with a year left for a new iPhone elsewhere would amount to $240 +$199 = $439.

Like I said, they trick you with the shiny object. And then you're essentially locked in for life on a significantly more expensive contract. This might change if Apple starts supporting the AWS band (T-Mobile's 3G frequency) that most of the new carriers run on. But I'm not holding my breath for that. Till then, an iPhone in Canada is for those who can afford to throw away an extra $1000 or more over three years on mobile service (iPhone only oligopoly carriers at rates that are usually $25-$30 higher per month). I won't even mention what they are charging for LTE up here.

Kinda sucks for folks like me. My only non-Apple device is my smartphone. But I'd much rather have an awesome plan that lets me use my phone all the time, than be like a lot of my iPhone toting friends, who are constantly stressed out about busting their 1GB data cap if they watch a few too many youtube videos. I find it odd that so many folks argue on and on about the OS in the interwebs. But nobody seems to debate the most important of the smartphone experience: the plan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me View Post

I finally swapped out my 3GS for a 4S when they appeared even though it means my handset won't have 4G until the next generation. I was pretty happy with my 3GS for the last 2 1/2 years but at three years I would definitely want to upgrade.

That's entirely normal. Most folks are dying to upgrade after 18-24 months, regardless of which OS camp you're in. The carriers here take advantage of that by locking you in for another 3 years at the 2 year mark.
post #180 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Why should Apple care? The goal at iPhone launch was 1% of the global phone market. Apple has dramatically surpassed that.

. . . but dollars be dollars, and Apple is only collecting them way faster than anyone else. The mentality of marketshare wins all was proven to fail in the bursting of the internet bubble. None of those arguments work despite being trotted out over and over.

Quite true. Maximizing profits is the name of the game. Bose is another company that would rather concentrate on the high end of their market, perhaps build less product but make a higher profit percentage on those sales.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #181 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me View Post

I would argue that Android for Google is strictly a defensive advertising play that has some opportunity dominance rather than just a plurality of smart phones. Of course it will come at the expense of their OEMs.

I have argued this for a long time too. I don't believe Android was aimed at iOS. I think it was aimed at Microsoft and Windows Mobile. Apple users may still use Google services. But Microsoft goes out of its way to ensure that there's nothing Google on its devices. They aren't doing anything wrong. That's the essence of ecosystem competition. But for Google to not have launched Android would have been suicide. Imagine the relevance of Google in world where Windows Phone had 50% market share (instead of Android) and where they only had to rely on Apple for mobile users.

And let's not forget the RIM-MS tie up too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me View Post

It is also exceptionally vulnerable to leveraging (embrace and extend) as Amazon has demonstrated by sucking up low-margin content profits in the small tablet space.

The risk that comes with any open OS. Google had to take that chance. FOSS is the only way the OEMs would have adopted Android.
post #182 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quite true. Maximizing profits is the name of the game. Bose is another company that would rather concentrate on the high end of their market, perhaps build less product but make a higher profit percentage on those sales.

I'd debate that. The name of the game for public corporations should be maximizing value for shareholders. For some companies (like Apple), a high value strategy might work. For others, volume will make more sense. Whatever puts more moolah in the pockets of their shareholders.
post #183 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

I'd debate that. The name of the game for public corporations should be maximizing value for shareholders. For some companies (like Apple), a high value strategy might work. For others, volume will make more sense. Whatever puts more moolah in the pockets of their shareholders.

umm. . .
Doesn't that result from profits?

EDIT: I'll modify that statement just a bit: You have to consider profit potential too, even tho none have yet been realized. Just look around at some high profile tech companies that have yet to turn a profit, but still considered a valuable company.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #184 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

I know this is a fashionable idea. But how do you explain the fact that computers have continued to advance despite Wintel commoditizing the PC?

Simple: PCs have not advanced really in years.

Profit has gone to MS and Intel. The only real advancement has come in new OSes and faster processors. Look at most Dells from 15 years ago and it looks like most any Dell from today.
post #185 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Why should Apple care? The goal at iPhone launch was 1% of the global phone market. Apple has dramatically surpassed that.

Go ahead and work up your ego, but dollars be dollars, and Apple is only collecting them way faster than anyone else. The mentality of marketshare wins all was proven to fail in the bursting of the internet bubble. None of those arguments work despite being trotted out over and over. But I'm sure you'll use your astroturfing abilities to come up with a suitably weak and pithy response.

At your expense. I read over and over about Apple's profits, what does that have to do with you the end user? That you over pay for something? Apple's profits are so high because they are able to sell a $199 product for $699, they are marketing gods. Simply making statements about Apple's profits to defend your position only weakens your argument and simply puts the light on you personally that you willingly and knowingly over pay for a product.

As I read through all the "defenses" people come up with, not one time did someone come out and simply say "I like the iPhone therefore I bought it". As soon as someone's purchase decision is called into question out comes the facts or opinions spouted off like facts or the links to websites showing that phone A is .000001 gigamegapixl faster than phone B ect.... ect......

Show of hands, who in this thread is a woman? I ask because both my wife and daughter own iPhones. Their reasoning is simple honesty. It is all they have known and they have no desire to try something new. What they have works and they will continue to buy iPhone. But come here and everyone gets their feelings hurt, sad actually. Then the "facts" start to flow.

My favorite though, "I like the small screen because I want to be able to swipe across the entire screen with my thumb", therefore the iPhone is better. Really, your hands are that small?
post #186 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

Simple: PCs have not advanced really in years.

Profit has gone to MS and Intel. The only real advancement has come in new OSes and faster processors. Look at most Dells from 15 years ago and it looks like most any Dell from today.

But when someone mentions (like I did, with photo) that all iPhones look fundementally the same, the defense is all about whats on the inside. OS, Processor, graphics, storage ect.....
post #187 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post

But when someone mentions (like I did, with photo) that all iPhones look fundementally the same, the defense is all about whats on the inside. OS, Processor, graphics, storage ect.....

And where are the advancements in the PC? The areas that are showing profits. OS. Processor. GPUs (NVidia/ATI). In the race to the bottom, actual hardware design has remained remarkably static. Who started the "ultra-book" craze? HP? Nope. Dell? Nope. Acer? Nope. ASUS? Nope. I think it was a company making really good profit.

The fact that you are visually challenged and unable to see any difference between an iPhone 2G (what ever the heck that is) and the other non-existent iPhone 4G models is not our fault. For Future reference, the iPhone models are:

iPhone
iPhone 3G
iPhone 3GS
iPhone 4
iPhone 4S

I find it funny that Android has had to continuously re-invent itself over the past several version even at a hardware level. From cursor control buttons to 100% virtual buttons with no physical buttons. That Google missed the mark on design in so many areas is not something to point at being proud of. Don't even get me started at how conceptually poor the "back" button is in Android. Google: The company that sees the world and every single application as a web browser.
post #188 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

…iPhone 2G (what ever the heck that is)…

"iPhone 2G" is a legitimate name for the first-gen iPhone. People have been using it since the day the 3G was announced.

Quote:
…iPhone 4G…

That, however, is just funny.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #189 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Oh yeah. No way to note it was for smartphone marketshare or to write iPhone above or below iOS in it's 28.6% space. Completely impossible with AppleWorks. Gotcha!

Sorry, I didn't expect A turkey would be deliberately misinterpreting my intent. I could have spent a lot more time labelling it to the nth degree but as I said, I couldn't be arsed. I didn't say or imply it was impossible to do so. You are just trying to deflect attention from the deliberately misleading chart you originally posted. It is a tactic governments are very adept at - attacking the credibility or motives of the messenger to discredit or divert attention from the message when the message is uncomfortable.

Are you sure you aren't a professional agent provocateur? 693 posts in 23 days is hard to credit as being someone with just a casual interest. That's about 58 posts a day. Assuming you sleep sometimes, take a shower, eat, sh.. , that's at least 4 posts an hour, every single day.

It's taken me 4 years to get to that sort of number.
post #190 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

Sorry, I didn't expect A turkey would be deliberately misinterpreting my intent. I could have spent a lot more time labelling it to the nth degree but as I said, I couldn't be arsed. I didn't say or imply it was impossible to do so. You are just trying to deflect attention from the deliberately misleading chart you originally posted. It is a tactic governments are very adept at - attacking the credibility or motives of the messenger to discredit or divert attention from the message when the message is uncomfortable.

Are you sure you aren't a professional agent provocateur? 693 posts in 23 days is hard to credit as being someone with just a casual interest. That's about 58 posts a day. Assuming you sleep sometimes, take a shower, eat, sh.. , that's at least 4 posts an hour, every single day.

It's taken me 4 years to get to that sort of number.

You clearly don't read, think or type as fast as I can, and you are clearly are less capable at doing multiple tasks at once if you think a couple minutes of posts per day would somehow take up 24 hours thus excluding one's ability to sleep.


PS: You might want to keep your personal attacks, as pathetic as they are, to a minimum.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #191 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You clearly don't read, think or type as fast as I can



There is an alternative explanation - perhaps I am not on here that much.
post #192 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

Sorry, I didn't expect A turkey would be deliberately misinterpreting my intent. I could have spent a lot more time labelling it to the nth degree but as I said, I couldn't be arsed. I didn't say or imply it was impossible to do so. You are just trying to deflect attention from the deliberately misleading chart you originally posted.

The issue is, your graph is equally mis-leading. You labeled the "iPhone" section as "iOS". likewise, you lost lots of information by dropping of manufacture shares and created a totally different plot.
post #193 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post

At your expense. I read over and over about Apple's profits, what does that have to do with you the end user? That you over pay for something? Apple's profits are so high because they are able to sell a $199 product for $699, they are marketing gods. Simply making statements about Apple's profits to defend your position only weakens your argument and simply puts the light on you personally that you willingly and knowingly over pay for a product.

Well pithy included the goalpost change! You were talking business, you apparently concede those points and now shift to user experience as a fallback tactic. Then you resifted and made my point for me. Do you really think before you key?

Quote:
As I read through all the "defenses" people come up with, not one time did someone come out and simply say "I like the iPhone therefore I bought it". As soon as someone's purchase decision is called into question out comes the facts or opinions spouted off like facts or the links to websites showing that phone A is .000001 gigamegapixl faster than phone B ect.... ect......

Show of hands, who in this thread is a woman? I ask because both my wife and daughter own iPhones. Their reasoning is simple honesty. It is all they have known and they have no desire to try something new. What they have works and they will continue to buy iPhone. But come here and everyone gets their feelings hurt, sad actually. Then the "facts" start to flow.

My favorite though, "I like the small screen because I want to be able to swipe across the entire screen with my thumb", therefore the iPhone is better. Really, your hands are that small?

So? You tried to slam the iPhone on end-user failings, but now criticize your wife and daughter because they recognize a product that just works?

Wow. You really are a mess debate-wise. Not a single point made that doesn't self contradict what it seems you are trying to play as your world-view. It must really suck to be that bad at communication.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #194 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

So? You tried to slam the iPhone on end-user failings, but now criticize your wife and daughter because they recognize a product that just works?

Wow. You really are a mess debate-wise. Not a single point made that doesn't self contradict what it seems you are trying to play as your world-view. It must really suck to be that bad at communication.

Criticize? Your lack of comprehension is astounding. Any point you attempt to make from this point forward is forever moot.

PS, since comprehension is a foreign concept for you, my view point never wavered nor shifted (prove it), it is just that your inability to read, process and then comprehend is clouded severly and then is spewed out into your posts.
post #195 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You clearly don't read, think or type as fast as I can, and you are clearly are less capable at doing multiple tasks at once if you think a couple minutes of posts per day would somehow take up 24 hours thus excluding one's ability to sleep.


PS: You might want to keep your personal attacks, as pathetic as they are, to a minimum.

But yet in your first line you personally attack him? Hypocracy anyone?
post #196 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

And where are the advancements in the PC? The areas that are showing profits. OS. Processor. GPUs (NVidia/ATI). In the race to the bottom, actual hardware design has remained remarkably static. Who started the "ultra-book" craze? HP? Nope. Dell? Nope. Acer? Nope. ASUS? Nope. I think it was a company making really good profit.

The fact that you are visually challenged and unable to see any difference between an iPhone 2G (what ever the heck that is) and the other non-existent iPhone 4G models is not our fault. For Future reference, the iPhone models are:

iPhone
iPhone 3G
iPhone 3GS
iPhone 4
iPhone 4S

I find it funny that Android has had to continuously re-invent itself over the past several version even at a hardware level. From cursor control buttons to 100% virtual buttons with no physical buttons. That Google missed the mark on design in so many areas is not something to point at being proud of. Don't even get me started at how conceptually poor the "back" button is in Android. Google: The company that sees the world and every single application as a web browser.

is all I can do. News flash your opinion and lack of computer knowledge does not constitute fact. I know many people feel 10X smarter once they buy an Apple product but it really is not true. If you honestly believe that NO innovations in computers have happened in the past few years I feel sorry for you in your little world.
post #197 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

Simple: PCs have not advanced really in years.

Profit has gone to MS and Intel. The only real advancement has come in new OSes and faster processors. Look at most Dells from 15 years ago and it looks like most any Dell from today.

I don't dispute that MS and Intel took most of the profits. I would dispute that there's been no advancements. Are you seriously suggesting that from the time of floppies to today's cloud computing, there's been no advances in personal computing?

Suggesting that Dells look the same for the last 15 years isn't saying much. It's not like the Mac Pro has changed all that much over time either.
post #198 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarquisMark View Post

I feel like this article is just trying to push the "Android sucks, iPhone rules" view. But all I see from this is Verizon is greedy... screwing everyone it can, in any way it can.

In other words, what's new?

What you see is a business decision: to go with what makes that business a profit. Apple has proven itself.
post #199 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post

Criticize? Your lack of comprehension is astounding. Any point you attempt to make from this point forward is forever moot.

PS, since comprehension is a foreign concept for you, my view point never wavered nor shifted (prove it), it is just that your inability to read, process and then comprehend is clouded severly and then is spewed out into your posts.

what was it then?
post #200 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

I'm not trying to determine how much profit Apple gets from each iPhone. We know Apple makes plenty of profit on iPhones... it's a high-margin device.

I'm trying to find out if the carriers buy iPhones from Apple at full price.

*The reason I brought all of this up is because earlier someone said "Apple negotiated a very good deal" with Verizon. I don't think Verizon, or any other carrier, gets a "deal" from Apple.

Here's what I found:

Apple Q4 2011:

Revenue from iPhone........ $10.99 Billion

Number of iPhones sold...... 17.07 Million

That means the average price of the iPhone is $644

And who do most iPhones get sold to? The carriers.

So... it looks like the carriers buy iPhones at their full retail price... and the carriers sell them cheaper (subsidize them) because the customer signed a 2-year contract.

My point is... Apple gets the full price for each iPhone. I don't think Apple makes any special "deals" with carriers.

The subsidy happens between the carrier and the customer... not with Apple.

Apple sets the price... the carrier buys them at that price... and then the carrier discounts them (subsidizes them) because they will make up the difference over the life of the contract.

At least that's how I understand the manufacturer/carrier/customer relationship...

Where did you pull that revenue from? That dollar amount could very well be before manufacturing costs, or not including any discounts etc. IE: If i sell a device for 1000$ and it cost 998$ to make and ship to the customer, i could easily say my revenue was still 1000$.

Revenue itself doesn't measure profits. All this is doing is creating an artificial number to label as 'profits' for Apple products.

You also presume to understand the relationship through Apple and carriers. If Carriers are the primary purchaser of the actual iPhone product, why does Apple sell phones from their direct stores at a discount to customers on individual carriers? They probably get a paycheck for selling the contract, but i doubt that apple profits 450$ from the entire sale in that scenario.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Verizon soaking high end Android buyers to make up for iPhone subsidies