or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's iPhone 5s and 5c to receive significant subsidies from Chinese carriers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's iPhone 5s and 5c to receive significant subsidies from Chinese carriers - Page 2

post #41 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Google does appear to sell some smartphones and tablets at close to cost, for example the Google-branded Nexus 4 phone and Nexus 7 tablet along with the HDTV product Chromecast. The MotoX is not a Google product but instead built by Motorola Mobility, a separately operated company. I believe MM sets it's own pricing and they chose to position this one as higher end.

Noteworthy that Google has yet to have MM build a Google-branded device which probably says there's other companies building a better product than MM at the moment.

 

Google owns Motorola.  end of story.

Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
post #42 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

People hope for a lot of things.  I though the 5C was going to be $400 because I believe all the BS by these analysis.  Now I'm going to buy the 5S.  Mission accomplished for Apple.

I have to agree with this. Until we knew what components Apple was going to put into the iPhone 5c, it was pure speculation (hope?) that Apple would bring the cost down more than normal. I think seeing that it's essentially an iPhone 5 (with some good updates for LTE, battery), it's not too surprising that they've done their typical $100 off for last year's model strategy. Colors give it a fun, fresh look and free up the machines that make the aluminum frames to concentrate on the 5s models.

 

I also was waiting to see what the 5c would offer (vs the 5s) and now that I see both models, will go for the 5s.

 

Would people have been happier with the guts of a 4s in the colored plastic for $450 instead?

post #43 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

 

fine.  Look at the major players in the mid-range market <$400

 

LG - sold 50,000,000 smart phones - zero profits

Leveno - sold 40,000,000 - very little profits

ZTE - sold 40,000,000 - very little

 

Nokia sold 50,000,000 and BROKE EVEN!

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2647243301001/microsoft-nokia-unit-breaks-even-at-50m-smart-phone-sales-a-year/

 

LOL!

Even if Apple sells an additional 100,000,000 5C's at $400 it won't bring in any profits.

 

Show me a single manufacter who makes GREAT money on $400 phones.  Then Apple will bring out a $400 5C.

No one is saying that prices don't matter for profits. 

 

Your analysis is unfortunately confusing causality regarding the Econ 101 links between demand and price.

post #44 of 57
 

Quote: Originally Posted by jungmark

Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Call it FUD if you want, I don't care. $550 off contract for a plastic phone is too expensive IMO. But if Apple is content keeping a sliver of the market at the high end and not expanding iOS ecosystem, then fine, that's their choice. But I don't know if its a good move long term....same thing with doubling down on carrier subsidies when more and more people are looking to get out of being tied to long term carrier contracts.

The iPad expands the iOS market share. The C will do the same. Apple makes money on the high-end. Other than Sammy, what other Android vendor makes money? iOS users spend more $$$ and use the Internet more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

To me this is the exact kind of thing Apple should be commenting on. If WSJ and Bloomberg are flat out wrong on pricing Apple should say so. Stock dropped over 3% in part on these stories about reduced subsidies. Unless these pricing schemes were some big secret that Apple couldn't comment on?
 Pricing is always secret that's why contracts aren't public.

The C is being targeted as a more flexible mid range device… maintains apple's target margin, and allows the carriers to make money on the sale of the device (about 30% of the subscriber fee… before data/usage fees)… And Apple users use more bandwidth (I've got 4 phones on my  plan, running a 6gb plan (and we had overages last month… a lot of time on the road)… which again is more profit (if you don't want that overage… you overbuy… and there are no 'rolloverg GBs' yet)…. 

 

Key item all carriers have learned:  Sell iPhones to the whales… at whatever cost up front… and you will reap benefits for at least 4 years.

Key item Apple is learning:  With the cost of short term stock price…. push down ASP slightly to drive up iOS adoption to drive revenue via

halo to iPad and Mac,  iTMS/AppStore/iBook/Newpaper purchases, inApp purchases, and iAds

post #45 of 57
And the cheapest China iPhone, the iPhone 4 (soon to get iOS 7, same as the newest devices) just got extra legs with the ability to download older versions of apps.

People shouldn't worry about day-to-day stock changes. Even year-to-year borders on gambling. Play at your own risk, but the "house" has the edge!
post #46 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Couldn't agree more. Information voids always get filled, only question being whether with useful or useless info.

Consider this:
# non-earnings-related press releases put out by AMZN in 2013? 125.
# non-earnings-related press releases put out by AAPL in 2013? Zero.
AMZN's P/E? Ridiculously stratospheric.
AAPL's P/E? Ridiculously subterranean.

I am sure the truth lies somewhere between zero and 125. A lot of the suckiness in the stock price is of Apple's own making.


(Edited typos).

There will always be voids. Analysts can make up sh1t just so Apple can respond.
post #47 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


Call it FUD if you want, I don't care. $550 off contract for a plastic phone is too expensive IMO. But if Apple is content keeping a sliver of the market at the high end and not expanding iOS ecosystem, then fine, that's their choice. But I don't know if its a good move long term....same thing with doubling down on carrier subsidies when more and more people are looking to get out of being tied to long term carrier contracts.

 

And anyone should care about your opinion based on what exactly? Your vast experience running a Global 100 company with 50+ billion in quarterly revenues?

post #48 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

edit: From what I see on other sites, they get a much lower monthly plan with a high price phone than if they get a $99 phone. This is one wierd system, its subsidies in reverse... I like it... I would do that actually because in the end you pay less than american plans, but you need to have cash up front.

 

Yes, this is how phone subsidies work in China - you pay up front for the phone and you get a portion or all of it back over the life of your contract (you get a discount on your monthly bill). If they did it the US way, the Chinese carriers would end up with people running off with the "free" phones before their contracts were up.

 

I should add that many folks here get reimbursed by their employer for their mobile phone charges. For these folks the higher cost of iPhone 5c/5s here vs. in the US won't matter as they end up paying less or nothing for the phone.

post #49 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
 

Silly, pointless story. And obviously FUD.

 

Hence why Rogifan posted it and then feigned surprise that it was actually baseless FUD.

post #50 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
 

No one is saying that prices don't matter for profits. 

 

Your analysis is unfortunately confusing causality regarding the Econ 101 links between demand and price.

 

Whats there not to get?

 

We have Nokia/LG/ZTE/Leveno who all sell their majority of their phones in the <$400 bracket.

Combined they sell well over 200,000,000 phones a year.

Yet they make no profit as a group.

 

Doesn't that tell you the $400 smartphone market is not viable for a company like Apple?

 

This is an excellent quote from Feb when they asked if Apple would bring out a 'cheap' iPhone:

 

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-02/13/tim-cook-on-apple

 

On a similar front, critics historically asked Apple why it didn't offer a sub- £1,000 Mac. "Frankly, we worked on this, but we concluded we couldn't do a great product," Cook said. What did Apple do instead? Why, invent the iPad.

 

Could the iWatch be a 'cheap' iPhone (less features, smaller screen, ect, but retain margins)?

Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
post #51 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by murman View Post

Year over year, we read that Apple had dropped in popularity in China, so this news sounds pretty awesome.

Only people who read spin believe it. Apple's share in the smartphone market drops, but that includes more and more cheap phones that are feature phone replacements.
Apple's sales are steadily growing, hardly a sign of falling popularity, particularly when comparing a long lived high quality device with short lived junk; users of junk phones probably go through two or more phones before people on average replace their iPhone.
post #52 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

There will always be voids. Analysts can make up sh1t just so Apple can respond.

No one has said Apple should respond to analysts. Read.

post #53 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

 

Whats there not to get?

Econ 101, apparently.

post #54 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

No one has said Apple should respond to analysts. Read.

And who would they respond to? Each individual shareholder? Or only the hedge fund mgrs?
post #55 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Each individual shareholder? 

No.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Or only the hedge fund mgrs?
 
No (although Cook is not beyond doing that, apparently).
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

And who would they respond to? 

They should exercise their judgement. That's what they're frackin' paid to do. The right judgment is not 'nobody, ever.'

post #56 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

They should exercise their judgement. That's what they're frackin' paid to do. The right judgment is not 'nobody, ever.'

Maybe I'm not seeing your point. Apple uses its own judgement to not respond to rumors. Case closed.
post #57 of 57
In Japan, typically a carrier will entice you with a free iPhone, the cheapest model, to get you sign up, providing you are starting a new contract.

Is the writer saying that Chinese carriers will drop their current method and adopt the Japanese method?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Apple's iPhone 5s and 5c to receive significant subsidies from Chinese carriers
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's iPhone 5s and 5c to receive significant subsidies from Chinese carriers