or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › AT&T (Cingular) mulling iPhone price tweaks, survey reveals
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AT&T (Cingular) mulling iPhone price tweaks, survey reveals - Page 3

post #81 of 150
Quote:
Are you sure it is the same device, or are you comparing two dissimilar devices with dissimilar function that happen to have the same capacity

You are probably right. But how much more can controllers and connectors add to the price when the flash chips are primary point of the device?

To sell the $199 nano and make a healthy profit Apple has to be buying its flash chips for a fraction of that price.

iSuppli had that break down of the iPhone and reported that Apple could be making as much as 50% profit one reason being that 4/8 GB of flash should be so cheap for Apple at this point.
post #82 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

No one knows when it will be produced, as they haven't committed to a date, nor does anyone know how much it will cost, though there is always speculation.

SanDisk's speculation is $600 for OEMs. When the manufacturer makes that kind of speculation it sets expectations.

Quote:
But, your assumed pricing is wrong. Today, if Apple wanted to have their phones with double the FLASH, the prices would be at least $200 more for the current 4 GB model, because it would then become the 8 GB model, and at least $300 more for the 8 GB model, which would become the 16 GB model.

This would imply that going from a 4GB Nano to a 8GB Nano should also be $200 (no, its $50). And AT&T is playing with pricing. Yes the flash in the Nano is slow but I'm wondering why the iPhone needs fast flash. VM for OSX? Maybe.

Quote:
The Nano uses slow FLASH, which, as I said, is much cheaper.

I never said this wouldn't change in the future. I said that it will. But, not on a 6 month time schedule.

While Apple needs to recoup R&D there's headroom in the iPhone pricing from a build perspective unless they are going with the 2GB NAND parts already. IMHO it's more dependent on launch volume. If they are too constrained they will leave the product alone and bump it when volumes improve. But its certainly not a $200 jump from 4GB to 8GB...more like $75. The jump from 8GB to 16GB is more like $150.

6 months is a lot of time with many companies pushing aggressively on flash pricing for the last year. Mulitple large companies are pushing flash pricing toward the tipping point for replacement of hard drives. Toshiba is spending a trillion yen in flash despite a 70% price collapse in 2006. 70%.

This is because Toshiba is going to go head to head against Samsung on the 2GB chips using the 56nm process and already have their 1GB parts (70nm) in mass production.

Both Samsung and Toshiba have their eye on Apple and the iPhone. Apple constitutes 40% of Samsung's Flash business...they have serious leverage. Samsung was accused of selling flash at half their market value in 2005 to Apple...that was before Apple split their buys across 4 companies.

Yeah, 6 months is enough time for the landscape to change if you pick the right 6 months. Folks are "speculating" that by March that flash will cost no more than double the cost of a 1.8" HDD on a per-GB basis when the 2GB part is expected. Samsung first, followed by Toshiba who "speculates" that they'll be shipping 300K 2GB chips/month starting April. Intel/Micron is going to have to step up too in 2007.

Vinea
post #83 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Unlike any other phone the iPhone is designed to directly connect and easily download movies, television shows, music videos, music tracks, audio books, video games, podcasts. 8GB is clearly not enough if one indulged in all of this content.

The Sony Walkman phones do this already and do it quite well too. I've done it for 2 years already with my SE P910i which comes with a SyncStation and Windows software to sync pretty much anything.

So, I wouldn't say it was unlike any other phone in that regard. Some of the Sonys come with 4GB storage too now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

It seems much of the rationale that makes 8Gb ok is that people won't use much of this content or store it for very long. What would be the point of Apple setting up this business model only for people to not take full advantage of it.

Clearly they can't make the iPhone even more stupidly expensive than other phones no matter how good it is. In Europe, they're up against SE Walkman phones, P990i, Nokia N Series. Most of these you can get for free if you shop about. That's how it works here though - cheap phones with expensive contracts but ultimately the phone has to be around about the same price as other manufacturers phones for the carriers to make their money back on the phone.
post #84 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

In that dvnation page Mel linked to had 4GB flash for $399, which Apple uses in the $199 nano.

It's not the same FLASH,as I keep saying. Apple doesb't need hi performance FLASH. Those drives are .

But, the idea was to compare because that SanDisk FLASH drive was posted as an example of 32GB FLASH.

But, even if 4 GB of FLASH that Apple uses costs the consumer, say, $150 in the finished product from Apple, 8 GB will be $300, 16 GB will be close to $600, and 32 will hit close to $1,000.

A year from now, those prices will be cut in half, possibly more, depending on demand, manufacturing capacity, the fact that double the amount will consist of the same number of chips, a smaller process technology, etc.
post #85 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

SanDisk's speculation is $600 for OEMs. When the manufacturer makes that kind of speculation it sets expectations.

So that will be around $1,200 retail, assuming the price holds by the time sometime mid-year, when it might be produced That is what we would pay for it, if it were in a device. Good price for what it is, but far more than Apple, or any other manufacturer, would pay for these purposes.

Quote:
This would imply that going from a 4GB Nano to a 8GB Nano should also be $200 (no, its $50). And AT&T is playing with pricing. Yes the flash in the Nano is slow but I'm wondering why the iPhone needs fast flash. VM for OSX? Maybe.

You are likely correct. The iPhone is supposed to have at least 3 cpu's. That plus the video, and everything else, would require faster memory to keep up. If Apple is using Core anything in the phone, which I think they are, that would require fast memory as well.

Quote:
While Apple needs to recoup R&D there's headroom in the iPhone pricing from a build perspective unless they are going with the 2GB NAND parts already. IMHO it's more dependent on launch volume. If they are too constrained they will leave the product alone and bump it when volumes improve. But its certainly not a $200 jump from 4GB to 8GB...more like $75. The jump from 8GB to 16GB is more like $150.

Apple's price is less than half of what we will pay for the part. THat's SOP in manufacturing. Even assuming that your numbers are correct, that comes close to the pricing we see. Add a mere $25 to your number, going to 8, and we get the $200 difference easy.

6 months is a lot of time with many companies pushing aggressively on flash pricing for the last year. Mulitple large companies are pushing flash pricing toward the tipping point for replacement of hard drives. Toshiba is spending a trillion yen in flash despite a 70% price collapse in 2006. 70%. [/quote]

Nah, prices aren't even close yet for that. Almost ten times the price for SS. The higher speed SS drives cost much more than that.

Quote:
This is because Toshiba is going to go head to head against Samsung on the 2GB chips using the 56nm process and already have their 1GB parts (70nm) in mass production.

Both Samsung and Toshiba have their eye on Apple and the iPhone. Apple constitutes 40% of Samsung's Flash business...they have serious leverage. Samsung was accused of selling flash at half their market value in 2005 to Apple...that was before Apple split their buys across 4 companies.

Yeah, 6 months is enough time for the landscape to change if you pick the right 6 months. Folks are "speculating" that by March that flash will cost no more than double the cost of a 1.8" HDD on a per-GB basis when the 2GB part is expected. Samsung first, followed by Toshiba who "speculates" that they'll be shipping 300K 2GB chips/month starting April. Intel/Micron is going to have to step up too in 2007.

Vinea

I just don't see those prices for a while.

We can dispute this all week without coming to a conclusion, because we read the numbers, and movement in the industry. differently.

I've pretty much burned out my interest in it for now. Let's see what happens by June, when it comes out. We'll have a much better idea by then, and we can continue this to everyone's satisfaction.
post #86 of 150
Flash memory maker SanDisk is cutting 10 per cent of its work force to remain profitable while being forced to make steep price cuts. A 50 per cent reduction in NAND flash memory component prices in the last two months forced SanDisk to cut prices at the retail level and to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) by between 30 per cent and 40 per cent, said Eli Harari, chairman and chief executive officer of SanDisk, in a prepared statement.

I agree this is a difficult argument to have and no way we really can know for sure. We are not privy to Apple's strategic discussions and long term plans. I believe they can increase the storage and keep iPhone's price the same. Even if Apple can it does not necessarily mean they will.

My preference would be to launch with at least 16GB of storage on the $600 configuration and prepare to move up from that point. That would extend the usability of the iPhone and help people feel they are getting a lot for their money. Basically the same they did with the Nano when it first shipped no one else had a 4GB flash player.

Announcing the iPhone so far ahead of its launch gives Apple the advantage of gauging consumer and competitive response and gives Apple a little time to adjust. They are entering a pretty well established but vulnerable market. Nokia, Motorola, RIM, Sony-Ericson and the rest are going to respond. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
post #87 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

So that will be around $1,200 retail, assuming the price holds by the time sometime mid-year, when it might be produced That is what we would pay for it, if it were in a device. Good price for what it is, but far more than Apple, or any other manufacturer, would pay for these purposes.

Actually, I was incorrect. $600 is retail cost bump to laptops meaning OEM prices will be far lower than $600.

Quote:
You are likely correct. The iPhone is supposed to have at least 3 cpu's. That plus the video, and everything else, would require faster memory to keep up. If Apple is using Core anything in the phone, which I think they are, that would require fast memory as well.

Well it wont run out of the 4-8GB of flash but likely have 256MB or 512MB. 3 cpus? That would just be odd unless they are counting things like the graphics processor as a CPU.

Quote:
Apple's price is less than half of what we will pay for the part. THat's SOP in manufacturing. Even assuming that your numbers are correct, that comes close to the pricing we see. Add a mere $25 to your number, going to 8, and we get the $200 difference easy.

No, it doesn't. If the part costs 50% less in June than January they can maintain margins while dropping the price OR they can increase the flash and keep the price.

Quote:
Nah, prices aren't even close yet for that. Almost ten times the price for SS. The higher speed SS drives cost much more than that.

70% price drop in 2006. The top 2 manufacturers will have new plants and processes online by march. Their STATED goal is to reach that tipping point to create massive growth to justify the huge investements they are making because otherwise they've just flushed millions of yen down the toilet.

Quote:
We can dispute this all week without coming to a conclusion, because we read the numbers, and movement in the industry. differently.

I've pretty much burned out my interest in it for now. Let's see what happens by June, when it comes out. We'll have a much better idea by then, and we can continue this to everyone's satisfaction.

I doubt it. The probability that you'll admit you were mistaken in this thread even if proven wrong in June approaches zero. Even if we have 32GB $600 flash SSDs you'll claim you were correct anyway.

Vinea
post #88 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

I doubt it. The probability that you'll admit you were mistaken in this thread even if proven wrong in June approaches zero. Even if we have 32GB $600 flash SSDs you'll claim you were correct anyway.

Vinea

Vinea, you're a hopeless case. You just like to argue, and be snide. That's why most people don't like to respond to you.
post #89 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Vinea, you're a hopeless case. You just like to argue, and be snide. That's why most people don't like to respond to you.

Yeah right. We'll see in 6 months. I have yet to see you graciously admit that you've ever been wrong on this board.

Vinea
post #90 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Yeah right. We'll see in 6 months. I have yet to see you graciously admit that you've ever been wrong on this board.

Vinea

I've admitted I'm wrong a number of times. You seem to like to argue, and insult, when things don't go your way.

If you provide evidence, then I will "graciously" admit that those prices are correct. I don't know what your problem is.

I provided a page of high end, fast, SS drives, mostly with pricing. That particular drive isn't being made yet, and it isn't known when production will start. I haven't seen pricing for it yet. If you can confirm your stated pricing, then why don't you just do that, rather than acting so silly about it? If I don't provide a link about something, you get upset. I'm not upset that you didn't provide one, but you seem to be upset.

Link us to one, and we can all go away happy.
post #91 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Yeah right. We'll see in 6 months. I have yet to see you graciously admit that you've ever been wrong on this board.

Vinea

I'm sure I've seen several. I think your crusade against Melgross is a grudge that you are trying to nurse. It makes you look irritable and irrational.
post #92 of 150
Quote:
But, even if 4 GB of FLASH that Apple uses costs the consumer, say, $150 in the finished product from Apple, 8 GB will be $300, 16 GB will be close to $600, and 32 will hit close to $1,000.

Apple uses 8GB of flash in the Nano for $250. Along this pricing structure 16GB can certainly fit in a $600 device.
post #93 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Apple uses 8GB of flash in the Nano for $250. Along this pricing structure 16GB can certainly fit in a $600 device.

I'm sure it can, but at the expense of what? iPhone has a lot more functionality than the nano, and to hit a desired price target, they balance out all the costs to give them a certain gross margin. Given the curent prices that you stated, 16GB of flash would make up more than half of the cost of the parts.

The possibility of Apple upping the stated specs on shipment is still there (they upped the original MacBook Pro before shipping), but it's not a given. There may only be room for so many flash chips in the design, a certain size flash chip might have a given cost, but doubling the capacity may have a lot more than double the cost, depending on how new the chip design is.
post #94 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Apple uses 8GB of flash in the Nano for $250. Along this pricing structure 16GB can certainly fit in a $600 device.

Teno, we've already been through the discussion that this is likely (probably, possibly?) not the same FLASH.

What I'm finding to be difficult to understand, is why anyone would think that Apple would compromise the sales of these units by artificially raising the prices beyond where they would have to go.

Basically, if the cost of this FLASH is the same as the FLASH in the Nano's, then why wouldn't Apple price it so? Why would Apple feel it to be necessary to price the 4 GB model at $500, when it could have been $400, and why raise the price of the 8 GB model by another $200, rather than by $100, or $75?

Surely, Apple knows very well that those lower prices would result in much greater sales more quickly. That would result in other manufacturers scrambling to lower their prices, resulting in the competition being pressed on profits, as MS was surprised by the pricing of the 5.5 G's, and had to lower its prices. Unlike MS, other companies are not willing to simply break even on products, or to lose money. Sony may do that for future products as important as the PS line, but that's different. I don't see anyone doing that over a phone model. Likely, they would have to go back to the drawing board, and hopefully, by that time, Apple will have a sufficiently updated model waitingwith more memory.

So, overall, I just don't see the purpose Apple would have to charge so much when they don't have to, unless, somehow, they would lower the price by June's introduction, the way he gleefully announced the price after having shown the features. That's certainly possible, but, I like to wait and see if it happens.

Otherwise, for all the armchair economists out there, it's just a guessing game. Once we see the actual physical breakdown of the product, we will know exactly which memory chips and controller is involved.

Then, as I said before, we can begin this again. Otherwise, we're just shooting in the dark.
post #95 of 150
Quote:
Teno, we've already been through the discussion that this is likely (probably, possibly?) not the same FLASH.

Yes that's true, I understand what you are saying. But you refuse to acknowledge that looking at all of the potential uses of the iPhone 8GB is not a lot of storage.

Quote:
Why would Apple feel it to be necessary to price the 4 GB model at $500, when it could have been $400, and why raise the price of the 8 GB model by another $200, rather than by $100, or $75?

Their have been theories that the iPhone is priced well over what it costs Apple to make. This headroom could provide space for Apple to lower the price or improve the specs. But ultimately only Apple knows.

Quote:
Otherwise, we're just shooting in the dark.

Yes anything could change at any time, or nothing may change at all, its impossible to say with Apple. But in the real world using a software, audio, video player 8 GB is not enough.
post #96 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Yes that's true, I understand what you are saying. But you refuse to acknowledge that looking at all of the potential uses of the iPhone 8GB is not a lot of storage.

Just as you refuse to acknowledge that Apple likely doesn't have a choice for the time being.
post #97 of 150
Quote:
Just as you refuse to acknowledge that Apple likely doesn't have a choice for the time being.

Alright I'll acknowledge Apple maybe using more expensive flash in the iPhone than the nano. But that certainly is not the only choice and I'm not convinced that is the best choice. Apple is choosing to use this expensive type of flash and not include a mini flash slot.

Mini SDHC flash memory has a minimum data rate of 2MBps which is more than enough for iTunes video. SDHC flash prices have recently been cut in half to around $50 for 4GB and $100 for 8GB.

Consumers are free to choose a competing smartphone for $99 with a contract. They have the option of purchasing a 4GB memory card for $50 which will equal the amount of storage in the $500 iPhone. Or purchase an 8GB card for $100 that will equal the storage in the $600 iPhone.
post #98 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Yes that's true, I understand what you are saying. But you refuse to acknowledge that looking at all of the potential uses of the iPhone 8GB is not a lot of storage.

Not at all. I recognize that there are people who will need more. I said that in several posts. But, you are not recognizing that most people won't need more. Even with video, most people just don't put that much stuff on their handhelds. Those who do can wait, or keep their iPods, until Apple upgrades this model.

Quote:
Their have been theories that the iPhone is priced well over what it costs Apple to make. This headroom could provide space for Apple to lower the price or improve the specs. But ultimately only Apple knows.

Hypothesis. A theory is a proven hypothesis. These aren't proven, just guesses.

But, as I said earlier, Apple has to pay off their massive R&D on these models. That comes off the top of the first number of units Apple assumes they will sell withing a certain period, if they are successful.

After that is paid off, or mostly paid off, the price can come down by a chunk of change.

Then perhaps, if Apple IS paying less for their memory, they can either lower prices, or add more memory. But, even that doesn't explain the $200 disparity between the two versions.

Quote:
Yes anything could change at any time, or nothing may change at all, its impossible to say with Apple. But in the real world using a software, audio, video player 8 GB is not enough.

For some people.

You know, we will only find out if you are right, by the sales numbers. If they suck, it could be one of the reasons. If they sell well, then memory isn't holding people back.
post #99 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Alright I'll acknowledge Apple maybe using more expensive flash in the iPhone than the nano. But that certainly is not the only choice and I'm not convinced that is the best choice. Apple is choosing to use this expensive type of flash and not include a mini flash slot.

Mini SDHC flash memory has a minimum data rate of 2MBps which is more than enough for iTunes video. SDHC flash prices have recently been cut in half to around $50 for 4GB and $100 for 8GB.

Consumers are free to choose a competing smartphone for $99 with a contract. They have the option of purchasing a 4GB memory card for $50 which will equal the amount of storage in the $500 iPhone. Or purchase an 8GB card for $100 that will equal the storage in the $600 iPhone.

You should be comparing this to equal priced competition, not cheap versions.

See how much memory they come with, and what they cost.

Most phones won't accept more than a 2 GB memory card right now. That's not exactly a great option. I would rather have 8 GB inside all of the time, rather than a Gb, plus another 2 Gb, or even 4 Gb on cards.
post #100 of 150
It's safe to say that the two upcoming first-revision iPhone models are early adopter products. They are too high-priced and low-specced for broad appeal, and are really more of a glimpse or peek into what the iPhone will one day be.

Within two or three years, that'll be sharply different. There will be a smaller model *an iPhone mini or nano, if you will *as well as a current-size model with much more capacity and many more capabilities.

Debating whether 8 GBs is enough or not is really a waste of time, because this won't even be an issue in the long run.
post #101 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Teno, we've already been through the discussion that this is likely (probably, possibly?) not the same FLASH.

Actually there's no indication that its any different. It holds music and videos...

Quote:
What I'm finding to be difficult to understand, is why anyone would think that Apple would compromise the sales of these units by artificially raising the prices beyond where they would have to go.

Because pricing denotes quality. Whatever discounts follow later Apple believes that its brand (already a premium one) and product is a $600 product.

In any case, if they can only make so many to begin with they'll sell at $600 as easily as at $400.

Quote:
Basically, if the cost of this FLASH is the same as the FLASH in the Nano's, then why wouldn't Apple price it so? Why would Apple feel it to be necessary to price the 4 GB model at $500, when it could have been $400, and why raise the price of the 8 GB model by another $200, rather than by $100, or $75?

Regardless, this doesn't mean that the price of the flash is the limiting factor nor does it imply that Apple wont do a bump at release.

Quote:
Surely, Apple knows very well that those lower prices would result in much greater sales more quickly. That would result in other manufacturers scrambling to lower their prices, resulting in the competition being pressed on profits, as MS was surprised by the pricing of the 5.5 G's, and had to lower its prices.

Given that the product has announced at $600 doesn't mean that Apple can't and won't drop prices. The trial ads show that other price points are being considered.

Quote:
Otherwise, for all the armchair economists out there, it's just a guessing game. Once we see the actual physical breakdown of the product, we will know exactly which memory chips and controller is involved.

Then, as I said before, we can begin this again. Otherwise, we're just shooting in the dark.

We may not know the specifics but it is fact that Flash pricing collapsed in 2006 and the top two manufacturers are opening up new lines in March adding to the current volume. It doesn't take even an armchair economist to understand that flash demand in 2007 will be far lower than flash supply. Nor does it take even an armchair economist to realize that Apple, being a major flash buyer, is in the dominant negotiating position with regards to pricing.

Vinea
post #102 of 150
Heh...Toshiba expect flash prices to drop another 60% in 2007. SanDisk said that NAND pricing slid 50% in the past 2 months alone due to weak Q1 demand and they are slashing prices to keep share.

“Industry wide NAND component pricing has deteriorated by approximately 50% in the past two months due to excess supply of NAND components coupled with first quarter seasonally weak demand. This is impacting pricing for our retail and OEM products at a steeper rate than we had been anticipating and in order to maintain market share we now expect to lower Q1 prices for many of our products to 30%-40% below fourth quarter levels. said Eli Harari, Chairman and CEO of SanDisk. Although we believe there will be strong pickup in demand for our products in the second half of the year, we do not have visibility as to when the current aggressive pricing cycle will run its full course, and gross margins are likely to remain under significant pressure for several quarters.”

...

“We believe that lower price points in the NAND industry will accelerate demand, particularly in the handset market, and will stimulate the emergence of new markets, fueling continued growth,” said Eli Harari, Chairman and CEO of SanDisk. “We are determined to continue to lead the industry in innovation, technology and product cost reductions, and to continue investing in the leading edge capacity that we believe is essential to meet demand from our global customers in 2008-2010.

http://www.sandisk.com/Corporate/Pre...e.aspx?ID=3723

Gee...accellerate demand in the handset market. I wonder who they're talking about there?

"The company plans a massive expansion of Nand flash chips manufacturing over the next three years, despite the 70 per cent collapse in prices over the course of 2006. Toshiba itself is forecasting a further 60 per cent slide in flash memory prices in the current calendar year.

While it is highly damaging to short-term margins, the collapse in prices may bring forward to this March a critical pricing point where the per-gigabyte cost of flash memory is only twice that of 1.8-inch laptop-sized hard-disc drive memory.

Yoshiharu Izumi, senior electronics analyst at JPMorgan who expects flash usage to expand rapidly in a wide range of consumer electronics devices, said: “Falling prices of Nand flash memory will transform the laptop PC market, with flash memory increasingly replacing hard-disc memory.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/18832c00-b54...0779e2340.html

Well...given the 50% drop in the last two monts forcasting a 60% drop in 2007 seems like a no-brainer.

No armchair analysis required when the manufacturers themselves are warning of massive price drops in the pipeline. Don't buy any flash media unless you need to for a month as SanDisk drops their pricing 30-40%.

There's your link Melgross. Time to prove me irrational...unless you think that a manufacturer warning investors, competitors and buyers alike that pricing is about to plummet isn't "proof" that a massive price cut is on the way in the next "6 months"?

Vinea
post #103 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Heh...Toshiba expect flash prices to drop another 60% in 2007. SanDisk said that NAND pricing slid 50% in the past 2 months alone due to weak Q1 demand and they are slashing prices to keep share.

“Industry wide NAND component pricing has deteriorated by approximately 50% in the past two months due to excess supply of NAND components coupled with first quarter seasonally weak demand. This is impacting pricing for our retail and OEM products at a steeper rate than we had been anticipating and in order to maintain market share we now expect to lower Q1 prices for many of our products to 30%-40% below fourth quarter levels. said Eli Harari, Chairman and CEO of SanDisk. Although we believe there will be strong pickup in demand for our products in the second half of the year, we do not have visibility as to when the current aggressive pricing cycle will run its full course, and gross margins are likely to remain under significant pressure for several quarters.”

...

“We believe that lower price points in the NAND industry will accelerate demand, particularly in the handset market, and will stimulate the emergence of new markets, fueling continued growth,” said Eli Harari, Chairman and CEO of SanDisk. “We are determined to continue to lead the industry in innovation, technology and product cost reductions, and to continue investing in the leading edge capacity that we believe is essential to meet demand from our global customers in 2008-2010.

http://www.sandisk.com/Corporate/Pre...e.aspx?ID=3723

Gee...accellerate demand in the handset market. I wonder who they're talking about there?

"The company plans a massive expansion of Nand flash chips manufacturing over the next three years, despite the 70 per cent collapse in prices over the course of 2006. Toshiba itself is forecasting a further 60 per cent slide in flash memory prices in the current calendar year.

While it is highly damaging to short-term margins, the collapse in prices may bring forward to this March a critical pricing point where the per-gigabyte cost of flash memory is only twice that of 1.8-inch laptop-sized hard-disc drive memory.

Yoshiharu Izumi, senior electronics analyst at JPMorgan who expects flash usage to expand rapidly in a wide range of consumer electronics devices, said: “Falling prices of Nand flash memory will transform the laptop PC market, with flash memory increasingly replacing hard-disc memory.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/18832c00-b54...0779e2340.html

Well...given the 50% drop in the last two monts forcasting a 60% drop in 2007 seems like a no-brainer.

No armchair analysis required when the manufacturers themselves are warning of massive price drops in the pipeline. Don't buy any flash media unless you need to for a month as SanDisk drops their pricing 30-40%.

There's your link Melgross. Time to prove me irrational...unless you think that a manufacturer warning investors, competitors and buyers alike that pricing is about to plummet isn't "proof" that a massive price cut is on the way in the next "6 months"?

Vinea

I haven't disagreed with the trend at all. I've been saying that prices will drop. But, even you must have seen the numbers in the article. The prices will drop soon to twice the price of a 1.8" hd. That's still pretty high.

My statements that SS drives will begin to replace HD's in two years was restated in the article.

You also ignore that in two posts, I relegate some of the price of the iPhone to R&D, which is always added to the price up front. I also said that once that is eliminated, the price will either drop, or Apple can add memory instead, or some combo of the two.

As no other phone manufacturer is offering more memory than Apple is right now, you can't simply blame Apple's pricing for the reason.

Here is a quote from that same article you like so much:

"“As more and more media-rich applications come into consumers’ hands, the capacity needed far surpasses what flash can do,” said Bill Watkins, chief executive of Seagate, the largest hard-drive maker."

You seem to have missed that one. That helps to balance the info given by the FLASH manufacturers, who are also trying to convince companies to buy their products.

I had read the Sandisk explanation of their problems before. It doesn't say much of use to this thread.

And, no, you didn't provide the link to the $600 pricing of that drive that we need.

And, do you know whether Apple's FLASH pricing for the iPhone already has taken into account this new lower pricing? No. you don't. Apple's contracts, which go until 2010, are structured (as almost all of them are) to allow Apple to take advantage of price drops as they occur, if that will bring the price below the agreed upon price at the time of the drop.

And, if the iPhone is priced lower than we expect as one or two analysts have suggested it might, it will be because of AT&T, not Apple.
post #104 of 150
Quote:
It's safe to say that the two upcoming first-revision iPhone models are early adopter products. They are too high-priced and low specced for broad appeal, and are really more of a glimpse or peek into what the iPhone will one day be.

The mobile phone market is already well established, highly competitive, and nearly saturated. The only reason the iPhone has a chance at dominating against its competitors is because Apple is better at easy to use design and the fact that their is still some room for significant growth in the smaller smart phones segment. But those advantages will shrink as time goes on.

Motorola, Nokia, Sony-Ericson, RIM and all the rest are not going to wait for Apple to develop the real iPhone in two or three years. They are going to aggressively attack it right now.

Quote:
Debating whether 8 GBs is enough or not is really a waste of
time, because this won't even be an issue in the long run.

That may be true but Apple is not 100% perfect they have made mistakes by over estimating how much consumers would pay for a particular configuration. This isn't like the iPod where Apple is getting in at the beginning. The iPhone cannot come out as an unfinished product with the hope of getting better two or three years from now. Jobs goal of 1% of the mobile phone market is about 15% of the smart phone market, which would trump Windows Mobile, Palm, and RIM. That's market share they won't allow Apple to easily gain or maintain.

Quote:
You should be comparing this to equal priced competition, not cheap versions.

Maybe I'm not fully understanding, what does the faster more expensive flash bring to the iPhone that the cheaper flash does not?

Quote:
Most phones won't accept more than a 2 GB memory card right now. That's not exactly a great option. I would rather have 8 GB inside all of the time, rather than a Gb, plus another 2 Gb, or even 4 Gb on cards.

The whole purpose of the SDHC format is to increase storage and data rates.

I looked around at spec sheets of various smart phones and none seem to mention a limit on the size of memory cards. But even if the 2GB limit is true right now, there is no reason it will remain that way. iPhone certainly gives them incentive for in the near future to use the larger storage cards.

Quote:
You know, we will only find out if you are right, by the sales numbers. If they suck, it could be one of the reasons. If they sell well, then memory isn't holding people back.

Even with the 8GB I think the iPhone will sell very well and Apple will likely meet its 1% goal. The right specs vs price could mean the difference between capturing 1% of the market and perhaps 3%. The rest of the mobile phone market will fight hard to narrow any perception of difference between their product and the iPhone. That will make the difference in sales.

Quote:
As more and more media-rich applications come into consumers hands, the capacity needed far surpasses what flash can do, said Bill Watkins, chief executive of Seagate, the largest hard-drive maker."

You seem to have missed that one. That helps to balance the info given by the FLASH manufacturers, who are also trying to convince companies to buy their products.

Of course the executive from Seagate is going to be dismissive of Flash. But I think he's right in that hard drives have too much of a lead on storage vs price for flash to be used as the main storage in computers any time soon. Even in a sub-notebook you can use a 1.8" drive which uses less power than a 2.5" but far more storage at a less cost than Flash.
post #105 of 150
i said earlier that what was shown by SJ is the MINIMUM, we will see
more memory, more apps, and who thinks with me that there will be a revision for dec market push???
but june will have
3g
apps
etc like th established soon-to-be-also-ran- smartless phones
anyone want to bet me???
currency--macadamian nut cookies
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #106 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Jobs goal of 1% of the mobile phone market is about 15% of the smart phone market, which would trump Windows Mobile, Palm, and RIM. That's market share they won't allow Apple to easily gain or maintain.

You've got to remember that he was talking about worldwide markets. Windows Mobile, Palm and RIM barely measure statistically outside the USA. The market is owned by Symbian with nearly 75% of the market worldwide. Windows Mobile accounts for about 5% worldwide of the smartphone market.

Apple's goal is easily achievable once it escapes from the weird USA market which is nothing like anywhere else in the world.
post #107 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I haven't disagreed with the trend at all. I've been saying that prices will drop. But, even you must have seen the numbers in the article. The prices will drop soon to twice the price of a 1.8" hd. That's still pretty high.

You stated that the iPhone can't increase to 16GB because it is using the 8 Gb flash chip from the Nano and would need to double the number of chips because there are no larger parts. This is incorrect in as much as the Samsung chip we've talked about is the 16 Gb NAND chip (2GB) using a 50nm process that Samsung has been sampling with full production this spring as has Toshiba/SanDisk 16Gb chip (a little later with a 56nm process). And every process shrink has resulted in faster flash anyway.

Then you argue that the iPhone couldn't be using the Nano flash when its shown that the cost delta between 4GB and 8GB Nano is far less than the cost delta between the 4GB iPhone and 8GB iPhone (ie $50 vs the $200 you insist on).

The you stated that SSD cost 10 times the price of 1.8" HDDs and justify that the iPhone cannot reduce pricing because flash prices (as seen on DVNation) are so high. You refuse to accept that SanDisk has said that switching from HDD to SSD should increase the retail cost if a laptop by $600 and if the price really will be twice the price of 1.8" HDD then given that a 40GB 1.8" 4200RPM Toshiba HDD is $125 RETAIL then we can expect 32 GB 1.8" SDD to be on the order of $300.

That's not high at all...certainly nothing like the prices on DVNation where 16GB is $975.

You also stated that price drops wouldn't happen on a 6 month time schedule (i.e. within 6 months). Given that component prices dropped 70% in 2006 and SanDIsk reported 50% drops in the last 2 months and has announced 30-40% drops for much of their product lines in the next quarter this is incorrect.

Now're your simply engaging in retroactive spin ("I didn't disagree"...yes you did on the timing aspect which is the key point) and evading the issue for which I get called irrational when I point out this is common practice for you.

Is it so hard to admit that flash prices are falling faster than you thought?

Quote:
And, no, you didn't provide the link to the $600 pricing of that drive that we need.

The link for a $600 or less retail part will come when they start shipping samples in March. But if you agree with the 2 x cost for a HDD then a 32GB SDD will be around $300. Which reflects the 50% price drop from when the $600 figure was suggested...

And who knows, they might slip past June or even July (6 months from now) and I'll be proven wrong. The difference is I'm perfectly willing to come back and say so without any evasion or spin.

As proof of that I'm willing to admit that I had a mental f*rt when I went down that fast vs slow flash thing with you when I confused the differences between NOR and NAND flash with fast vs slow NAND. Yes, NOR is faster for reads but I was thinking the new 16 Mb part was "fast" NAND in comparison with the "slow" 8 Mb NAND part currently used in the Nano. Which is true...it IS faster but because its newer and on a smaller process.

Speed differences between NAND flash devices are due to the controllers and MLC vs SLC NANDs (no excuse there...both the Nano NAND and the new NANDs are MLC NANDs...a tad slower than the SLC NANDs...which have lower density and aren't that much faster anyway).

It seems likely that the iPhone will use both "fast" and "slow" flash in the iPhone (not a risky bet given the iPod does as well...8MB NOR for firmware along with 256MB worth of SDRAM). Intel has admitted it is providing the flash in the iPhone and they have been traditionally a NOR shop. You can run code out of NOR which is handy for startup speed. While Intel is ramping it's NAND production Samsung and Toshiba are still ahead in the NAND arena...but who knows. Very few folks can beat Intel at the process game and they may be playing a new NAND product close to the vest.

Vinea
post #108 of 150
Quote:
You've got to remember that he was talking about worldwide markets. Windows Mobile, Palm and RIM barely measure statistically outside the USA. The market is owned by Symbian with nearly 75% of the market worldwide. Windows Mobile accounts for about 5% worldwide of the smartphone market.

I was talking about world wide market share also. Jobs plan is to go from 0% market share to 15% world wide market share (more than Windows, Palm, and RIM). Which is pretty ambitious.

Yes Symbian owns the far majority. But Symbian is pretty vulnerable its biggest supporters are looking elsewhere. Motorola is investing more into Windows and Linux. Nokia I believe is looking more at Linux.
post #109 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

The mobile phone market is already well established, highly competitive, and nearly saturated. The only reason the iPhone has a chance at dominating against its competitors is because Apple is better at easy to use design and the fact that their is still some room for significant growth in the smaller smart phones segment. But those advantages will shrink as time goes on.

Motorola, Nokia, Sony-Ericson, RIM and all the rest are not going to wait for Apple to develop the real iPhone in two or three years. They are going to aggressively attack it right now.

That may be true but Apple is not 100% perfect they have made mistakes by over estimating how much consumers would pay for a particular configuration. This isn't like the iPod where Apple is getting in at the beginning. The iPhone cannot come out as an unfinished product with the hope of getting better two or three years from now. Jobs goal of 1% of the mobile phone market is about 15% of the smart phone market, which would trump Windows Mobile, Palm, and RIM. That's market share they won't allow Apple to easily gain or maintain.

Maybe I'm not fully understanding, what does the faster more expensive flash bring to the iPhone that the cheaper flash does not?

The whole purpose of the SDHC format is to increase storage and data rates.

I looked around at spec sheets of various smart phones and none seem to mention a limit on the size of memory cards. But even if the 2GB limit is true right now, there is no reason it will remain that way. iPhone certainly gives them incentive for in the near future to use the larger storage cards.

Even with the 8GB I think the iPhone will sell very well and Apple will likely meet its 1% goal. The right specs vs price could mean the difference between capturing 1% of the market and perhaps 3%. The rest of the mobile phone market will fight hard to narrow any perception of difference between their product and the iPhone. That will make the difference in sales.

Of course the executive from Seagate is going to be dismissive of Flash. But I think he's right in that hard drives have too much of a lead on storage vs price for flash to be used as the main storage in computers any time soon. Even in a sub-notebook you can use a 1.8" drive which uses less power than a 2.5" but far more storage at a less cost than Flash.

This IS the real iPhone. will iut be improved? You know it will. all product lines get improved models. Consider this to be in the same class as the iPod, in that Apple will come out with new models every year or two., but improve the current ones every 6 months. I don't think customers of high end phines would like to see their purchase discontinued too often. We don't see that now.

Apple didn't get in the mp3 player market in the beginning, though it was much closer to it.

It doesn't really matter how long cell phones have been around. It's what is around today that matters.

The iPhone isn't perfect. But the amount of memory isn't the biggest factor why someone will, or will not buy one.

I'm more concerned about third party programs, and the fact that I won't be able to use programs that require a stylus. My drawing programs seem to be out. And how will games work? Many require tapping a very small, moving object? So there are questions aside from that of memory.

This is a far more complex device than an iPod. The screen, small that it is, requires fast RAM for the sD effects. Remember that video cards use far faster RAM. Standard RAM in a computer is also far faster than FLASH.

If you want to think of this as a computer, even though Jobs doesn't want you to, then it will need the memory speed of one.

While this machine will never be anywhere as fast as even a low end computer, even fast FLASH isn't nearly as fast as average memory.

Many do have that limit, though a few MAY have 4 GB. The Treo 700p, for example is limited to 2 GB cards. Of course it may not remain that way, just as the iPhone won't remain that way.

I doubt very much that Apple could sell three times as many phones during that given time as their estimate no matter what. Adding additional memory might increase sales 5 to15% fo those few who MUST have more.

Seagate, just as the FLASH manufacturers, have their spin. But, even you agree that he is right.
post #110 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

You stated that the iPhone can't increase to 16GB because it is using the 8 Gb flash chip from the Nano and would need to double the number of chips because there are no larger parts. This is incorrect in as much as the Samsung chip we've talked about is the 16 Gb NAND chip (2GB) using a 50nm process that Samsung has been sampling with full production this spring as has Toshiba/SanDisk 16Gb chip (a little later with a 56nm process). And every process shrink has resulted in faster flash anyway.

Then you argue that the iPhone couldn't be using the Nano flash when its shown that the cost delta between 4GB and 8GB Nano is far less than the cost delta between the 4GB iPhone and 8GB iPhone (ie $50 vs the $200 you insist on).

The you stated that SSD cost 10 times the price of 1.8" HDDs and justify that the iPhone cannot reduce pricing because flash prices (as seen on DVNation) are so high. You refuse to accept that SanDisk has said that switching from HDD to SSD should increase the retail cost if a laptop by $600 and if the price really will be twice the price of 1.8" HDD then given that a 40GB 1.8" 4200RPM Toshiba HDD is $125 RETAIL then we can expect 32 GB 1.8" SDD to be on the order of $300.

That's not high at all...certainly nothing like the prices on DVNation where 16GB is $975.

You also stated that price drops wouldn't happen on a 6 month time schedule (i.e. within 6 months). Given that component prices dropped 70% in 2006 and SanDIsk reported 50% drops in the last 2 months and has announced 30-40% drops for much of their product lines in the next quarter this is incorrect.

Now're your simply engaging in retroactive spin ("I didn't disagree"...yes you did on the timing aspect which is the key point) and evading the issue for which I get called irrational when I point out this is common practice for you.

Is it so hard to admit that flash prices are falling faster than you thought?



The link for a $600 or less retail part will come when they start shipping samples in March. But if you agree with the 2 x cost for a HDD then a 32GB SDD will be around $300. Which reflects the 50% price drop from when the $600 figure was suggested...

And who knows, they might slip past June or even July (6 months from now) and I'll be proven wrong. The difference is I'm perfectly willing to come back and say so without any evasion or spin.

As proof of that I'm willing to admit that I had a mental f*rt when I went down that fast vs slow flash thing with you when I confused the differences between NOR and NAND flash with fast vs slow NAND. Yes, NOR is faster for reads but I was thinking the new 16 Mb part was "fast" NAND in comparison with the "slow" 8 Mb NAND part currently used in the Nano. Which is true...it IS faster but because its newer and on a smaller process.

Speed differences between NAND flash devices are due to the controllers and MLC vs SLC NANDs (no excuse there...both the Nano NAND and the new NANDs are MLC NANDs...a tad slower than the SLC NANDs...which have lower density and aren't that much faster anyway).

It seems likely that the iPhone will use both "fast" and "slow" flash in the iPhone (not a risky bet given the iPod does as well...8MB NOR for firmware along with 256MB worth of SDRAM). Intel has admitted it is providing the flash in the iPhone and they have been traditionally a NOR shop. You can run code out of NOR which is handy for startup speed. While Intel is ramping it's NAND production Samsung and Toshiba are still ahead in the NAND arena...but who knows. Very few folks can beat Intel at the process game and they may be playing a new NAND product close to the vest.

Vinea

I wasn't saying that it would use the Nano chip. Just the opposite. I was saying that the current chips are the size of the Nano chips, and whatever Apple would be using in this first incarnation, that's the size they would be.

What you are forgetting is that this has to have been designed, and built already. At least a first test run. After all, Apple has taken them around to be tried. Whatever Apple submits to the FCC for testing must be the device in its final form. If Apple changes the memory in mid stream, even assuming that the price does come down enough at the last minute, they would have to send the phone back for re-testing, and as Jobs has said, it takes months. He's right about that, because my designs for my company had to go through that same procedure, and it took two months.

I'm going by realistic production scedules, which you are not. You assume that every new development is immediatly available. It isn't. Even if the pricing was low enough, tnough memory for Apple's needs won't become available until the end of the year.

I won't argue that by then, the prices might squeek down just enough for Apple to be willing to take a look, but not by June.

You make assumptions that have no basis in the real world.

so, Sandisk will begin sampling in March. Production will start ???

The same is true of all the other manufacturers.

so, how long do you think Apple needs to re-design their phones for this new mwmory? A day, a week, a month? Then what? change the production lines? How long does that take? A few weeks.

Then the production ,line testing, and the first samples for testing. Then they go to the FCC again.

June? You've GOT to be kidding!

And you say I'm off balance!

And we're still waiting for that link.
post #111 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I was talking about world wide market share also. Jobs plan is to go from 0% market share to 15% world wide market share (more than Windows, Palm, and RIM). Which is pretty ambitious.

Yes Symbian owns the far majority. But Symbian is pretty vulnerable its biggest supporters are looking elsewhere. Motorola is investing more into Windows and Linux. Nokia I believe is looking more at Linux.

15% marketshare of what? All phones? No. Of smartphones, which is just a fairly small percentage to begin with, though it is growing.
post #112 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I was talking about world wide market share also. Jobs plan is to go from 0% market share to 15% world wide market share (more than Windows, Palm, and RIM). Which is pretty ambitious.

I think overtaking Windows/Palm/RIM is pretty easy actually outside of the USA though they'll have to add HSDPA/HSUPA of course. Inside the USA is another matter. I kind of think Apple are just using it as a test market to work out all the kinks before they release to Europe where they've got to go multiple carriers. They've one carrier and less demanding customers in the USA so it'll be easy to beta test before a fuller release in Europe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Yes Symbian owns the far majority. But Symbian is pretty vulnerable its biggest supporters are looking elsewhere. Motorola is investing more into Windows and Linux. Nokia I believe is looking more at Linux.

I've given up second guessing Motorola as to their mobile platform strategy but it seems to be back with Symbian this month. See http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/12/m...er-with-hsdpa/

I'd guess Motorola uses Symbian and Linux for markets where Windows Mobile is a hinderance - Europe, Asia - instead of a selling point. I don't think they've released the Q in Europe for instance. I can't imagine anyone wanting it. It'd be good to see their god awful java platform disappear and hopefully it'd take their software with it.

Nokia only use Linux on their 'Internet Tablet' 770/800 thing, which is frankly as big a joke as NGage was. Nokia has a long history of trying wacky forms on the market though. Their new communicators are all Symbian based as are all their mid range phones. So, there's kind of a sensible Nokia and a wacky Nokia.

So, with 75% of the market, I'd not have said Symbian was 'vulnerable'. Sure, their share will erode some at the top end but they'll pick up sales at the bottom end as cheaper phones become 'smarter'. Symbian's big OS change between v7 and v9 is over now which was as big a change as MacOS9 to OSX in some regards and they can move on now.

IMHO Palm and RIM are overdue to disappear in Europe at least as platforms if not as phone 'manufacturers' or service companies. I can't see RIM lasting long on push email though if Microsoft releases their own Exchange plugin and everyone is doing IMAP IDLE phones now.
post #113 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I wasn't saying that it would use the Nano chip. Just the opposite. I was saying that the current chips are the size of the Nano chips, and whatever Apple would be using in this first incarnation, that's the size they would be.

There is no certainty that this is the case and the 16Gb parts are set for mass production in March. Folks have assumed that the reason the iPhone is shipping in June is due to the software. It could also be Apple waiting on Samsung.

And even with the launch iPhone volume could be constrained. There's no reason that Apple couldn't be using the new 16Gb part in place of the older 8Gb part. Nor is it impossible there are multiple versions of the iPhone engineering models, some with the older 8Gb part and some with the new 16Gb part in case Samsung has a production hitch.

If Samsung can deliver they can ship the higher density flash with higher capacities.

Quote:
What you are forgetting is that this has to have been designed, and built already. At least a first test run. After all, Apple has taken them around to be tried. Whatever Apple submits to the FCC for testing must be the device in its final form. If Apple changes the memory in mid stream, even assuming that the price does come down enough at the last minute, they would have to send the phone back for re-testing, and as Jobs has said, it takes months. He's right about that, because my designs for my company had to go through that same procedure, and it took two months.

This has zero to do with your assertion that a) no larger chips are available and b) no price drops can occur in 6 months time.

That the iPhone hardware design is more or less complete is true. Your assertions as to the state of the flash market and slow pricing movement are not. These are seperate issues.

In any case, from a "realism" perspective it is likely that a) Apple has priced in headroom with the announcement because it knows the phone market will have changed by June and b) while it can assume that NAND prices will continue to drop there was no way to tell if it would remain as steep as in 2006. The fact that Toshiba decided after the iPhone announcement to proceed with massive captial investment in NAND production is not something they could reasonably anticipate given the 70% freefall of 2006.

Quote:
I'm going by realistic production scedules, which you are not. You assume that every new development is immediatly available. It isn't. Even if the pricing was low enough, tnough memory for Apple's needs won't become available until the end of the year.

300K chips/month by April from Toshiba. Samsung has not released predictions.

Quote:
I won't argue that by then, the prices might squeek down just enough for Apple to be willing to take a look, but not by June.

You make assumptions that have no basis in the real world.

so, Sandisk will begin sampling in March. Production will start ???

Samsung began sampling in January. Mass production is expected in March. While 300K units/month is a smallish number that's just for Toshiba starting April. Samsung will mass hit production earlier then Toshiba/SanDisk.

Is it a certainty that Apple will be using the 16Gb part for the iPhone? No. Of course not. But it is also not impossible as you state. While Samsung isn't in mass production there are plenty of the chips around for folks to build with.

Whether Apple cornered the Samsung 16Gb supply is TBD but its not outrageous to think they have which is why Toshiba decided to push production of their 16 Gb parts because they know there will be demand that Samsung can't fullfill.

Every assumption made has a corporate link attached. SanDisk announced 30-40% price drops. SanDisk stated using SSD vs HDD would be a $600 difference to the consumer. Toshiba has stated production begins in March with 300K units/month by April.

What assumptions are not grounded in reality? That Apple COULD be using the new 16Gb parts? They certainly could and the delay until June could be because they are waiting for Samsung to provide the volume they need. Samsung has been showing that part around since fall of last year and pricing have falled 50% since that timeframe according to SanDisk.

Quote:
And we're still waiting for that link.

I've got till June. And I note that you glossed over that fast vs slow NAND mistake too. So we have three mistakes you're evading: 1 - there are no chips larger than the 8Gb chips available, 2 - rapid price drops in 6 months are impossible and 3- fast vs slow NAND as opposed to NOR vs NAND.

Vinea
post #114 of 150
Quote:
This IS the real iPhone. will iut be improved?

I'm saying it needs to be a killer product from the beginning, improve it from there.

Quote:
Apple didn't get in the mp3 player market in the beginning, though it was much closer to it.

It was nothing anywhere near the mobile phone market of today.

Quote:
It doesn't really matter how long cell phones have been around. It's what is around today that matters.

It does because as time goes on people will become more settled into their opinion. We've already heard plenty of people say they will never use Cingular, I've heard plenty of people say they love Verizon. Phone companies are trying to figure out how they can steal each others customers as the market dries up.

Quote:
The iPhone isn't perfect. But the amount of memory isn't the biggest factor why someone will, or will not buy one.

I don't mean to imply that storage alone is the deciding factor but the storage directly impacts the functionality of the iPhone. The limit on storage pretty much limits everything else you can do. Having to routinely erase old things to put new things on would be a pain. Also if competitors are able to release phones with much (or in some cases more) of the iPhone's functionality for a lower price will definitely impact sales.

Quote:
I'm more concerned about third party programs, and the fact that I won't be able to use programs that require a stylus.

I can imagine MS Balmer, Palm CEO and RIM CEO touting what the iPhone cannot do will help spur Apple to create rich software for the iPhone. As far as the stylus, what can I say.

Quote:
The screen, small that it is, requires fast RAM for the sD effects. Remember that video cards use far faster RAM.

I would imagine the fast RAM would be separate from the storage the same as in computers. iSuppli believes the iPhone will have 512MB of DRAM and 128MB of NOR Flash. Mac's used to ship with 512MB of RAM

Quote:
Seagate, just as the FLASH manufacturers, have their spin. But, even you agree that he is right.

I don't think flash manufacturers should pursue replacing computer hard drives. Mobile gadgets such as the iPhone are going to far outsell computers. They should concentrate on stuffing as much storage into those as possible. Growing that market would be much more beneficial.

Quote:
15% marketshare of what? All phones? No. Of smartphones, which is just a fairly small percentage to begin with, though it is growing.

Yes of the smaller smart phone market. Windows and Palm have been at this for years with small market share to account for their efforts. If Apple were able to come in and beat them in a year would either illustrate how good Apple is or how poorly Windows and Palm executed.

Quote:
IMHO Palm and RIM are overdue to disappear in Europe at least as platforms if not as phone 'manufacturers' or service companies.

Ok I didn't realize they were doing so badly in Europe.
post #115 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I'm saying it needs to be a killer product from the beginning, improve it from there.

The first-generation iPod had less space than other hard drive players at the time (e.g., Nomads had 20 GBs), was bulky compared to the ones today (especially the widely popular nano) and lacked many advanced features.

It sold. It wasn't a huge seller, but it definitely had lots and lots of appeal and started off a hugely successful product line.

The second generation added Windows support, and from that point on, it was essentially a success that couldn't be stopped.

The first-generation iPhone has similar limitations. Little space, no 3G, apparently no GPS, etc.

It'll sell. Not hugely, but likely enough to garner interest in future generations.
post #116 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

There is no certainty that this is the case and the 16Gb parts are set for mass production in March. Folks have assumed that the reason the iPhone is shipping in June is due to the software. It could also be Apple waiting on Samsung.

And even with the launch iPhone volume could be constrained. There's no reason that Apple couldn't be using the new 16Gb part in place of the older 8Gb part. Nor is it impossible there are multiple versions of the iPhone engineering models, some with the older 8Gb part and some with the new 16Gb part in case Samsung has a production hitch.

If Samsung can deliver they can ship the higher density flash with higher capacities.



This has zero to do with your assertion that a) no larger chips are available and b) no price drops can occur in 6 months time.

That the iPhone hardware design is more or less complete is true. Your assertions as to the state of the flash market and slow pricing movement are not. These are seperate issues.

In any case, from a "realism" perspective it is likely that a) Apple has priced in headroom with the announcement because it knows the phone market will have changed by June and b) while it can assume that NAND prices will continue to drop there was no way to tell if it would remain as steep as in 2006. The fact that Toshiba decided after the iPhone announcement to proceed with massive captial investment in NAND production is not something they could reasonably anticipate given the 70% freefall of 2006.



300K chips/month by April from Toshiba. Samsung has not released predictions.



Samsung began sampling in January. Mass production is expected in March. While 300K units/month is a smallish number that's just for Toshiba starting April. Samsung will mass hit production earlier then Toshiba/SanDisk.

Is it a certainty that Apple will be using the 16Gb part for the iPhone? No. Of course not. But it is also not impossible as you state. While Samsung isn't in mass production there are plenty of the chips around for folks to build with.

Whether Apple cornered the Samsung 16Gb supply is TBD but its not outrageous to think they have which is why Toshiba decided to push production of their 16 Gb parts because they know there will be demand that Samsung can't fullfill.

Every assumption made has a corporate link attached. SanDisk announced 30-40% price drops. SanDisk stated using SSD vs HDD would be a $600 difference to the consumer. Toshiba has stated production begins in March with 300K units/month by April.

What assumptions are not grounded in reality? That Apple COULD be using the new 16Gb parts? They certainly could and the delay until June could be because they are waiting for Samsung to provide the volume they need. Samsung has been showing that part around since fall of last year and pricing have falled 50% since that timeframe according to SanDisk.



I've got till June. And I note that you glossed over that fast vs slow NAND mistake too. So we have three mistakes you're evading: 1 - there are no chips larger than the 8Gb chips available, 2 - rapid price drops in 6 months are impossible and 3- fast vs slow NAND as opposed to NOR vs NAND.

Vinea

This can be a very simple response, and then I'm leaving it.

1. No, there are no 16Gb chips available in any mass manufactured quantity, and there won't be for months. Starting up chip production takes time. just because a company will be starting production in March, doesn't mean that the production lines will be churning out chips in numbers that will be close to the capacity they have planned for. Just the opposite. Even Intel takes several months to get its lines working with low enough error rates.

If Apple is going to sell the numbers it expects to in the beginning, 300 thousand a month isn't nearly enough. And that level won't be reached for a while.

2. Price drops will be coming, granted. But not for the chips Apple will be using, by the amount you mention for June. And, June is not 6 months away. It's a little more than three and a half months. These chips won't be a full production levels until the end of April, assuming everything goes well.

The phone is NOW at the FCC for testing. The point I made with that, is that those are the chips Apple must use, not new chips.

This is all relevant, though you want to dismiss it.

3. We'll see which chips are going into the device, so far, we don't know. But, we do know that they won't be slow chips. Yes. NAND is cheaper than NOR, but fast NAND is much more expensive than slow NAND. nothing new there.

I'm closing this from my end, so you can say anything you want, and have the last work, if it makes you happy.
post #117 of 150
I can post a secondary source for that Sandisk drive price, though it's not the main thrust of the article, as another product, even more daunting, is.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6220
post #118 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I can post a secondary source for that Sandisk drive price, though it's not the main thrust of the article, as another product, even more daunting, is.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6220

"For reference, SanDisk's 32GB drive is pegged at around $600 while Ritek's 32GB drive will likely come in slightly below that figure so you do the math."

Exactly what was your point? That a 32GB drive can't be $600?

Vinea
post #119 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

This can be a very simple response, and then I'm leaving it.

1. No, there are no 16Gb chips available in any mass manufactured quantity, and there won't be for months.

Given that April is 2 months I guess that qualifies for "months". But that still doesn't mean that Apple couldn't be using the 16Gb chips in the iPhone.

Quote:
If Apple is going to sell the numbers it expects to in the beginning, 300 thousand a month isn't nearly enough. And that level won't be reached for a while.

300K from Toshiba that is a month or two behind Samsung that has been showing off their 16Gb part since September of last year if not a little earlier. It is certain that they have had teething pains with the 50nm process as their production start has slipped to the point where Toshiba is almost at the same time.

Quote:
2. Price drops will be coming, granted. But not for the chips Apple will be using, by the amount you mention for June. And, June is not 6 months away. It's a little more than three and a half months. These chips won't be a full production levels until the end of April, assuming everything goes well.

1st you don't know exactly what chips they are using. If they are using the older 8Gb chips then price drops WILL occur before June in as much as SanDisk has announced 30%-40% retail cuts within weeks and other will follow to protect share or Apple can switch.

Exactly which cuts are you refering to anyway? The 70% price drops in 2006 that are well documented or the 50% in the last two months reported by SanDisk or the 30-40% cuts that SanDisk says they will make?

Quote:
The phone is NOW at the FCC for testing. The point I made with that, is that those are the chips Apple must use, not new chips.

This is all relevant, though you want to dismiss it.

Given that many folks have the 16Gb chips for eval how can you be sure that the iPhone is not designed with those chips and is what the FCC will approve? You can't. That's the whole point where you are incorrect that they must use the existing 8Gb chips.

Quote:
3. We'll see which chips are going into the device, so far, we don't know. But, we do know that they won't be slow chips. Yes. NAND is cheaper than NOR, but fast NAND is much more expensive than slow NAND. nothing new there.

And the NAND used in the Nano is "fast" NAND in as much as the 8Gb parts were faster than older generation NAND and the 16Gb parts faster still.

Quote:
I'm closing this from my end, so you can say anything you want, and have the last work, if it makes you happy.

Given you posted right after this with another sub-$600 drive reference this sentence is obviously untrue. Since your own source indicates both that SanDisk's drive is $600 and there is another drive that will be cheaper are you conceeding that?

Vinea
post #120 of 150
For the record...Samsung announced mass production of their 8Gb NAND on Jul 13. Apple announced the 8GB Nano that uses Samsung's 8Gb NAND in September (12th?).

Obviously they didn't design and produce the 2G nanos in 3 months...so any statement in May of 2006 that Apple couldn't be using a 8Gb part on technical grounds that "there are no 8Gb chips available in any mass manufactured quantity, and there won't be for months" would have been equally bogus and shown false by subsequent events.

Assuming Samsung can get their act together by early April then a June launch of the iPhone with the new chips is feasible (same 3 month period). It would also seem reasonable that Apple could use Toshiba as a second source if they get their production on line as they have used them in the past with the iPods.

Vinea
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › AT&T (Cingular) mulling iPhone price tweaks, survey reveals