How come at every mention of "subsidized hardware" we all think immediately of
locked-in carrier contracts? Can we not imagine a new model in which Apple subsidizes
their own hardware with ad revenue? Didn't they just buy a company and get into that
business?
US$999 for the model without ads, and US$699 for the model with ads? If you get
sick of the ads you can upgrade with a software update and pay the difference.
They could probably give it away free, pay a carrier on the side, and still make a
fortune if enough eyeballs would regularly see advertiser content . . .
Thoughts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
I gather we are on the same page. You got there just before me.
I don?t think it?s unfathomable that to get it for free a carrier lock in would be required. So far that is the only model I know of and it seems to work out well for consumers and carriers. I?d rather buy flat out but if I still have to pay the same rates then there is no point.
I?m interested to know how this ad-supported would work.
1) How to do they guarantee their customers will watch the ads? I think it will make people more likely to jailbreak their phones and this is unlikely something they will continue to fail at preventing.
2) Doesn?t the iPhone have a $200-300 subsidy from the carriers? At 10M phones a year that is $2 Billion from advertisers at a $200 subsidy. I can?t advertisers paying that much. Online magazines and newspapers aren?t making enough money from ads and Google net income for 2008 was only $4.2 Billion.
3) I don?t think that is viable and I think it ruins the user experience of the phone in a major way that Apple simply doesn?t want to enter into. Sure, you could opt out of it, but that same argument could be made for PC makers who bundle their machines with loads of crapware to squeeze out a slight profit. Sure, you can always delete the crapware, but it doesn?t make for a good user experience.
If Apple were to sell 10 million iSlates as some have forecasted, imagine the increase of our daily readership that that would potentially entail. And if it were introduced at the prices I stated, 10 mil is peanuts.
I think that will be a tough number at any price until we see what Apple has in store. So far, we?ve seen nothing revolutionary from the tablet space that makes me think this will be a ?must have? device. I am sure it will be blow us away but that isn?t enough to spark those kind of sales unless it can make our lives easier and better, even if we don?t realize we need it yet.
I still do not believe it would be a laptop replacement. That is how most previous tablets have been marketed and it just doesn't work. I am under the impression that it will be marketed as something else you will want in your Apple ecosystem. Not a laptop replacement and not a bigger iPod Touch. I don't know what that means, but I can't see Apple doing this as a device replacement.
I cant see why anyone would want a tablet. If its too big to fit in your pocket you might as well have a proper laptop
I cant see why anyone would want a tablet. If its too big to fit in your pocket you might as well have a proper laptop
That seems to be the general consensus and I understand it. I never saw the use for one until the idea of replacing most print media became a viable option.
I would wager that Apple’s delay in coming into this market was because they felt there was no need for them to shoehorn a desktop OS into a tablet the way MS did. That is pointless, but I have to think that if this is real, which it seems likely, it’s NOT going to be released “just because” others have.
1) How to do they guarantee their customers will watch the ads?
I don't think this is an issue.
Or at least, it's not any more an issue than TV/radio advertisers have had for a long time
Quote:
I think it will make people more likely to jailbreak their phones and this is unlikely something they will continue to fail at preventing.
Well, if as you say they are likely to succeed at preventing jailbreaks, then that's okay. I saw a blog somewhere which suggested cutting people out of the iTunes ecosystem if they jailbreak, perhaps that would work (perhaps not!).
But good point that if people jailbreak and remove ads, then ad supported models won't hold very well!
Didn't the Apple patent on advertising say something about scoring a user based on how often they clicked-through on ads? I suppose that such a model could stop subsidising phones that are jailbroken (ad blocked) as well as users who never do anything with ads. But it's a... shakey area.
Quote:
2) Doesn’t the iPhone have a $200-300 subsidy from the carriers? At 10M phones a year that is $2 Billion from advertisers at a $200 subsidy. I can’t advertisers paying that much. Online magazines and newspapers aren’t making enough money from ads and Google net income for 2008 was only $4.2 Billion.
They take $400 off the iPhone currently - you can see it in the fine print at the bottom of the online store.
I think it's dangerous to look at total numbers mixed in with per-subscriber numbers. It makes it harder to quantify.
Say that advertisers pay about 40c per viewer per hour on TV (which I believe is correct), and we watch about 4 hours a day. That's advertisers paying $48/mth currently for TV ads, per person. $400 subsidy requires less than $20/mth - so it is within the realms of possibility. But that only subsidises the device... I assumed they wanted to subsidise the content on the device!?
Quote:
3) I don’t think that is viable and I think it ruins the user experience of the phone in a major way that Apple simply doesn’t want to enter into. Sure, you could opt out of it, but that same argument could be made for PC makers who bundle their machines with loads of crapware to squeeze out a slight profit. Sure, you can always delete the crapware, but it doesn’t make for a good user experience.
Yeah I'd hate to see advertising over run the experience.
Then again, ads are getting smarter. They are more the things I am interested in clicking on.
What matters to me is that Apple doesn't start thinking that it's okay to move into more-and-more premium hardware, and just add more ads. They need to keep their _slight_ premium over competitor hardware.
Knowing AT&T they probably won't let you use your existing data plan, but I wonder if they will give a deal if you already have an iPhone data plan. Like tack on $10 extra a month instead of another 30$.
I heard they are going to be able to support the $10 per month data plan by broadcasting to the cell tower in the unregulated visible light spectrum. There may be some slight reception issues indoors, but it will fall back to wifi.
I think that will be a tough number at any price until we see what Apple has in store. So far, we’ve seen nothing revolutionary from the tablet space that makes me think this will be a “must have” device. I am sure it will be blow us away but that isn’t enough to spark those kind of sales unless it can make our lives easier and better, even if we don’t realize we need it yet.
Yep, us early adopters will get it and everyone else will see it in buses and airports. Kinda like the iPhone. There will probably be commercials (like the iPhone) that demonstrates how much easier it makes things. After two years it will be half the price and everyone will have one. Beyond replacing TVs and paper, hopefully we'll see some RTS games and not just tower defense.
Yep, us early adopters will get it and everyone else will see it in buses and airports. Kinda like the iPhone. There will probably be commercials (like the iPhone) that demonstrates how much easier it makes things.
Apple did help make dumb phone users jump into the more expensive smartphone market but I am still having trouble wrapping my head around the ?why" of the product. Even if it?s as revolutionary to its market as the iPhone was to the cellular market there will still be the hurdle of buying a tablet as a notebook replacement, eReader replacement, or whatever Apple corrals consumers to view it since tablets are not cultural staples like owning a mobile.
I think you don't realize : Richard is sort of the second president of France Télécom, alias Orange, the operator that Apple has chosen (like AT&T for the USA) to get the exclusivity on the iPhone, and this in all over Europe (because Orange first introduced the iPhone in many countries) . So if you think about it, Richard is one of the persons who can detain precious infos directly right from Apple, and even if Apple chosen them again to sell the tablet, as it seems to be the case
Ummm. They used to propose several different monthly fees. OK, the half of EUR 40 pays the phone. Then which half of EUR 70 does?
All that is just estimation. Sure I'm not showing you exact prices.
In Australia we also have multiple different monthly fees, and if we contract to more per month then the phone becomes cheaper.
At a certain point the phone is free. Like A$69/mth (US$60/mth) gets a free iPhone 3GS 16GB. If you contract to a higher monthly plan there's no advantage.
My point holds that the subsidy can only be high if you send lots of money with a phone company. In Australia roughly half the monthly spend goes to subsidy. AFAIK, AT&T assumes a base $70/mth plan and fixes the iPhone costs.
In Australia we also have multiple different monthly fees, and if we contract to more per month then the phone becomes cheaper.
At a certain point the phone is free. Like A$69/mth (US$60/mth) gets a free iPhone 3GS 16GB. If you contract to a higher monthly plan there's no advantage.
My point holds that the subsidy can only be high if you send lots of money with a phone company. In Australia roughly half the monthly spend goes to subsidy. AFAIK, AT&T assumes a base $70/mth plan and fixes the iPhone costs.
Dunno. There're no more free iPhones from Orange now. They only sell you less voice minutes with cheaper plans. But tablet/netbook doesn't need voice minutes...
Tethering option (being the exact analogue of how tablet is gonna connect to carrier's network and to use it) costs EUR 30 per month, but, sure, you have to have iPhone data plan, which costs you EUR 25 more. So, does it mean tablet plan is gonna be EUR 55? Dunno.
Contract-free iPhones are sold in Italy. Let's take an example.
Why are leaks illegal? NDA and all that yeah? Apple would never bring the Orange VP to court. Are you crazy.
Court? If I was Steve Jobs and I made you sign an NDA I wouldn't care if you were the Governor of Mars. I would hire thugs to beat the living crap out of you! Court? You'd be lucky if I just sued.
Knowing AT&T they probably won't let you use your existing data plan, but I wonder if they will give a deal if you already have an iPhone data plan. Like tack on $10 extra a month instead of another 30$.
Am I post 100? Hope so. Yay. Not that it's a big deal and I'm not number 100, but sometimes I have to blame the iPhone for the letters sticking or freezing. Lol.
Comments
How come at every mention of "subsidized hardware" we all think immediately of
locked-in carrier contracts? Can we not imagine a new model in which Apple subsidizes
their own hardware with ad revenue? Didn't they just buy a company and get into that
business?
US$999 for the model without ads, and US$699 for the model with ads? If you get
sick of the ads you can upgrade with a software update and pay the difference.
They could probably give it away free, pay a carrier on the side, and still make a
fortune if enough eyeballs would regularly see advertiser content . . .
Thoughts?
I gather we are on the same page. You got there just before me.
How come at every mention of "subsidized hardware" we all think immediately of
locked-in carrier contracts? Can we not imagine a new model in which Apple subsidizes
their own hardware with ad revenue? Didn't they just buy a company and get into that
business?
US$999 for the model without ads, and US$699 for the model with ads? If you get
sick of the ads you can upgrade with a software update and pay the difference.
They could probably give it away free, pay a carrier on the side, and still make a
fortune if enough eyeballs would regularly see advertiser content . . .
Thoughts?
I gather we are on the same page. You got there just before me.
I don?t think it?s unfathomable that to get it for free a carrier lock in would be required. So far that is the only model I know of and it seems to work out well for consumers and carriers. I?d rather buy flat out but if I still have to pay the same rates then there is no point.
I?m interested to know how this ad-supported would work.
1) How to do they guarantee their customers will watch the ads? I think it will make people more likely to jailbreak their phones and this is unlikely something they will continue to fail at preventing.
2) Doesn?t the iPhone have a $200-300 subsidy from the carriers? At 10M phones a year that is $2 Billion from advertisers at a $200 subsidy. I can?t advertisers paying that much. Online magazines and newspapers aren?t making enough money from ads and Google net income for 2008 was only $4.2 Billion.
3) I don?t think that is viable and I think it ruins the user experience of the phone in a major way that Apple simply doesn?t want to enter into. Sure, you could opt out of it, but that same argument could be made for PC makers who bundle their machines with loads of crapware to squeeze out a slight profit. Sure, you can always delete the crapware, but it doesn?t make for a good user experience.
If Apple were to sell 10 million iSlates as some have forecasted, imagine the increase of our daily readership that that would potentially entail. And if it were introduced at the prices I stated, 10 mil is peanuts.
I think that will be a tough number at any price until we see what Apple has in store. So far, we?ve seen nothing revolutionary from the tablet space that makes me think this will be a ?must have? device. I am sure it will be blow us away but that isn?t enough to spark those kind of sales unless it can make our lives easier and better, even if we don?t realize we need it yet.
I still do not believe it would be a laptop replacement. That is how most previous tablets have been marketed and it just doesn't work. I am under the impression that it will be marketed as something else you will want in your Apple ecosystem. Not a laptop replacement and not a bigger iPod Touch. I don't know what that means, but I can't see Apple doing this as a device replacement.
I cant see why anyone would want a tablet. If its too big to fit in your pocket you might as well have a proper laptop
I cant see why anyone would want a tablet. If its too big to fit in your pocket you might as well have a proper laptop
That seems to be the general consensus and I understand it. I never saw the use for one until the idea of replacing most print media became a viable option.
I would wager that Apple’s delay in coming into this market was because they felt there was no need for them to shoehorn a desktop OS into a tablet the way MS did. That is pointless, but I have to think that if this is real, which it seems likely, it’s NOT going to be released “just because” others have.
if this is real it?s going to be released ?just because? others have.
Did you mean "it's NOT going to be released just because others have" ?
Did you mean "it's NOT going to be released just because others have" ?
Yes. Edited.
1) How to do they guarantee their customers will watch the ads?
I don't think this is an issue.
Or at least, it's not any more an issue than TV/radio advertisers have had for a long time
I think it will make people more likely to jailbreak their phones and this is unlikely something they will continue to fail at preventing.
Well, if as you say they are likely to succeed at preventing jailbreaks, then that's okay. I saw a blog somewhere which suggested cutting people out of the iTunes ecosystem if they jailbreak, perhaps that would work (perhaps not!).
But good point that if people jailbreak and remove ads, then ad supported models won't hold very well!
Didn't the Apple patent on advertising say something about scoring a user based on how often they clicked-through on ads? I suppose that such a model could stop subsidising phones that are jailbroken (ad blocked) as well as users who never do anything with ads. But it's a... shakey area.
2) Doesn’t the iPhone have a $200-300 subsidy from the carriers? At 10M phones a year that is $2 Billion from advertisers at a $200 subsidy. I can’t advertisers paying that much. Online magazines and newspapers aren’t making enough money from ads and Google net income for 2008 was only $4.2 Billion.
They take $400 off the iPhone currently - you can see it in the fine print at the bottom of the online store.
I think it's dangerous to look at total numbers mixed in with per-subscriber numbers. It makes it harder to quantify.
Say that advertisers pay about 40c per viewer per hour on TV (which I believe is correct), and we watch about 4 hours a day. That's advertisers paying $48/mth currently for TV ads, per person. $400 subsidy requires less than $20/mth - so it is within the realms of possibility. But that only subsidises the device... I assumed they wanted to subsidise the content on the device!?
3) I don’t think that is viable and I think it ruins the user experience of the phone in a major way that Apple simply doesn’t want to enter into. Sure, you could opt out of it, but that same argument could be made for PC makers who bundle their machines with loads of crapware to squeeze out a slight profit. Sure, you can always delete the crapware, but it doesn’t make for a good user experience.
Yeah I'd hate to see advertising over run the experience.
Then again, ads are getting smarter. They are more the things I am interested in clicking on.
What matters to me is that Apple doesn't start thinking that it's okay to move into more-and-more premium hardware, and just add more ads. They need to keep their _slight_ premium over competitor hardware.
Knowing AT&T they probably won't let you use your existing data plan, but I wonder if they will give a deal if you already have an iPhone data plan. Like tack on $10 extra a month instead of another 30$.
I heard they are going to be able to support the $10 per month data plan by broadcasting to the cell tower in the unregulated visible light spectrum. There may be some slight reception issues indoors, but it will fall back to wifi.
I think that will be a tough number at any price until we see what Apple has in store. So far, we’ve seen nothing revolutionary from the tablet space that makes me think this will be a “must have” device. I am sure it will be blow us away but that isn’t enough to spark those kind of sales unless it can make our lives easier and better, even if we don’t realize we need it yet.
Yep, us early adopters will get it and everyone else will see it in buses and airports. Kinda like the iPhone. There will probably be commercials (like the iPhone) that demonstrates how much easier it makes things. After two years it will be half the price and everyone will have one. Beyond replacing TVs and paper, hopefully we'll see some RTS games and not just tower defense.
Yep, us early adopters will get it and everyone else will see it in buses and airports. Kinda like the iPhone. There will probably be commercials (like the iPhone) that demonstrates how much easier it makes things.
Apple did help make dumb phone users jump into the more expensive smartphone market but I am still having trouble wrapping my head around the ?why" of the product. Even if it?s as revolutionary to its market as the iPhone was to the cellular market there will still be the hurdle of buying a tablet as a notebook replacement, eReader replacement, or whatever Apple corrals consumers to view it since tablets are not cultural staples like owning a mobile.
I think you don't realize : Richard is sort of the second president of France Télécom, alias Orange, the operator that Apple has chosen (like AT&T for the USA) to get the exclusivity on the iPhone, and this in all over Europe (because Orange first introduced the iPhone in many countries) . So if you think about it, Richard is one of the persons who can detain precious infos directly right from Apple, and even if Apple chosen them again to sell the tablet, as it seems to be the case
J'en suis parfaitement conscient, mon grand.
It most, we can assume HALF of the monthly fee can be used to pay off the device.
In the US, we know the current iPhone contract ($70/mth?) takes off just $400 (edited with accurate subsidy)
Ummm. They used to propose several different monthly fees. OK, the half of EUR 40 pays the phone. Then which half of EUR 70 does?
All that is just estimation. Sure I'm not showing you exact prices.
J'en suis parfaitement conscient, mon grand.
Mdr alors arrêtes les blagues pourries américanisées
VoilÃ*, messieurs dames, comment on a réussi notre recherche.
On a bien trouvé un Français
- qui comprend pas le français
- qui répond pas "mon petit"
- qui arrive et qui part, comme s'il vivait Ã* Halifax, voir Ã* Brooklyn
- qui nous apporte ses "traductions" qu'en faisant un copier/coller
Comment va, Brooklyn f**r?Mdr alors arrêtes les blagues pourries américanisées
Ummm. They used to propose several different monthly fees. OK, the half of EUR 40 pays the phone. Then which half of EUR 70 does?
All that is just estimation. Sure I'm not showing you exact prices.
In Australia we also have multiple different monthly fees, and if we contract to more per month then the phone becomes cheaper.
At a certain point the phone is free. Like A$69/mth (US$60/mth) gets a free iPhone 3GS 16GB. If you contract to a higher monthly plan there's no advantage.
My point holds that the subsidy can only be high if you send lots of money with a phone company. In Australia roughly half the monthly spend goes to subsidy. AFAIK, AT&T assumes a base $70/mth plan and fixes the iPhone costs.
In Australia we also have multiple different monthly fees, and if we contract to more per month then the phone becomes cheaper.
At a certain point the phone is free. Like A$69/mth (US$60/mth) gets a free iPhone 3GS 16GB. If you contract to a higher monthly plan there's no advantage.
My point holds that the subsidy can only be high if you send lots of money with a phone company. In Australia roughly half the monthly spend goes to subsidy. AFAIK, AT&T assumes a base $70/mth plan and fixes the iPhone costs.
Dunno. There're no more free iPhones from Orange now. They only sell you less voice minutes with cheaper plans. But tablet/netbook doesn't need voice minutes...
Tethering option (being the exact analogue of how tablet is gonna connect to carrier's network and to use it) costs EUR 30 per month, but, sure, you have to have iPhone data plan, which costs you EUR 25 more. So, does it mean tablet plan is gonna be EUR 55? Dunno.
Contract-free iPhones are sold in Italy. Let's take an example.
3GS 16GB Black - 599,00€
Orange
3GS 16GB Black
Downpayment - 149€
Cheapest monthly fee (12 months of contract): 46,90€
149 + 12 * 46,90 = 711 > 599 (hence there's Orange's service included)
( 599 - 149 ) / 12 = 37,50 / month... more than half a monthly fee
No, I can't see through the transparency of their pricing schemes...
Voyonsvoir...
VoilÃ*, messieurs dames, comment on a réussi notre recherche.
On a bien trouvé un Français
- qui comprend pas le français
- qui répond pas "mon petit"
- qui arrive et qui part, comme s'il vivait Ã* Halifax, voir Ã* Brooklyn
- qui nous apporte ses "traductions" qu'en faisant un copier/coller
Comment va, Brooklyn f**r?Je saisis vraiment pas ton humour.
Why are leaks illegal? NDA and all that yeah? Apple would never bring the Orange VP to court. Are you crazy.
Court? If I was Steve Jobs and I made you sign an NDA I wouldn't care if you were the Governor of Mars. I would hire thugs to beat the living crap out of you! Court? You'd be lucky if I just sued.
Knowing AT&T they probably won't let you use your existing data plan, but I wonder if they will give a deal if you already have an iPhone data plan. Like tack on $10 extra a month instead of another 30$.
Am I post 100? Hope so. Yay. Not that it's a big deal and I'm not number 100, but sometimes I have to blame the iPhone for the letters sticking or freezing. Lol.