maybe take all of number.> 2 << reasons and instead maybe apple will handle the contracts and handle all carrier stuff them selves . apple would buy time for us direct from the carriers .
with the smaller nano phone .
just talking
9
apple already owns a patent on the SW >>>> MVDO <<< WHICH CAN SWITCH FROM CARRIER TO CARRIER when on a call .
Maybe, the entry iPhone has an A4 (256 RAM) and no retina display -- hardware/cost tradeoffs based on the anticipated usage of the target market.
Something like that, though it may actually have internals that are close to the big brother phone. I'm not sure that the price difference between A4 and A5 is all that great, and it's imperative that both phones run the same suite of apps. They may also use their diffusion line to introduce colour bodies back into their product line. The current crop of iDevices are very masculine in aesthetic and very modernist - but remember how insanely well the first crop of iPod mini's sold with women?
A plastic fascia allows for cheaper construction, more use of colour and even greater opportunity for co-branding, because those crazy asians sure do love their co-branding.
Handset maker HTC has seen strong sales of its Android-based smartphones on all four U.S. carriers, putting the Taiwanese company in a position to contend with Apple for the title of top smartphone seller in the U.S.
Sales of the HTC Thunderbolt on Verizon and Inspire 4G on AT&T have not topped the iPhone on each carrier's network, but those devices are said to be by far the top-selling Android-powered handsets.
And with the addition of smartphone sales through carriers Sprint and T-Mobile -- two carriers where Apple's iPhone is not available -- HTC is "set to challenge" Apple's position as the top U.S. smartphone maker, according to sources that spoke with DigiTimes.
The HTC Thunderbolt is said to be the second most popular smartphone on Verizon's network, trailing only the iPhone. And on AT&T, the Inspire 4G is also the best-selling Android phone, with sales almost three times higher than the Motorola Atrix 4G.
With sales on Sprint and T-Mobile, HTC took second place in terms of hardware sales in the first quarter of 2011, trailing only Apple. And HTC may find itself in a position now to threaten Apple's spot at the top of the U.S. market, the report said.
"With the absence of a next-generation iPhone, and the fact that rival Motorola has been forced to postpone the launch of its 4G models, HTC has a chance to further narrow the gap in market share against Apple before the third quarter," sources reportedly said.
"Most Popular", "Best Selling", "Highest Sales"...but NOT "Best Phone"
-- a top-of-the-line iPhone with all the latest and greatest features
-- a lower-price iPhone for less-demanding needs/users
.
.
.
Tim Cook has said that Apple is going to do the lower-price option.
At some point, we will have reached the capacities (CPU cores, GPU cores, SSD, RAM, etc.) that are meaningful for a phone -- we may be close to this now.
Services, such as iCloud and iMessage will reduce some of the hardware requirements of new iPhones.
Good points. I'm going to throw a wild card out there. Apple gets rid of the second tier and goes to a single model with a lower price. A $149 (on contract) iPhone 4S/5. It's far fetched but I think there's merit to the idea. Apple doesn't sell last year's iPad. Why would they need to sell last year's iPhone?
Today, they do it as a way to offer a cheaper handset for half the on-contract price. However, they could easily split the difference, get rid of the lower model and pocket quite a few sales.
The benefit would be, that they could reduce the number of years they have to support a handset to 2 years. That's very valuable in the fast moving mobile world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
2) Make some creative package deals with the carriers
-- less expensive family plan
-- shared data
-- more- flexible contracts
-- better warranty replacement
-- easier, less-expensive 12 or 18 month upgrade
-- One-stop shopping
The objectives:
-- A compelling reason for every person in the family to have an iPhone
-- A competitive offering for those who cannot currently justify an iPhone
Fat chance. As much as people hate them, the carriers have to make a profit too. After Apple just threatened to erode a huge profit centre (SMS/MMS) for them, they aren't going to be likely to be in a mood to deal much unless it can really be shown that such deals will lead to more net revenue. And the only way that works, is if Apple can actually show that a family plan will lead to family paying more overall. Or more specifically, enough to offset the cost to give each member of the family an iPhone.
Here's my prediction: you won't see anything about service plans.
Apple's just going to try and sell more phones by getting on more carriers.
I am thinking a new low-cost model -- so there is some product differentiation, lower manufacturing costs, and higher manufacturing capacity.
Where I don't have any clue is how/what Apple determines the minimum capabilities and capacities for a low-cost model.
It always has been -- but that doesn't mean it cannot change.
Remember how ATT changed VoiceMail to cater to the original iPhone.
I believe Apple has more negotiating power with the carriers than any single competitor.
I believe Apple has some exclusive offerings (planned and currently available) that give it great negotiating power:
For example Apple's online and Stick and Stucco stores. Currently, when you go to upgrade to a new iPhone you are given a flat Yes or No ($299 vs $499), based on your contract date. How about Apple suggests to the carrier: "Why don't we find a way in Apple Stores (supported by you the carrier) to give the customer what he wants -- prorate the contract, eliminate ETFs, and encourage sign-up and hand-me-down of the older model as a working iPhone (instead of a SIMless iPhone serving as an iPod Touch).
So, the above customer pays, maybe, $399 and gives the older model to his child.
So, the customer who wants to buy now, is given a way to do so -- rather than being told: "No iPhone for you today -- you must wait".
That's just Sales 101.
Also, Apple has a lot of services (and presumably much more coming) that consume bandwidth -- exactly what the carriers are selling and making profits on. Apple could negotiate with the carriers to provide more of these services in exchange for reduced data charges and higher (or eliminated) caps.
As an illustration:
Apple: Our new iPhone Nano only has 8 GB SDD, so we want to encourage users to redownload songs and apps from the iTunes stores whenever needed -- over 3G as well as WiFi. How about we, Apple, reimburse you, the carrier, $.01 for each song and $.05 for each app our customers download over your 3G.
Now, there's a snowball's chance that the above would happen -- but there are things that Apple can do for the carriers to the benefit of customers, carriers and Apple, alike.
I agree... what we know about iCloud today. But, if that's all there is, I doubt that Apple would have bothered. iCloud is currently WiFi only -- but I suspect that plans are in place for cell radio support.
Also what about streaming content -- I suspect we will see that within a year after the iCloud roll out.
All this assumes that Apple cares about your monthly bills. They don't. They care about selling phones. They will work with carriers to that end. No more. No less.
Remember when there were rumours about SIM-less iPhones and the carriers in Europe threatened to drop subsidies for the iPhone?
Make no mistake about it, iPhone sales would be drastically cut without carrier subsidies. And the only reason carriers subsidize these handsets now is because they do well from the contracts. Fat chance that Apple is going to rock that boat, just to save you a few dollars a month.
And that goes for all those contract terms, ETFs. etc. They aren't raising them for no reason.
I think the point is that when they bring out the iPhone 5 they don't want to keep making the iPhone 3GS, but the iPhone 4 may not be suited to the low cost segment due to the intrinsically expensive construction and materials.
So we may see eventually an update to the 3GS that keeps the plastic enclosure but updates the internals, in much the same way as the MacBook is pretty much the same as a MacBook Pro but is just built of less expensive materials.
I dunno, we're talking about a bill of materials that's probably only a few dollars apart. And for that Apple would have to take a huge hit on per unit margins? What's the point? Isn't it better to put those resources towards making more current year handsets and selling them at full price. After all, it's not like Apple has a shortage of willing buyers for its merchandise.
I've always understood that the reason they sold last year's device was to maximize their return on the tooling and machining to make the device. It gives them a 2 year production run instead of one. I think its far simpler to keep this practice that try to "artificially" introduce product differentiation. Though, given how fast this tech is starting to move and how quickly the competition is starting to catch up, it's debatable how sustainable the current practice is. Might just be better off to bite the reduced ROI on tooling and just make as many current year models as possible.
I dunno, we're talking about a bill of materials that's probably only a few dollars apart. And for that Apple would have to take a huge hit on per unit margins? What's the point? Isn't it better to put those resources towards making more current year handsets and selling them at full price. After all, it's not like Apple has a shortage of willing buyers for its merchandise.
Given that the iphone-4 has an industry leading LCD panel and the 3GS doesn't I'd imagine that it's more than just a few dollars.
Quote:
I've always understood that the reason they sold last year's device was to maximize their return on the tooling and machining to make the device. It gives them a 2 year production run instead of one. I think its far simpler to keep this practice that try to "artificially" introduce product differentiation. Though, given how fast this tech is starting to move and how quickly the competition is starting to catch up, it's debatable how sustainable the current practice is. Might just be better off to bite the reduced ROI on tooling and just make as many current year models as possible.
You have to remember that Apple isn't a firm who redesigns for redesign's sake. The iPhone has undergone rapid change in the design over the last few generations in much the same way that the powerbook did. However as it gets closer to an 'optimal' design from Apple's perspective the changes will become far smaller and the tooling will be switched over far less. We'll end up in a similar situation to the unibody macbook pro which hasn't changed much since it was launched back in 2008.
So at a certain point their premium offering will have a stable form factor with improvements being limited to software and component quality. The iPhone 4 probably isn't quite there, but I think we're getting close.
Good points. I'm going to throw a wild card out there. Apple gets rid of the second tier and goes to a single model with a lower price. A $149 (on contract) iPhone 4S/5. It's far fetched but I think there's merit to the idea. Apple doesn't sell last year's iPad. Why would they need to sell last year's iPhone?
Today, they do it as a way to offer a cheaper handset for half the on-contract price. However, they could easily split the difference, get rid of the lower model and pocket quite a few sales.
The benefit would be, that they could reduce the number of years they have to support a handset to 2 years. That's very valuable in the fast moving mobile world.
That's an interesting alternative.
Quote:
Fat chance. As much as people hate them, the carriers have to make a profit too. After Apple just threatened to erode a huge profit centre (SMS/MMS) for them, they aren't going to be likely to be in a mood to deal much unless it can really be shown that such deals will lead to more net revenue. And the only way that works, is if Apple can actually show that a family plan will lead to family paying more overall. Or more specifically, enough to offset the cost to give each member of the family an iPhone.
Here's my prediction: you won't see anything about service plans.
Apple's just going to try and sell more phones by getting on more carriers.
Well, Apple could, say, reduce the price the carrier pays for the iPhone to compensate the carrier for more flexible plans to Apple's advantage.
You, also must realize that Apple is getting into mobile content services -- where it will be to Apple's advantage to sell services in addition to physical phones. The family unit is a natural starting point for these services.
All this assumes that Apple cares about your monthly bills. They don't. They care about selling phones. They will work with carriers to that end. No more. No less.
Remember when there were rumours about SIM-less iPhones and the carriers in Europe threatened to drop subsidies for the iPhone?
Make no mistake about it, iPhone sales would be drastically cut without carrier subsidies. And the only reason carriers subsidize these handsets now is because they do well from the contracts. Fat chance that Apple is going to rock that boat, just to save you a few dollars a month.
And that goes for all those contract terms, ETFs. etc. They aren't raising them for no reason.
That's just silly! Of course Apple cares about your monthly bills -- they are one of the major deterrents to buying a smart phone.
In our household we have a family plan of 5 -- 2 adults and 3 children. 2 iPhones and 3 brand x feature phones. All 3 kids have SIMless older iPhones as iPod Touches.
One deterrent to an all iPhone household is the inflexible contracts. Another is the monthly cost of the plan -- shared data would do much to mitigate this.
l can only infer that you don't own or run a business. Maybe you can enlighten us on why this is a winning strategy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph L
What a surprise. Make craptastic products and give them away practically for free.
But who is making the biggest profits? That's the company I do business with!
Joe's right on this point, Jack.
Thought Apple may sell only 5% of the phone market, it takes in 20% of the cash and rakes in 55% of profits. The leftovers, 45% of profits are shared among the other companies who sell 95% of the phones. Any businessman in the know would be salivating over such a winning strategy.
For the non-accountants here: Your article references consolidated sales. Sales is not profit, and consolidated means HTC + all subsidiaries for which it is required to consolidate.
People who are too ashamed of their cheap phones to take them out and use them in public...
Hence the demand for shameless copies of the iPhone
There's even a copy of Apple's signature white earbuds floating around flea markets and import shops, lest anyone think you've got a non-Apple music player in your pocket.
Hence the demand for shameless copies of the iPhone
There's even a copy of Apple's signature white earbuds floating around flea markets and import shops, lest anyone think you've got a non-Apple music player in your pocket.
Though I always think you can spot the real apple geeks because they don't use the apple earbuds
I think the point is that when they bring out the iPhone 5 they don't want to keep making the iPhone 3GS, but the iPhone 4 may not be suited to the low cost segment due to the intrinsically expensive construction and materials.
So we may see eventually an update to the 3GS that keeps the plastic enclosure but updates the internals, in much the same way as the MacBook is pretty much the same as a MacBook Pro but is just built of less expensive materials.
I dunno.
The iPhone 4 factories are already built and humming along quite nicely. It would make more sense to keep them running for another year to make the $99 iPhone 4... especially if the iPhone 4S or 5 uses the same design.
I'd love to know how many iPhone 3GS Apple makes today... it's gotta be tiny compared to the iPhone 4.
While the iPhone 4 does use more expensive materials... I bet Apple wants to get away from the old plastic cases that came out in 2008.
Plus... I'm sure Apple has more than paid for the tooling for the iPhone 4 design. Switching over the few remaining 3GS factory lines to make iPhone 4 designs shouldn't be too costly.
This type of competition is great. It only makes Apple that much better. Just think of the secret features Apple will announce about iOS 5 come this fall.
This.
Aside from Apple, HTC is the only other smartphone manufacturer that I've been consistently impressed by. Their phones are well-built, their hardware top notch, and Sense is probably the only android custom UI that people actually like. Sure, they're not Apple, but gotta give them credit where credit is due.
Quote:
They might be making more money on HTC phones than HTC itself!
Assuming an average profit margin of 15% per phone for HTC, it doesn't look like it.
Quote:
I am thinking a new low-cost model -- so there is some product differentiation, lower manufacturing costs, and higher manufacturing capacity.
Where I don't have any clue is how/what Apple determines the minimum capabilities and capacities for a low-cost model.
I think that apple should offer a different form factor instead of offering a 'entry model,' since the n-1 generation iPhone already has that covered. One of the big reasons that people choose a different smartphone than an iPhone is because they want a different form factor (eg. they want a bigger screen or a hardware keyboard, etc). IMO apple would be better off offering a phone that addresses that market instead of one that competes with the previous generation iphone.
Comments
Strange to think that Microsoft makes $5 on every HTC Android handset sold. They're making more money from Android right now than WP7.
They might be making more money on HTC phones than HTC itself!
AGREED
except
maybe take all of number.> 2 << reasons and instead maybe apple will handle the contracts and handle all carrier stuff them selves . apple would buy time for us direct from the carriers .
with the smaller nano phone .
just talking
9
apple already owns a patent on the SW >>>> MVDO <<< WHICH CAN SWITCH FROM CARRIER TO CARRIER when on a call .
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...highlight=mvno
Ha! Apple certainly has that option in it's back pocket. And, It should be a great invisible "elephant in the room" when negotiating with carriers.
However, I would bet against Apple getting into the MVNO business any more than they would get into the Song/Movie/Book publishing or Cable business.
There are more profitable opportunities for Apple -- and they can use those profits to negotiate for what they want form the carriers, etc.
Exactly!
Maybe, the entry iPhone has an A4 (256 RAM) and no retina display -- hardware/cost tradeoffs based on the anticipated usage of the target market.
Something like that, though it may actually have internals that are close to the big brother phone. I'm not sure that the price difference between A4 and A5 is all that great, and it's imperative that both phones run the same suite of apps. They may also use their diffusion line to introduce colour bodies back into their product line. The current crop of iDevices are very masculine in aesthetic and very modernist - but remember how insanely well the first crop of iPod mini's sold with women?
A plastic fascia allows for cheaper construction, more use of colour and even greater opportunity for co-branding, because those crazy asians sure do love their co-branding.
Handset maker HTC has seen strong sales of its Android-based smartphones on all four U.S. carriers, putting the Taiwanese company in a position to contend with Apple for the title of top smartphone seller in the U.S.
Sales of the HTC Thunderbolt on Verizon and Inspire 4G on AT&T have not topped the iPhone on each carrier's network, but those devices are said to be by far the top-selling Android-powered handsets.
And with the addition of smartphone sales through carriers Sprint and T-Mobile -- two carriers where Apple's iPhone is not available -- HTC is "set to challenge" Apple's position as the top U.S. smartphone maker, according to sources that spoke with DigiTimes.
The HTC Thunderbolt is said to be the second most popular smartphone on Verizon's network, trailing only the iPhone. And on AT&T, the Inspire 4G is also the best-selling Android phone, with sales almost three times higher than the Motorola Atrix 4G.
With sales on Sprint and T-Mobile, HTC took second place in terms of hardware sales in the first quarter of 2011, trailing only Apple. And HTC may find itself in a position now to threaten Apple's spot at the top of the U.S. market, the report said.
"With the absence of a next-generation iPhone, and the fact that rival Motorola has been forced to postpone the launch of its 4G models, HTC has a chance to further narrow the gap in market share against Apple before the third quarter," sources reportedly said.
"Most Popular", "Best Selling", "Highest Sales"...but NOT "Best Phone"
I call BS. Only a naive, self absorbed, pretentious wanker would believe they are defined by, or can define others by, a phone.
You can't possibly know so many of these people.
Birds of a feather and all that....
1) Offer 2 new iPhones
-- a top-of-the-line iPhone with all the latest and greatest features
-- a lower-price iPhone for less-demanding needs/users
.
.
.
Tim Cook has said that Apple is going to do the lower-price option.
At some point, we will have reached the capacities (CPU cores, GPU cores, SSD, RAM, etc.) that are meaningful for a phone -- we may be close to this now.
Services, such as iCloud and iMessage will reduce some of the hardware requirements of new iPhones.
Good points. I'm going to throw a wild card out there. Apple gets rid of the second tier and goes to a single model with a lower price. A $149 (on contract) iPhone 4S/5. It's far fetched but I think there's merit to the idea. Apple doesn't sell last year's iPad. Why would they need to sell last year's iPhone?
Today, they do it as a way to offer a cheaper handset for half the on-contract price. However, they could easily split the difference, get rid of the lower model and pocket quite a few sales.
The benefit would be, that they could reduce the number of years they have to support a handset to 2 years. That's very valuable in the fast moving mobile world.
2) Make some creative package deals with the carriers
-- less expensive family plan
-- shared data
-- more- flexible contracts
-- better warranty replacement
-- easier, less-expensive 12 or 18 month upgrade
-- One-stop shopping
The objectives:
-- A compelling reason for every person in the family to have an iPhone
-- A competitive offering for those who cannot currently justify an iPhone
Fat chance. As much as people hate them, the carriers have to make a profit too. After Apple just threatened to erode a huge profit centre (SMS/MMS) for them, they aren't going to be likely to be in a mood to deal much unless it can really be shown that such deals will lead to more net revenue. And the only way that works, is if Apple can actually show that a family plan will lead to family paying more overall. Or more specifically, enough to offset the cost to give each member of the family an iPhone.
Here's my prediction: you won't see anything about service plans.
Apple's just going to try and sell more phones by getting on more carriers.
I am thinking a new low-cost model -- so there is some product differentiation, lower manufacturing costs, and higher manufacturing capacity.
Where I don't have any clue is how/what Apple determines the minimum capabilities and capacities for a low-cost model.
It always has been -- but that doesn't mean it cannot change.
Remember how ATT changed VoiceMail to cater to the original iPhone.
I believe Apple has more negotiating power with the carriers than any single competitor.
I believe Apple has some exclusive offerings (planned and currently available) that give it great negotiating power:
For example Apple's online and Stick and Stucco stores. Currently, when you go to upgrade to a new iPhone you are given a flat Yes or No ($299 vs $499), based on your contract date. How about Apple suggests to the carrier: "Why don't we find a way in Apple Stores (supported by you the carrier) to give the customer what he wants -- prorate the contract, eliminate ETFs, and encourage sign-up and hand-me-down of the older model as a working iPhone (instead of a SIMless iPhone serving as an iPod Touch).
So, the above customer pays, maybe, $399 and gives the older model to his child.
So, the customer who wants to buy now, is given a way to do so -- rather than being told: "No iPhone for you today -- you must wait".
That's just Sales 101.
Also, Apple has a lot of services (and presumably much more coming) that consume bandwidth -- exactly what the carriers are selling and making profits on. Apple could negotiate with the carriers to provide more of these services in exchange for reduced data charges and higher (or eliminated) caps.
As an illustration:
Apple: Our new iPhone Nano only has 8 GB SDD, so we want to encourage users to redownload songs and apps from the iTunes stores whenever needed -- over 3G as well as WiFi. How about we, Apple, reimburse you, the carrier, $.01 for each song and $.05 for each app our customers download over your 3G.
Now, there's a snowball's chance that the above would happen -- but there are things that Apple can do for the carriers to the benefit of customers, carriers and Apple, alike.
I agree... what we know about iCloud today. But, if that's all there is, I doubt that Apple would have bothered. iCloud is currently WiFi only -- but I suspect that plans are in place for cell radio support.
Also what about streaming content -- I suspect we will see that within a year after the iCloud roll out.
All this assumes that Apple cares about your monthly bills. They don't. They care about selling phones. They will work with carriers to that end. No more. No less.
Remember when there were rumours about SIM-less iPhones and the carriers in Europe threatened to drop subsidies for the iPhone?
Make no mistake about it, iPhone sales would be drastically cut without carrier subsidies. And the only reason carriers subsidize these handsets now is because they do well from the contracts. Fat chance that Apple is going to rock that boat, just to save you a few dollars a month.
And that goes for all those contract terms, ETFs. etc. They aren't raising them for no reason.
I think the point is that when they bring out the iPhone 5 they don't want to keep making the iPhone 3GS, but the iPhone 4 may not be suited to the low cost segment due to the intrinsically expensive construction and materials.
So we may see eventually an update to the 3GS that keeps the plastic enclosure but updates the internals, in much the same way as the MacBook is pretty much the same as a MacBook Pro but is just built of less expensive materials.
I dunno, we're talking about a bill of materials that's probably only a few dollars apart. And for that Apple would have to take a huge hit on per unit margins? What's the point? Isn't it better to put those resources towards making more current year handsets and selling them at full price. After all, it's not like Apple has a shortage of willing buyers for its merchandise.
I've always understood that the reason they sold last year's device was to maximize their return on the tooling and machining to make the device. It gives them a 2 year production run instead of one. I think its far simpler to keep this practice that try to "artificially" introduce product differentiation. Though, given how fast this tech is starting to move and how quickly the competition is starting to catch up, it's debatable how sustainable the current practice is. Might just be better off to bite the reduced ROI on tooling and just make as many current year models as possible.
I dunno, we're talking about a bill of materials that's probably only a few dollars apart. And for that Apple would have to take a huge hit on per unit margins? What's the point? Isn't it better to put those resources towards making more current year handsets and selling them at full price. After all, it's not like Apple has a shortage of willing buyers for its merchandise.
Given that the iphone-4 has an industry leading LCD panel and the 3GS doesn't I'd imagine that it's more than just a few dollars.
I've always understood that the reason they sold last year's device was to maximize their return on the tooling and machining to make the device. It gives them a 2 year production run instead of one. I think its far simpler to keep this practice that try to "artificially" introduce product differentiation. Though, given how fast this tech is starting to move and how quickly the competition is starting to catch up, it's debatable how sustainable the current practice is. Might just be better off to bite the reduced ROI on tooling and just make as many current year models as possible.
You have to remember that Apple isn't a firm who redesigns for redesign's sake. The iPhone has undergone rapid change in the design over the last few generations in much the same way that the powerbook did. However as it gets closer to an 'optimal' design from Apple's perspective the changes will become far smaller and the tooling will be switched over far less. We'll end up in a similar situation to the unibody macbook pro which hasn't changed much since it was launched back in 2008.
So at a certain point their premium offering will have a stable form factor with improvements being limited to software and component quality. The iPhone 4 probably isn't quite there, but I think we're getting close.
Pretty much nothing. The only ones sold are BOGOS.
There hasn't been BOGOs since last year. Please try to keep up
Good points. I'm going to throw a wild card out there. Apple gets rid of the second tier and goes to a single model with a lower price. A $149 (on contract) iPhone 4S/5. It's far fetched but I think there's merit to the idea. Apple doesn't sell last year's iPad. Why would they need to sell last year's iPhone?
Today, they do it as a way to offer a cheaper handset for half the on-contract price. However, they could easily split the difference, get rid of the lower model and pocket quite a few sales.
The benefit would be, that they could reduce the number of years they have to support a handset to 2 years. That's very valuable in the fast moving mobile world.
That's an interesting alternative.
Fat chance. As much as people hate them, the carriers have to make a profit too. After Apple just threatened to erode a huge profit centre (SMS/MMS) for them, they aren't going to be likely to be in a mood to deal much unless it can really be shown that such deals will lead to more net revenue. And the only way that works, is if Apple can actually show that a family plan will lead to family paying more overall. Or more specifically, enough to offset the cost to give each member of the family an iPhone.
Here's my prediction: you won't see anything about service plans.
Apple's just going to try and sell more phones by getting on more carriers.
Well, Apple could, say, reduce the price the carrier pays for the iPhone to compensate the carrier for more flexible plans to Apple's advantage.
You, also must realize that Apple is getting into mobile content services -- where it will be to Apple's advantage to sell services in addition to physical phones. The family unit is a natural starting point for these services.
All this assumes that Apple cares about your monthly bills. They don't. They care about selling phones. They will work with carriers to that end. No more. No less.
Remember when there were rumours about SIM-less iPhones and the carriers in Europe threatened to drop subsidies for the iPhone?
Make no mistake about it, iPhone sales would be drastically cut without carrier subsidies. And the only reason carriers subsidize these handsets now is because they do well from the contracts. Fat chance that Apple is going to rock that boat, just to save you a few dollars a month.
And that goes for all those contract terms, ETFs. etc. They aren't raising them for no reason.
That's just silly! Of course Apple cares about your monthly bills -- they are one of the major deterrents to buying a smart phone.
In our household we have a family plan of 5 -- 2 adults and 3 children. 2 iPhones and 3 brand x feature phones. All 3 kids have SIMless older iPhones as iPod Touches.
One deterrent to an all iPhone household is the inflexible contracts. Another is the monthly cost of the plan -- shared data would do much to mitigate this.
We have 6 iPads -- 3 are 3G enabled.
l can only infer that you don't own or run a business. Maybe you can enlighten us on why this is a winning strategy.
What a surprise. Make craptastic products and give them away practically for free.
But who is making the biggest profits? That's the company I do business with!
Joe's right on this point, Jack.
Thought Apple may sell only 5% of the phone market, it takes in 20% of the cash and rakes in 55% of profits. The leftovers, 45% of profits are shared among the other companies who sell 95% of the phones. Any businessman in the know would be salivating over such a winning strategy.
I believe the number you are looking for is 1.42 Billion: http://www.knowyourmobile.com/blog/9...o_precise.html
For the non-accountants here: Your article references consolidated sales. Sales is not profit, and consolidated means HTC + all subsidiaries for which it is required to consolidate.
People who are too ashamed of their cheap phones to take them out and use them in public...
Hence the demand for shameless copies of the iPhone
There's even a copy of Apple's signature white earbuds floating around flea markets and import shops, lest anyone think you've got a non-Apple music player in your pocket.
Hence the demand for shameless copies of the iPhone
There's even a copy of Apple's signature white earbuds floating around flea markets and import shops, lest anyone think you've got a non-Apple music player in your pocket.
Though I always think you can spot the real apple geeks because they don't use the apple earbuds
I think the point is that when they bring out the iPhone 5 they don't want to keep making the iPhone 3GS, but the iPhone 4 may not be suited to the low cost segment due to the intrinsically expensive construction and materials.
So we may see eventually an update to the 3GS that keeps the plastic enclosure but updates the internals, in much the same way as the MacBook is pretty much the same as a MacBook Pro but is just built of less expensive materials.
I dunno.
The iPhone 4 factories are already built and humming along quite nicely. It would make more sense to keep them running for another year to make the $99 iPhone 4... especially if the iPhone 4S or 5 uses the same design.
I'd love to know how many iPhone 3GS Apple makes today... it's gotta be tiny compared to the iPhone 4.
While the iPhone 4 does use more expensive materials... I bet Apple wants to get away from the old plastic cases that came out in 2008.
Plus... I'm sure Apple has more than paid for the tooling for the iPhone 4 design. Switching over the few remaining 3GS factory lines to make iPhone 4 designs shouldn't be too costly.
This type of competition is great. It only makes Apple that much better. Just think of the secret features Apple will announce about iOS 5 come this fall.
This.
Aside from Apple, HTC is the only other smartphone manufacturer that I've been consistently impressed by. Their phones are well-built, their hardware top notch, and Sense is probably the only android custom UI that people actually like. Sure, they're not Apple, but gotta give them credit where credit is due.
They might be making more money on HTC phones than HTC itself!
Assuming an average profit margin of 15% per phone for HTC, it doesn't look like it.
I am thinking a new low-cost model -- so there is some product differentiation, lower manufacturing costs, and higher manufacturing capacity.
Where I don't have any clue is how/what Apple determines the minimum capabilities and capacities for a low-cost model.
I think that apple should offer a different form factor instead of offering a 'entry model,' since the n-1 generation iPhone already has that covered. One of the big reasons that people choose a different smartphone than an iPhone is because they want a different form factor (eg. they want a bigger screen or a hardware keyboard, etc). IMO apple would be better off offering a phone that addresses that market instead of one that competes with the previous generation iphone.