So, we agree. If Apple can do it profitable they will, if they can't they won't. So why were you arguing with me? As I said:
Why should Apple chase a market unless there is a guarantee of good profits? Market share means dick if you're not profitable
Nowhere in what you quoted did I say Apple shouldn't do this or that, all I said was that Apple shouldn't do it purely to chase market share to appease analysts if they can't be profitable.
I wasn't arguing with you I made a point. This is a discussion board after all. I do take issue with car analogies as I think they never work when talking about phones. Yes we agree that Apple will do what is in their best interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
delta of the cost of memory: $10. again, you're arguing for a $400 reduction in ASP on a $10 part? To match apple's current margins, you'll need to get down well less than $130 to make it 'worth the while'.
Internals: The fact that a phone is 'always on' requires a bigger battery... the size of an iPhone. 2.6cu in iPod Touch volume vs 3.84 cu in volume.
Even if you use the better battery tech, you're stuck with the more power hungry (and likely larger) 4s internals.
to your point, why not use the 4s then? is that more logical or is spending the billion or so and design a completely new phone. now you've just
- dedicated another production line
(losing the opportunity to build more iPhone 5s in parallel for it's release)
- provided a top line choice to the consumer (you're making it harder for them to choose).
- committed to 5 years of support for the product (staff/stock inventory/qualifications for all the regulatory bodies)
For what, people in 2nd and 3rd world countries (regions) who really don't give a hoot that it's an apple phone to begin with?
I think the fact that carriers in those regions won't build a 'spec' LTE network is the the primary barrier to entry, not the price of the phone. Heck if it's a spec network, people would be buying grey and 2nd hand iPhones and using them there anyway, and from an ecosystem point of view, that's good for Apple as well.
You don't have any better idea of the costs involved for such a phone anymore than I do. You are guessing just like the rest of us. How much would the added telephone hardware costs? How much would switching lines to a new model? COuld they expect significantly higher sales off a cheaper new model vs. continuing the trend of selling older models cheaper than the current iPhone? Only Apple knows the answer to these and many other questions. I think it makes sense but I don't have all the figures and research to make an educated guess anymore than you. Apple will do what is in the best interest of Apple and I fully acknowledge and accept that fact. Many here on this forum are too quick to speak in absolutes as to what Apple will or will not do as if they have some insider information and are able to decipher the future based on past decisions. That is where I have a problem because all of us are simply guessing.
"The narrative has been focused on the consumer demand, and the narrative needs to shift to the operator. Apple has run out of the kinds of operators that will say yes to them."
Or the market has run out of patience with Apple's strategy of getting one operator in a region to commit, and then the others eventually follow. This is not new.... This was the same problem with Verizon in the US 3 years ago.
The problem is that in many regions, carriers are regional (sort of like the Cable TV problem in the US), and there is little bang for the buck to support a 2G network, that is carrying 4 million potential customers. Yet if there are 40 of those regions, that's 160 million iPhones not sold every 2 years. Couple that with China Mobile, Docomo, and some big players who run variant networks, the numbers get big fast.
China Mobile and Docomo are the classic "why aren't you supporting our variant of CDMA" negotiations to support current customers. Apple appears to be playing the long game, waiting for LTE convergence in japan (docomo using a different radio spectrum than most LTE phones).
I think the key thing for apple is to toe the line for limiting SKU variants (not 800 different phones supporting sub variant wireless specs), and access to iCloud features. Those cost money. As for who assumes the 'new market risk' problems (how many phones to commit to building vs how many are quotaed to sell), I think Apple has to be a bit shrewder in it's negotiations.
You don't have any better idea of the costs involved for such a phone anymore than I do. You are guessing just like the rest of us. How much would the added telephone hardware costs? How much would switching lines to a new model? COuld they expect significantly higher sales off a cheaper new model vs. continuing the trend of selling older models cheaper than the current iPhone? Only Apple knows the answer to these and many other questions. I think it makes sense but I don't have all the figures and research to make an educated guess anymore than you. Apple will do what is in the best interest of Apple and I fully acknowledge and accept that fact. Many here on this forum are too quick to speak in absolutes as to what Apple will or will not do as if they have some insider information and are able to decipher the future based on past decisions. That is where I have a problem because all of us are simply guessing.
I'm using the guesses analysts are positing (iSuppli). I wasn't pulling stuff out of my ass (other peoples' asses maybe;-)
So arguing component makeup lowering prices is fruitless (on both sides... the cost of 'changing a part' can be more than using an older more expensive part, with all the changes in supply chain, manufacturing, and testing are added in).
Apple doesn't know the answers on future sales based on strategies... they just have there analysis which has real costs, vs us without that.
We are in violent agreement. Apple has a 'profit stream' projection the BoD has agreed to, and they are working their plan to align to that.
The fun thing is the guessing;-) I make money investing/using/selling services for Apple. I 'guessed' it was going to survive with OS X. I didn't know it at the time that it would the iOS fork, but it was a good guess. So I keep guessing.
Other phone makers would give anything to have this kind of leverage to dictate terms to a carrier. Apple has it, they want it, there is money to be made, here are the terms.
Other phone makers would give anything to have this kind of leverage to dictate terms to a carrier. Apple has it, they want it, there is money to be made, here are the terms.
The difference is that other phone makers have no faith in their product at their starting price point, so they fold easily so that they can at least make back what money they have into the hardware. Motorola and Nokia were notorious for this. Low cost/low margin phones were the norm before the iPhone, unless you were talking about a PDA that was a phone. Carriers would make a killing on the monthly fee because there was practically no subsidy to pay the phone maker back.
For example, Lamborghinis are not owned by a large chunk of the world's sports car drivers.
It was because of a few carriers around the world early last year announcing that they were dropping the iPhone because of the high subsidies, that analysts started the whole "OMG Apple needs to make a cheaper phone" theme. At the time, it was feared to be a trend that could accelerate.
You have a list of those carriers? I believe it was analysts who were guessing some carriers would drop the iPhone. I don't think that ever happened, however.
Perhaps a better analogy would be jewelry stores. Tiffany's isn't selling costume jewelry.
Prohibitive carrier requirements made by Apple have prevented some 2.8 billion customers from having access to the iPhone, according to a new analysis.
In further news prohibitive monetary requirements made by Ferrari have prevented some 7 billion customers from having access to their sports cars, according to a new analysis.
What is with the obsession that every company (okay, just Apple really) should make every product line available to every market and every price point? I can't buy a diesel MINI Cooper D in Canada, and couldn't afford the turbocharged Cooper SD even if it was - but I'm perfectly happy with my naturally-aspirated petrol Cooper.
That's capitalism. Once you saturate a market, you are expected to saturate all other markets or fail as a company (if you're public). Capitalism isn't sustainable because perpetual growth is not possible in any market for any product. Nothing is perpetual except change.
You have a list of those carriers? I believe it was analysts who were guessing some carriers would drop the iPhone. I don't think that ever happened, however.
Back in Nov 2011, Czech carrier Telefonica (O2) decided not "to carry Apple’s iPhone 4S and is dropping all prior iPhone models, citing “business terms”. (...) The spokesperson blamed it on struggling sales in the local market, describing iPhone sales in the country as “pretty small and well below Android models and even still Nokia phones”.
A couple of months later, Telefonica and Vodafone both decided to drop subsidies in Spain, which included the iPhone. (Later they decided this was a mistake, but it helped ignite investor worries in the US.)
I also seem to recall a carrier in Northern Europe that dropped subsidies and perhaps the iPhone. I'm trying to find a link to that.
It would be nice if the article actually MENTIONED more than ONE of the so-called "strict conditions" mentioned in the headline or the "prohibitive carrier requirements" noted in the very first line. The wording is obviously intended to make it appear that Apple is doing something wrong, but there's nothing in the article to support that position.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applelunatic
So, we agree. If Apple can do it profitable they will, if they can't they won't. So why were you arguing with me? As I said:
Why should Apple chase a market unless there is a guarantee of good profits? Market share means dick if you're not profitable
Nowhere in what you quoted did I say Apple shouldn't do this or that, all I said was that Apple shouldn't do it purely to chase market share to appease analysts if they can't be profitable.
I wasn't arguing with you I made a point. This is a discussion board after all. I do take issue with car analogies as I think they never work when talking about phones. Yes we agree that Apple will do what is in their best interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
delta of the cost of memory: $10. again, you're arguing for a $400 reduction in ASP on a $10 part? To match apple's current margins, you'll need to get down well less than $130 to make it 'worth the while'.
Internals: The fact that a phone is 'always on' requires a bigger battery... the size of an iPhone. 2.6cu in iPod Touch volume vs 3.84 cu in volume.
Even if you use the better battery tech, you're stuck with the more power hungry (and likely larger) 4s internals.
to your point, why not use the 4s then? is that more logical or is spending the billion or so and design a completely new phone. now you've just
- dedicated another production line
(losing the opportunity to build more iPhone 5s in parallel for it's release)
- provided a top line choice to the consumer (you're making it harder for them to choose).
- committed to 5 years of support for the product (staff/stock inventory/qualifications for all the regulatory bodies)
For what, people in 2nd and 3rd world countries (regions) who really don't give a hoot that it's an apple phone to begin with?
I think the fact that carriers in those regions won't build a 'spec' LTE network is the the primary barrier to entry, not the price of the phone. Heck if it's a spec network, people would be buying grey and 2nd hand iPhones and using them there anyway, and from an ecosystem point of view, that's good for Apple as well.
You don't have any better idea of the costs involved for such a phone anymore than I do. You are guessing just like the rest of us. How much would the added telephone hardware costs? How much would switching lines to a new model? COuld they expect significantly higher sales off a cheaper new model vs. continuing the trend of selling older models cheaper than the current iPhone? Only Apple knows the answer to these and many other questions. I think it makes sense but I don't have all the figures and research to make an educated guess anymore than you. Apple will do what is in the best interest of Apple and I fully acknowledge and accept that fact. Many here on this forum are too quick to speak in absolutes as to what Apple will or will not do as if they have some insider information and are able to decipher the future based on past decisions. That is where I have a problem because all of us are simply guessing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
"The narrative has been focused on the consumer demand, and the narrative needs to shift to the operator. Apple has run out of the kinds of operators that will say yes to them."
Or the market has run out of patience with Apple's strategy of getting one operator in a region to commit, and then the others eventually follow. This is not new.... This was the same problem with Verizon in the US 3 years ago.
The problem is that in many regions, carriers are regional (sort of like the Cable TV problem in the US), and there is little bang for the buck to support a 2G network, that is carrying 4 million potential customers. Yet if there are 40 of those regions, that's 160 million iPhones not sold every 2 years. Couple that with China Mobile, Docomo, and some big players who run variant networks, the numbers get big fast.
China Mobile and Docomo are the classic "why aren't you supporting our variant of CDMA" negotiations to support current customers. Apple appears to be playing the long game, waiting for LTE convergence in japan (docomo using a different radio spectrum than most LTE phones).
I think the key thing for apple is to toe the line for limiting SKU variants (not 800 different phones supporting sub variant wireless specs), and access to iCloud features. Those cost money. As for who assumes the 'new market risk' problems (how many phones to commit to building vs how many are quotaed to sell), I think Apple has to be a bit shrewder in it's negotiations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac
You don't have any better idea of the costs involved for such a phone anymore than I do. You are guessing just like the rest of us. How much would the added telephone hardware costs? How much would switching lines to a new model? COuld they expect significantly higher sales off a cheaper new model vs. continuing the trend of selling older models cheaper than the current iPhone? Only Apple knows the answer to these and many other questions. I think it makes sense but I don't have all the figures and research to make an educated guess anymore than you. Apple will do what is in the best interest of Apple and I fully acknowledge and accept that fact. Many here on this forum are too quick to speak in absolutes as to what Apple will or will not do as if they have some insider information and are able to decipher the future based on past decisions. That is where I have a problem because all of us are simply guessing.
I'm using the guesses analysts are positing (iSuppli). I wasn't pulling stuff out of my ass (other peoples' asses maybe;-)
So arguing component makeup lowering prices is fruitless (on both sides... the cost of 'changing a part' can be more than using an older more expensive part, with all the changes in supply chain, manufacturing, and testing are added in).
Apple doesn't know the answers on future sales based on strategies... they just have there analysis which has real costs, vs us without that.
We are in violent agreement. Apple has a 'profit stream' projection the BoD has agreed to, and they are working their plan to align to that.
The fun thing is the guessing;-) I make money investing/using/selling services for Apple. I 'guessed' it was going to survive with OS X. I didn't know it at the time that it would the iOS fork, but it was a good guess. So I keep guessing.
Other phone makers would give anything to have this kind of leverage to dictate terms to a carrier. Apple has it, they want it, there is money to be made, here are the terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by icoco3
Other phone makers would give anything to have this kind of leverage to dictate terms to a carrier. Apple has it, they want it, there is money to be made, here are the terms.
The difference is that other phone makers have no faith in their product at their starting price point, so they fold easily so that they can at least make back what money they have into the hardware. Motorola and Nokia were notorious for this. Low cost/low margin phones were the norm before the iPhone, unless you were talking about a PDA that was a phone. Carriers would make a killing on the monthly fee because there was practically no subsidy to pay the phone maker back.
You have a list of those carriers? I believe it was analysts who were guessing some carriers would drop the iPhone. I don't think that ever happened, however.
Perhaps a better analogy would be jewelry stores. Tiffany's isn't selling costume jewelry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Prohibitive carrier requirements made by Apple have prevented some 2.8 billion customers from having access to the iPhone, according to a new analysis.
In further news prohibitive monetary requirements made by Ferrari have prevented some 7 billion customers from having access to their sports cars, according to a new analysis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Barriault
What is with the obsession that every company (okay, just Apple really) should make every product line available to every market and every price point? I can't buy a diesel MINI Cooper D in Canada, and couldn't afford the turbocharged Cooper SD even if it was - but I'm perfectly happy with my naturally-aspirated petrol Cooper.
That's capitalism. Once you saturate a market, you are expected to saturate all other markets or fail as a company (if you're public). Capitalism isn't sustainable because perpetual growth is not possible in any market for any product. Nothing is perpetual except change.
Originally Posted by dysamoria
Capitalism isn't sustainable…
Hoo boy.
I could walk into a dealer today and buy a Ferrari...
...if only I had the money.
Choose any product you want, there is a segment of the world's population who can't afford it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
You have a list of those carriers? I believe it was analysts who were guessing some carriers would drop the iPhone. I don't think that ever happened, however.
Back in Nov 2011, Czech carrier Telefonica (O2) decided not "to carry Apple’s iPhone 4S and is dropping all prior iPhone models, citing “business terms”. (...) The spokesperson blamed it on struggling sales in the local market, describing iPhone sales in the country as “pretty small and well below Android models and even still Nokia phones”.
A couple of months later, Telefonica and Vodafone both decided to drop subsidies in Spain, which included the iPhone. (Later they decided this was a mistake, but it helped ignite investor worries in the US.)
I also seem to recall a carrier in Northern Europe that dropped subsidies and perhaps the iPhone. I'm trying to find a link to that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Hey. Analysts. THIS IS BY DESIGN. SHUT UP.
It would be nice if the article actually MENTIONED more than ONE of the so-called "strict conditions" mentioned in the headline or the "prohibitive carrier requirements" noted in the very first line. The wording is obviously intended to make it appear that Apple is doing something wrong, but there's nothing in the article to support that position.