The general impression I've gotten is that the iPhone is already subsidized to make it the current price points.
I disagree, there's no way at that price point, that it's already subsidized. Didn't Jobs basically say that it wasn't? He said that they were selling them for 500 bucks, we think that's a fair price for an MP3 player and a smartphone, etc. etc. He explained how Apple had set the price at 500, if that price had been subsidized I think he would have said so
I disagree, there's no way at that price point, that it's already subsidized. Didn't Jobs basically say that it wasn't? He said that they were selling them for 500 bucks, we think that's a fair price for an MP3 player and a smartphone, etc. etc. He explained how Apple had set the price at 500, if that price had been subsidized I think he would have said so
When the mentioned the price points, Jobs stated WITH a 2 year contract.
I disagree, there's no way at that price point, that it's already subsidized. Didn't Jobs basically say that it wasn't? He said that they were selling them for 500 bucks, we think that's a fair price for an MP3 player and a smartphone, etc. etc. He explained how Apple had set the price at 500, if that price had been subsidized I think he would have said so
Nobody official has used the word "subsidized", but it is linked to a required two year contract and the main reason you are required to sign a contract is because you pay for the phone over those contract year. There is no such thing as a free phone. You pay for it as part of your contract. Remember we're talking about Apple here and I wouldn't be surprised if the phone would retail, without the contract, for 800 or higher. But who knows for sure. Apple hasn't said. We know two things for sure. The price of the phones and the required two year contract.
"No organization should have that much power, and they should stop selfishly looking out for their own agenda and lobbying for their own interests."
I had to quote you in context, but it is this sentence in particular that I am interested in.
Is it wrong if the AMA looks out for doctor's interests? Or should they spend only their money on healing people. Would it sicken you if this doctor's group worked to protect doctor's salaries?
How about a corporation. ExxonMobil lobbies and supports organizations giving itself a great deal of power. Which, I am sure you would agree, they use to further their own interests. Does it sicken you that they don't only dedicate themselves to extracting and distributing oil?
I could go on: police benevolence organizations, industry trade groups yadda yadda yadda... Why do teachers have this responsibility do be selfless or else disgust you?
Who else do you hold to this same standard?
Furthermore, as a member of a teacher's union (full disclosure), I see the argument that teacher's unions standing up to promote teachers interests also promotes student's interests. As a parent and taxpayer (more disclosure), I want my son's teachers well paid and focused on teaching, not worrying about the political or economic games that are being played outside the school.
I will also apologize for being part of this subtopic on this thread, but the other thread is full of people who are not listening to each other. I am interested in your thoughtful response. I also will read the article you linked to, but have not had the chance yet.
Cheers.
Well, I don't really have a thoughtful response really. I'm in favor of unions, no doubt about it. I think they're good, but the teachers unions have gained so much power it's unreal. I feel sick with them not JUST because they have so much power and have been corrupted by it. But because they've latched onto that power and are unwilling to give it up because they think they're helping kids with it. But if the state of our education in this country is any indication, it's clear that the unions aren't helping. I believe from what I've read on the matter that teachers should have some accountability to someone in a position of leadership over them. But it seems as if the unions remove all accountability and give teachers security in their job, and they simply get lazy. And it removes motivation. Why should an incompetent teacher get the same pay raises as an excellent teacher?
There's no easy solution, but it's clear that the unions have failed the kids. I don't blame the unions entirely though. Parents should take more responsibility for their children's education. If the local school sucks they should be allowed to send them to other schools of their choosing. But because the government won't let them do that, their only option is private schooling or homeschooling. I was homeschooled and I am *so* thankful that I was. All my friends went to public school and just hearring about it, it seemed like a joke.
Nobody official has used the word "subsidized", but it is linked to a required two year contract and the main reason you are required to sign a contract is because you pay for the phone over those contract year. There is no such thing as a free phone. You pay for it as part of your contract. Remember we're talking about Apple here and I wouldn't be surprised if the phone would retail, without the contract, for 800 or higher. But who knows for sure. Apple hasn't said. We know two things for sure. The price of the phones and the required two year contract.
I can see how it could be interpreted that way, but there's no way it costs that much to make to be able to justify a price point higher than 500. We'll know when someone gets their hands on one and rips it open and figures out the cost.
Why do teens think they need cellular phones? Why do their parents agree? For that matter, why do most adults think they need to be -- or want to be -- that in-touch? They're waiting for a call from the President? Obviously, independent, accountable thought is a thing of the past....
You cleary are not a parent. Maby their parents actually care about them, unlike yours did.
You can tell from posts like this who the jealous kids were in school. Never had a car, had to take a bus to school as a senior. "Why do THEY need a cell phone? I never had one when I was a kid "
You older adults need to realize that you lived in differnt times. I see one member on here is 60 years old Did they even have electricity back then.
Try getting with the times. People like to be connected at all times now. I know its hard for you to understand.
And you people that are wondering were kids have this kind of money. You think kids dont have jobs? Obviously, independence, and accountability are important to kids that find a job to support their needs and wants when their parents dont give them money.
I can see how it could be interpreted that way, but there's no way it costs that much to make to be able to justify a price point higher than 500. We'll know when someone gets their hands on one and rips it open and figures out the cost.
Again, we're talking about Apple here. They don't price things based on how much it costs or at least not in the way other companies might. Apple has huge margins on most of their products. There is no real proof that the phone is subsidized or not beyond the fact that most phone contracts are what give you the subsidized rate and there is a required contract.
My wife is a High School teacher and based upon talking with her about her students I'm pretty sure a good percent of them would have their parents buy them iPhones. Many kids around here are given brand new cars to drive and not cheap ones either. Personally I think the kids should work for their phones or their cars for that matter and I wouldn't get my daughter one.
...$500 US in 2006 (it doesn't go to 2007 yet) is equivalent to $186.73 in 1980 dollars (that being the year I graduated from high school).
For me at that time, 17 years old and a senior in high school, $186.73 was an unimaginable, unattainable sum. \
My parents erred heavily on the stingy side when it came to purchasing anything for me. While I think it would have been nice if they hadn't been such tightwads, I certainly think their way of handling things was far more responsible than shamelessly spoiling me, the way an awful lot of parents seem to do with their kids these days.
My options for earning any money myself were pretty much non-existent. I didn't have a car, my folks certainly weren't going to buy me a car, and they place I lived was 99.9% residential for miles around. Catch-22 -- no car, no job / no job, no car.
You cleary are not a parent. Maby their parents actually care about them, unlike yours did.
You can tell from posts like this who the jealous kids were in school. Never had a car, had to take a bus to school as a senior. "Why do THEY need a cell phone? I never had one when I was a kid "
You older adults need to realize that you lived in differnt times. I see one member on here is 60 years old Did they even have electricity back then.
Try getting with the times. People like to be connected at all times now. I know its hard for you to understand.
And you people that are wondering were kids have this kind of money. You think kids dont have jobs? Obviously, independence, and accountability are important to kids that find a job to support their needs and wants when their parents dont give them money.
Again, we're talking about Apple here. They don't price things based on how much it costs or at least not in the way other companies might. Apple has huge margins on most of their products. There is no real proof that the phone is subsidized or not beyond the fact that most phone contracts are what give you the subsidized rate and there is a required contract.
Apple doesn't have huge margins on their peoducts. They have normal margins. What you are doing, is comparing their margins with some computer companies such as Dell, who, in their consumer and low priced business line, have abnormally low margins.
When an area becomes commoditized, margins fall. At that point most large companies get out of the business, and leave it to smaller companies to fight over.
But, when companies find almost their entire product line being commoditized, they can't easily leave. Dell is in that position now, as is Gateway, and others. This makes Apple's computers look over margined, when they are not.
It is also why large computer companies, such as Dell and Hp, have bought small boutique lines such as Alien by Dell, and Voodoo, by Hp. Those companies are very small, compared to Dell and Hp's sales, but they are making good profits, and it is hoped, their images will rub off on their new owners higher priced lines.
But, when companies find almost their entire product line being commoditized, they can't easily leave. Dell is in that position now, as is Gateway, and others. This makes Apple's computers look over margined, when they are not.
You cleary are not a parent. Maby their parents actually care about them, unlike yours did.
You can tell from posts like this who the jealous kids were in school. Never had a car, had to take a bus to school as a senior. "Why do THEY need a cell phone? I never had one when I was a kid "
I think the person you responded to might have had a blanket reaction to the article and mistakenly generalized on all phones, not just the luxury ones. One can argue for a phone, but I think the reaction was really to a $500 phone, which is a dubious need at best.
I think the person you responded to might have had a blanket reaction to the article and mistakenly generalized on all phones, not just the luxury ones. One can argue for a phone, but I think the reaction was really to a $500 phone, which is a dubious need at best.
Yeah, but "maby" if yor paernts reely care about u theyll get u teh good fone & not b so cheep!!1!1!
Well,if you got it without a 2 year contract it would cost the same amount of money? I don't think the real issue isn't if it's subsidized or not, but rather what the phone's actual price is without a contract... The $500 tag was arrived at by apple with consideration to money/incentives Apple is getting from the phone company, and without those incentives, the price would be higher. You could think like a creative accountant or a PR guy and say that the phone company's incentives to apple are not subsidizing the phone, but realistically, that's false.
Apple's undoubtedly getting a cut of those nice 2 year contracts, and that is a factor in the price point.
I don't think so either. What does bother me, however, is how a lot of teens -- and a fair number of adults -- walk (and drive!) around as if their cell phones have been surgically attached and can't be turned off.
When I see some guy with his cell phone blabbing on and on while he's pissing in the urinal at the airport... that's a bit too much.
When I see some woman in line at the bank, babbling incessantly about complete bullshit, and she doesn't even stop, or pause, this vapid conversation while she's conducting her transaction (treating the teller as if she might as well have been an ATM), and the cell phone never leaves her ear as she exits the bank, gets into her minivan, backs out with the cell phone pressed against her ear with her shoulder, and drives off still completely enmeshed in her trivial banter... that's a bit too much.
The arguments we see on the PC sites vs a vs pricing are not realistic.
When you sweep all of the loss leader PC's out there away, and move to the machines that those companies rely on for their profits, one will see that they sell 10's of millions of mid and higher priced models.
Those are the ones Apple competes against, not the trash.
Once that is understood, it can be seen that Apple's machines do compete on price quite handily, often being less expensive than a competing model.
Comments
The general impression I've gotten is that the iPhone is already subsidized to make it the current price points.
I disagree, there's no way at that price point, that it's already subsidized. Didn't Jobs basically say that it wasn't? He said that they were selling them for 500 bucks, we think that's a fair price for an MP3 player and a smartphone, etc. etc. He explained how Apple had set the price at 500, if that price had been subsidized I think he would have said so
I disagree, there's no way at that price point, that it's already subsidized. Didn't Jobs basically say that it wasn't? He said that they were selling them for 500 bucks, we think that's a fair price for an MP3 player and a smartphone, etc. etc. He explained how Apple had set the price at 500, if that price had been subsidized I think he would have said so
When the mentioned the price points, Jobs stated WITH a 2 year contract.
I disagree, there's no way at that price point, that it's already subsidized. Didn't Jobs basically say that it wasn't? He said that they were selling them for 500 bucks, we think that's a fair price for an MP3 player and a smartphone, etc. etc. He explained how Apple had set the price at 500, if that price had been subsidized I think he would have said so
Nobody official has used the word "subsidized", but it is linked to a required two year contract and the main reason you are required to sign a contract is because you pay for the phone over those contract year. There is no such thing as a free phone. You pay for it as part of your contract. Remember we're talking about Apple here and I wouldn't be surprised if the phone would retail, without the contract, for 800 or higher. But who knows for sure. Apple hasn't said. We know two things for sure. The price of the phones and the required two year contract.
"No organization should have that much power, and they should stop selfishly looking out for their own agenda and lobbying for their own interests."
I had to quote you in context, but it is this sentence in particular that I am interested in.
Is it wrong if the AMA looks out for doctor's interests? Or should they spend only their money on healing people. Would it sicken you if this doctor's group worked to protect doctor's salaries?
How about a corporation. ExxonMobil lobbies and supports organizations giving itself a great deal of power. Which, I am sure you would agree, they use to further their own interests. Does it sicken you that they don't only dedicate themselves to extracting and distributing oil?
I could go on: police benevolence organizations, industry trade groups yadda yadda yadda... Why do teachers have this responsibility do be selfless or else disgust you?
Who else do you hold to this same standard?
Furthermore, as a member of a teacher's union (full disclosure), I see the argument that teacher's unions standing up to promote teachers interests also promotes student's interests. As a parent and taxpayer (more disclosure), I want my son's teachers well paid and focused on teaching, not worrying about the political or economic games that are being played outside the school.
I will also apologize for being part of this subtopic on this thread, but the other thread is full of people who are not listening to each other. I am interested in your thoughtful response. I also will read the article you linked to, but have not had the chance yet.
Cheers.
Well, I don't really have a thoughtful response really. I'm in favor of unions, no doubt about it. I think they're good, but the teachers unions have gained so much power it's unreal. I feel sick with them not JUST because they have so much power and have been corrupted by it. But because they've latched onto that power and are unwilling to give it up because they think they're helping kids with it. But if the state of our education in this country is any indication, it's clear that the unions aren't helping. I believe from what I've read on the matter that teachers should have some accountability to someone in a position of leadership over them. But it seems as if the unions remove all accountability and give teachers security in their job, and they simply get lazy. And it removes motivation. Why should an incompetent teacher get the same pay raises as an excellent teacher?
There's no easy solution, but it's clear that the unions have failed the kids. I don't blame the unions entirely though. Parents should take more responsibility for their children's education. If the local school sucks they should be allowed to send them to other schools of their choosing. But because the government won't let them do that, their only option is private schooling or homeschooling. I was homeschooled and I am *so* thankful that I was. All my friends went to public school and just hearring about it, it seemed like a joke.
Nobody official has used the word "subsidized", but it is linked to a required two year contract and the main reason you are required to sign a contract is because you pay for the phone over those contract year. There is no such thing as a free phone. You pay for it as part of your contract. Remember we're talking about Apple here and I wouldn't be surprised if the phone would retail, without the contract, for 800 or higher. But who knows for sure. Apple hasn't said. We know two things for sure. The price of the phones and the required two year contract.
I can see how it could be interpreted that way, but there's no way it costs that much to make to be able to justify a price point higher than 500. We'll know when someone gets their hands on one and rips it open and figures out the cost.
The general impression I've gotten is that the iPhone is already subsidized to make it the current price points.
The impression you've gotten is not from Apple, which has said the opposite. You may have gotten it from those who don't know anything.
When the mentioned the price points, Jobs stated WITH a 2 year contract.
That doesn't mean it's subsidized.
i could care less how much it ends up being
i invest and hardly spend money, but this is something I definitely want, and am more than willing to put the money up for it.
Why do teens think they need cellular phones? Why do their parents agree? For that matter, why do most adults think they need to be -- or want to be -- that in-touch? They're waiting for a call from the President? Obviously, independent, accountable thought is a thing of the past....
You cleary are not a parent. Maby their parents actually care about them, unlike yours did.
You can tell from posts like this who the jealous kids were in school.
You older adults need to realize that you lived in differnt times. I see one member on here is 60 years old
Try getting with the times. People like to be connected at all times now. I know its hard for you to understand.
And you people that are wondering were kids have this kind of money. You think kids dont have jobs? Obviously, independence, and accountability are important to kids that find a job to support their needs and wants when their parents dont give them money.
I can see how it could be interpreted that way, but there's no way it costs that much to make to be able to justify a price point higher than 500. We'll know when someone gets their hands on one and rips it open and figures out the cost.
Again, we're talking about Apple here. They don't price things based on how much it costs or at least not in the way other companies might. Apple has huge margins on most of their products. There is no real proof that the phone is subsidized or not beyond the fact that most phone contracts are what give you the subsidized rate and there is a required contract.
My wife is a High School teacher and based upon talking with her about her students I'm pretty sure a good percent of them would have their parents buy them iPhones. Many kids around here are given brand new cars to drive and not cheap ones either. Personally I think the kids should work for their phones or their cars for that matter and I wouldn't get my daughter one.
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
...$500 US in 2006 (it doesn't go to 2007 yet) is equivalent to $186.73 in 1980 dollars (that being the year I graduated from high school).
For me at that time, 17 years old and a senior in high school, $186.73 was an unimaginable, unattainable sum.
My parents erred heavily on the stingy side when it came to purchasing anything for me. While I think it would have been nice if they hadn't been such tightwads, I certainly think their way of handling things was far more responsible than shamelessly spoiling me, the way an awful lot of parents seem to do with their kids these days.
My options for earning any money myself were pretty much non-existent. I didn't have a car, my folks certainly weren't going to buy me a car, and they place I lived was 99.9% residential for miles around. Catch-22 -- no car, no job / no job, no car.
You cleary are not a parent. Maby their parents actually care about them, unlike yours did.
You can tell from posts like this who the jealous kids were in school.
You older adults need to realize that you lived in differnt times. I see one member on here is 60 years old
Try getting with the times. People like to be connected at all times now. I know its hard for you to understand.
And you people that are wondering were kids have this kind of money. You think kids dont have jobs? Obviously, independence, and accountability are important to kids that find a job to support their needs and wants when their parents dont give them money.
I AM an older adult.
Go back and read my post #89.
Maby their parents actually care about them, unlike yours did.
Ain't that sweet.
Again, we're talking about Apple here. They don't price things based on how much it costs or at least not in the way other companies might. Apple has huge margins on most of their products. There is no real proof that the phone is subsidized or not beyond the fact that most phone contracts are what give you the subsidized rate and there is a required contract.
Apple doesn't have huge margins on their peoducts. They have normal margins. What you are doing, is comparing their margins with some computer companies such as Dell, who, in their consumer and low priced business line, have abnormally low margins.
When an area becomes commoditized, margins fall. At that point most large companies get out of the business, and leave it to smaller companies to fight over.
But, when companies find almost their entire product line being commoditized, they can't easily leave. Dell is in that position now, as is Gateway, and others. This makes Apple's computers look over margined, when they are not.
It is also why large computer companies, such as Dell and Hp, have bought small boutique lines such as Alien by Dell, and Voodoo, by Hp. Those companies are very small, compared to Dell and Hp's sales, but they are making good profits, and it is hoped, their images will rub off on their new owners higher priced lines.
But, when companies find almost their entire product line being commoditized, they can't easily leave. Dell is in that position now, as is Gateway, and others. This makes Apple's computers look over margined, when they are not.
Backing up what melgross stated: http://www.systemshootouts.org/shoot...24_lt2800.html
You cleary are not a parent. Maby their parents actually care about them, unlike yours did.
You can tell from posts like this who the jealous kids were in school.
I think the person you responded to might have had a blanket reaction to the article and mistakenly generalized on all phones, not just the luxury ones. One can argue for a phone, but I think the reaction was really to a $500 phone, which is a dubious need at best.
I think the person you responded to might have had a blanket reaction to the article and mistakenly generalized on all phones, not just the luxury ones. One can argue for a phone, but I think the reaction was really to a $500 phone, which is a dubious need at best.
Yeah, but "maby" if yor paernts reely care about u theyll get u teh good fone & not b so cheep!!1!1!
That doesn't mean it's subsidized.
Well,if you got it without a 2 year contract it would cost the same amount of money? I don't think the real issue isn't if it's subsidized or not, but rather what the phone's actual price is without a contract... The $500 tag was arrived at by apple with consideration to money/incentives Apple is getting from the phone company, and without those incentives, the price would be higher. You could think like a creative accountant or a PR guy and say that the phone company's incentives to apple are not subsidizing the phone, but realistically, that's false.
Apple's undoubtedly getting a cut of those nice 2 year contracts, and that is a factor in the price point.
Is something wrong with that? I don't think so.
I don't think so either. What does bother me, however, is how a lot of teens -- and a fair number of adults -- walk (and drive!) around as if their cell phones have been surgically attached and can't be turned off.
When I see some guy with his cell phone blabbing on and on while he's pissing in the urinal at the airport... that's a bit too much.
When I see some woman in line at the bank, babbling incessantly about complete bullshit, and she doesn't even stop, or pause, this vapid conversation while she's conducting her transaction (treating the teller as if she might as well have been an ATM), and the cell phone never leaves her ear as she exits the bank, gets into her minivan, backs out with the cell phone pressed against her ear with her shoulder, and drives off still completely enmeshed in her trivial banter... that's a bit too much.
Backing up what melgross stated: http://www.systemshootouts.org/shoot...24_lt2800.html
The arguments we see on the PC sites vs a vs pricing are not realistic.
When you sweep all of the loss leader PC's out there away, and move to the machines that those companies rely on for their profits, one will see that they sell 10's of millions of mid and higher priced models.
Those are the ones Apple competes against, not the trash.
Once that is understood, it can be seen that Apple's machines do compete on price quite handily, often being less expensive than a competing model.