It's not absurd at all, if you're talking about high-end phones. We are.
$399 starting for the base model is hardly aggressive in your product line.
Quote:
Yep. Take the Boxster, for example. It is indeed aggressively priced... for a Porsche.
No, its not. Aggressively priced for a Porsche was the 924/944/968. Those cars are long gone.
The Boxster is Porsche's entry level model but that's also like saying that the Apple Mini is aggressively priced.
Quote:
I think the problem you're running into is that you don't see that aggressive pricing is relative to market segment, and are instead seeing things in absolutist terms.
No, we're looking at market segments where they don't compete on price as much as cachet. No one paying $400+ for a phone really give a hoot about the price. Likewise price for luxury roadsters is a distant consideration vs performance, comfort and bragging rights.
Quote:
Yeah... apples and oranges. Apple doesn't subsidize the price of the iPhone. But if they did, they could come close to Curve prices, given the recent price drop.
You can't have it both ways. The fact is that the iPhone is NOT subsidized anywhere while the pricing for other phones assumes some level of subsidy. Given that a phone is useless without purchasing service from SOMEONE then overall you're paying a lot more for an iPhone over a BlackJack or a Curve.
Quote:
Doesn't matter, honestly. Because the price war you're talking about is for bare bones, entry-level cars. The iPhone is not an entry-level, barebones phone. \
And therefore doesn't compete as much on price as other aspects. The Mac Pro is competitively priced but not in a price war. You don't do price wars in the market segments that you need to make profits on. This is why the Dell equivalent is more expensive than the Mac Pro even though the Mac Pro has 28%+ margins.
The post is there to refute your assertion that $10K cars don't exist in the US.
Quote:
It is... for a Porsche.
You can claim anything you want but it doesn't make it true.
Quote:
A market is a market is a market. Just because the iPhone is an upscale market, does not mean that it can't be aggressive on price. Why then did Jobs say "we really wanted to go for it for the holidays", regarding the price cut? If the iPhone is a true luxury item, then price cuts shouldn't matter.
If they really wanted to "go for it" they could have gone $299 and continued the 4GB model. Apple is less interested in selling 10M units than they are making large margins.
Quote:
The reason why your car comparison is, frankly, crap, is that phones really AREN'T luxury items. Even a relatively poor person can scrape together enough to buy an iPhone. But a poor or even middle-class person can't really save up for a Bentley, unless they wish to live in it. \
Riiight. The most expensive phone in the world is $1.3M. The Vertu is $3K-300K. The Black Diamond is $300K.
Yeah, the iPhone is aggressively priced in comparison to the Vertu. Of course, in your mind the $3K Vertu is also aggressively priced...because concievably I could buy one. Of course, I'd be found dead the next morning after my wife found out.
Come off it. Dropping to $399 makes the iPhone less unreasonable for anyone without a lot of disposable income. Not aggressively priced. I don't care about a 2 year contract if it would get me an iPhone for $99 or even $199. Done. Easy decision. They'd hit their 10M number easy. Hell, I'd get 2.
I'm just getting a surprising amount of pushback from RDFers who keep repeating the mantra that "the iPhone is doing fine without 3G" and are not really understanding that that's the US market, and only for a limited time.
How is it RDF that the iPhone sold well without 3G. The sales numbers clearly show it sold well without 3G, none of us are making that up.
How can anyone not possibly understand these are US sales? Currently the phone isn't sold anywhere else. All we have is US sales.
Yes we know its a limited time, because the iPhone will only be sold without 3G for a limited time. Jobs told us that last January at its introduction.
Quote:
That is correct. But BB has a lot more models than Apple, hence their sales are going to be split more ways. Overall, BB beat Apple pretty handily.
True BB has about seven different choices. But still its a more mature product and has a larger following. This is the iPhone's first full quarter of sales.
I would not call 2-1 a handy beating. I would call it a wake up call to RIM that your growth curve maybe flat.
Quote:
Apple is very likely to find that the US is their strongest market, just as it is for Macs. They NEED to be running well above 1% marketshare here, to balance out markets where they're going to be weaker/less popular/the competition is going to be tougher.
The US is the strongest market for RIM, Palm, and Windows Mobile also. Symbian dominates Europe.
$399 starting for the base model is hardly aggressive in your product line.
Yeah, it is. Especially if you were pricing at $599 just a few days ago.
It's also aggressive for what the iPhone is.
Quote:
No, its not. Aggressively priced for a Porsche was the 924/944/968. Those cars are long gone.
And thus, irrelevant. For Porsche's current line-up, yes, the Boxster is aggressively priced. Sorry about your nostalgia, but it is.
Quote:
No one paying $400+ for a phone really give a hoot about the price.
Steve Jobs appears to disagree with you. What did he say just last week? Oh yeah: "We cut the price because we really wanted to GO FOR IT for the holiday season." If price doesn't matter, then WOW, the joke sure is on Stevie J. He cut the price for NO REASON! People don't give a HOOT about price!
Quote:
Likewise price for luxury roadsters is a distant consideration vs performance, comfort and bragging rights.
It's a consideration if the difference between $40K and $65K means you can't afford it. Not much comfort, performance, or bragging rights to be had if the car isn't in your driveway.
Quote:
You can't have it both ways. The fact is that the iPhone is NOT subsidized anywhere while the pricing for other phones assumes some level of subsidy. Given that a phone is useless without purchasing service from SOMEONE then overall you're paying a lot more for an iPhone over a BlackJack or a Curve.
Over a Blackjack or a Curve? Sure. Over all other subsidized phones? No, not so much. Even when we compare apples to oranges, you can find phones in the iPhone's price ballpark.
The Treo 700wx, for example, is $550 on Verizon with a 1-yr contract. With MIR and online discount I believe you can get that down to $350, but still, very close to iPhone pricing. ATT has a PocketPC smartphone that goes for $650 w/a 1-yr contract; with MIRs and online discounts maybe you get it down to $400. And when the N95 is offered through ATT, it will likely be more expensive than any of those, and more expensive than the iPhone as well.
So there are other phones, subsidized or not, that are in the iPhone's price range. What was your point again?
Quote:
And therefore doesn't compete as much on price as other aspects. The Mac Pro is competitively priced but not in a price war. You don't do price wars in the market segments that you need to make profits on.
And yet, Apple cuts the price 33% almost right out of the gate. Uh huh.
Quote:
The post is there to refute your assertion that $10K cars don't exist in the US.
You know, I just went over to CarsDirect.com, and its not giving me an Aveo for $10K... more like $11K. And even if it did, I have a feeling that, real-world, with taxes, title, license... I wouldn't be getting off the lot for $10k. But, who really cares? It's a POS anyhow.
Quote:
You can claim anything you want but it doesn't make it true.
I never felt I was 'claiming' anything. Truths are self-evident.
Quote:
If they really wanted to "go for it" they could have gone $299 and continued the 4GB model. Apple is less interested in selling 10M units than they are making large margins.
That doesn't really make a dent in the central point, which is if the iPhone is a luxury item, and price doesn't matter, why then bother to cut the price? It wouldn't make a difference, right?
Sorry Vin, but it's evident that you lose that point.
Quote:
Riiight. The most expensive phone in the world is $1.3M. The Vertu is $3K-300K. The Black Diamond is $300K.
Fair enough... phones that people have actually heard of, including the iPhone, are not luxury items.
Quote:
Yeah, the iPhone is aggressively priced in comparison to the Vertu. Of course, in your mind the $3K Vertu is also aggressively priced...because concievably I could buy one. Of course, I'd be found dead the next morning after my wife found out.
The Vertu is not competition for the iPhone, so the comparison is irrelevant, really. What would matter is if the iPhone is priced well versus things like high-end Treos, high-end Blackberries, Nokia N95s, and the upcoming tidal wave of iPhone imitators.
And I think your wife example proves the point that there's a difference between what market the iPhone is in, and what market a $3K Vertu is in. You buy an iPhone, your wife doesn't kill you. You buy a Vertu, she does. Why? Because the Vertu is a luxury item. The iPhone, isn't.
Quote:
Come off it. Dropping to $399 makes the iPhone less unreasonable for anyone without a lot of disposable income. Not aggressively priced.
How is it RDF that the iPhone sold well without 3G. The sales numbers clearly show it sold well without 3G, none of us are making that up.
It's not RDF to think that the iPhone can do pretty well initially in the US market without 3G. It IS RDF to say that the iPhone doesn't really need 3G, can wait two years to go 3G in the US, will do great in Europe without 3G, etc. I've heard all of those things from RDFers, and at least one of those from you specifically.
Quote:
How can anyone not possibly understand these are US sales? Currently the phone isn't sold anywhere else. All we have is US sales.
Yeah, duh. Re-read what I'm saying, maybe it'll hit you the second time through.
Quote:
Yes we know its a limited time, because the iPhone will only be sold without 3G for a limited time. Jobs told us that last January at its introduction.
Our disagreement is over how limited that time should be. You've said two years or more. I say, 6-12 months, tops.
Quote:
True BB has about seven different choices. But still its a more mature product and has a larger following. This is the iPhone's first full quarter of sales.
I would not call 2-1 a handy beating. I would call it a wake up call to RIM that your growth curve maybe flat.
I'm not really dissing Apple on that one. To get beat 2 to 1 by RIM is no shame, especially for a newcomer.
Quote:
The US is the strongest market for RIM, Palm, and Windows Mobile also. Symbian dominates Europe.
Yeah, the point is, Apple needs to run well above 1% in the US to meet their worldwide goal of 1% marketshare, because the competition is likely going to be tougher elsewhere.
Europe has tons of feature-rich high-end phones, more than we do, and the phone selection/competition in Asia is, well... let's just say that Japan and South Korea are about two years ahead of the US in what their handsets can do versus what our handsets can do. And that might be a conservative estimate.
It's not RDF to think that the iPhone can do pretty well initially in the US market without 3G.
That's all I've said.
Quote:
It IS RDF to say that the iPhone doesn't really need 3G, can wait two years to go 3G in the US, will do great in Europe without 3G,
I've haven't said the phone never needs 3G. How well it will do in Europe without 3G, I really don't know. Others have debated that but I've been quiet about it because I don't live in Europe.
From what I've read there are 478 million mobile phone users in Europe. Which is nearly 100% of the market. And 45 million of those users are 3G subscribers.
Quote:
let's just say that Japan and South Korea are about two years ahead of the US in what their handsets can do versus what our handsets can do. And that might be a conservative estimate.
I have not weighed in any particular opinion of Asia either as I don't live there. I'm not sure what Apple needs to do in Asia. Their are some significant cultural differences between the US and Asia with technology. Asian's can be very loyal to their home companies and shun foreign gadgets.
I'm not so sure they are ahead of us as we both want different things. We don't care for convergent gadgets as much as they do. I'm not interested in buying stuff with my phone. If I loose it or it gets stolen does that mean someone else could have open access to my credit card or bank account?
No, you've just downplayed or not understood the need for it at every turn, since even before the launch.
Teno, take a good long look at your 2.5G iPhone, assuming you have one... in a few months, mid '08 at latest, it will be a quaint relic. Apple knows it needs to go 3G pretty quickly, yes, even on the US iPhone. The initial sales are pretty good? Great, I predicted they'd have a good launch months before it happened. The real problem is what happens next.
Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, LG, Sony-Ericsson, Palm, RIM etc are not just going to roll over and watch the iPhone eat their lunch. The parade of iPhone clones will start hitting soon, prolly starting around Q1 '08. And yes, they'll have touchscreens, and they'll have features missing from the iPhone on top of that: GPS, MMS, voice-dialing, and yup, 3G in most or all cases.
Will they be as good as the iPhone, overall? I very much doubt it. But will they be 'good enough', and steal some potential iPhone customers? Yeah, they might... especially if they have major selling points over the iPhone. The clones having 3G while the iPhone sticks with 2.5G would be such a selling point. Makes for some pretty nifty commercials too.
The iPhone launch has been a good one... Apple orchestrated the marketing, hype and anticipation magnificently, what they did will likely be studied in the business schools for years to come. But that doesn't matter anymore. And after the holidays, here comes the competition. 'The Empire Strikes Back', as it were.
Teno, you were wrong about a lot of 3G-related things in the run up to launch, maybe you just find it an annoying, opaque technology in general. But it is the future of the iPhone, and lot sooner than you thought.
And once it is, you'll find that Apple's 'EDGE is just fine!' spin will very quickly change to '3G is the best thing since sliced bread!'. Maybe then you'll finally go, "Ok, this is pretty cool, actually." :cool:
No, you've just downplayed or not understood the need for it at every turn, since even before the launch.
No, all I've said is that the phone was not doomed upon launch in the US without 3G. That was shown to be true by its sales numbers. I've agreed that the phone should get 3G as soon it can, which Jobs has already said it will. If its absolutely doomed in Europe and Asia without 3G - OK - I've never argued against that.
Quote:
Teno, take a good long look at your 2.5G iPhone, assuming you have one... in a few months, mid '08 at latest, it will be a quaint relic.
I wouldn't be so dramatic to to say relic. But yes it will be supplanted by a newer model. That's the way it is with all technology. In a few months my iPhone will still do what I bought it to do, at some point it will have updated functionality beyond what it had when I bought it.
Quote:
The parade of iPhone clones will start hitting soon, prolly starting around Q1 '08. And yes, they'll have touchscreens, and they'll have features missing from the iPhone on top of that: GPS, MMS, voice-dialing, and yup, 3G in most or all cases.
People said this was going to happen in the six months from iPhone's introduction to its launch. Its now nine months later and we still have nothing.
Quote:
Teno, you were wrong about a lot of 3G-related things in the run up to launch, maybe you just find it an annoying, opaque technology in general. But it is the future of the iPhone, and lot sooner than you thought.
I don't know the those "lot of 3G related things" were. All I said is the phone wasn't doomed to failure without 3G in the US launch, and it wasn't. I speculated that Apple could have 3G chips in the phone that are later activated by a software update. I guess you can point and say I was wrong about that. I was only looking at possibilities, I never said I knew for sure Apple was going to do that. But if you really need to cling to that, then OK.
Quote:
And once it is, you'll find that Apple's 'EDGE is just fine!' spin will very quickly change to '3G is the best thing since sliced bread!'. Maybe then you'll finally go, "Ok, this is pretty cool, actually." :cool:
Why does this have to be so black and white Baggins. Why do you have to be for 3G or against 3G with nothing in the middle? I have nothing against 3G.
But truthfully yes EDGE does work. There was a thread were a guy avidly defended EDGE against Melgross saying EGDE was comparable to EDVO. I countered that saying EDVO was must faster than EDGE. That EDGE isn't great but it does work.
On top of that all flavors of 3G aren't even the same. From what I've read UTMS is on marginally faster than EDGE. For GSM to get into high speed needs HSDPA. Which is a newer implementation that AT&T does not have widely deployed.
I've agreed that the phone should get 3G as soon it can
No. Back then you were saying that the iPhone could go two years or more without going 3G, and that would be fine. Why the historical revisionism? Is it really that hard to admit, "Ok, I was wrong about that?". Yeesh.
If what you're referring to is that your view of that has changed recently, great. But that's definitely not what you were saying before.
Quote:
People said this was going to happen in the six months from iPhone's introduction to its launch. Its now nine months later and we still have nothing.
There's already an FCC approval for the LG VX10000, which appears to be a touchscreen combination of the Prada and enV, both very significant phones. And it's just the first in a wave of clones. Do you honestly doubt that?
2007 was the Year of the iPhone. 2008 will be the Year of the iPhone Clone unless Apple's careful. No doubt they know this.
Quote:
I don't know the those "lot of 3G related things" were. All I said is the phone wasn't doomed to failure without 3G in the US launch, and it wasn't. I speculated that Apple could have 3G chips in the phone that are later activated by a software update. I guess you can point and say I was wrong about that. I was only looking at possibilities, I never said I knew for sure Apple was going to do that. But if you really need to cling to that, then OK.
Most of the '3G people' weren't saying that the iPhone was 'teh doomed' from Day 1 without 3G. There was a recognition that Apple was going to have a good launch no matter what. So there was really no reason to spread the Apple RDF about how 3G didn't really matter, or that Apple could go with 2.5G until 2009 (lol).
What most of them were saying was that Apple needed to go 3G soon in the US (which you argued against, and were wrong about also), and definitely needed 3G for Europe and Asia.
And it wasn't that you were wrong about the 3G stuff Teno, after all, it's AI, people here throw out shoot-from-the-hip opinions every day that are wrong. It was that people tried to explain to you many times why you were wrong, and you basically clapped your hands over your ears and went "Lalalalalalala!".
Quote:
But truthfully yes EDGE does work. There was a thread were a guy avidly defended EDGE against Melgross saying EGDE was comparable to EDVO. I countered that saying EDVO was must faster than EDGE. That EDGE isn't great but it does work.
On top of that all flavors of 3G aren't even the same. From what I've read UTMS is on marginally faster than EDGE. For GSM to get into high speed needs HSDPA. Which is a newer implementation that AT&T does not have widely deployed.
LOL, even now you're an EDGE-defender. Teno, don't bother. Even Apple doesn't like EDGE, they never did. And don't worry too much about HSDPA coverage, ATT is building it out, and the phone chipsets support both HSDPA and EDGE, so it's not an either-or choice, never was. If EDGE is all that's available in your 'hood, it'll do that, and if you have HSDPA in your area, it'll do that. Win-win.
Thing is, all that was explained to you months ago. \
What most of them were saying was that Apple needed to go 3G soon in the US (which you argued against, and were wrong about also), and definitely needed 3G for Europe and Asia.
I'm not going to keep going round and round about this. I've said what I think.
Quote:
LOL, even now you're an EDGE-defender
Well I have an iPhone and use EDGE, it does work. UMTS would be a little bit faster, HDSPA would be a lot faster. But that does not negate the fact that EDGE does work.
Quote:
2007 was the Year of the iPhone. 2008 will be the Year of the iPhone Clone unless Apple's careful. No doubt they know this.
Well its fairly easy to copy the iPhone's hardware. There isn't anything particular special or proprietary about most of its hardware. Except for the touchscreen.
But someone will need to do something radical to software. Most other phones have just used Windows Mobile or Symbian and placed a iPhone like UI over them. From what I've read that does not recreate the same experience as using the iPhone.
Quote:
Ucchh! Is it Tuesday yet?
There is either going to be gloating as though they collectively willed Apple to do something it was going to do anyway. Or a great gnashing of the teeth and curse upon Jobs name.
Yah, Apple not releasing 3G for Europe seems far fetched. And if that happens there's no reason to not also offer it in the US for AT&T's somewhat limited 3G deployment...which is HSDPA. Presumably the unit will need to do both?
Yah, Apple not releasing 3G for Europe seems far fetched.
If Steve rode in on a sheep and said the European iPhone wont have any wireless and will be pedal-powered I just wouldn't be surprised. Apple is capable of anything these days.
I'm not going to keep going round and round about this. I've said what I think.
Teno, no offense, but given your track record on this issue, I'm gonna go with something, anything, other than what you think.
Quote:
There is either going to be gloating as though they collectively willed Apple to do something it was going to do anyway. Or a great gnashing of the teeth and curse upon Jobs name.
You don't even fully understand what's going on, do you? It's not about 'willing' anyone to do anything... it's about brutal competition in a worldwide market that moves a billion units a year, and is growing much faster than the PC market.
And, whether 3G comes now, or with the Asian launch in mid-'08, you were still wrong. The only question is, were you wrong by a year, or a year and a half? And now you're trying to make pronouncements? Wooo.
Far as Apple goes, they've obviously tried to have it both ways on 3G. To the point where I'm concerned that they might be hurting their potential European success by dragging ass on Euro 3G 'til the middle of next year. Hopefully good clones don't hit until the 3G iPhone does over there.
If Steve rode in on a sheep and said the European iPhone wont have any wireless and will be pedal-powered I just wouldn't be surprised. Apple is capable of anything these days.
But pedal-powered is better, dontcha know? Apple says so.
Well, until the non-pedal-powered model comes out, that is.
Comments
It's not absurd at all, if you're talking about high-end phones. We are.
$399 starting for the base model is hardly aggressive in your product line.
Yep. Take the Boxster, for example. It is indeed aggressively priced... for a Porsche.
No, its not. Aggressively priced for a Porsche was the 924/944/968. Those cars are long gone.
The Boxster is Porsche's entry level model but that's also like saying that the Apple Mini is aggressively priced.
I think the problem you're running into is that you don't see that aggressive pricing is relative to market segment, and are instead seeing things in absolutist terms.
No, we're looking at market segments where they don't compete on price as much as cachet. No one paying $400+ for a phone really give a hoot about the price. Likewise price for luxury roadsters is a distant consideration vs performance, comfort and bragging rights.
Yeah... apples and oranges. Apple doesn't subsidize the price of the iPhone. But if they did, they could come close to Curve prices, given the recent price drop.
You can't have it both ways. The fact is that the iPhone is NOT subsidized anywhere while the pricing for other phones assumes some level of subsidy. Given that a phone is useless without purchasing service from SOMEONE then overall you're paying a lot more for an iPhone over a BlackJack or a Curve.
Doesn't matter, honestly. Because the price war you're talking about is for bare bones, entry-level cars. The iPhone is not an entry-level, barebones phone.
And therefore doesn't compete as much on price as other aspects. The Mac Pro is competitively priced but not in a price war. You don't do price wars in the market segments that you need to make profits on. This is why the Dell equivalent is more expensive than the Mac Pro even though the Mac Pro has 28%+ margins.
The post is there to refute your assertion that $10K cars don't exist in the US.
It is... for a Porsche.
You can claim anything you want but it doesn't make it true.
A market is a market is a market. Just because the iPhone is an upscale market, does not mean that it can't be aggressive on price. Why then did Jobs say "we really wanted to go for it for the holidays", regarding the price cut? If the iPhone is a true luxury item, then price cuts shouldn't matter.
If they really wanted to "go for it" they could have gone $299 and continued the 4GB model. Apple is less interested in selling 10M units than they are making large margins.
The reason why your car comparison is, frankly, crap, is that phones really AREN'T luxury items. Even a relatively poor person can scrape together enough to buy an iPhone. But a poor or even middle-class person can't really save up for a Bentley, unless they wish to live in it.
Riiight. The most expensive phone in the world is $1.3M. The Vertu is $3K-300K. The Black Diamond is $300K.
Yeah, the iPhone is aggressively priced in comparison to the Vertu. Of course, in your mind the $3K Vertu is also aggressively priced...because concievably I could buy one. Of course, I'd be found dead the next morning after my wife found out.
Come off it. Dropping to $399 makes the iPhone less unreasonable for anyone without a lot of disposable income. Not aggressively priced. I don't care about a 2 year contract if it would get me an iPhone for $99 or even $199. Done. Easy decision. They'd hit their 10M number easy. Hell, I'd get 2.
I'm just getting a surprising amount of pushback from RDFers who keep repeating the mantra that "the iPhone is doing fine without 3G" and are not really understanding that that's the US market, and only for a limited time.
How is it RDF that the iPhone sold well without 3G. The sales numbers clearly show it sold well without 3G, none of us are making that up.
How can anyone not possibly understand these are US sales? Currently the phone isn't sold anywhere else. All we have is US sales.
Yes we know its a limited time, because the iPhone will only be sold without 3G for a limited time. Jobs told us that last January at its introduction.
That is correct. But BB has a lot more models than Apple, hence their sales are going to be split more ways. Overall, BB beat Apple pretty handily.
True BB has about seven different choices. But still its a more mature product and has a larger following. This is the iPhone's first full quarter of sales.
I would not call 2-1 a handy beating. I would call it a wake up call to RIM that your growth curve maybe flat.
Apple is very likely to find that the US is their strongest market, just as it is for Macs. They NEED to be running well above 1% marketshare here, to balance out markets where they're going to be weaker/less popular/the competition is going to be tougher.
The US is the strongest market for RIM, Palm, and Windows Mobile also. Symbian dominates Europe.
$399 starting for the base model is hardly aggressive in your product line.
Yeah, it is. Especially if you were pricing at $599 just a few days ago.
It's also aggressive for what the iPhone is.
No, its not. Aggressively priced for a Porsche was the 924/944/968. Those cars are long gone.
And thus, irrelevant. For Porsche's current line-up, yes, the Boxster is aggressively priced. Sorry about your nostalgia, but it is.
No one paying $400+ for a phone really give a hoot about the price.
Steve Jobs appears to disagree with you. What did he say just last week? Oh yeah: "We cut the price because we really wanted to GO FOR IT for the holiday season." If price doesn't matter, then WOW, the joke sure is on Stevie J. He cut the price for NO REASON! People don't give a HOOT about price!
Likewise price for luxury roadsters is a distant consideration vs performance, comfort and bragging rights.
It's a consideration if the difference between $40K and $65K means you can't afford it. Not much comfort, performance, or bragging rights to be had if the car isn't in your driveway.
You can't have it both ways. The fact is that the iPhone is NOT subsidized anywhere while the pricing for other phones assumes some level of subsidy. Given that a phone is useless without purchasing service from SOMEONE then overall you're paying a lot more for an iPhone over a BlackJack or a Curve.
Over a Blackjack or a Curve? Sure. Over all other subsidized phones? No, not so much. Even when we compare apples to oranges, you can find phones in the iPhone's price ballpark.
The Treo 700wx, for example, is $550 on Verizon with a 1-yr contract. With MIR and online discount I believe you can get that down to $350, but still, very close to iPhone pricing. ATT has a PocketPC smartphone that goes for $650 w/a 1-yr contract; with MIRs and online discounts maybe you get it down to $400. And when the N95 is offered through ATT, it will likely be more expensive than any of those, and more expensive than the iPhone as well.
So there are other phones, subsidized or not, that are in the iPhone's price range. What was your point again?
And therefore doesn't compete as much on price as other aspects. The Mac Pro is competitively priced but not in a price war. You don't do price wars in the market segments that you need to make profits on.
And yet, Apple cuts the price 33% almost right out of the gate. Uh huh.
The post is there to refute your assertion that $10K cars don't exist in the US.
You know, I just went over to CarsDirect.com, and its not giving me an Aveo for $10K... more like $11K. And even if it did, I have a feeling that, real-world, with taxes, title, license... I wouldn't be getting off the lot for $10k. But, who really cares? It's a POS anyhow.
You can claim anything you want but it doesn't make it true.
I never felt I was 'claiming' anything. Truths are self-evident.
If they really wanted to "go for it" they could have gone $299 and continued the 4GB model. Apple is less interested in selling 10M units than they are making large margins.
That doesn't really make a dent in the central point, which is if the iPhone is a luxury item, and price doesn't matter, why then bother to cut the price? It wouldn't make a difference, right?
Sorry Vin, but it's evident that you lose that point.
Riiight. The most expensive phone in the world is $1.3M. The Vertu is $3K-300K. The Black Diamond is $300K.
Fair enough... phones that people have actually heard of, including the iPhone, are not luxury items.
Yeah, the iPhone is aggressively priced in comparison to the Vertu. Of course, in your mind the $3K Vertu is also aggressively priced...because concievably I could buy one. Of course, I'd be found dead the next morning after my wife found out.
The Vertu is not competition for the iPhone, so the comparison is irrelevant, really. What would matter is if the iPhone is priced well versus things like high-end Treos, high-end Blackberries, Nokia N95s, and the upcoming tidal wave of iPhone imitators.
And I think your wife example proves the point that there's a difference between what market the iPhone is in, and what market a $3K Vertu is in. You buy an iPhone, your wife doesn't kill you. You buy a Vertu, she does. Why? Because the Vertu is a luxury item. The iPhone, isn't.
Come off it. Dropping to $399 makes the iPhone less unreasonable for anyone without a lot of disposable income. Not aggressively priced.
LOL. Same thing.
.
How is it RDF that the iPhone sold well without 3G. The sales numbers clearly show it sold well without 3G, none of us are making that up.
It's not RDF to think that the iPhone can do pretty well initially in the US market without 3G. It IS RDF to say that the iPhone doesn't really need 3G, can wait two years to go 3G in the US, will do great in Europe without 3G, etc. I've heard all of those things from RDFers, and at least one of those from you specifically.
How can anyone not possibly understand these are US sales? Currently the phone isn't sold anywhere else. All we have is US sales.
Yeah, duh. Re-read what I'm saying, maybe it'll hit you the second time through.
Yes we know its a limited time, because the iPhone will only be sold without 3G for a limited time. Jobs told us that last January at its introduction.
Our disagreement is over how limited that time should be. You've said two years or more. I say, 6-12 months, tops.
True BB has about seven different choices. But still its a more mature product and has a larger following. This is the iPhone's first full quarter of sales.
I would not call 2-1 a handy beating. I would call it a wake up call to RIM that your growth curve maybe flat.
I'm not really dissing Apple on that one. To get beat 2 to 1 by RIM is no shame, especially for a newcomer.
The US is the strongest market for RIM, Palm, and Windows Mobile also. Symbian dominates Europe.
Yeah, the point is, Apple needs to run well above 1% in the US to meet their worldwide goal of 1% marketshare, because the competition is likely going to be tougher elsewhere.
Europe has tons of feature-rich high-end phones, more than we do, and the phone selection/competition in Asia is, well... let's just say that Japan and South Korea are about two years ahead of the US in what their handsets can do versus what our handsets can do. And that might be a conservative estimate.
.
It's not RDF to think that the iPhone can do pretty well initially in the US market without 3G.
That's all I've said.
It IS RDF to say that the iPhone doesn't really need 3G, can wait two years to go 3G in the US, will do great in Europe without 3G,
I've haven't said the phone never needs 3G. How well it will do in Europe without 3G, I really don't know. Others have debated that but I've been quiet about it because I don't live in Europe.
From what I've read there are 478 million mobile phone users in Europe. Which is nearly 100% of the market. And 45 million of those users are 3G subscribers.
let's just say that Japan and South Korea are about two years ahead of the US in what their handsets can do versus what our handsets can do. And that might be a conservative estimate.
I have not weighed in any particular opinion of Asia either as I don't live there. I'm not sure what Apple needs to do in Asia. Their are some significant cultural differences between the US and Asia with technology. Asian's can be very loyal to their home companies and shun foreign gadgets.
I'm not so sure they are ahead of us as we both want different things. We don't care for convergent gadgets as much as they do. I'm not interested in buying stuff with my phone. If I loose it or it gets stolen does that mean someone else could have open access to my credit card or bank account?
I've haven't said the phone never needs 3G.
No, you've just downplayed or not understood the need for it at every turn, since even before the launch.
Teno, take a good long look at your 2.5G iPhone, assuming you have one... in a few months, mid '08 at latest, it will be a quaint relic. Apple knows it needs to go 3G pretty quickly, yes, even on the US iPhone. The initial sales are pretty good? Great, I predicted they'd have a good launch months before it happened. The real problem is what happens next.
Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, LG, Sony-Ericsson, Palm, RIM etc are not just going to roll over and watch the iPhone eat their lunch. The parade of iPhone clones will start hitting soon, prolly starting around Q1 '08. And yes, they'll have touchscreens, and they'll have features missing from the iPhone on top of that: GPS, MMS, voice-dialing, and yup, 3G in most or all cases.
Will they be as good as the iPhone, overall? I very much doubt it. But will they be 'good enough', and steal some potential iPhone customers? Yeah, they might... especially if they have major selling points over the iPhone. The clones having 3G while the iPhone sticks with 2.5G would be such a selling point. Makes for some pretty nifty commercials too.
The iPhone launch has been a good one... Apple orchestrated the marketing, hype and anticipation magnificently, what they did will likely be studied in the business schools for years to come. But that doesn't matter anymore. And after the holidays, here comes the competition. 'The Empire Strikes Back', as it were.
Teno, you were wrong about a lot of 3G-related things in the run up to launch, maybe you just find it an annoying, opaque technology in general. But it is the future of the iPhone, and lot sooner than you thought.
And once it is, you'll find that Apple's 'EDGE is just fine!' spin will very quickly change to '3G is the best thing since sliced bread!'. Maybe then you'll finally go, "Ok, this is pretty cool, actually." :cool:
.
No, you've just downplayed or not understood the need for it at every turn, since even before the launch.
No, all I've said is that the phone was not doomed upon launch in the US without 3G. That was shown to be true by its sales numbers. I've agreed that the phone should get 3G as soon it can, which Jobs has already said it will. If its absolutely doomed in Europe and Asia without 3G - OK - I've never argued against that.
Teno, take a good long look at your 2.5G iPhone, assuming you have one... in a few months, mid '08 at latest, it will be a quaint relic.
I wouldn't be so dramatic to to say relic. But yes it will be supplanted by a newer model. That's the way it is with all technology. In a few months my iPhone will still do what I bought it to do, at some point it will have updated functionality beyond what it had when I bought it.
The parade of iPhone clones will start hitting soon, prolly starting around Q1 '08. And yes, they'll have touchscreens, and they'll have features missing from the iPhone on top of that: GPS, MMS, voice-dialing, and yup, 3G in most or all cases.
People said this was going to happen in the six months from iPhone's introduction to its launch. Its now nine months later and we still have nothing.
Teno, you were wrong about a lot of 3G-related things in the run up to launch, maybe you just find it an annoying, opaque technology in general. But it is the future of the iPhone, and lot sooner than you thought.
I don't know the those "lot of 3G related things" were. All I said is the phone wasn't doomed to failure without 3G in the US launch, and it wasn't. I speculated that Apple could have 3G chips in the phone that are later activated by a software update. I guess you can point and say I was wrong about that. I was only looking at possibilities, I never said I knew for sure Apple was going to do that. But if you really need to cling to that, then OK.
And once it is, you'll find that Apple's 'EDGE is just fine!' spin will very quickly change to '3G is the best thing since sliced bread!'. Maybe then you'll finally go, "Ok, this is pretty cool, actually." :cool:
Why does this have to be so black and white Baggins. Why do you have to be for 3G or against 3G with nothing in the middle? I have nothing against 3G.
But truthfully yes EDGE does work. There was a thread were a guy avidly defended EDGE against Melgross saying EGDE was comparable to EDVO. I countered that saying EDVO was must faster than EDGE. That EDGE isn't great but it does work.
On top of that all flavors of 3G aren't even the same. From what I've read UTMS is on marginally faster than EDGE. For GSM to get into high speed needs HSDPA. Which is a newer implementation that AT&T does not have widely deployed.
I've agreed that the phone should get 3G as soon it can
No. Back then you were saying that the iPhone could go two years or more without going 3G, and that would be fine. Why the historical revisionism? Is it really that hard to admit, "Ok, I was wrong about that?". Yeesh.
If what you're referring to is that your view of that has changed recently, great. But that's definitely not what you were saying before.
People said this was going to happen in the six months from iPhone's introduction to its launch. Its now nine months later and we still have nothing.
There's already an FCC approval for the LG VX10000, which appears to be a touchscreen combination of the Prada and enV, both very significant phones. And it's just the first in a wave of clones. Do you honestly doubt that?
2007 was the Year of the iPhone. 2008 will be the Year of the iPhone Clone unless Apple's careful. No doubt they know this.
I don't know the those "lot of 3G related things" were. All I said is the phone wasn't doomed to failure without 3G in the US launch, and it wasn't. I speculated that Apple could have 3G chips in the phone that are later activated by a software update. I guess you can point and say I was wrong about that. I was only looking at possibilities, I never said I knew for sure Apple was going to do that. But if you really need to cling to that, then OK.
Most of the '3G people' weren't saying that the iPhone was 'teh doomed' from Day 1 without 3G. There was a recognition that Apple was going to have a good launch no matter what. So there was really no reason to spread the Apple RDF about how 3G didn't really matter, or that Apple could go with 2.5G until 2009 (lol).
What most of them were saying was that Apple needed to go 3G soon in the US (which you argued against, and were wrong about also), and definitely needed 3G for Europe and Asia.
And it wasn't that you were wrong about the 3G stuff Teno, after all, it's AI, people here throw out shoot-from-the-hip opinions every day that are wrong. It was that people tried to explain to you many times why you were wrong, and you basically clapped your hands over your ears and went "Lalalalalalala!".
But truthfully yes EDGE does work. There was a thread were a guy avidly defended EDGE against Melgross saying EGDE was comparable to EDVO. I countered that saying EDVO was must faster than EDGE. That EDGE isn't great but it does work.
On top of that all flavors of 3G aren't even the same. From what I've read UTMS is on marginally faster than EDGE. For GSM to get into high speed needs HSDPA. Which is a newer implementation that AT&T does not have widely deployed.
LOL, even now you're an EDGE-defender. Teno, don't bother. Even Apple doesn't like EDGE, they never did. And don't worry too much about HSDPA coverage, ATT is building it out, and the phone chipsets support both HSDPA and EDGE, so it's not an either-or choice, never was. If EDGE is all that's available in your 'hood, it'll do that, and if you have HSDPA in your area, it'll do that. Win-win.
Thing is, all that was explained to you months ago.
.
3G or Steve's legs are gettin' broken! Nobody will buy it over here without 3G, well not nobody, but faaaaar fewer. I definitely wont!
Well said.
Let's hope the Euro launch iPhone is indeed 3G. We'll be happy if it is, and so will Apple, sales-wise.
.
What most of them were saying was that Apple needed to go 3G soon in the US (which you argued against, and were wrong about also), and definitely needed 3G for Europe and Asia.
I'm not going to keep going round and round about this. I've said what I think.
LOL, even now you're an EDGE-defender
Well I have an iPhone and use EDGE, it does work. UMTS would be a little bit faster, HDSPA would be a lot faster. But that does not negate the fact that EDGE does work.
2007 was the Year of the iPhone. 2008 will be the Year of the iPhone Clone unless Apple's careful. No doubt they know this.
Well its fairly easy to copy the iPhone's hardware. There isn't anything particular special or proprietary about most of its hardware. Except for the touchscreen.
But someone will need to do something radical to software. Most other phones have just used Windows Mobile or Symbian and placed a iPhone like UI over them. From what I've read that does not recreate the same experience as using the iPhone.
Ucchh! Is it Tuesday yet?
There is either going to be gloating as though they collectively willed Apple to do something it was going to do anyway. Or a great gnashing of the teeth and curse upon Jobs name.
Well said.
Let's hope the Euro launch iPhone is indeed 3G. We'll be happy if it is, and so will Apple, sales-wise.
.
Indeedy.
Yah, Apple not releasing 3G for Europe seems far fetched.
If Steve rode in on a sheep and said the European iPhone wont have any wireless and will be pedal-powered I just wouldn't be surprised. Apple is capable of anything these days.
I hope tomorrow we will see that.
16gb iPhone, that's all I want at this point. Sure 32bg will be better, but will not happen this year.
I hope tomorrow we will see that.
Yes, plus 3G.
Yes, plus 3G.
sure 3G is fine, but there is info that power drainage for the iPhone will be bigger , etc.
At this point EDGE is OK. I understand in Europe is more important 3G than in USA.
So sure bring 3G, I don't mind.
Whatever. I want the dam 16gig.
I'm not going to keep going round and round about this. I've said what I think.
Teno, no offense, but given your track record on this issue, I'm gonna go with something, anything, other than what you think.
There is either going to be gloating as though they collectively willed Apple to do something it was going to do anyway. Or a great gnashing of the teeth and curse upon Jobs name.
You don't even fully understand what's going on, do you? It's not about 'willing' anyone to do anything... it's about brutal competition in a worldwide market that moves a billion units a year, and is growing much faster than the PC market.
And, whether 3G comes now, or with the Asian launch in mid-'08, you were still wrong. The only question is, were you wrong by a year, or a year and a half? And now you're trying to make pronouncements? Wooo.
Far as Apple goes, they've obviously tried to have it both ways on 3G. To the point where I'm concerned that they might be hurting their potential European success by dragging ass on Euro 3G 'til the middle of next year. Hopefully good clones don't hit until the 3G iPhone does over there.
.
If Steve rode in on a sheep and said the European iPhone wont have any wireless and will be pedal-powered I just wouldn't be surprised. Apple is capable of anything these days.
But pedal-powered is better, dontcha know? Apple says so.
Well, until the non-pedal-powered model comes out, that is.
.