We compare it to their projections, which were 100 thousand. It's well below that, so it didn't do well. we don't have to look at other phones, they're irrelevant. Now, they are spinning, and say that they really meant 50 TO 100 thousand. But, that's not what they said, so they're spinning.
The iPhone does not exist in a vacuum, total mobile phone sales are relevant. We use the example of other phones to show why the iPhone is not selling in Europe as well as it is in the US. How much it sells against these other phones matters even more. You would like to ignore those numbers because they may not support your argument.
"CEO, Didier Lombard, unveiled some details and a lofty sales goal in an interview with Europe 1 radio. By the end of the year, Orange hopes to sell 100,000 iPhones, though Didier wasn't clear on whether that figured includes the unlocked iPhones that French law requires of Apple."
From the Europe 1 interview he said he hopes to sell 100 but I guess you can hold his feet to the fire to prove poor iPhone sales. We may be using different math but I would not call 70 well below 100. At the current rate by the middle of January Orange will have sold over 100. Doesn't really much matter if they sell 100 in the first four weeks or the first 6 weeks.
Quote:
As I've said before, it's not a disaster, but it's not a home run either, not even a triple.
That depends on if the iPhone helped Orange gain a significant number of new subscribers in contrast to its competitors. Has any other phone brought nearly 35,000 new customers to any other mobile carrier? Your narrow focus on iPhone sales misses other important factors. Success in the mobile phone market is measured in subscribers.
The iPhone does not exist in a vacuum, total mobile phone sales are relevant. We use the example of other phones to show why the iPhone is not selling in Europe as well as it is in the US. How much it sells against these other phones matters even more. You would like to ignore those numbers because they may not support your argument.
It doesn't matter. If Apple had announced that they expected 1 million sales in the first 6 months, and they made 2 million, then it would be considered a success. If they announced that they expected 3 million sales in the first 6 months, and made 2 million, it would be considered to be a failure, irrespective of how other phones did.
Quote:
"CEO, Didier Lombard, unveiled some details and a lofty sales goal in an interview with Europe 1 radio. By the end of the year, Orange hopes to sell 100,000 iPhones, though Didier wasn't clear on whether that figured includes the unlocked iPhones that French law requires of Apple."
From the Europe 1 interview he said he hopes to sell 100 but I guess you can hold his feet to the fire to prove poor iPhone sales. We may be using different math but I would not call 70 well below 100. At the current rate by the middle of January Orange will have sold over 100. Doesn't really much matter if they sell 100 in the first four weeks or the first 6 weeks.
Teno, I truly hope you don't invest. If you did, and lost $30,000, you would surely think it was something. If you bought a house for $100,000, and it went down to $70,000, you would think it was something (though where you would get a decent house for $100,000 today I don't know).
30% is a very big shortfall. That's what matters, the percentage. If Apple's guidance for the quarter of $9.2 billion in sales were down by 30%, that would leave it as $6.44 billion. What do you think would happen to the stock if that happened?
Quote:
That depends on if the iPhone helped Orange gain a significant number of new subscribers in contrast to its competitors. Has any other phone brought nearly 35,000 new customers to any other mobile carrier? Your narrow focus on iPhone sales misses other important factors. Success in the mobile phone market is measured in subscribers.
30% is a very big shortfall. That's what matters, the percentage. If Apple's guidance for the quarter of $9.2 billion in sales were down by 30%, that would leave it as $6.44 billion. What do you think would happen to the stock if that happened?
Yes it becomes a big short fall when you move the numbers up into millions and billions. As it is much more difficult and takes much more time to sell millions of anything or earn billions in revenue.
The difference is much less significant when its 70,000 to 100,000. I doubt the market will make a big deal of Orange selling 100,000 over six weeks instead of four. Either way they are still making money.
Quote:
35,000 new customers is nothing.
Its all about context. 35,000 new customers over 4 weeks because of one phone. Is any one phone responsible for attracting 35,000 new customers in that time frame to Orange's competitors.
35,000 is a small number if that were the only new customers Orange gained. But that seems unlikely.
I don't think anyone here should be that surprised. Many of AIs European forum members have expressed concerns over the iPhones lack of 3g. Despite reports that the current iPhone is as fast as a 3g phone I think many in Europe are waiting for a 3g model before considering the iPhone.
Hopefully a 3g iPhone will now come sooner rather than later.
I don't really think that's the issue. It's certainly one of them, but not the main one.
The main issue is the price. It's just not comparable with similar phones in Europe from the same carriers in the same shop.
From phone shopping before Xmas in Carphone Warehouse, of the 7 stores they have in Manchester, they all had plenty of iPhones whereas I had to hunt around stores to get a SE W580 as a present. There were people playing with the iPhone, and in the Apple store too, but I didn't see anyone buying. Completely anecdotal of course but that's the impression I get. I don't know anyone who has an iPhone. Even the Apple nuts I know haven't bought one or the people who always have to have the latest phone. I've seen one iPhone used out in the wild.
If O2 dropped the tariff prices by £15 each then it might be more competitive apart from the £269 basic price for the iPhone which many people might be ok with as a one off entry fee. Ideally though, that needs to drop too.
IMHO if Apple really meant what they said about shaking up the carriers, Apple should have just sold it unlocked at £299 and let anyone stick a SIM in from any carrier, even PAYG SIMs. They'd have sold millions more. The carriers could have then sold iPhone specific tariffs for people that needed the data and voicemail feature and competed against each other to offer the best service.
That would be a fair market unlike the daft subsidies on phones today which get clawed back through expensive contracts that nobody actually uses all of but buy to get the phone they want. The only thing the iPhone changed here was to remove any decent subsidy and remove the extra minutes/texts you're not likely to use from your expensive contract.
If O2 dropped the tariff prices by £15 each then it might be more competitive apart from the £269 basic price for the iPhone which many people might be ok with as a one off entry fee. Ideally though, that needs to drop too.
The problem here is Apple have taken their iPhone, designed for a US market, with a sale model, designed for a US market and transplanted it, as closely as possible, into Eurpoe. Just as they do (successfully) with their iPod, iTunes and Mac products.
It isn't working. It will not work.
You see, one of the few markets where Europe generally leads the US in terms of competition, development and maturity is the mobile phone market. I've recently got a new 3G phone (Nokia N73) that will work as a wireless modem with my Macbook via bluetooth for free on a 18 month contract worth £32/month (£576). I get 'unlimited' Internet access adn £34 usage allowance for calls a texts. Apple/O2 cannot (yet) match that.
The iPhone has a better interface and is a good media player (but then I've got a new Nano anyway!) that's all it has to offer. It's just not good enough. Until Apple can offer the sort of functionality and value easily available elsewhere they are not going to succeed with their iPhone here.
And it's a shame: I'd like to have a Apple phone... But I won't be ripped off.
I've recently got a new 3G phone (Nokia N73) that will work as a wireless modem with my Macbook via bluetooth for free on a 18 month contract worth £32/month (£576). I get 'unlimited' Internet access adn £34 usage allowance for calls a texts. Apple/O2 cannot (yet) match that.
5 million iPhones sold by Macworld is not unreachable. Apple sold 1 million iPhones at $499 and $599 in just over two months. Is it not concievable that they sold 4 million more iPhones at $399 in 4 more months? They added 3 countries and we just finished the Holiday quarter. Who knows what will happen at Macworld, but 5 million iPhones sold is possible, if not probable. I think Apple has a few tricks up their sleeve, don't they always? It looks as though the AppleTV will get it's yearly update in January. The iPods get their updates in September. And it looks like the iPhone will get it's updates in June. The next iPhone will be a significant upgrade. It will need 3G, more megapixels for the camera, video capability, and more flash memory to compete in Asia. The new version will get those things just as they are launching into Japan and China.
5 million iPhones sold by Macworld is not unreachable. Apple sold 1 million iPhones at $499 and $599 in just over two months. Is it not concievable that they sold 4 million more iPhones at $399 in 4 more months? They added 3 countries and we just finished the Holiday quarter. Who knows what will happen at Macworld, but 5 million iPhones sold is possible, if not probable.
It's possible, but really impropable I think. In Q4 07, Apple could sell 2 to 2.5 million iPhones in the USA (if it follows iPod trends), and in the UK-Germany-France, it's going to be about 300k units. That'll make it 2.5 to 3 million iPhones sold in the 4Q. Making it about 4m iPhones sold, still a bit away from 5m units.
My anecdotal evidence is that Apple had an awesome holiday season. The Apple stores I went to were packed. Really packed. So, I can believe 2 to 2.5 million iPhones sold. 3 to 3.5m units? I don't think so. At $400, it's still a bit pricey to be mass market and attract non-tech fans.
Quote:
The next iPhone will be a significant upgrade. It will need 3G, more megapixels for the camera, video capability, and more flash memory to compete in Asia. The new version will get those things just as they are launching into Japan and China.
No doubt the next generation will be better, but unit sales will track with cost, not features. At the current prices, Apple is only looking for 1% of the market or 10% of the smartphone market. If they want more, they have to lower prices for both the phone and the services. Hence, the need for the iPhone nano. If Apple releases in it 2008, that is when we'll know they intend to take more of the market.
The problem here is Apple have taken their iPhone, designed for a US market, with a sale model, designed for a US market and transplanted it, as closely as possible, into Eurpoe. Just as they do (successfully) with their iPod, iTunes and Mac products.
It isn't working. It will not work.
It really depends on what Apple wants to do, not necessarilly what you think they are doing. Their target is 1% (10m units) of the market in 2008. Success there could mean 7m iPhones in the USA, 2m in Europe, and 1m in Asia. That's probably doable depending on 2008 contract prices.
Quote:
You see, one of the few markets where Europe generally leads the US in terms of competition, development and maturity is the mobile phone market. I've recently got a new 3G phone (Nokia N73) that will work as a wireless modem with my Macbook via bluetooth for free on a 18 month contract worth £32/month (£576). I get 'unlimited' Internet access adn £34 usage allowance for calls a texts. Apple/O2 cannot (yet) match that.
I'm not understanding you here. What does usage allowance mean?
Quote:
The iPhone has a better interface and is a good media player (but then I've got a new Nano anyway!) that's all it has to offer. It's just not good enough. Until Apple can offer the sort of functionality and value easily available elsewhere they are not going to succeed with their iPhone here.
You forgot the 3.5" screen! And better Internet experience due to it. Anyways, Apple won't be playing the features game. Their game is to have 90% of one's usage, but do it better than the competition. Will this succeed in the UK? Well, depends on the contract prices and how the phone evolves.
Quote:
And it's a shame: I'd like to have a Apple phone... But I won't be ripped off.
I haven't bought one either, but I'm waiting on 16 GB storage and UMTS/HSPA.
IMHO if Apple really meant what they said about shaking up the carriers, Apple should have just sold it unlocked at £299 and let anyone stick a SIM in from any carrier, even PAYG SIMs. They'd have sold millions more. The carriers could have then sold iPhone specific tariffs for people that needed the data and voicemail feature and competed against each other to offer the best service.
That would be a fair market unlike the daft subsidies on phones today which get clawed back through expensive contracts that nobody actually uses all of but buy to get the phone they want. The only thing the iPhone changed here was to remove any decent subsidy and remove the extra minutes/texts you're not likely to use from your expensive contract.
I think Apple did in fact think of such a business model, and believed that it would make them less money and sell them less units. As long as phone makers and carriers, in bed together, are willing to offer phones for "free", the free phone option will always win.
3G isnt all its hyped up to be. Anyway even on WiFi the iPhone can be painfully slow, I think the main issue holding back sales is the price of the contract... here in the UK when you compare O2's iPhone contract to some of their other offerings, it seems a rip off just to get a 'cool' phone.
In the end I bit the bullet but I had serious doubts and went into the shop undecided over an iPhone or iPod Touch
I think Apple did in fact think of such a business model, and believed that it would make them less money and sell them less units. As long as phone makers and carriers, in bed together, are willing to offer phones for "free", the free phone option will always win.
I don't think that's going to always be true in the UK at least. Here, about half of phone subscribers use PAYG SIMs, not contract. Phones have got good enough and cheap enough now that the economics of contracts just aren't sensible for many people unless there's some business package for their work. The iPhone isn't likely going to be a free handout from work either.
Apple seem to have neither caught the shift in contract to PAYG in the consumer marketplace, or realised that contract phones are usually free and sell to people who balk at the up front cost of phones. As usual I'd suspect Apple Europe of just not getting it, like they did with AppleTV which just wasn't even worth launching here.
These days, SE K800i 3G phones I can tether to my Mac are going for £70 PAYG. Add a £10 a month SIM to get free text and some free calls + £7.50 for 'unlimited' data as and when I need it. Next to spending £269 for an iPhone and being locked into a shit contract for 18 months, I know which one I'd pick.
These days, SE K800i 3G phones I can tether to my Mac are going for £70 PAYG. Add a £10 a month SIM to get free text and some free calls + £7.50 for 'unlimited' data as and when I need it. Next to spending £269 for an iPhone and being locked into a shit contract for 18 months, I know which one I'd pick.
Hey Aegis,
While I am totally happy with my iPhone. The deal you mention might be good for my daughter.
Can you provide details?
C.
I love her. But I don't love her enough to give her an iPhone.
It really depends on what Apple wants to do, not necessarilly what you think they are doing. Their target is 1% (10m units) of the market in 2008. Success there could mean 7m iPhones in the USA, 2m in Europe, and 1m in Asia. That's probably doable depending on 2008 contract prices.
I'm not understanding you here. What does usage allowance mean?
See the T-Mobile flext price plans. Rather than have so many minutes of free calls and so many free texts per month. You get an allowance of a certain value, which you can use on either calls or texts.
Quote:
You forgot the 3.5" screen! And better Internet experience due to it.
I think that came under the better interface. Anyway it's not as good as the Internet experience on my Macbook - which I can use with the Nokia.
Quote:
Anyways, Apple won't be playing the features game. Their game is to have 90% of one's usage, but do it better than the competition. Will this succeed in the UK? Well, depends on the contract prices and how the phone evolves.
I haven't bought one either, but I'm waiting on 16 GB storage and UMTS/HSPA.
Price is the killer. It's not competitive as it is.
Comments
how do i delete posts? posted twice by mistake
You can't. Just delete the contents, and say something like "Oops!", which is what I do.
We compare it to their projections, which were 100 thousand. It's well below that, so it didn't do well. we don't have to look at other phones, they're irrelevant. Now, they are spinning, and say that they really meant 50 TO 100 thousand. But, that's not what they said, so they're spinning.
The iPhone does not exist in a vacuum, total mobile phone sales are relevant. We use the example of other phones to show why the iPhone is not selling in Europe as well as it is in the US. How much it sells against these other phones matters even more. You would like to ignore those numbers because they may not support your argument.
"CEO, Didier Lombard, unveiled some details and a lofty sales goal in an interview with Europe 1 radio. By the end of the year, Orange hopes to sell 100,000 iPhones, though Didier wasn't clear on whether that figured includes the unlocked iPhones that French law requires of Apple."
From the Europe 1 interview he said he hopes to sell 100 but I guess you can hold his feet to the fire to prove poor iPhone sales. We may be using different math but I would not call 70 well below 100. At the current rate by the middle of January Orange will have sold over 100. Doesn't really much matter if they sell 100 in the first four weeks or the first 6 weeks.
As I've said before, it's not a disaster, but it's not a home run either, not even a triple.
That depends on if the iPhone helped Orange gain a significant number of new subscribers in contrast to its competitors. Has any other phone brought nearly 35,000 new customers to any other mobile carrier? Your narrow focus on iPhone sales misses other important factors. Success in the mobile phone market is measured in subscribers.
The iPhone does not exist in a vacuum, total mobile phone sales are relevant. We use the example of other phones to show why the iPhone is not selling in Europe as well as it is in the US. How much it sells against these other phones matters even more. You would like to ignore those numbers because they may not support your argument.
It doesn't matter. If Apple had announced that they expected 1 million sales in the first 6 months, and they made 2 million, then it would be considered a success. If they announced that they expected 3 million sales in the first 6 months, and made 2 million, it would be considered to be a failure, irrespective of how other phones did.
"CEO, Didier Lombard, unveiled some details and a lofty sales goal in an interview with Europe 1 radio. By the end of the year, Orange hopes to sell 100,000 iPhones, though Didier wasn't clear on whether that figured includes the unlocked iPhones that French law requires of Apple."
From the Europe 1 interview he said he hopes to sell 100 but I guess you can hold his feet to the fire to prove poor iPhone sales. We may be using different math but I would not call 70 well below 100. At the current rate by the middle of January Orange will have sold over 100. Doesn't really much matter if they sell 100 in the first four weeks or the first 6 weeks.
Teno, I truly hope you don't invest. If you did, and lost $30,000, you would surely think it was something. If you bought a house for $100,000, and it went down to $70,000, you would think it was something (though where you would get a decent house for $100,000 today I don't know).
30% is a very big shortfall. That's what matters, the percentage. If Apple's guidance for the quarter of $9.2 billion in sales were down by 30%, that would leave it as $6.44 billion. What do you think would happen to the stock if that happened?
That depends on if the iPhone helped Orange gain a significant number of new subscribers in contrast to its competitors. Has any other phone brought nearly 35,000 new customers to any other mobile carrier? Your narrow focus on iPhone sales misses other important factors. Success in the mobile phone market is measured in subscribers.
35,000 new customers is nothing.
30% is a very big shortfall. That's what matters, the percentage. If Apple's guidance for the quarter of $9.2 billion in sales were down by 30%, that would leave it as $6.44 billion. What do you think would happen to the stock if that happened?
Yes it becomes a big short fall when you move the numbers up into millions and billions. As it is much more difficult and takes much more time to sell millions of anything or earn billions in revenue.
The difference is much less significant when its 70,000 to 100,000. I doubt the market will make a big deal of Orange selling 100,000 over six weeks instead of four. Either way they are still making money.
35,000 new customers is nothing.
Its all about context. 35,000 new customers over 4 weeks because of one phone. Is any one phone responsible for attracting 35,000 new customers in that time frame to Orange's competitors.
35,000 is a small number if that were the only new customers Orange gained. But that seems unlikely.
I don't think anyone here should be that surprised. Many of AIs European forum members have expressed concerns over the iPhones lack of 3g. Despite reports that the current iPhone is as fast as a 3g phone I think many in Europe are waiting for a 3g model before considering the iPhone.
Hopefully a 3g iPhone will now come sooner rather than later.
I don't really think that's the issue. It's certainly one of them, but not the main one.
The main issue is the price. It's just not comparable with similar phones in Europe from the same carriers in the same shop.
That looks to be more realistic.
Yep. certainly more realistic.
From phone shopping before Xmas in Carphone Warehouse, of the 7 stores they have in Manchester, they all had plenty of iPhones whereas I had to hunt around stores to get a SE W580 as a present. There were people playing with the iPhone, and in the Apple store too, but I didn't see anyone buying. Completely anecdotal of course but that's the impression I get. I don't know anyone who has an iPhone. Even the Apple nuts I know haven't bought one or the people who always have to have the latest phone. I've seen one iPhone used out in the wild.
If O2 dropped the tariff prices by £15 each then it might be more competitive apart from the £269 basic price for the iPhone which many people might be ok with as a one off entry fee. Ideally though, that needs to drop too.
IMHO if Apple really meant what they said about shaking up the carriers, Apple should have just sold it unlocked at £299 and let anyone stick a SIM in from any carrier, even PAYG SIMs. They'd have sold millions more. The carriers could have then sold iPhone specific tariffs for people that needed the data and voicemail feature and competed against each other to offer the best service.
That would be a fair market unlike the daft subsidies on phones today which get clawed back through expensive contracts that nobody actually uses all of but buy to get the phone they want. The only thing the iPhone changed here was to remove any decent subsidy and remove the extra minutes/texts you're not likely to use from your expensive contract.
If O2 dropped the tariff prices by £15 each then it might be more competitive apart from the £269 basic price for the iPhone which many people might be ok with as a one off entry fee. Ideally though, that needs to drop too.
Yep I agree they need to drop the price.
It isn't working. It will not work.
You see, one of the few markets where Europe generally leads the US in terms of competition, development and maturity is the mobile phone market. I've recently got a new 3G phone (Nokia N73) that will work as a wireless modem with my Macbook via bluetooth for free on a 18 month contract worth £32/month (£576). I get 'unlimited' Internet access adn £34 usage allowance for calls a texts. Apple/O2 cannot (yet) match that.
The iPhone has a better interface and is a good media player (but then I've got a new Nano anyway!) that's all it has to offer. It's just not good enough. Until Apple can offer the sort of functionality and value easily available elsewhere they are not going to succeed with their iPhone here.
And it's a shame: I'd like to have a Apple phone... But I won't be ripped off.
I've recently got a new 3G phone (Nokia N73) that will work as a wireless modem with my Macbook via bluetooth for free on a 18 month contract worth £32/month (£576). I get 'unlimited' Internet access adn £34 usage allowance for calls a texts. Apple/O2 cannot (yet) match that.
Which phone company is that deal with?
5 million iPhones sold by Macworld is not unreachable. Apple sold 1 million iPhones at $499 and $599 in just over two months. Is it not concievable that they sold 4 million more iPhones at $399 in 4 more months? They added 3 countries and we just finished the Holiday quarter. Who knows what will happen at Macworld, but 5 million iPhones sold is possible, if not probable.
It's possible, but really impropable I think. In Q4 07, Apple could sell 2 to 2.5 million iPhones in the USA (if it follows iPod trends), and in the UK-Germany-France, it's going to be about 300k units. That'll make it 2.5 to 3 million iPhones sold in the 4Q. Making it about 4m iPhones sold, still a bit away from 5m units.
My anecdotal evidence is that Apple had an awesome holiday season. The Apple stores I went to were packed. Really packed. So, I can believe 2 to 2.5 million iPhones sold. 3 to 3.5m units? I don't think so. At $400, it's still a bit pricey to be mass market and attract non-tech fans.
The next iPhone will be a significant upgrade. It will need 3G, more megapixels for the camera, video capability, and more flash memory to compete in Asia. The new version will get those things just as they are launching into Japan and China.
No doubt the next generation will be better, but unit sales will track with cost, not features. At the current prices, Apple is only looking for 1% of the market or 10% of the smartphone market. If they want more, they have to lower prices for both the phone and the services. Hence, the need for the iPhone nano. If Apple releases in it 2008, that is when we'll know they intend to take more of the market.
The problem here is Apple have taken their iPhone, designed for a US market, with a sale model, designed for a US market and transplanted it, as closely as possible, into Eurpoe. Just as they do (successfully) with their iPod, iTunes and Mac products.
It isn't working. It will not work.
It really depends on what Apple wants to do, not necessarilly what you think they are doing. Their target is 1% (10m units) of the market in 2008. Success there could mean 7m iPhones in the USA, 2m in Europe, and 1m in Asia. That's probably doable depending on 2008 contract prices.
You see, one of the few markets where Europe generally leads the US in terms of competition, development and maturity is the mobile phone market. I've recently got a new 3G phone (Nokia N73) that will work as a wireless modem with my Macbook via bluetooth for free on a 18 month contract worth £32/month (£576). I get 'unlimited' Internet access adn £34 usage allowance for calls a texts. Apple/O2 cannot (yet) match that.
I'm not understanding you here. What does usage allowance mean?
The iPhone has a better interface and is a good media player (but then I've got a new Nano anyway!) that's all it has to offer. It's just not good enough. Until Apple can offer the sort of functionality and value easily available elsewhere they are not going to succeed with their iPhone here.
You forgot the 3.5" screen! And better Internet experience due to it. Anyways, Apple won't be playing the features game. Their game is to have 90% of one's usage, but do it better than the competition. Will this succeed in the UK? Well, depends on the contract prices and how the phone evolves.
And it's a shame: I'd like to have a Apple phone... But I won't be ripped off.
I haven't bought one either, but I'm waiting on 16 GB storage and UMTS/HSPA.
IMHO if Apple really meant what they said about shaking up the carriers, Apple should have just sold it unlocked at £299 and let anyone stick a SIM in from any carrier, even PAYG SIMs. They'd have sold millions more. The carriers could have then sold iPhone specific tariffs for people that needed the data and voicemail feature and competed against each other to offer the best service.
That would be a fair market unlike the daft subsidies on phones today which get clawed back through expensive contracts that nobody actually uses all of but buy to get the phone they want. The only thing the iPhone changed here was to remove any decent subsidy and remove the extra minutes/texts you're not likely to use from your expensive contract.
I think Apple did in fact think of such a business model, and believed that it would make them less money and sell them less units. As long as phone makers and carriers, in bed together, are willing to offer phones for "free", the free phone option will always win.
I see they're putting a bit of a spin on it.
Ok Teno, where are you?
...
In the end I bit the bullet but I had serious doubts and went into the shop undecided over an iPhone or iPod Touch
I think Apple did in fact think of such a business model, and believed that it would make them less money and sell them less units. As long as phone makers and carriers, in bed together, are willing to offer phones for "free", the free phone option will always win.
I don't think that's going to always be true in the UK at least. Here, about half of phone subscribers use PAYG SIMs, not contract. Phones have got good enough and cheap enough now that the economics of contracts just aren't sensible for many people unless there's some business package for their work. The iPhone isn't likely going to be a free handout from work either.
Apple seem to have neither caught the shift in contract to PAYG in the consumer marketplace, or realised that contract phones are usually free and sell to people who balk at the up front cost of phones. As usual I'd suspect Apple Europe of just not getting it, like they did with AppleTV which just wasn't even worth launching here.
These days, SE K800i 3G phones I can tether to my Mac are going for £70 PAYG. Add a £10 a month SIM to get free text and some free calls + £7.50 for 'unlimited' data as and when I need it. Next to spending £269 for an iPhone and being locked into a shit contract for 18 months, I know which one I'd pick.
These days, SE K800i 3G phones I can tether to my Mac are going for £70 PAYG. Add a £10 a month SIM to get free text and some free calls + £7.50 for 'unlimited' data as and when I need it. Next to spending £269 for an iPhone and being locked into a shit contract for 18 months, I know which one I'd pick.
Hey Aegis,
While I am totally happy with my iPhone. The deal you mention might be good for my daughter.
Can you provide details?
C.
I love her. But I don't love her enough to give her an iPhone.
Which phone company is that deal with?
T-Mobile
It really depends on what Apple wants to do, not necessarilly what you think they are doing. Their target is 1% (10m units) of the market in 2008. Success there could mean 7m iPhones in the USA, 2m in Europe, and 1m in Asia. That's probably doable depending on 2008 contract prices.
I'm not understanding you here. What does usage allowance mean?
See the T-Mobile flext price plans. Rather than have so many minutes of free calls and so many free texts per month. You get an allowance of a certain value, which you can use on either calls or texts.
You forgot the 3.5" screen! And better Internet experience due to it.
I think that came under the better interface. Anyway it's not as good as the Internet experience on my Macbook - which I can use with the Nokia.
Anyways, Apple won't be playing the features game. Their game is to have 90% of one's usage, but do it better than the competition. Will this succeed in the UK? Well, depends on the contract prices and how the phone evolves.
I haven't bought one either, but I'm waiting on 16 GB storage and UMTS/HSPA.
Price is the killer. It's not competitive as it is.