So... I'd rather be under contract than pay more for a cellphone that is unlocked, because I won't be using it on other US carriers. For travel I have unlocked it and used it on foreign networks with other SIMs. I will continue to do that if possible and will keep my 2G iPhone as an unlocked backup for travel until the new one is unlockable.
Rumour has it that Australia will receive unlocked phones on at least 2 of our networks.
However, I suspect I won't pay more for an unlocked phone than I would have for a locked phone - because I believe I'll get a price-subsidised iPhone and be locked into a 2 year contract with Optus or Vodafone.
eg: They already give away $800 phones on $50/mth contracts. So a $1300 unlocked iPhone might cost $500 on a 2 year contract. (Then again... can an iPhone really cost that much more to make than an iPod Touch?)
Anyway, this still fulfils Apple's goal of making the iPhone cost something (... people treat their "free" phones badly even if they're worth $800)
I'm really surprised AT&T isn't pushing that. Anyone who buys a phone could be locked into a 2 year contract with AT&T automatically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
T-Mobiel uses different frequencies for 3G data that will not be compatible with a 3G iPhone.
Really? T-mobile doesn't use the European standard frequencies OR the 850Mhz (AT&T) frequencies? What do they use?
edit: Interesting.
3G in Europe uses 2100Mhz as well as 1900Mhz, as standard. (2G /GSM in Europe uses 900Mhz & 1800Mhz)
GSM in the US uses 1900Mhz.
AT&T uses 850Mhz for 3G, and perhaps some 1900Mhz (taken from 2G)
T-mobile will use both 1700Mhz and 2100Mhz.
I read a rumour (yes, really, a 3G iPhone rumour!) that it would work on both 850Mhz and 2100Mhz. That would make it work in Europe & US (and would also work on T-mobile in the US).
Is Apple's current U..S iPhone service formally tied to AT&T for five years (from the initial roll out)? Is there an option that would allow Apple and/or iPhone users to go with a different service provider (without hacking/breaking the iPhone)? I would LOVE to buy an iPhone, but AT&T service would make the device merely an "i". Is this arrangement with AT&T set in granite?
It's an exclusive deal, so yeah, it is set in granite, but likely only for the first two years (i.e. through mid-'09).
But again, only Apple and ATT know for certain. I too am in an area where ATT kinda sucks, so I'm going to wait 'til next summer to see what develops. Though I will be drooling over the 3G iPhone when it arrives.
That was the point of my post. i prefer the iPhone and will prefer it more when it's 3G. If it's only GSM then I have only one choice for a carrier: AT&T. Verizon and Sprint are CDMA, and T-Mobiel uses different frequencies for 3G data that will not be compatible with a 3G iPhone.
Wasn't Electric Monk talking awhile back about some snazzy new tri-band 3G chips that could handle pretty much any frequency you'd be likely to run into, worldwide?
Really? T-mobile doesn't use the European standard frequencies OR the 850Mhz (AT&T) frequencies? What do they use?
For the US, T-Mobile had to get the bandwidth which it won in September 2006 (Only a year and a half ago, so their 4G coverage probably won't be so hot anyway). They won part oft he 1700MHz and 2100MHz spectrums for their 3G network. I'm under the impression that it won't have the 2100Mhz (down) or 1700MHz (up) spectrums required for T-Mobile 3G data.
I don't know who will be welling to pay more for unlocked iPhone when you can unlocked it yourself for free!! The new tools allow you to restore your iPhone back to the original configuration it you want to take it for service. I have a AT&T for my iPhone and will unlock my iPhone this summer when I go overseas.
I think Apple know that they screw up with the use of exclusive carriers for the iPhone, specially in EU. Unlike the US, in Europe you have to pay roaming charges when you move between states. So, it is much cheaper just to buy a prepaid line in the country you are visiting instead of using your home country line. Apple need to dump the current iPhone model and start selling the unlocked iPhone through other retailers world wide even in places where they don't have official Apple store. Otherwise, I don't see how they even sell 10 mil this year. From what I have been reading, I don't think the 3G iPhone will be much good in term of sales if the don't change the way they do business.
Few years ago, I bought my P900 for more than $700 overseas and it was 4 months after release. I think $500 is fair price for an official unlocked iPhone. Most who bought the iPhone early have already paid ($599 + tax + $36 activation fee - $100 Apple store credit).
CDMA is over 50 percent of the market in Apple's home country, the US of A. It's big in Korea as well. Worldwide, there's over 430 million CDMA users.
CDMA is big in Canada too. We only have one GSM provder, and there are vast areas of the country where it gets no signal. A lot of people think that Rogers playing hardball is why we don't have the iPhone here yet, but I'm more inclined to believe it's because there's no point in entering the Canadian market if you don't have a CDMA product.
I don't know if it's all hype but seems to me the whole world has been waiting for the 3G version.
Well, it's surely not the "whole" world. Being a European, in Europe, I can only speak from the experience with the several dozen people I know who own an iPhone, but none of them gave didli about 3G, all of them got an iPhone from the US and most of them did so because of the pricing plans in Europe.
CDMA is over 50 percent of the market in Apple's home country, the US of A. It's big in Korea as well. Worldwide, there's over 430 million CDMA users.
Sure, GSM is more popular worldwide, and by quite a wide margin. But given the benefit-to-cost ratio of putting it out, an eventual CDMA version seems like a no-brainer for Apple.
IF they can come to terms with the big CDMA carriers. \
.
but in those markets isn't there also GSM? so people would just move on over....with the iphone
IT'S THE PHONE NOT THE NETWORK THAT'S PUSHING THIS
but in those markets isn't there also GSM? so people would just move on over....with the iphone
IT'S THE PHONE NOT THE NETWORK THAT'S PUSHING THIS
We wish.
But if you check out the recent results, Verizon (CDMA) just beat ATT (GSM) in customer net adds this past quarter. Even with the iPhone on ATT's side. \
Even with the upcoming 3G iPhone hitting soon, I wouldn't bet on CDMA dropping below 50 percent marketshare in the US anytime soon. There's plenty of places where ATT doesn't have good service.
CDMA is big in Canada too. We only have one GSM provder, and there are vast areas of the country where it gets no signal. A lot of people think that Rogers playing hardball is why we don't have the iPhone here yet, but I'm more inclined to believe it's because there's no point in entering the Canadian market if you don't have a CDMA product.
Looks like Rogers (GSM) finally got the deal, for better or worse:
eg: They already give away $800 phones on $50/mth contracts. So a $1300 unlocked iPhone might cost $500 on a 2 year contract. (Then again... can an iPhone really cost that much more to make than an iPod Touch?)
There are those two little words - "to make"
I hope everyone realizes that production costs and sales prices are totally unrelated. I'm so tired of hearing how the iPhone must cost not much more to make than the Touch.
I hope everyone realizes that production costs and sales prices are totally unrelated. I'm so tired of hearing how the iPhone must cost not much more to make than the Touch.
True. To start, the iPhone definitely has phone, WiFi, EDGE & Bluetooth radios (I think iTouch only has WiFi), probably quite a bit bigger battery, and the screen is clearly nicer. I can easily tell the iTouch screen dithers, the iPhone screen does not dither that I can tell. Most phones I've looked at use dithering in some form, I think it's annoying.
I hope everyone realizes that production costs and sales prices are totally unrelated. I'm so tired of hearing how the iPhone must cost not much more to make than the Touch.
Perhaps I'm missing what you're trying to say... could you clarify?
I'm also wondering why you think that the sales price of a product isn't related to its cost ... the standard commercial model is to make something at a certain cost per unit, factor in overall design charges/marketing etc, add a profit and set the sales price. Then supply and demand is the other factor - Apple has a product that others do not have yet, so they can set higher prices for now.
So back to my post you were replying to:
I said that the iPhone might be sold for $1300, but get an $800 discount by signing up to a 2 year contract. I then wondered if $1300 for the iPhone was a realistic price when the iPod Touch is so much cheaper.
I get that Apple might charge far more for the iPhone than their cost, since it's so popular and they sustain the demand. Is that what you mean when you say iPhone cost isn't related to sales price? Or is there something else?
I get that Apple might charge far more for the iPhone than their cost, since it's so popular and they sustain the demand. Is that what you mean when you say iPhone cost isn't related to sales price? Or is there something else?
Exactly. The retail price of the iPhone has nothing to do with how much it cost to produce. Apple determines from supply and demand how much they can charge. Look at it this way - if the iPhone had some craftsmanship that caused it to cost $5000 to produce, do you think they should charge $5500 for it?
CDMA is over 50 percent of the market in Apple's home country, the US of A. It's big in Korea as well. Worldwide, there's over 430 million CDMA users.
GSM holds 85% of the world market and has 2 billion users over 200 countries.
Quote:
And yeah, ATT is NOT the dominant monster megalith some people think. Verizon is very nearly as large, and Sprint's not too far behind. Between them, the Big Three US carriers have almost 75% of the US market. I would think Apple would eventually want to sell to all of the Big Three, plus perhaps T-Mobile as well.
The iPhone will be on Verizon when they use LTE. Sprint is going a whole different direction with WiMax.
GSM holds 85% of the world market and has 2 billion users over 200 countries.
Yah, I know. You must've stopped reading before the part where I said the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
Sure, GSM is more popular worldwide, and by quite a wide margin.
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
The iPhone will be on Verizon when they use LTE. Sprint is going a whole different direction with WiMax.
Still wouldn't count out the possibility of a CDMA iPhone. They'll likely need it for Korea, and if the ATT exclusive is only two years, they'll want one for Verizon and/or Sprint (who won't be fully WiMax for awhile yet), not to mention Alltel. Assuming Apple can come to a deal with any of them.
Comments
So... I'd rather be under contract than pay more for a cellphone that is unlocked, because I won't be using it on other US carriers. For travel I have unlocked it and used it on foreign networks with other SIMs. I will continue to do that if possible and will keep my 2G iPhone as an unlocked backup for travel until the new one is unlockable.
Rumour has it that Australia will receive unlocked phones on at least 2 of our networks.
However, I suspect I won't pay more for an unlocked phone than I would have for a locked phone - because I believe I'll get a price-subsidised iPhone and be locked into a 2 year contract with Optus or Vodafone.
eg: They already give away $800 phones on $50/mth contracts. So a $1300 unlocked iPhone might cost $500 on a 2 year contract. (Then again... can an iPhone really cost that much more to make than an iPod Touch?)
Anyway, this still fulfils Apple's goal of making the iPhone cost something (... people treat their "free" phones badly even if they're worth $800)
I'm really surprised AT&T isn't pushing that. Anyone who buys a phone could be locked into a 2 year contract with AT&T automatically.
T-Mobiel uses different frequencies for 3G data that will not be compatible with a 3G iPhone.
Really? T-mobile doesn't use the European standard frequencies OR the 850Mhz (AT&T) frequencies? What do they use?
edit: Interesting.
3G in Europe uses 2100Mhz as well as 1900Mhz, as standard. (2G /GSM in Europe uses 900Mhz & 1800Mhz)
GSM in the US uses 1900Mhz.
AT&T uses 850Mhz for 3G, and perhaps some 1900Mhz (taken from 2G)
T-mobile will use both 1700Mhz and 2100Mhz.
I read a rumour (yes, really, a 3G iPhone rumour!) that it would work on both 850Mhz and 2100Mhz. That would make it work in Europe & US (and would also work on T-mobile in the US).
Is Apple's current U..S iPhone service formally tied to AT&T for five years (from the initial roll out)? Is there an option that would allow Apple and/or iPhone users to go with a different service provider (without hacking/breaking the iPhone)? I would LOVE to buy an iPhone, but AT&T service would make the device merely an "i". Is this arrangement with AT&T set in granite?
It's an exclusive deal, so yeah, it is set in granite, but likely only for the first two years (i.e. through mid-'09).
But again, only Apple and ATT know for certain. I too am in an area where ATT kinda sucks, so I'm going to wait 'til next summer to see what develops. Though I will be drooling over the 3G iPhone when it arrives.
.
That was the point of my post. i prefer the iPhone and will prefer it more when it's 3G. If it's only GSM then I have only one choice for a carrier: AT&T. Verizon and Sprint are CDMA, and T-Mobiel uses different frequencies for 3G data that will not be compatible with a 3G iPhone.
Wasn't Electric Monk talking awhile back about some snazzy new tri-band 3G chips that could handle pretty much any frequency you'd be likely to run into, worldwide?
.
Really? T-mobile doesn't use the European standard frequencies OR the 850Mhz (AT&T) frequencies? What do they use?
For the US, T-Mobile had to get the bandwidth which it won in September 2006 (Only a year and a half ago, so their 4G coverage probably won't be so hot anyway). They won part oft he 1700MHz and 2100MHz spectrums for their 3G network. I'm under the impression that it won't have the 2100Mhz (down) or 1700MHz (up) spectrums required for T-Mobile 3G data.
I think Apple know that they screw up with the use of exclusive carriers for the iPhone, specially in EU. Unlike the US, in Europe you have to pay roaming charges when you move between states. So, it is much cheaper just to buy a prepaid line in the country you are visiting instead of using your home country line. Apple need to dump the current iPhone model and start selling the unlocked iPhone through other retailers world wide even in places where they don't have official Apple store. Otherwise, I don't see how they even sell 10 mil this year. From what I have been reading, I don't think the 3G iPhone will be much good in term of sales if the don't change the way they do business.
Few years ago, I bought my P900 for more than $700 overseas and it was 4 months after release. I think $500 is fair price for an official unlocked iPhone. Most who bought the iPhone early have already paid ($599 + tax + $36 activation fee - $100 Apple store credit).
Um, really?
CDMA is over 50 percent of the market in Apple's home country, the US of A. It's big in Korea as well. Worldwide, there's over 430 million CDMA users.
CDMA is big in Canada too. We only have one GSM provder, and there are vast areas of the country where it gets no signal. A lot of people think that Rogers playing hardball is why we don't have the iPhone here yet, but I'm more inclined to believe it's because there's no point in entering the Canadian market if you don't have a CDMA product.
I don't know if it's all hype but seems to me the whole world has been waiting for the 3G version.
Well, it's surely not the "whole" world. Being a European, in Europe, I can only speak from the experience with the several dozen people I know who own an iPhone, but none of them gave didli about 3G, all of them got an iPhone from the US and most of them did so because of the pricing plans in Europe.
Um, really?
CDMA is over 50 percent of the market in Apple's home country, the US of A. It's big in Korea as well. Worldwide, there's over 430 million CDMA users.
Sure, GSM is more popular worldwide, and by quite a wide margin. But given the benefit-to-cost ratio of putting it out, an eventual CDMA version seems like a no-brainer for Apple.
IF they can come to terms with the big CDMA carriers.
.
but in those markets isn't there also GSM? so people would just move on over....with the iphone
IT'S THE PHONE NOT THE NETWORK THAT'S PUSHING THIS
but in those markets isn't there also GSM? so people would just move on over....with the iphone
IT'S THE PHONE NOT THE NETWORK THAT'S PUSHING THIS
We wish.
But if you check out the recent results, Verizon (CDMA) just beat ATT (GSM) in customer net adds this past quarter. Even with the iPhone on ATT's side.
Even with the upcoming 3G iPhone hitting soon, I wouldn't bet on CDMA dropping below 50 percent marketshare in the US anytime soon. There's plenty of places where ATT doesn't have good service.
.
CDMA is big in Canada too. We only have one GSM provder, and there are vast areas of the country where it gets no signal. A lot of people think that Rogers playing hardball is why we don't have the iPhone here yet, but I'm more inclined to believe it's because there's no point in entering the Canadian market if you don't have a CDMA product.
Looks like Rogers (GSM) finally got the deal, for better or worse:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...this_year.html
.
eg: They already give away $800 phones on $50/mth contracts. So a $1300 unlocked iPhone might cost $500 on a 2 year contract. (Then again... can an iPhone really cost that much more to make than an iPod Touch?)
There are those two little words - "to make"
I hope everyone realizes that production costs and sales prices are totally unrelated. I'm so tired of hearing how the iPhone must cost not much more to make than the Touch.
There are those two little words - "to make"
I hope everyone realizes that production costs and sales prices are totally unrelated. I'm so tired of hearing how the iPhone must cost not much more to make than the Touch.
True. To start, the iPhone definitely has phone, WiFi, EDGE & Bluetooth radios (I think iTouch only has WiFi), probably quite a bit bigger battery, and the screen is clearly nicer. I can easily tell the iTouch screen dithers, the iPhone screen does not dither that I can tell. Most phones I've looked at use dithering in some form, I think it's annoying.
I hope everyone realizes that production costs and sales prices are totally unrelated. I'm so tired of hearing how the iPhone must cost not much more to make than the Touch.
Perhaps I'm missing what you're trying to say... could you clarify?
I'm also wondering why you think that the sales price of a product isn't related to its cost ... the standard commercial model is to make something at a certain cost per unit, factor in overall design charges/marketing etc, add a profit and set the sales price. Then supply and demand is the other factor - Apple has a product that others do not have yet, so they can set higher prices for now.
So back to my post you were replying to:
I said that the iPhone might be sold for $1300, but get an $800 discount by signing up to a 2 year contract. I then wondered if $1300 for the iPhone was a realistic price when the iPod Touch is so much cheaper.
I get that Apple might charge far more for the iPhone than their cost, since it's so popular and they sustain the demand. Is that what you mean when you say iPhone cost isn't related to sales price? Or is there something else?
I get that Apple might charge far more for the iPhone than their cost, since it's so popular and they sustain the demand. Is that what you mean when you say iPhone cost isn't related to sales price? Or is there something else?
Exactly. The retail price of the iPhone has nothing to do with how much it cost to produce. Apple determines from supply and demand how much they can charge. Look at it this way - if the iPhone had some craftsmanship that caused it to cost $5000 to produce, do you think they should charge $5500 for it?
CDMA is over 50 percent of the market in Apple's home country, the US of A. It's big in Korea as well. Worldwide, there's over 430 million CDMA users.
GSM holds 85% of the world market and has 2 billion users over 200 countries.
And yeah, ATT is NOT the dominant monster megalith some people think. Verizon is very nearly as large, and Sprint's not too far behind. Between them, the Big Three US carriers have almost 75% of the US market. I would think Apple would eventually want to sell to all of the Big Three, plus perhaps T-Mobile as well.
The iPhone will be on Verizon when they use LTE. Sprint is going a whole different direction with WiMax.
GSM holds 85% of the world market and has 2 billion users over 200 countries.
Yah, I know. You must've stopped reading before the part where I said the following:
Sure, GSM is more popular worldwide, and by quite a wide margin.
...
The iPhone will be on Verizon when they use LTE. Sprint is going a whole different direction with WiMax.
Still wouldn't count out the possibility of a CDMA iPhone. They'll likely need it for Korea, and if the ATT exclusive is only two years, they'll want one for Verizon and/or Sprint (who won't be fully WiMax for awhile yet), not to mention Alltel. Assuming Apple can come to a deal with any of them.
.