Obviously this comment/prediction is based on Apple's current player line up. Come september when Apple release the next gen of touch iPods etc (expect touch models to come with plastic backs and entry models to retail cheaper) the sales forecasts will no doubt increase.
The iPhone may well be cheaper but at this time you need to pass a credit check and sign up to a 18 month or 2 year contract. No pricing has been announced in the UK for o2's pay as you go iPhone service (no doubt the handset will be considerably more expensive) I would suggest that the 8GB model will retail for £269 on PAYG and the 16GB model at £369, o2 and Apple will not go out of their way to make the PAYG version seem like the better deal.
Unless you are in the market for a mobile phone you will be picking up one of the iPod touch models.
Here's what Apple needs to work out next: A simple way to have multiple phones on the same account. So I can take my nano-phone to the gym and my iPhone classic on my trip to Switzerland. Both phones need to be operable without me having to move a cumbersome card or anything like that. Maybe they'd have to make it so only one works at a time - but that's what I want. I don't want to have to be stuck with a single iPhone.
Um, what are you talking about? You don't need Apple to invent such a system, it already exists by the nature of GSM. All you need to do is have another SIM card ($25 from my carrier), then you just clone your original SIM (something which is entirely legal, even if the carriers want you to think otherwise). Then you have the respective SIM cards in each phone. And they'll both work with your account. I'm not sure what happens if both phones are on at the same time. I believe it used to be they could both be on network, and when a call came in it was whatever phone answered first, but I think now only one phone can be signed onto the network at once (so you turn off the phone you don't want to use).
Of course, for this to work Apple needs to start selling phones without requiring you to buy a service plan/contract extension with it, since you only need one account.
This seems like a bit of a silly discussion. It is like wondering if Kellogg's sales of Special K with Protein will undermine their sales of traditional Special K!
One can only imagine if this thread's discussion was over that issue ...
<Serialhead> "Oh I really think Kellogg's screwed up here, I for one will be buying 'With Protein' I have no need for 'Traditional' now.
<Regular>Oh not so fast I like to take two personal serving size traditional with me when I go to the Gym.
<Serialhead> Look, Regular, you are missing the whole point here, 'With Protein', is 'Traditional', only you get 'Protein' too ... As I said Kellogg's will damage sales of 'Traditional' this is bad news.
<Thinone> I for one prefer to have both, I will always prefer a simple bowl of 'Traditional' in the morning but when traveling find 'With Protein' better.
<Sanity> They are both freaking Kellogg's, who cares?
Also, the GPS is nice and all, but without text to voice and the ability to speak turn by turn directions, I don't think it will replace the Garmins and Tom-Toms any time soon. The iPhone GPS requires too much user interaction to be used safely (and legally in California) while driving..
TomTom has something in the works right now. I hope it can also access into the iPod app audio content on the iPhone when in use,
There is a truth - if you have iPod, you are looking for iPhone
If there will come iPhone with 160Gb memory and free to eny carier - then say bye to iPod as a product forever!
PS
I got iPhone a few months ago... As a second product from apple I ordered TimeCapsule, becouse i need a wifi... and network drive for backup... next probably will be Mac, becouse windows xp is really slow on my old Dell... So I think lot of peoples are looking more serioselly at MAC as an alternative to Windows.
As you can see, If somebody only wants a music player that is touch capable, the iPod touch will cost them significantly less than an iPhone.
Well, I think your math is being a bit simplistic. It's $1879 minus whatever 24 months worth of their current provider's service costs since I'm guessing it's a pretty safe bet that most iPhone buyers are already cellular customers. I guess you could potentially add on an early termination fee, but I think the average cose would come out a lot less than your stated $1879. Besides, how many people are going to look at it that way and not as $199 plus the monthly price difference in cell plans? If it's an extra $10 a month, that technically makes the iPhone cost $439, but it's not like they pay the full $439 up front to really worry about.
I also wonder if fear of cannibalization of iPod sales is why Apple didn't bump up the storage of the iPhone. I don't have an iPhone, but I'm interested in getting one. But I'd also like the iPhone to replace my iPod (or at least be a close substitute). I have around 42GB worth of music on my iPod so not even a third of my music would fit on the 16GB iPhone; that would hardly make it a viable replacement. If they had introduced a 32GB model, I'd have been working out the finances to pick up an iPhone in July. As it stands now, I'm still on the fence about getting an iPhone at all.
Both phones need to be operable without me having to move a cumbersome card or anything like that.
It's a good thing Apple's designed the iPhone the way they did. It would really be something to have to replace that cumbersome battery when it dies out!
Even when it was at $399, I got into the debate on whether I pick up the Touch or not.
Even if I didn't activate it, I spent the extra ~$75(at the time) and got the phone instead. I mean, a Phone and a Camera and more support at the time for 'cracking' it to install apps was a no brainer.
I have a feeling a whole revamp / price change is in order ....
"That drop, in turn, will reportedly have a cascading effect on the iPhone itself. With more users buying the iPhone merely in place of an iPod rather than alongside it, sales of the handset in the long-term should also take a tumble relative to earlier predictions."
\
I don't understand this sentence. It makes no sense. Does it?
And while I'm on it, when will these analyst fools get their head around the fact the iPhone IS an iPod - with a *phone* in it. It fulfills exactly the same function as the iPod, ie. to drive consumers to the Mac platform and earn Apple $$$.
The analysts' earnings estimates are based on projected sales and margins of each device. I don't think they're saying iPhone's cannibalization of certain iPods is a bad thing; they're just taking note of it for purposes of getting accurate projections of each line.
Also, this analyst assume that Apple will eventually be able to broaden its U.S. market share by being able to sell through other carriers. The big question is when that will happen -- I think the original AT&T exclusivity was 5 years -- and how much AT&T would pony up to keep its exclusivity beyond the initial contract.
Am I reading the numbers correctly? He expects iPod sales to be about 25 million fewer than he originally projected and he says this decline is due to cannibalization by the iPhone. Why, then, does he see only a 6-million increase in iPhone sales next year? I'd have thought the numbers would have balanced out. What am i missing?
Articles like this are ridiculous. Of course iPhone sales are going to replace iPod sales, the device contains all the features of an iPod. People will still buy songs and videos, and they'll add
It's like saying that ipods with color screens would "cannibalize" sales of black and white ones. Or that ipods with video would "cannibalize" sales of ones without.
Newer, better (and often pricier) models replace old ones. Calling that cannibalizing sales of the old models is just stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aiolos
Well, the problem is now that the iPhone is too cheap, it's definitely gonna cannibalize some iPod sales.
I'm almost positive that I'm not the only one that prefers to have a separate music device (iPod) in addition to my iPhone. I use my iPod nano at the gym every other day. I do not want to lug my iPhone around while working out. It's too big and heavy. As it is now, I hardly even use my iPhone for music, only the occasional viewing of video. I love my iPhone as a phone/PDA/internet device and relish the fact that with my iPhone, I don't always have to travel with my MacBook.
I suppose one would need to go to the gym if an iPhone is too heavy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambrose Bierce
With all the hype concerning the $199 iphone, I still can't figure out if there is any country where you will be able to buy an unlocked one for this price.
I doubt there would be one for this generation. I bet that it's going to be $500 or more for a cracked or otherwise unlocked iPhone 3G, because you'll need to factor in the cost of cancelling the contract that the original buyer, as well as the premium for cracked phones even if it's done by visiting a web site.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
Articles like this are ridiculous. Of course iPhone sales are going to replace iPod sales, the device contains all the features of an iPod. People will still buy songs and videos, and they'll add
It's like saying that ipods with color screens would "cannibalize" sales of black and white ones. Or that ipods with video would "cannibalize" sales of ones without.
Newer, better (and often pricier) models replace old ones. Calling that cannibalizing sales of the old models is just stupid.
It does sound like silly reasoning. Apple's getting their money either way.
Don't forget that an iPhone with 16GB of flash memory is priced at $299 not $199. Someone planning to use their new iPhone as a music player replacement will be likely to give Apple that additional $100 premium. The 16 GB model will be a far better iPod substitute than the 8 GB model. It will also have a much higher margin for Apple.
I've managed with 1GB for audio only, 8GB should be fine for audio + photos + video.
Quote:
Originally Posted by axc51
How will the iPhone really cannibalize iPod sales? Yeah it's $199, but last time I checked you'll need to pay AT&T $720 just for the data plan over 2 years, plus whatever their voice plans cost! With the iPod it's a one-time fee, and no hidden subscription costs.
I doubt the subscription costs would be hidden when they are ready for sale. I understand the objection over the data plan, but if you have a mobile contract anyway, the cost of the voice isn't going to be a big deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solsun
iPod Touch = $299
iPhone = $199 + $70 x 24 = $1879
As you can see, If somebody only wants a music player that is touch capable, the iPod touch will cost them significantly less than an iPhone.
My impression is that the kind of person that doesn't want a phone is dwindling. Very few people don't have a mobile phone, there are about half as many active mobile phones as there are people (3+ billion vs 6+ billon). That ratio is even higher in developed countries. Europe has more active phone subscriptions than they have people.
I suppose one would need to go to the gym if an iPhone is too heavy.
It is if your workout clothes don't have a pocket - a shuffle is way more handy in that situation since you can just clip it on. I would never want to use an iPhone or touch for working out, a shuffle is perfect for that.
It is if your workout clothes don't have a pocket - a shuffle is way more handy in that situation since you can just clip it on. I would never want to use an iPhone or touch for working out, a shuffle is perfect for that.
Even the iPod Nano is too large now that I've gone the Shuffle. I really liked the Mini's neoprene armband but the Nano just feels odd when strapped to my arm now. I'd actually like to have something that doesn't have to be clipped on, like those Oakley sunglasses with an MP3 player built-in, but I look like such a a-hole wearing them.
The mentions of Skype sort of cover the point I would make but it might be worth some emphasis. The continuing dominance of creaking, tottering quasi-monopolies like Bell South (which simply purchased the "AT&T" name but has almost nothing to do with that historical institution) is close to being an example of anti-gravity. But like Wile E Coyote they will inevitably look down and notice that Newtonian physics is still something to reckon with no matter how many high price lawyers they own in Washington.
The inevitable growth of bandwidth, both wired and wireless, will undermine the monopoly level pricing of voice communications. The present is certainly the iPhone but due to Moore's Law and its network corollary the future seems destined to be more like the iPod Touch without the monthly tribute being paid for incumbent monopolists from the age of analog telephony and telegraphy. During the transitional period Apple is wise to create an appropriate device but their parallel introduction of the corresponding device not anchored to the past (i.e. the iPod touch) seems to be misunderstood by the analyst.
The mentions of Skype sort of cover the point I would make but it might be worth some emphasis. The continuing dominance of creaking, tottering quasi-monopolies like Bell South (which simply purchased the "AT&T" name but has almost nothing to do with that historical institution) is close to being an example of anti-gravity. But like Wile E Coyote they will inevitably look down and notice that Newtonian physics is still something to reckon with no matter how many high price lawyers they own in Washington.
The inevitable growth of bandwidth, both wired and wireless, will undermine the monopoly level pricing of voice communications. The present is certainly the iPhone but due to Moore's Law and its network corollary the future seems destined to be more like the iPod Touch without the monthly tribute being paid for incumbent monopolists from the age of analog telephony and telegraphy. During the transitional period Apple is wise to create an appropriate device but their parallel introduction of the corresponding device not anchored to the past (i.e. the iPod touch) seems to be misunderstood by the analyst.
Took me awhile to sort through your prose but Yeah!!! I second that!! The future is not with the ridiculousness of the cellphone companies, but with maverick technology that bypasses these dinosaurs. I hope Apple realizes this; I figure they are just out for the big bucks that are available. Too bad they are taking it from a user base that deserves better. I hope to see them working with someone like Google? who seem to have the cojónes and $$$$ to take these big boys to task...let's just see if they can really open up the new bandwidths to more expansive wifi. I thought that was what the auction broohaha was about. I think the Touch is way more exciting than the phone, let's just hope it doesn't get dropped in the current rush.
a Sony-Ericsson cellphone, a Palm TX and a 4GB USB thumb drive.
I WANT a separate iPod for music. I bought an iPod originally to clear 20 or 30GB of hard drive space on my PowerBook. The 16GB of the iPhone just isn't enough storage for music.
Wasting precious battery life using an iPhone to listen to music seems a waste. A dedicated player with a dead battery isn't as tragic as a dead phone battery.
Comments
The iPhone may well be cheaper but at this time you need to pass a credit check and sign up to a 18 month or 2 year contract. No pricing has been announced in the UK for o2's pay as you go iPhone service (no doubt the handset will be considerably more expensive) I would suggest that the 8GB model will retail for £269 on PAYG and the 16GB model at £369, o2 and Apple will not go out of their way to make the PAYG version seem like the better deal.
Unless you are in the market for a mobile phone you will be picking up one of the iPod touch models.
Here's what Apple needs to work out next: A simple way to have multiple phones on the same account. So I can take my nano-phone to the gym and my iPhone classic on my trip to Switzerland. Both phones need to be operable without me having to move a cumbersome card or anything like that. Maybe they'd have to make it so only one works at a time - but that's what I want. I don't want to have to be stuck with a single iPhone.
Um, what are you talking about? You don't need Apple to invent such a system, it already exists by the nature of GSM. All you need to do is have another SIM card ($25 from my carrier), then you just clone your original SIM (something which is entirely legal, even if the carriers want you to think otherwise). Then you have the respective SIM cards in each phone. And they'll both work with your account. I'm not sure what happens if both phones are on at the same time. I believe it used to be they could both be on network, and when a call came in it was whatever phone answered first, but I think now only one phone can be signed onto the network at once (so you turn off the phone you don't want to use).
Of course, for this to work Apple needs to start selling phones without requiring you to buy a service plan/contract extension with it, since you only need one account.
One can only imagine if this thread's discussion was over that issue ...
<Serialhead> "Oh I really think Kellogg's screwed up here, I for one will be buying 'With Protein' I have no need for 'Traditional' now.
<Regular>Oh not so fast I like to take two personal serving size traditional with me when I go to the Gym.
<Serialhead> Look, Regular, you are missing the whole point here, 'With Protein', is 'Traditional', only you get 'Protein' too ... As I said Kellogg's will damage sales of 'Traditional' this is bad news.
<Thinone> I for one prefer to have both, I will always prefer a simple bowl of 'Traditional' in the morning but when traveling find 'With Protein' better.
<Sanity> They are both freaking Kellogg's, who cares?
Also, the GPS is nice and all, but without text to voice and the ability to speak turn by turn directions, I don't think it will replace the Garmins and Tom-Toms any time soon. The iPhone GPS requires too much user interaction to be used safely (and legally in California) while driving..
TomTom has something in the works right now. I hope it can also access into the iPod app audio content on the iPhone when in use,
If there will come iPhone with 160Gb memory and free to eny carier - then say bye to iPod as a product forever!
PS
I got iPhone a few months ago... As a second product from apple I ordered TimeCapsule, becouse i need a wifi... and network drive for backup... next probably will be Mac, becouse windows xp is really slow on my old Dell... So I think lot of peoples are looking more serioselly at MAC as an alternative to Windows.
iPod Touch = $299
iPhone = $199 + $70 x 24 = $1879
As you can see, If somebody only wants a music player that is touch capable, the iPod touch will cost them significantly less than an iPhone.
Well, I think your math is being a bit simplistic. It's $1879 minus whatever 24 months worth of their current provider's service costs since I'm guessing it's a pretty safe bet that most iPhone buyers are already cellular customers. I guess you could potentially add on an early termination fee, but I think the average cose would come out a lot less than your stated $1879. Besides, how many people are going to look at it that way and not as $199 plus the monthly price difference in cell plans? If it's an extra $10 a month, that technically makes the iPhone cost $439, but it's not like they pay the full $439 up front to really worry about.
I also wonder if fear of cannibalization of iPod sales is why Apple didn't bump up the storage of the iPhone. I don't have an iPhone, but I'm interested in getting one. But I'd also like the iPhone to replace my iPod (or at least be a close substitute). I have around 42GB worth of music on my iPod so not even a third of my music would fit on the 16GB iPhone; that would hardly make it a viable replacement. If they had introduced a 32GB model, I'd have been working out the finances to pick up an iPhone in July. As it stands now, I'm still on the fence about getting an iPhone at all.
Both phones need to be operable without me having to move a cumbersome card or anything like that.
It's a good thing Apple's designed the iPhone the way they did. It would really be something to have to replace that cumbersome battery when it dies out!
Even if I didn't activate it, I spent the extra ~$75(at the time) and got the phone instead. I mean, a Phone and a Camera and more support at the time for 'cracking' it to install apps was a no brainer.
I have a feeling a whole revamp / price change is in order ....
iPod Shuffles are for the gym
iPod Nanos are for the ladies
iPod Classics are for men who like to pretend they own 160G of music
iPhones are for anyone who needs a mobile phone since they may as well buy a good one
iPod touches are a consolation prize for people who don't have access to the iPhone (or can't afford the contract)
(any resemblance to reality is purely coincidental)
"That drop, in turn, will reportedly have a cascading effect on the iPhone itself. With more users buying the iPhone merely in place of an iPod rather than alongside it, sales of the handset in the long-term should also take a tumble relative to earlier predictions."
I don't understand this sentence. It makes no sense. Does it?
And while I'm on it, when will these analyst fools get their head around the fact the iPhone IS an iPod - with a *phone* in it. It fulfills exactly the same function as the iPod, ie. to drive consumers to the Mac platform and earn Apple $$$.
The analysts' earnings estimates are based on projected sales and margins of each device. I don't think they're saying iPhone's cannibalization of certain iPods is a bad thing; they're just taking note of it for purposes of getting accurate projections of each line.
Also, this analyst assume that Apple will eventually be able to broaden its U.S. market share by being able to sell through other carriers. The big question is when that will happen -- I think the original AT&T exclusivity was 5 years -- and how much AT&T would pony up to keep its exclusivity beyond the initial contract.
It's like saying that ipods with color screens would "cannibalize" sales of black and white ones. Or that ipods with video would "cannibalize" sales of ones without.
Newer, better (and often pricier) models replace old ones. Calling that cannibalizing sales of the old models is just stupid.
Well, the problem is now that the iPhone is too cheap, it's definitely gonna cannibalize some iPod sales.
How is that a problem?
I'm almost positive that I'm not the only one that prefers to have a separate music device (iPod) in addition to my iPhone. I use my iPod nano at the gym every other day. I do not want to lug my iPhone around while working out. It's too big and heavy. As it is now, I hardly even use my iPhone for music, only the occasional viewing of video. I love my iPhone as a phone/PDA/internet device and relish the fact that with my iPhone, I don't always have to travel with my MacBook.
I suppose one would need to go to the gym if an iPhone is too heavy.
With all the hype concerning the $199 iphone, I still can't figure out if there is any country where you will be able to buy an unlocked one for this price.
I doubt there would be one for this generation. I bet that it's going to be $500 or more for a cracked or otherwise unlocked iPhone 3G, because you'll need to factor in the cost of cancelling the contract that the original buyer, as well as the premium for cracked phones even if it's done by visiting a web site.
Articles like this are ridiculous. Of course iPhone sales are going to replace iPod sales, the device contains all the features of an iPod. People will still buy songs and videos, and they'll add
It's like saying that ipods with color screens would "cannibalize" sales of black and white ones. Or that ipods with video would "cannibalize" sales of ones without.
Newer, better (and often pricier) models replace old ones. Calling that cannibalizing sales of the old models is just stupid.
It does sound like silly reasoning. Apple's getting their money either way.
Don't forget that an iPhone with 16GB of flash memory is priced at $299 not $199. Someone planning to use their new iPhone as a music player replacement will be likely to give Apple that additional $100 premium. The 16 GB model will be a far better iPod substitute than the 8 GB model. It will also have a much higher margin for Apple.
I've managed with 1GB for audio only, 8GB should be fine for audio + photos + video.
How will the iPhone really cannibalize iPod sales? Yeah it's $199, but last time I checked you'll need to pay AT&T $720 just for the data plan over 2 years, plus whatever their voice plans cost! With the iPod it's a one-time fee, and no hidden subscription costs.
I doubt the subscription costs would be hidden when they are ready for sale. I understand the objection over the data plan, but if you have a mobile contract anyway, the cost of the voice isn't going to be a big deal.
iPod Touch = $299
iPhone = $199 + $70 x 24 = $1879
As you can see, If somebody only wants a music player that is touch capable, the iPod touch will cost them significantly less than an iPhone.
My impression is that the kind of person that doesn't want a phone is dwindling. Very few people don't have a mobile phone, there are about half as many active mobile phones as there are people (3+ billion vs 6+ billon). That ratio is even higher in developed countries. Europe has more active phone subscriptions than they have people.
I suppose one would need to go to the gym if an iPhone is too heavy.
It is if your workout clothes don't have a pocket - a shuffle is way more handy in that situation since you can just clip it on. I would never want to use an iPhone or touch for working out, a shuffle is perfect for that.
It is if your workout clothes don't have a pocket - a shuffle is way more handy in that situation since you can just clip it on. I would never want to use an iPhone or touch for working out, a shuffle is perfect for that.
Even the iPod Nano is too large now that I've gone the Shuffle. I really liked the Mini's neoprene armband but the Nano just feels odd when strapped to my arm now. I'd actually like to have something that doesn't have to be clipped on, like those Oakley sunglasses with an MP3 player built-in, but I look like such a a-hole wearing them.
The inevitable growth of bandwidth, both wired and wireless, will undermine the monopoly level pricing of voice communications. The present is certainly the iPhone but due to Moore's Law and its network corollary the future seems destined to be more like the iPod Touch without the monthly tribute being paid for incumbent monopolists from the age of analog telephony and telegraphy. During the transitional period Apple is wise to create an appropriate device but their parallel introduction of the corresponding device not anchored to the past (i.e. the iPod touch) seems to be misunderstood by the analyst.
The mentions of Skype sort of cover the point I would make but it might be worth some emphasis. The continuing dominance of creaking, tottering quasi-monopolies like Bell South (which simply purchased the "AT&T" name but has almost nothing to do with that historical institution) is close to being an example of anti-gravity. But like Wile E Coyote they will inevitably look down and notice that Newtonian physics is still something to reckon with no matter how many high price lawyers they own in Washington.
The inevitable growth of bandwidth, both wired and wireless, will undermine the monopoly level pricing of voice communications. The present is certainly the iPhone but due to Moore's Law and its network corollary the future seems destined to be more like the iPod Touch without the monthly tribute being paid for incumbent monopolists from the age of analog telephony and telegraphy. During the transitional period Apple is wise to create an appropriate device but their parallel introduction of the corresponding device not anchored to the past (i.e. the iPod touch) seems to be misunderstood by the analyst.
Took me awhile to sort through your prose but Yeah!!! I second that!! The future is not with the ridiculousness of the cellphone companies, but with maverick technology that bypasses these dinosaurs. I hope Apple realizes this; I figure they are just out for the big bucks that are available. Too bad they are taking it from a user base that deserves better. I hope to see them working with someone like Google? who seem to have the cojónes and $$$$ to take these big boys to task...let's just see if they can really open up the new bandwidths to more expansive wifi. I thought that was what the auction broohaha was about. I think the Touch is way more exciting than the phone, let's just hope it doesn't get dropped in the current rush.
a Sony-Ericsson cellphone, a Palm TX and a 4GB USB thumb drive.
I WANT a separate iPod for music. I bought an iPod originally to clear 20 or 30GB of hard drive space on my PowerBook. The 16GB of the iPhone just isn't enough storage for music.
Wasting precious battery life using an iPhone to listen to music seems a waste. A dedicated player with a dead battery isn't as tragic as a dead phone battery.