u gotta wonder what the margins are on the touch. I mean they are making money at $229 but...it cant be as sweet as the 400-600 they pull in for what is essentially the same hardware (iphone). I gotta think the touch margins are around 15% which is TERRIBLE by apple standards.
Don't forget that Apple charges high-margin dollars for each major software upgrade
for the iTouch. $30 so far, put into the "subscription" kitty that reduces R&D outlays
for the next iteration. Imagine the next big software upgrade for only $49 that enables Skype
to work (only, natch) with those new $79 Apple brand patented earbuds w/microphone
How can Apple sell an 8 GB iPhone for $199 and an 8 GB iPod touch for $229?
Apple sells the iPhone for less because of a super-secret deal between Apple and AT&T, whereby AT&T gives a kickback to Apple from the monthly service charges. Shh! Don't tell anyone I told you. And if you're an Apple employee, you shouldn't be on this web site and you didn't hear this!
You know, every time I see a phrase like, "One wall street analyst..." the name, Shaw Wu jumps into my head. Seriously, I read it, said, "Oh god, Shaw Wu again!" and then scanned down and saw his name. That does not say good things for that guy's credibility.
Gee, the iPhone 3G is free in the UK! Not US$199! FREE! *)
This is not at all free and is six times more expensive that the iPod Touch. O2 is paying Apple the full cost of the phone in exchange for an 18 month tariff. The iPod Touch you only pay $229 vs $1,425.
Technically its still not really free. O2 is paying Apple the full cost of the phone in exchange for an 18 month tariff. The iPod Touch you only pay $229 vs $1,425.
Exactly!
Anyone who thinks that ( 'free' + US$1,425 ) < US$229 deserves to get a 'free' iPhone 3G.
You and the analysts are freaking morons. The iPhone is SUBSIDIZED....
Thanks for saying it AGAIN. I can't believe how many times this needs to be explained. There is no logic in comparing the price of the two devices.
More importantly, the touch is an INCREDIBLE value at $229. I loved it even before the Remote app came out for my Apple TV. Now it's even more valuable.
Hopefully Apple will make "fair" decisions going forward. If they were to add something like wireless sync and exclude 1st gen touch devices for example, that would be bad.
At $229 or whatever the new prices are, I expect the touch will be flying off the shelves. I love being able to check my email, the weather, or glance at a web page without having to fire up a laptop.
How can Apple sell an 8 GB iPhone for $199 and an 8 GB iPod touch for $229?
People! the iPhone is SUBSIDIZED, meaning AT&T is absorbing a chunk of the cost, the iPhone 3G would cost the same as the first generation iPhone if it were NOT subsidized, $499-$599.
Apple sells the iPhone for less because of a super-secret deal between Apple and AT&T, whereby AT&T gives a kickback to Apple from the monthly service charges. Shh! Don't tell anyone I told you. And if you're an Apple employee, you shouldn't be on this web site and you didn't hear this!
Do these analysts think that we consumers are so stupid that we couldn't figure out that true price of an iPhone includes the cost of the subscription?
Then again these are the same people who think that Apple products cannibalizing other Apple products is a horrible thing.
IT IS a lower price, when you figure in the higher cost of the phone plan that you have to pay for with the iPhone.
Apple doesn't make much profit, if any, on the iPhone. Where they make their money is on the kickback from AT&T. They're basically selling the iPhone for cost.
I was disappointed with the price, too. I've been wanting a 32Gb iPod Touch so that I can put my whole music collection on it and use it as a jukebox for home and car, but the original $500 was too much. I was hoping it'd come down to more like $350. But I think I'll probably be buying one at $400 anyway.
Not according to the iHeads on here who keep insisting that the cost of the iPhone is the cost and you shouldn't add in the AT&T plan. Otherwise the iPhone is not half the price as advertised.
Do these analysts think that we consumers are so stupid that we couldn't figure out that true price of an iPhone includes the cost of the subscription?
Yes if you read many of the posts on here- and you know who you are.
People! the iPhone is SUBSIDIZED, meaning AT&T is absorbing a chunk of the cost, the iPhone 3G would cost the same as the first generation iPhone if it were NOT subsidized, $499-$599.
So then it's not really half the price= false advertising.
People! the iPhone is SUBSIDIZED, meaning AT&T is absorbing a chunk of the cost, the iPhone 3G would cost the same as the first generation iPhone if it were NOT subsidized, $499-$599.
by the way amazon.de is taking preorders for a 8gb unlocked iphone at 749? that is 1053 us dollars (that includes taxes).....
so maybe those analysts should just look at those unlocked prices around the world and do the math
His concern, however, is that the new touch models are not priced aggressively enough for today's consumers, who may see more value in a $199 subsidized iPhone.
Although Wu can't see it, that's exactly what Apple would want you to do if you're comparing the two: buy iPhone, not iPod touch. iPhone fetches Apple a total of about $400from the carrier, while iPod touch fetches $229 directly from you. Which would you want to sell of these two if you were Apple?
On the other hand, Apple wants you to buy an iPod touch instead of the iPod classic, since touch is the future and is a catalyst to bring in additional revenue (wi-fi Store, App Store). So voila: iPod classic $249, iPod touch $229. (Now if you want capacity, Apple would be glad that you bought the classic instead of nothing at all.)
If both $199+$service contract, and $229 are too rich for you, then Apple wants you to buy the nano at $149 today. And maybe next year, you can buy touch.
Not according to the iHeads on here who keep insisting that the cost of the iPhone is the cost and you shouldn't add in the AT&T plan. Otherwise the iPhone is not half the price as advertised.
The price of the initial purchase and the TCO are completely different entities. While I do wish the US would be required to list the TCO (including taxes) like in some countries, they don't, so Apple is in no way lying by saying that the iPhone costs half as much than the previous model because the funds that are deducted from your account at the time of purchase are half as much.
Comments
See O2 Monthly Tariffs.
Beat that with an iPod touch price! **)
*) Of course you pay £45 every month on an 18 months contract. That's roughly US$1,425 total.
Still convinced it's 'free'?
**) No iPod touch can beat that price ever.
And it just shows how ridiculous the argument iPhone 3G price vs iPod touch price really is.
u gotta wonder what the margins are on the touch. I mean they are making money at $229 but...it cant be as sweet as the 400-600 they pull in for what is essentially the same hardware (iphone). I gotta think the touch margins are around 15% which is TERRIBLE by apple standards.
Don't forget that Apple charges high-margin dollars for each major software upgrade
for the iTouch. $30 so far, put into the "subscription" kitty that reduces R&D outlays
for the next iteration. Imagine the next big software upgrade for only $49 that enables Skype
to work (only, natch) with those new $79 Apple brand patented earbuds w/microphone
Now, what was it you said about about margins?
How can Apple sell an 8 GB iPhone for $199 and an 8 GB iPod touch for $229?
Apple sells the iPhone for less because of a super-secret deal between Apple and AT&T, whereby AT&T gives a kickback to Apple from the monthly service charges. Shh! Don't tell anyone I told you. And if you're an Apple employee, you shouldn't be on this web site and you didn't hear this!
As SpamSandwich once said, "This Wu's for you!"
C
Gee, the iPhone 3G is free in the UK! Not US$199! FREE! *)
This is not at all free and is six times more expensive that the iPod Touch. O2 is paying Apple the full cost of the phone in exchange for an 18 month tariff. The iPod Touch you only pay $229 vs $1,425.
Technically its still not really free. O2 is paying Apple the full cost of the phone in exchange for an 18 month tariff. The iPod Touch you only pay $229 vs $1,425.
Exactly!
Anyone who thinks that ( 'free' + US$1,425 ) < US$229 deserves to get a 'free' iPhone 3G.
You and the analysts are freaking morons. The iPhone is SUBSIDIZED....
Thanks for saying it AGAIN. I can't believe how many times this needs to be explained. There is no logic in comparing the price of the two devices.
More importantly, the touch is an INCREDIBLE value at $229. I loved it even before the Remote app came out for my Apple TV. Now it's even more valuable.
Hopefully Apple will make "fair" decisions going forward. If they were to add something like wireless sync and exclude 1st gen touch devices for example, that would be bad.
At $229 or whatever the new prices are, I expect the touch will be flying off the shelves. I love being able to check my email, the weather, or glance at a web page without having to fire up a laptop.
How can Apple sell an 8 GB iPhone for $199 and an 8 GB iPod touch for $229?
People! the iPhone is SUBSIDIZED, meaning AT&T is absorbing a chunk of the cost, the iPhone 3G would cost the same as the first generation iPhone if it were NOT subsidized, $499-$599.
Apple sells the iPhone for less because of a super-secret deal between Apple and AT&T, whereby AT&T gives a kickback to Apple from the monthly service charges. Shh! Don't tell anyone I told you. And if you're an Apple employee, you shouldn't be on this web site and you didn't hear this!
Yeah...super secret deal.....
Then again these are the same people who think that Apple products cannibalizing other Apple products is a horrible thing.
IT IS a lower price, when you figure in the higher cost of the phone plan that you have to pay for with the iPhone.
Apple doesn't make much profit, if any, on the iPhone. Where they make their money is on the kickback from AT&T. They're basically selling the iPhone for cost.
I was disappointed with the price, too. I've been wanting a 32Gb iPod Touch so that I can put my whole music collection on it and use it as a jukebox for home and car, but the original $500 was too much. I was hoping it'd come down to more like $350. But I think I'll probably be buying one at $400 anyway.
Not according to the iHeads on here who keep insisting that the cost of the iPhone is the cost and you shouldn't add in the AT&T plan. Otherwise the iPhone is not half the price as advertised.
Do these analysts think that we consumers are so stupid that we couldn't figure out that true price of an iPhone includes the cost of the subscription?
Yes if you read many of the posts on here- and you know who you are.
When will people learn that the iPhone does not cost $199/$299? Hello? There's a 24 month contract that you have to sign up for as well.
that's a pretty stupid statement. most people stay with the carrier they sign up with. i've been with verizon for the past 6 years.
People! the iPhone is SUBSIDIZED, meaning AT&T is absorbing a chunk of the cost, the iPhone 3G would cost the same as the first generation iPhone if it were NOT subsidized, $499-$599.
So then it's not really half the price= false advertising.
People! the iPhone is SUBSIDIZED, meaning AT&T is absorbing a chunk of the cost, the iPhone 3G would cost the same as the first generation iPhone if it were NOT subsidized, $499-$599.
by the way amazon.de is taking preorders for a 8gb unlocked iphone at 749? that is 1053 us dollars (that includes taxes).....
so maybe those analysts should just look at those unlocked prices around the world and do the math
So stupid than anyone would be so poor at arithmetic and then make a post about it.
just as stupid as someone who can't spell?
His concern, however, is that the new touch models are not priced aggressively enough for today's consumers, who may see more value in a $199 subsidized iPhone.
Although Wu can't see it, that's exactly what Apple would want you to do if you're comparing the two: buy iPhone, not iPod touch. iPhone fetches Apple a total of about $400from the carrier, while iPod touch fetches $229 directly from you. Which would you want to sell of these two if you were Apple?
On the other hand, Apple wants you to buy an iPod touch instead of the iPod classic, since touch is the future and is a catalyst to bring in additional revenue (wi-fi Store, App Store). So voila: iPod classic $249, iPod touch $229. (Now if you want capacity, Apple would be glad that you bought the classic instead of nothing at all.)
If both $199+$service contract, and $229 are too rich for you, then Apple wants you to buy the nano at $149 today. And maybe next year, you can buy touch.
Apple is the master of the upsell.
You and the analysts are freaking morons. The iPhone is SUBSIDIZED. The iTouch is NOT.
I'll tell you want. Pay me $50 a month for two years and I'll sell you an iTuch for $99. Would that be good for you?
Idiot!!!
How much is the subsidy and why isn't it posted like any other phone when discounted by any other carrier?
Not according to the iHeads on here who keep insisting that the cost of the iPhone is the cost and you shouldn't add in the AT&T plan. Otherwise the iPhone is not half the price as advertised.
The price of the initial purchase and the TCO are completely different entities. While I do wish the US would be required to list the TCO (including taxes) like in some countries, they don't, so Apple is in no way lying by saying that the iPhone costs half as much than the previous model because the funds that are deducted from your account at the time of purchase are half as much.