Sorry, this is off topic, but I just got an iPod touch. before the update Is there anything I can do to get the new one? even though the new one is cheaper than I paid, I don't care. Like can I break it on purpose somehow? I know this makes me sound like a criminal, but it's pretty upsetting.
So then it's not really half the price= false advertising.
If I bought an iPhone 3G, $199 gets charged to my credit card. If I bought an iPhone back in the day, $399 was charged to my credit card.
Any additional monthly service costs are paid to AT&T (in the US) and is considered a separate transaction. And any monies that are transferred from AT&T to Apple have nothing to do with my credit card.
So the iPhone itself is half the price to the consumer.
So stupid than anyone would be so poor at arithmetic and then make a post about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
How much is the subsidy and why isn't it posted like any other phone when discounted by any other carrier?
Quote:
Originally Posted by roehlstation
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.
the iPhone may be subsidized...let's say it wasn't. Would it be right to price them the same? One can make calls and operate on a cellular network, the other can't...why price them the same (not taking into consideration the subsidation)?
Sorry, this is off topic, but I just got an iPod touch. before the update Is there anything I can do to get the new one? even though the new one is cheaper than I paid, I don't care. Like can I break it on purpose somehow? I know this makes me sound like a criminal, but it's pretty upsetting.
If you got it as part of the student Mac/iPod promo and got the rebate, then no. If you break it accidentally, I'm pretty sure they'll give you a refurbished iPod touch, not a new 2nd-gen iPod touch (at least for the next two months or so).
If you did not get it as part of the student promo (or did not submit the rebate) and this happened within the last 14 days, then you can return it and buy the new one, no questions asked.
As others have noted, just because Apple bundles a phone with iPhone (and a weighty service contract) and doesn't with iPod touch doesn't magically equate to there being one buyer for both devices. The economics are different, the primary "job" you are hiring the device for is different, etc.
For one thing, the ability to relentlessly use your iPod touch until the battery dies is less of an option when it's also your phone, and oh by the way, games, a primary application bucket for the platform, is a battery hog. You get to a certain level of juice with an iPhone, and you suddenly start conserving since you don't want to miss calls because your battery is dead.
What concerns me a bit is messaging/positioning. Apple has done a poor job of segmenting the two devices (iPhone/iPod touch) and even the underlying software and platform is iPhone 2.0/iPhone SDK, as opposed to something like Mobility OS for iPhone, Mobility OS for iPod, or something like that.
Personally, I think that customers will sort through this, whereas (some) analysts see this as one customer, one bucket of mush.
That said, I would like to see Apple get religion on the messaging/positioning/segmentation front, as I came away from yesterday's event pretty pumped, something I blogged about in:
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.
What do you call it when the price of the phone itself $199 (subsidized) or $399 (unsubsidized) and the carrier charges remain the same either way?
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.
So then it's not a lie but simply misleading information- big difference.
If I bought an iPhone 3G, $199 gets charged to my credit card. If I bought an iPhone back in the day, $399 was charged to my credit card.
Any additional monthly service costs are paid to AT&T (in the US) and is considered a separate transaction. And any monies that are transferred from AT&T to Apple have nothing to do with my credit card.
So the iPhone itself is half the price to the consumer.
OK-so the cost of the phone is not half the price even though the price charged is.
How much is the subsidy and why isn't it posted like any other phone when discounted by any other carrier?
It's not a rebate. Rebates are returned to a consumer, and these are posted, of course.
This is a subsidy from the carrier (AT&T) to the handset mfr (Apple), not to the consumer. Carriers NEVER post the amount of the subsidy; as far as I can tell, subsidy amounts are fairly well-kept secrets between the carrier and handset mfr. As for iPhone, analysts believe the subsidy is some number between $200 and $350 for the 8GB model - no one is willing to say for sure, but they believe it is the highest subsidy ever for a phone. To further confuse, analysts won't say if their estimated subsidy amount includes retail fees for servicing the transaction (e.g., if Apple signs you up to an AT&T contract at the Apple store, Apple gets paid by AT&T for that service.) or not.
If anyone can find real subsidy amount data (not analyst estimates), please share.
It's not a rebate. Rebates are returned to a consumer, and these are posted, of course.
This is a subsidy from the carrier (AT&T) to the handset mfr (Apple), not to the consumer. Carriers NEVER post the amount of the subsidy; as far as I can tell, subsidy amounts are fairly well-kept secrets between the carrier and handset mfr. As for iPhone, analysts believe the subsidy is some number between $200 and $350 for the 8GB model - no one is willing to say for sure, but they believe it is the highest subsidy ever for a phone. To further confuse, analysts won't say if their estimated subsidy amount includes retail fees for servicing the transaction (e.g., if Apple signs you up to an AT&T contract at the Apple store, Apple gets paid by AT&T for that service.) or not.
If anyone can find real subsidy amount data (not analyst estimates), please share.
Excellent- thanks for sharing that.
Do you think the advertising as "half the price" is misleading? Don't you think the average consumer thinks the phone itself cost 1/2 less as opposed to what it really means?
Sorry, this is off topic, but I just got an iPod touch. before the update Is there anything I can do to get the new one? even though the new one is cheaper than I paid, I don't care. Like can I break it on purpose somehow? I know this makes me sound like a criminal, but it's pretty upsetting.
You have 14 days to return it with a 10% restocking fee.
What is getting me here is that the article refers to two analysts, one of which states that the touch wont sell, the other says it will. Nevertheless, the title of the article only refers to the idea that the touch wonts sell.
did I mention that the analyst arguing for poor sales is Shawn Wu -- an analyst who has so consistently miscalled apple that I'm becoming convinced that he actually knows whats going to happen and is then intentionally misleading stockholders to drive prices down (seriously, a dartboard would have better calls than this guy).
Sorry, this is off topic, but I just got an iPod touch. before the update Is there anything I can do to get the new one? even though the new one is cheaper than I paid, I don't care. Like can I break it on purpose somehow? I know this makes me sound like a criminal, but it's pretty upsetting.
If you read threads here- why would you do that? This has been discussed here for the last 6-9 months?
So then it's not a lie but simply misleading information- big difference.
Advertising is like a first date. It's designed to be misleading. You point out the good aspects, hide the bad ones and hope your comments about "being an entrepreneur" which is reselling stolen software on eBay and your comments about "owning your house" because your on your elderly grandmother's deed which you live with, don't reveal the whole truth.
PS: There is a reason why in a US court of law you swear to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", as opposed to just telling the truth.
Advertising is like a first date. It's designed to be misleading. You point out the good aspects, hide the bad ones and hope your comments about "being an entrepreneur" which is reselling stolen software on eBay and your comments about "owning your house" because your on your elderly grandmother's deed which you live with, don't reveal the whole truth.
PS: There is a reason why in a US court of law you swear to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", as opposed to just telling the truth.
Comments
So then it's not really half the price= false advertising.
If I bought an iPhone 3G, $199 gets charged to my credit card. If I bought an iPhone back in the day, $399 was charged to my credit card.
Any additional monthly service costs are paid to AT&T (in the US) and is considered a separate transaction. And any monies that are transferred from AT&T to Apple have nothing to do with my credit card.
So the iPhone itself is half the price to the consumer.
So stupid than anyone would be so poor at arithmetic and then make a post about it.
How much is the subsidy and why isn't it posted like any other phone when discounted by any other carrier?
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.
the iPhone may be subsidized...let's say it wasn't. Would it be right to price them the same? One can make calls and operate on a cellular network, the other can't...why price them the same (not taking into consideration the subsidation)?
Sorry, this is off topic, but I just got an iPod touch. before the update
If you got it as part of the student Mac/iPod promo and got the rebate, then no. If you break it accidentally, I'm pretty sure they'll give you a refurbished iPod touch, not a new 2nd-gen iPod touch (at least for the next two months or so).
If you did not get it as part of the student promo (or did not submit the rebate) and this happened within the last 14 days, then you can return it and buy the new one, no questions asked.
For one thing, the ability to relentlessly use your iPod touch until the battery dies is less of an option when it's also your phone, and oh by the way, games, a primary application bucket for the platform, is a battery hog. You get to a certain level of juice with an iPhone, and you suddenly start conserving since you don't want to miss calls because your battery is dead.
What concerns me a bit is messaging/positioning. Apple has done a poor job of segmenting the two devices (iPhone/iPod touch) and even the underlying software and platform is iPhone 2.0/iPhone SDK, as opposed to something like Mobility OS for iPhone, Mobility OS for iPod, or something like that.
Personally, I think that customers will sort through this, whereas (some) analysts see this as one customer, one bucket of mush.
That said, I would like to see Apple get religion on the messaging/positioning/segmentation front, as I came away from yesterday's event pretty pumped, something I blogged about in:
65 Million Reasons to be bullish on Apple
http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2...lion-reas.html
Check it out.
Mark
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.
What do you call it when the price of the phone itself $199 (subsidized) or $399 (unsubsidized) and the carrier charges remain the same either way?
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.
So then it's not a lie but simply misleading information- big difference.
What do you call it when the price of the phone itself $199 (subsidized) or $399 (unsubsidized) and the carrier charges remain the same either way?
Not half the price of the first one.
How much is the subsidy and why isn't it posted like any other phone when discounted by any other carrier?
Within the statement "half the price" tells you how much the subsidy is.
Not half the price of the first one.
Half the price is talking about the phone not the service. You just stubbornly want to take it out of context.
If I bought an iPhone 3G, $199 gets charged to my credit card. If I bought an iPhone back in the day, $399 was charged to my credit card.
Any additional monthly service costs are paid to AT&T (in the US) and is considered a separate transaction. And any monies that are transferred from AT&T to Apple have nothing to do with my credit card.
So the iPhone itself is half the price to the consumer.
OK-so the cost of the phone is not half the price even though the price charged is.
How much is the subsidy and why isn't it posted like any other phone when discounted by any other carrier?
It's not a rebate. Rebates are returned to a consumer, and these are posted, of course.
This is a subsidy from the carrier (AT&T) to the handset mfr (Apple), not to the consumer. Carriers NEVER post the amount of the subsidy; as far as I can tell, subsidy amounts are fairly well-kept secrets between the carrier and handset mfr. As for iPhone, analysts believe the subsidy is some number between $200 and $350 for the 8GB model - no one is willing to say for sure, but they believe it is the highest subsidy ever for a phone. To further confuse, analysts won't say if their estimated subsidy amount includes retail fees for servicing the transaction (e.g., if Apple signs you up to an AT&T contract at the Apple store, Apple gets paid by AT&T for that service.) or not.
If anyone can find real subsidy amount data (not analyst estimates), please share.
How can Apple sell an 8 GB iPhone for $199 and an 8 GB iPod touch for $229?
Easy, because the iPhone actually costs more, Apple gets a kickback from AT&T for you signing a 2 year agreement.
It's not a rebate. Rebates are returned to a consumer, and these are posted, of course.
This is a subsidy from the carrier (AT&T) to the handset mfr (Apple), not to the consumer. Carriers NEVER post the amount of the subsidy; as far as I can tell, subsidy amounts are fairly well-kept secrets between the carrier and handset mfr. As for iPhone, analysts believe the subsidy is some number between $200 and $350 for the 8GB model - no one is willing to say for sure, but they believe it is the highest subsidy ever for a phone. To further confuse, analysts won't say if their estimated subsidy amount includes retail fees for servicing the transaction (e.g., if Apple signs you up to an AT&T contract at the Apple store, Apple gets paid by AT&T for that service.) or not.
If anyone can find real subsidy amount data (not analyst estimates), please share.
Excellent- thanks for sharing that.
Do you think the advertising as "half the price" is misleading? Don't you think the average consumer thinks the phone itself cost 1/2 less as opposed to what it really means?
Sorry, this is off topic, but I just got an iPod touch. before the update
You have 14 days to return it with a 10% restocking fee.
Half the price is talking about the phone not the service. You just stubbornly want to take it out of context.
No- you just keep spinning the Apple mantra.
The cost of the phone is not half the price- get over it!
The price charged (which includes a subsidy) is.
did I mention that the analyst arguing for poor sales is Shawn Wu -- an analyst who has so consistently miscalled apple that I'm becoming convinced that he actually knows whats going to happen and is then intentionally misleading stockholders to drive prices down (seriously, a dartboard would have better calls than this guy).
just my 2 cents.
Sorry, this is off topic, but I just got an iPod touch. before the update
If you read threads here- why would you do that? This has been discussed here for the last 6-9 months?
So then it's not a lie but simply misleading information- big difference.
Advertising is like a first date. It's designed to be misleading. You point out the good aspects, hide the bad ones and hope your comments about "being an entrepreneur" which is reselling stolen software on eBay and your comments about "owning your house" because your on your elderly grandmother's deed which you live with, don't reveal the whole truth.
PS: There is a reason why in a US court of law you swear to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", as opposed to just telling the truth.
Advertising is like a first date. It's designed to be misleading. You point out the good aspects, hide the bad ones and hope your comments about "being an entrepreneur" which is reselling stolen software on eBay and your comments about "owning your house" because your on your elderly grandmother's deed which you live with, don't reveal the whole truth.
PS: There is a reason why in a US court of law you swear to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", as opposed to just telling the truth.
Kinda of like your posts on anything "Apple"?
just kidding