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.
Hmm, no you're the stupid one here. Staying with your carrier has nothing to do with.
If you don't sign up for a plan that includes a subsidised phone, you can get exactly the same number of included minutes, texts, data etc. etc. for less money per month. Why? Because you're not paying to subsidise a phone! Anyone who thinks they're getting an iPhone for $199/$299 really is a total moron.
Also worth mentioning is the fact that you can can get an iPhone for $199 + first months service + $175 termination fee and you are at a cost less than the 24 month contract but still at a greater cost than the Touch which shows that the iPhone is still substantially more than the Touch.
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.
I disagree with Apple discounting any top of the line products for short term gains. The touch, just like the Air and other "Pro" computers are aspirational purchases. Competing solely on price is always a big mistake. Better to be reasonably priced and maintain an aura than slash prices and flood the market.
The cost of the phone is not half the price- get over it!
The price charged (which includes a subsidy) is.
Carriers have been advertising free phones for years. Everyone understands the phone is free not the service.
So far I've seen no one who thinks the total cost of phone and service are half the price. That has not been a widely held complaint. Only a few people on AI.
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)?
You simply cannot pretend they are NOT subsidized.
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.
While I agree with everything you've said. I don't believe ATT is paying over the unsubsidized sale cost.
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?
The only I can see people being confused over such a simple concept is to either have problems with cognitive reasoning. Or have recently woken from a 15 year coma before mobile carrier price structures were established.
The Touch is a different story and in my opinion Apple blew it here. The problem here is the limited number of features added and the sad and disgusting tie in with Nike. I could almost accept that the arraingement of these models Touches if they where low end models and the high end was implemented to balance the line. We have yet to see indications of a high end model though.
They 'blew it' compared to what? There isn't any other product which does what the iPod Touch does, and so well, aside from the iPhone (or, arguably, other smart phones). If people want that functionality without a cellular contract, they can get the iPod Touch. It is progressing as surely as the iPhone is and, collectively, they are some of the most revolutionary consumer electronics we've seen in an extremely long time.
No...it is half the price to end user. $199 is still about half of $399, at least last time I checked.
When you see a picture of the iPhone with the statement "half the price"- don't you think most believe the cost is half the price? Again- half the price of what? And don't say "what you're being charged".
The only I can see people being confused over such a simple concept is to either have problems with cognitive reasoning. Or have recently woken from a 15 year coma before mobile carrier price structures were established.
So a picture of a product with the statement- half the price -does not infer 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?
"Half the Price" simply talks about your up-front cost...that is all, I don't find that misleading one bit, (I've talked to 8 year olds that understand that) you have to assume you are going to pay for cell phone service, how useful would a cell phone be without service really? Subsidized phones is NOT a new thing. MANY, MANY phones are subsidized, a $99 blackberry certainly does not cost $99 without a plan.
The cost of the phone is not half the price- get over it!
The price charged (which includes a subsidy) is.
Teckstud: I hate to tell you this, but I'm sick of your whining about this same subject. Get off of it or come up with a different or more creative way to explain it, or at least entertain us. I just want to save the board from regurgitating your same old thought process on why you are so angry about the "1/2 the price" thing.
For the record, I've enjoyed some of your other posts.
When you see a picture of the iPhone with the statement "half the price"- don't you think most believe the cost is half the price? Again- half the price of what? And don't say "what you're being charged".
We've gone over this so many times. They aren't specifying one way or the other. They are purposely, and legally, being vague. Do you think it's possible that people are not being made aware of what the "with subscription to AT&T" involves prior to signing the contract? How is this any different when other phones are being advertised as 'free'?
Come here an lobby for change. I would support full financial requirements in advertising.
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?
"Everyone else does it." When others advertise phones at half-price, they are certainly not including the service contract. And they're under no obligation to tell you why it's selling to you at a discount from the previous price. In this case and in many other industries, subsidies are used to allow one party (such as a retailer) to sell something at lower cost without hurting that party, while another party absorbs the cost difference in exchange for something else - future dollars via service contract, marketing exposure, etc.
Having said that, I wish Apple would be a leader and rise above what everyone else does even if it costs them a bit (and I say this as an Apple stockholder! Ouch.)
Having said that, I wish Apple would be a leader and rise above what everyone else does even if it costs them a bit (and I say this as an Apple stockholder! Ouch.)
They tried it a comprise last year with the revenue sharing. It allowed Apple to not sell the iPhone at too huge an initial cost but keep it from using the typical subsidization model. It's reported the Verizon turned Apple down, as well as many foreign carriers. I wouldn't care about a more expense initial cost in my monthly network fees are lower to the point of my TCO being lower, but it seems too many people don't look at the TCO.
Here is some info as to why discounts are bad. It refers to coupons, but the concept is the same:
Comments
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.
Hmm, no you're the stupid one here. Staying with your carrier has nothing to do with.
If you don't sign up for a plan that includes a subsidised phone, you can get exactly the same number of included minutes, texts, data etc. etc. for less money per month. Why? Because you're not paying to subsidise a phone! Anyone who thinks they're getting an iPhone for $199/$299 really is a total moron.
Also worth mentioning is the fact that you can can get an iPhone for $199 + first months service + $175 termination fee and you are at a cost less than the 24 month contract but still at a greater cost than the Touch which shows that the iPhone is still substantially more than the Touch.
Kinda of like your posts on anything "Apple"?
just kidding
Exactly, i state the whole truth.
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.
I disagree with Apple discounting any top of the line products for short term gains. The touch, just like the Air and other "Pro" computers are aspirational purchases. Competing solely on price is always a big mistake. Better to be reasonably priced and maintain an aura than slash prices and flood the market.
So then it's not really half the price= false advertising.
No...it is half the price to end user. $199 is still about half of $399, at least last time I checked.
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.
Carriers have been advertising free phones for years. Everyone understands the phone is free not the service.
So far I've seen no one who thinks the total cost of phone and service are half the price. That has not been a widely held complaint. Only a few people on AI.
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)?
You simply cannot pretend they are NOT subsidized.
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.
While I agree with everything you've said. I don't believe ATT is paying over the unsubsidized sale cost.
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?
The only I can see people being confused over such a simple concept is to either have problems with cognitive reasoning. Or have recently woken from a 15 year coma before mobile carrier price structures were established.
The Touch is a different story and in my opinion Apple blew it here. The problem here is the limited number of features added and the sad and disgusting tie in with Nike. I could almost accept that the arraingement of these models Touches if they where low end models and the high end was implemented to balance the line. We have yet to see indications of a high end model though.
They 'blew it' compared to what? There isn't any other product which does what the iPod Touch does, and so well, aside from the iPhone (or, arguably, other smart phones). If people want that functionality without a cellular contract, they can get the iPod Touch. It is progressing as surely as the iPhone is and, collectively, they are some of the most revolutionary consumer electronics we've seen in an extremely long time.
I think perspective is important here.
No...it is half the price to end user. $199 is still about half of $399, at least last time I checked.
When you see a picture of the iPhone with the statement "half the price"- don't you think most believe the cost is half the price? Again- half the price of what? And don't say "what you're being charged".
The only I can see people being confused over such a simple concept is to either have problems with cognitive reasoning. Or have recently woken from a 15 year coma before mobile carrier price structures were established.
So a picture of a product with the statement- half the price -does not infer that?
Sounds like you're awake in Backwardsville!
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?
"Half the Price" simply talks about your up-front cost...that is all, I don't find that misleading one bit, (I've talked to 8 year olds that understand that) you have to assume you are going to pay for cell phone service, how useful would a cell phone be without service really? Subsidized phones is NOT a new thing. MANY, MANY phones are subsidized, a $99 blackberry certainly does not cost $99 without a plan.
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.
Teckstud: I hate to tell you this, but I'm sick of your whining about this same subject. Get off of it or come up with a different or more creative way to explain it, or at least entertain us. I just want to save the board from regurgitating your same old thought process on why you are so angry about the "1/2 the price" thing.
For the record, I've enjoyed some of your other posts.
Exactly, i state the whole truth.
First time I've seen the shades used- good call!
So a picture of a product with the statement- half the price -does not infer that?
Sounds like you're awake in Backwardsville!
The same way a poster that says FREE infers the phone and service is free.
When you see a picture of the iPhone with the statement "half the price"- don't you think most believe the cost is half the price? Again- half the price of what? And don't say "what you're being charged".
We've gone over this so many times. They aren't specifying one way or the other. They are purposely, and legally, being vague. Do you think it's possible that people are not being made aware of what the "with subscription to AT&T" involves prior to signing the contract? How is this any different when other phones are being advertised as 'free'?
Come here an lobby for change. I would support full financial requirements in advertising.
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?
"Everyone else does it." When others advertise phones at half-price, they are certainly not including the service contract. And they're under no obligation to tell you why it's selling to you at a discount from the previous price. In this case and in many other industries, subsidies are used to allow one party (such as a retailer) to sell something at lower cost without hurting that party, while another party absorbs the cost difference in exchange for something else - future dollars via service contract, marketing exposure, etc.
Having said that, I wish Apple would be a leader and rise above what everyone else does even if it costs them a bit (and I say this as an Apple stockholder! Ouch.)
Having said that, I wish Apple would be a leader and rise above what everyone else does even if it costs them a bit (and I say this as an Apple stockholder! Ouch.)
They tried it a comprise last year with the revenue sharing. It allowed Apple to not sell the iPhone at too huge an initial cost but keep it from using the typical subsidization model. It's reported the Verizon turned Apple down, as well as many foreign carriers. I wouldn't care about a more expense initial cost in my monthly network fees are lower to the point of my TCO being lower, but it seems too many people don't look at the TCO.
Here is some info as to why discounts are bad. It refers to coupons, but the concept is the same: