All variables are not equal between all phones. Most featured phones are free with a 2 year contract. Smartphone monthly subscription service is far more expensive than the average feature phone. Based on those factors alone smartphones are different and will not sell as much as featured phones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester
I'm not entirely sure what the point of all of this is given that the iPhone is still, at heart, a mobile phone, and as such is measured along side all of the other mobile phones out there. If you want to compare it only against other smartphones, be my guest, but that only shows you a very narrow segment of the entire market. As such, to see it in its true light, it needs to be compared against the entire mobile market. And that's exactly what these numbers show .
At the end of the day, the iPhone is still just a phone, so it's interesting to see it compared in that light. Comparing it just to smartphones artificially removes a vast chunk of the mobile market!
Well at the original iPhone announcement, Steve said Apple would consider it wildly successful if they reached even 1% of the worldwide cellphone market. Guess they exceeded that by a ridiculous margin. How is it possible to spin anything negative out of that?
1.5% of the total phone market is fairly meaningless on it's own.
Nokia with 38% market share physically sold more handsets in the first quarter of this year than the sold in the first quarter of last year, yet their profits were down 90% over the same period.
It's like the market for rocks is X amount, diamonds are rocks and they only have a tiny percentage of X.
No. 1.5% of the total phone market is stunning when the vast majority of the "sold phones" range from "free" to the customer to 1/4 of the iPhones price. It means A LOT of people want something they have to pay a significant amount for even though it is trivially easy for them to get something for free that will do the phone part just as well.
To do that to the market in less than 18 months means the game has changed, not that Apple has won, but that there is a tectonic shift in the device space which will drive the rest of the market over the next 3-5 years. Apple just happens to be the ones who figured out how to deliver what the growing wave of consumers want and the other manufacturers will ride profitable coattails unless they continue to make less friendly products.
A lot of companies will branch into an established market with a new product expecting to make losses until they establish themselves (eg Microsoft entering the games console market with the X-box).
Not many companies can do what Apple did, becoming succesful almost immediately and growing from there.
Well at the original iPhone announcement, Steve said Apple would consider it wildly successful if they reached even 1% of the worldwide cellphone market. Guess they exceeded that by a ridiculous margin. How is it possible to spin anything negative out of that?
Who was spinning anything negative out of it? Jeez, without even saying anything negative, and simply saying something that isn't the 'accepted norm' around here, you get accused of being negative. Stop being so over protective, it's a company who are after your money plain and simple, not your friend!
We should probably just get past the whole "smartphone" terminology. There are historical reasons for it, but technology is quickly obsoleting that way of thinking.
I've used this analogy before, but it is as if the early history of computing had first created dedicated email devices that could do only that, and with the emergence of general purpose computing devices we continued to insist on thinking of them as sort of supercharged email clients.
Just misses the point. It'll get clearer over the next year or two, however, and I don't think anyone will continue to bother to pretend that any of this has anything to do with "the cellphone market."
I think you are 100% right on this especially given all the "feature phones" that are now out there that have 95% of the features of the original iPhone but big store full of apps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
All variables are not equal between all phones. Most featured phones are free with a 2 year contract. Smartphone monthly subscription service is far more expensive than the average feature phone. Based on those factors alone smartphones are different and will not sell as much as featured phones.
I would suggest that this trend is temporary as well. We used to pay for the phones in our home and get charged for all manner of things. You paid for local, zone unit and long distances service. Competition forced it down to a flat rate for everything. Right now you pay different rates for texting, data and phone use. When looking the the big picture and noting what smaller cell companies and second tier companies are doing to grab customers, it is clear the same trend is happening.
This is really important to look at because Apple's original model didn't include the phone being subsidized and getting a cut of the cash being charged for the data plans. Even if they have moved away from that we still have to look at that because that was the model for making the phone profitable.
The segment of the market that is also growing in addition to smartphones is pre-paid. People want the model Apple originally wanted, pay for the phone and buy your data and use it but it doesn't seem to work out the way Apple is noting. Yet you see smaller carriers offer the "eat all you want buffet" of cell services now for about $50 a month.
This could harm Apple if they don't have a response. I suspect part of that response was the app store to keep revenues up. However at $50 a month (or even double that) for unlimited use of all services (This is where I suspect we will end up for family plans) Apple won't be getting data service kickbacks. The supposed subsidizing of many phones wouldn't even be able to continue. It will be like the internet model. You go buy the computer and pay us for the data access. It will actually be closer to the original Apple model only at a much lower price point that could hurt Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
It's true no one compares sales of a BMW 7 series to the Honda Civic. They both perform
the same basic function, but are entirely different class of car.
People should but won't which is why Honda created Acura.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
No. 1.5% of the total phone market is stunning when the vast majority of the "sold phones" range from "free" to the customer to 1/4 of the iPhones price. It means A LOT of people want something they have to pay a significant amount for even though it is trivially easy for them to get something for free that will do the phone part just as well.
To do that to the market in less than 18 months means the game has changed, not that Apple has won, but that there is a tectonic shift in the device space which will drive the rest of the market over the next 3-5 years. Apple just happens to be the ones who figured out how to deliver what the growing wave of consumers want and the other manufacturers will ride profitable coattails unless they continue to make less friendly products.
Hopefully Apple can commoditize the iPhone. They have done a very nice job with the iPod.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester
Who was spinning anything negative out of it? Jeez, without even saying anything negative, and simply saying something that isn't the 'accepted norm' around here, you get accused of being negative. Stop being so over protective, it's a company who are after your money plain and simple, not your friend!
Exactly but we can root for our team! I think it important though to note the moves of the team and whether they will keep it strong or weaken it. I would really like to see Apple reengineer the iPhone and keep the original spec, but make it hit $200 unsubsidized and offer it without a data plan or offer to companies that will include data as part of their standard plan. We know that a company like Boostmobile isn't going to take over the cell universe. However we can also remember that companies like them, the Earthlink's of the cell universe, can really show us the future of prices and service to be offered by the big guys as a competitive response.
I think you are 100% right on this especially given all the "feature phones" that are now out there that have 95% of the features of the original iPhone but big store full of apps.
Putting java or flash touchscreen UI ontop of Windows Mobile is not the same as the iPhone. It may have toucchscreen icons like the iPhone, but it does not work at all like the iPhone.
Quote:
I would suggest that this trend is temporary as well. We used to pay for the phones in our home and get charged for all manner of things. You paid for local, zone unit and long distances service. Competition forced it down to a flat rate for everything. Right now you pay different rates for texting, data and phone use. When looking the the big picture and noting what smaller cell companies and second tier companies are doing to grab customers, it is clear the same trend is happening.
I don't really see the trend of people paying for phones that were previously free. I do see the trend towards people buying smartphones which always had a cost.
What complicates this further is the saturation of the mobile market. Carriers are fighting for fewer new customers and are largly stealing customers from each other.
Quote:
The segment of the market that is also growing in addition to smartphones is pre-paid. People want the model Apple originally wanted, pay for the phone and buy your data and use it but it doesn't seem to work out the way Apple is noting. Yet you see smaller carriers offer the "eat all you want buffet" of cell services now for about $50 a month.
Pre-pay is growing to some degree and mostly at the lower end. The far majority of people buy subsidized phones. Those $50 for everything services have not proven all that popular or profitable in the long run.
Quote:
This could harm Apple if they don't have a response. I suspect part of that response was the app store to keep revenues up. However at $50 a month (or even double that) for unlimited use of all services (This is where I suspect we will end up for family plans) Apple won't be getting data service kickbacks. The supposed subsidizing of many phones wouldn't even be able to continue. It will be like the internet model. You go buy the computer and pay us for the data access. It will actually be closer to the original Apple model only at a much lower price point that could hurt Apple.
There is no evidence any of this will happen.
Quote:
People should but won't which is why Honda created Acura.
It makes no sense to compare sales of a $90,000 car to an $18,000 car. They don't target the same consumer or compete directly against each other.
Acura and BMW are not in the same class either.
Quote:
Hopefully Apple can commoditize the iPhone. They have done a very nice job with the iPod.
Music players and phones are very different. Motorola commoditized the Razer and we know how well that turned out.
Quote:
Exactly but we can root for our team! I think it important though to note the moves of the team and whether they will keep it strong or weaken it. I would really like to see Apple reengineer the iPhone and keep the original spec, but make it hit $200 unsubsidized and offer it without a data plan or offer to companies that will include data as part of their standard plan. We know that a company like Boostmobile isn't going to take over the cell universe. However we can also remember that companies like them, the Earthlink's of the cell universe, can really show us the future of prices and service to be offered by the big guys as a competitive response.
Companies like Earthlink and Boostmobile don't change things in the long run. Earthlink is nearly out of business and broadband internet is as expensive as ever. Most MVNO's like Boostmobile have gone out of business.
Putting java or flash touchscreen UI ontop of Windows Mobile is not the same as the iPhone. It may have toucchscreen icons like the iPhone, but it does not work at all like the iPhone.
It's rather amusing you think the only alternative is Windows Mobile. How about Symbian, TouchWiz, S-Class etc etc?
...in your opinion. Regardless, they offer similar features to the iPhone, yet aren't considered smartphones. As such, the iPhone needs to be compared against ALL phones, or the smartphone category needs to be expanded enormously to cover all of these other devices.
Who was spinning anything negative out of it? Jeez, without even saying anything negative, and simply saying something that isn't the 'accepted norm' around here, you get accused of being negative. Stop being so over protective, it's a company who are after your money plain and simple, not your friend!
Did I quote you? No. I didn't. So, either fix how you read things so you don't take everything personally, or go ahead and accept the non-existent criticism as it was all your own initiative to manufacture it, put the proverbial shoe on and find that in your mind it fit.
Symbian wasn't originally built to be touchscreen. Touch Wiz is a UI over Windows Mobile.
The iPhone OS was built from the kernal up to be a touchscreen UI. Other phones offer UI that look like the iPhone, but in actual use they are not like the iPhone.
No I would not say it's necessary to compare a phone that simply looks like the iPhone on the outside, but does not have the same performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester
...in your opinion. Regardless, they offer similar features to the iPhone, yet aren't considered smartphones. As such, the iPhone needs to be compared against ALL phones, or the smartphone category needs to be expanded enormously to cover all of these other devices.
Symbian wasn't originally built to be touchscreen. Touch Wiz is a UI over Windows Mobile.
The iPhone OS was built from the kernal up to be a touchscreen UI. Other phones offer UI that look like the iPhone, but in actual use they are not like the iPhone.
TouchWiz is a UI in its own right. It just so happens that it can also be applied to WinMo and Symbian devices, but there are devices out there that are TouchWiz only.
Frankly, how Apple, or any other manufacturer, got to their touchscreen end result is completely irrelevent here since we're talking about iPhone market share, not how to make a touchscreen based mobile phone.
Did I quote you? No. I didn't. So, either fix how you read things so you don't take everything personally, or go ahead and accept the non-existent criticism as it was all your own initiative to manufacture it, put the proverbial shoe on and find that in your mind it fit.
Errrr, yes, you did quote me? If the following comments weren't directed towards what I had said, then you shouldn't have quoted me!
What percentage of the Games market has Apple captured with the billion App store downloads?
Apple must be ranked up with Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft with numbers like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester
Who was spinning anything negative out of it? Jeez, without even saying anything negative, and simply saying something that isn't the 'accepted norm' around here, you get accused of being negative. Stop being so over protective, it's a company who are after your money plain and simple, not your friend!
Putting java or flash touchscreen UI ontop of Windows Mobile is not the same as the iPhone. It may have toucchscreen icons like the iPhone, but it does not work at all like the iPhone.
I wasn't even talking about that and consider it to be a smart phone. Also no one is saying it has to beat the iPhone. It just has to be good enough, not the best.
Quote:
I don't really see the trend of people paying for phones that were previously free. I do see the trend towards people buying smartphones which always had a cost.
What complicates this further is the saturation of the mobile market. Carriers are fighting for fewer new customers and are largly stealing customers from each other.
You note the very trend yourself but fail to run the trend to the conclusion. When the market is mature and the cannibalization begins the prices begin to fall and add-ons become standard features in order to survive.
Quote:
Pre-pay is growing to some degree and mostly at the lower end. The far majority of people buy subsidized phones. Those $50 for everything services have not proven all that popular or profitable in the long run.
Well we are looking into the future and discussing trends. It is clear that major carriers have had to respond to these regional providers and the consumer benefits. We have past examples in the same or similar markets. All these need to do is peal off a sliver and the majors freak out.
Quote:
There is no evidence any of this will happen.
Of course not. I'm speculating about the future on a rumor forum. What the hell do you expect?
Quote:
It makes no sense to compare sales of a $90,000 car to an $18,000 car. They don't target the same consumer or compete directly against each other.
Acura and BMW are not in the same class either.
Acura has carved out a niche when people said the couldn't. The point that you are failing to get that is the premise of this thread is that there can be insight gained by looking at the overall market instead of just the smart phone market. Perhaps that is what Apple did with the iPhone but has no guarantees it won't happen to them in return. Acura and Lexus exist and make money. They found a way to move into a market and take share.
Quote:
Music players and phones are very different. Motorola commoditized the Razer and we know how well that turned out.
Motorola stopped innovating. They are badly managed. Folks like myself do not want that to happen to Apple. The choice really isn't about whether to commoditize or not. If you don't someone else will. The choice is to commoditize on your own terms or have them dictated to you. I hope Apple does the former and not the latter.
Quote:
Companies like Earthlink and Boostmobile don't change things in the long run. Earthlink is nearly out of business and broadband internet is as expensive as ever. Most MVNO's like Boostmobile have gone out of business.
They absolutely change them in the long run which is why they go out of business. I'm not saying that Boostmobile will thrive, quite the opposite. I'm saying they will slice off some market share and the majors will respond to grab it back. That response keeps the major players as major and kills the small guys but leads to cheaper rates. I have no doubt that we see $50 all inclusive plans in a couple years from the majors. We already have $99 unlimited calling minute plans that weren't imaginable just a few years ago.
Comments
I'm not entirely sure what the point of all of this is given that the iPhone is still, at heart, a mobile phone, and as such is measured along side all of the other mobile phones out there. If you want to compare it only against other smartphones, be my guest, but that only shows you a very narrow segment of the entire market. As such, to see it in its true light, it needs to be compared against the entire mobile market. And that's exactly what these numbers show
At the end of the day, the iPhone is still just a phone, so it's interesting to see it compared in that light. Comparing it just to smartphones artificially removes a vast chunk of the mobile market!
Well at the original iPhone announcement, Steve said Apple would consider it wildly successful if they reached even 1% of the worldwide cellphone market. Guess they exceeded that by a ridiculous margin. How is it possible to spin anything negative out of that?
the same basic function, but are entirely different class of car.
Sure. And a customer could choose a notebook computer or a desktop.
Nokia with 38% market share physically sold more handsets in the first quarter of this year than the sold in the first quarter of last year, yet their profits were down 90% over the same period.
It's like the market for rocks is X amount, diamonds are rocks and they only have a tiny percentage of X.
To do that to the market in less than 18 months means the game has changed, not that Apple has won, but that there is a tectonic shift in the device space which will drive the rest of the market over the next 3-5 years. Apple just happens to be the ones who figured out how to deliver what the growing wave of consumers want and the other manufacturers will ride profitable coattails unless they continue to make less friendly products.
Not many companies can do what Apple did, becoming succesful almost immediately and growing from there.
Well at the original iPhone announcement, Steve said Apple would consider it wildly successful if they reached even 1% of the worldwide cellphone market. Guess they exceeded that by a ridiculous margin. How is it possible to spin anything negative out of that?
Who was spinning anything negative out of it? Jeez, without even saying anything negative, and simply saying something that isn't the 'accepted norm' around here, you get accused of being negative. Stop being so over protective, it's a company who are after your money plain and simple, not your friend!
We should probably just get past the whole "smartphone" terminology. There are historical reasons for it, but technology is quickly obsoleting that way of thinking.
I've used this analogy before, but it is as if the early history of computing had first created dedicated email devices that could do only that, and with the emergence of general purpose computing devices we continued to insist on thinking of them as sort of supercharged email clients.
Just misses the point. It'll get clearer over the next year or two, however, and I don't think anyone will continue to bother to pretend that any of this has anything to do with "the cellphone market."
I think you are 100% right on this especially given all the "feature phones" that are now out there that have 95% of the features of the original iPhone but big store full of apps.
All variables are not equal between all phones. Most featured phones are free with a 2 year contract. Smartphone monthly subscription service is far more expensive than the average feature phone. Based on those factors alone smartphones are different and will not sell as much as featured phones.
I would suggest that this trend is temporary as well. We used to pay for the phones in our home and get charged for all manner of things. You paid for local, zone unit and long distances service. Competition forced it down to a flat rate for everything. Right now you pay different rates for texting, data and phone use. When looking the the big picture and noting what smaller cell companies and second tier companies are doing to grab customers, it is clear the same trend is happening.
This is really important to look at because Apple's original model didn't include the phone being subsidized and getting a cut of the cash being charged for the data plans. Even if they have moved away from that we still have to look at that because that was the model for making the phone profitable.
The segment of the market that is also growing in addition to smartphones is pre-paid. People want the model Apple originally wanted, pay for the phone and buy your data and use it but it doesn't seem to work out the way Apple is noting. Yet you see smaller carriers offer the "eat all you want buffet" of cell services now for about $50 a month.
This could harm Apple if they don't have a response. I suspect part of that response was the app store to keep revenues up. However at $50 a month (or even double that) for unlimited use of all services (This is where I suspect we will end up for family plans) Apple won't be getting data service kickbacks. The supposed subsidizing of many phones wouldn't even be able to continue. It will be like the internet model. You go buy the computer and pay us for the data access. It will actually be closer to the original Apple model only at a much lower price point that could hurt Apple.
It's true no one compares sales of a BMW 7 series to the Honda Civic. They both perform
the same basic function, but are entirely different class of car.
People should but won't which is why Honda created Acura.
No. 1.5% of the total phone market is stunning when the vast majority of the "sold phones" range from "free" to the customer to 1/4 of the iPhones price. It means A LOT of people want something they have to pay a significant amount for even though it is trivially easy for them to get something for free that will do the phone part just as well.
To do that to the market in less than 18 months means the game has changed, not that Apple has won, but that there is a tectonic shift in the device space which will drive the rest of the market over the next 3-5 years. Apple just happens to be the ones who figured out how to deliver what the growing wave of consumers want and the other manufacturers will ride profitable coattails unless they continue to make less friendly products.
Hopefully Apple can commoditize the iPhone. They have done a very nice job with the iPod.
Who was spinning anything negative out of it? Jeez, without even saying anything negative, and simply saying something that isn't the 'accepted norm' around here, you get accused of being negative. Stop being so over protective, it's a company who are after your money plain and simple, not your friend!
Exactly but we can root for our team! I think it important though to note the moves of the team and whether they will keep it strong or weaken it. I would really like to see Apple reengineer the iPhone and keep the original spec, but make it hit $200 unsubsidized and offer it without a data plan or offer to companies that will include data as part of their standard plan. We know that a company like Boostmobile isn't going to take over the cell universe. However we can also remember that companies like them, the Earthlink's of the cell universe, can really show us the future of prices and service to be offered by the big guys as a competitive response.
I think you are 100% right on this especially given all the "feature phones" that are now out there that have 95% of the features of the original iPhone but big store full of apps.
Putting java or flash touchscreen UI ontop of Windows Mobile is not the same as the iPhone. It may have toucchscreen icons like the iPhone, but it does not work at all like the iPhone.
I would suggest that this trend is temporary as well. We used to pay for the phones in our home and get charged for all manner of things. You paid for local, zone unit and long distances service. Competition forced it down to a flat rate for everything. Right now you pay different rates for texting, data and phone use. When looking the the big picture and noting what smaller cell companies and second tier companies are doing to grab customers, it is clear the same trend is happening.
I don't really see the trend of people paying for phones that were previously free. I do see the trend towards people buying smartphones which always had a cost.
What complicates this further is the saturation of the mobile market. Carriers are fighting for fewer new customers and are largly stealing customers from each other.
The segment of the market that is also growing in addition to smartphones is pre-paid. People want the model Apple originally wanted, pay for the phone and buy your data and use it but it doesn't seem to work out the way Apple is noting. Yet you see smaller carriers offer the "eat all you want buffet" of cell services now for about $50 a month.
Pre-pay is growing to some degree and mostly at the lower end. The far majority of people buy subsidized phones. Those $50 for everything services have not proven all that popular or profitable in the long run.
This could harm Apple if they don't have a response. I suspect part of that response was the app store to keep revenues up. However at $50 a month (or even double that) for unlimited use of all services (This is where I suspect we will end up for family plans) Apple won't be getting data service kickbacks. The supposed subsidizing of many phones wouldn't even be able to continue. It will be like the internet model. You go buy the computer and pay us for the data access. It will actually be closer to the original Apple model only at a much lower price point that could hurt Apple.
There is no evidence any of this will happen.
People should but won't which is why Honda created Acura.
It makes no sense to compare sales of a $90,000 car to an $18,000 car. They don't target the same consumer or compete directly against each other.
Acura and BMW are not in the same class either.
Hopefully Apple can commoditize the iPhone. They have done a very nice job with the iPod.
Music players and phones are very different. Motorola commoditized the Razer and we know how well that turned out.
Exactly but we can root for our team! I think it important though to note the moves of the team and whether they will keep it strong or weaken it. I would really like to see Apple reengineer the iPhone and keep the original spec, but make it hit $200 unsubsidized and offer it without a data plan or offer to companies that will include data as part of their standard plan. We know that a company like Boostmobile isn't going to take over the cell universe. However we can also remember that companies like them, the Earthlink's of the cell universe, can really show us the future of prices and service to be offered by the big guys as a competitive response.
Companies like Earthlink and Boostmobile don't change things in the long run. Earthlink is nearly out of business and broadband internet is as expensive as ever. Most MVNO's like Boostmobile have gone out of business.
Putting java or flash touchscreen UI ontop of Windows Mobile is not the same as the iPhone. It may have toucchscreen icons like the iPhone, but it does not work at all like the iPhone.
It's rather amusing you think the only alternative is Windows Mobile. How about Symbian, TouchWiz, S-Class etc etc?
It's rather amusing you think the only alternative is Windows Mobile. How about Symbian, TouchWiz, S-Class etc etc?
Sorry, but, they suck and always have.
Sorry, but, they suck and always have.
...in your opinion. Regardless, they offer similar features to the iPhone, yet aren't considered smartphones. As such, the iPhone needs to be compared against ALL phones, or the smartphone category needs to be expanded enormously to cover all of these other devices.
Who was spinning anything negative out of it? Jeez, without even saying anything negative, and simply saying something that isn't the 'accepted norm' around here, you get accused of being negative. Stop being so over protective, it's a company who are after your money plain and simple, not your friend!
Did I quote you? No. I didn't. So, either fix how you read things so you don't take everything personally, or go ahead and accept the non-existent criticism as it was all your own initiative to manufacture it, put the proverbial shoe on and find that in your mind it fit.
The iPhone OS was built from the kernal up to be a touchscreen UI. Other phones offer UI that look like the iPhone, but in actual use they are not like the iPhone.
No I would not say it's necessary to compare a phone that simply looks like the iPhone on the outside, but does not have the same performance.
...in your opinion. Regardless, they offer similar features to the iPhone, yet aren't considered smartphones. As such, the iPhone needs to be compared against ALL phones, or the smartphone category needs to be expanded enormously to cover all of these other devices.
Symbian wasn't originally built to be touchscreen. Touch Wiz is a UI over Windows Mobile.
The iPhone OS was built from the kernal up to be a touchscreen UI. Other phones offer UI that look like the iPhone, but in actual use they are not like the iPhone.
TouchWiz is a UI in its own right. It just so happens that it can also be applied to WinMo and Symbian devices, but there are devices out there that are TouchWiz only.
Frankly, how Apple, or any other manufacturer, got to their touchscreen end result is completely irrelevent here since we're talking about iPhone market share, not how to make a touchscreen based mobile phone.
Did I quote you? No. I didn't. So, either fix how you read things so you don't take everything personally, or go ahead and accept the non-existent criticism as it was all your own initiative to manufacture it, put the proverbial shoe on and find that in your mind it fit.
Errrr, yes, you did quote me? If the following comments weren't directed towards what I had said, then you shouldn't have quoted me!
Symbian is not Nokia.
Symbian wasn't originally built to be touchscreen...
Apple must be ranked up with Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft with numbers like that.
Who was spinning anything negative out of it? Jeez, without even saying anything negative, and simply saying something that isn't the 'accepted norm' around here, you get accused of being negative. Stop being so over protective, it's a company who are after your money plain and simple, not your friend!
Putting java or flash touchscreen UI ontop of Windows Mobile is not the same as the iPhone. It may have toucchscreen icons like the iPhone, but it does not work at all like the iPhone.
I wasn't even talking about that and consider it to be a smart phone. Also no one is saying it has to beat the iPhone. It just has to be good enough, not the best.
I don't really see the trend of people paying for phones that were previously free. I do see the trend towards people buying smartphones which always had a cost.
What complicates this further is the saturation of the mobile market. Carriers are fighting for fewer new customers and are largly stealing customers from each other.
Would they pay for this if it was $100 outlay and no contract? Would they when that phone has all the "new" features in a good enough package that their old phone didn't have and their old provider wants a new two year contract in a down economy?
You note the very trend yourself but fail to run the trend to the conclusion. When the market is mature and the cannibalization begins the prices begin to fall and add-ons become standard features in order to survive.
Pre-pay is growing to some degree and mostly at the lower end. The far majority of people buy subsidized phones. Those $50 for everything services have not proven all that popular or profitable in the long run.
Well we are looking into the future and discussing trends. It is clear that major carriers have had to respond to these regional providers and the consumer benefits. We have past examples in the same or similar markets. All these need to do is peal off a sliver and the majors freak out.
There is no evidence any of this will happen.
Of course not. I'm speculating about the future on a rumor forum. What the hell do you expect?
It makes no sense to compare sales of a $90,000 car to an $18,000 car. They don't target the same consumer or compete directly against each other.
Acura and BMW are not in the same class either.
Acura has carved out a niche when people said the couldn't. The point that you are failing to get that is the premise of this thread is that there can be insight gained by looking at the overall market instead of just the smart phone market. Perhaps that is what Apple did with the iPhone but has no guarantees it won't happen to them in return. Acura and Lexus exist and make money. They found a way to move into a market and take share.
Music players and phones are very different. Motorola commoditized the Razer and we know how well that turned out.
Motorola stopped innovating. They are badly managed. Folks like myself do not want that to happen to Apple. The choice really isn't about whether to commoditize or not. If you don't someone else will. The choice is to commoditize on your own terms or have them dictated to you. I hope Apple does the former and not the latter.
Companies like Earthlink and Boostmobile don't change things in the long run. Earthlink is nearly out of business and broadband internet is as expensive as ever. Most MVNO's like Boostmobile have gone out of business.
They absolutely change them in the long run which is why they go out of business. I'm not saying that Boostmobile will thrive, quite the opposite. I'm saying they will slice off some market share and the majors will respond to grab it back. That response keeps the major players as major and kills the small guys but leads to cheaper rates. I have no doubt that we see $50 all inclusive plans in a couple years from the majors. We already have $99 unlimited calling minute plans that weren't imaginable just a few years ago.