The iPhone best feature is the always available internet connection. If you don't require an always available connection then the iPhone is not for you and you are better off with an iPod Touch and a another phone (probably a less expensive choice too). You also have to remember that the iPhone is not competing with the iPod Touch. The iPod Touch is an alternative to the iPhone for people who don't want the data plan (your case).
.
Nonsense...
The point is that I don't require an 'always on connection'. I need connectivity away from wifi about once a week. I'm almost always within wifi range. I do need voice more frequently and don't really like carrying 2 devices.
And the idea of touch competing with iPhone is also silly. The touch took even Apple by suprise and its on its way to becoming a peer. If it ultimately displaces the iPhone with VOIP, then all the better... no pain to Apple there.
Again, go to a gas tank model and let me decide how many minutes I want to keep charged for voice/data.
So what other iPhone feature do I not have to use to disqualify me from getting one? You're missing the point of priorities and compromise, and how some people are willing to forgo certain features to gain others. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition.
Ok, What are the most attractive iPhone features the iPod Touch don't offer (other than the phone)? My point was why pay for something if you don't want/need it? If AT&T and Apple offer the iPhone without a data plan, then I am sure you will pay much more than $199. If money is a real problem for you and you don't want a data plan then why spend $599 for the iPhone while you can get the iPod Touch ($229) and free phone from any carrier?!
Lower cost does not mean catering to 'lower income', just catering to value.
You really think any company cares what the income is of its customers? My $200 is as valuable to Apple as is Warren Buffett's.
You're actually proving my point. Look at the comments I'm replying to. I was saying that it didn't sound like Apple in the statement "to attract lower income consumers" and he mentioned the ipod mini/ nano like apple specifically made those for that very reason.
The point is that I don't require an 'always on connection'. I need connectivity away from wifi about once a week. I'm almost always within wifi range. I do need voice more frequently and don't really like carrying 2 devices.
And the idea of touch competing with iPhone is also silly. The touch took even Apple by suprise and its on its way to becoming a peer. If it ultimately displaces the iPhone with VOIP, then all the better... no pain to Apple there.
Again, go to a gas tank model and let me decide how many minutes I want to keep charged for voice/data.
You seem to miss the last point in my post where I said it is a good idea to have limited data plan. I don't know who told you that the Touch took Apple by surprise! Everyone knew the iPod touch was going to sell very well.
If money is a real problem for you and you don't want a data plan then why spend $599 for the iPhone while you can get the iPod Touch ($229) and free phone from any carrier?!
And if you hate AT&T enough and you're geeky enough, you can even setup a wifi access point using your phone so your ipod touch can have internet access
Since every single one of your posts regarding the iPhone is like a twin to its predecessor, you might consider just copy&paste... never mind being off topic ofc
He would, but considering the iphone doesn't have cut copy paste yet, how would you propose he does that?
And if you hate AT&T enough and you're geeky enough, you can even setup a wifi access point using your phone so your ipod touch can have internet access
Since the 3.0 upgrade will open the dock connector to developers, how long do you think before someone develop a dock connector extension to turn the iPod Touch into a phone?
"To attract lower income consumers" - doesn't sound like Apple.
actually it's a good idea and a well recognized business strategy
Intel and MS both captured their markets by starting at the very bottom and working their way up. In each case their competitor ruled the high end and lost by not marketing to the bottom end of the market.
you need the bottom end to protect your high end high margin products. not for profit.
the iphone is a hit because it's actually cheaper than a lot of it's competition. not because people think it's worth it paying a premium. the EDGE iphone before the app store was a slow seller and didn't meet sales expectations because it was overpriced
Intel and MS both captured their markets by starting at the very bottom and working their way up. In each case their competitor ruled the high end and lost by not marketing to the bottom end of the market.
They did? How do you figure?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron
I have no doubt, knowing ATT, that the $20 plan is going to end up costing more than the current plan when all is said and done.
actually it's a good idea and a well recognized business strategy
Intel and MS both captured their markets by starting at the very bottom and working their way up. In each case their competitor ruled the high end and lost by not marketing to the bottom end of the market.
you need the bottom end to protect your high end high margin products. not for profit.
the iphone is a hit because it's actually cheaper than a lot of it's competition. not because people think it's worth it paying a premium. the EDGE iphone before the app store was a slow seller and didn't meet sales expectations because it was overpriced
But see, everything you just said is countered with the exact opposite argument when this subject comes up regarding Apple's laptops. People insist if Apple released a main stream affordable macbook, it "wouldn't be a mac." But then again that's a bit more complicated. A 2gb iphone for 100 bucks doesn't sound out of this world I suppose.
Well, if the rumor is true, then I have a few observations. #1, I already have a $20 iPhone plan, on the original plan. The $30 data plan introduced with the iPhone 3G is *precisely* why I did not buy a 3G. (Apple, AT&T, ya better be paying attention - I'm guessing I'm not the only one) #2 If AT&T continues to be greedy in this regard, and issues a new $20 data plan that is crippled, then I can assure both AT&T and Apple that I will not be buying the next iPhone that comes out in June either. If Apple wants to sell more iPhones, they need to "reign" AT&T in again, and pressure them to quit being so greedy. Don't get me wrong, I think all cell companies are greedy, but sadly we're stuck with AT&T for the moment.
What I'm also curious about is what happens when those of us with 1st gen iPhones' 2-yr contract is up (June 30th +/-), aren't we free to switch carriers, and isn't Apple then forced to allow this?
I said it before and I'll say it again.
you paid $200 more for the phone. people with 3g pay 10 more a month, over a 2 year contract, so we only pay 40 more than you over the 2 years, but we don't have the up front costs you had. sure it's a little more over 2 years... but people with 1st gen phones who continue to complain about the higher monthly fees associated with the phone but didn't bat an eye when they were rung up for 200 more for the phone are beyond ridiculous.
I have no doubt, knowing ATT, that the $20 plan is going to end up costing more than the current plan when all is said and done.
Just like the cable companies, I'm sure that they'd structure it in such a way that you won't save nearly as much as you should by going to a lower tier. Their goal is always to push you to higher tiers, just as the 'per channel' cost on cable is lower for top end packages than it would be for 'ala carte'. A racket, but what can you do?
I think too many people are reading "lower Income" as "low income" - Lower than $100,000 annual income leaves a rather large gap between existing customer and the official poverty level.
In other words - if you target audience is folks who make $40k or more and your surveys indicate that no one making less than $75k is buying your product - then you need to make some kind of adjustment.
Intel and Microsoft were very aggressive when it came to influencing the direction of the PC market. Their focus was affordability, which meant low cost, low range machines compared to what IBM was churning out.
Comments
Yeah, 'cause the whole lower-priced iPod Mini/Nano idea was a complete failure.
Umm, what? Are those meant for low income consumers?
The iPhone best feature is the always available internet connection. If you don't require an always available connection then the iPhone is not for you and you are better off with an iPod Touch and a another phone (probably a less expensive choice too). You also have to remember that the iPhone is not competing with the iPod Touch. The iPod Touch is an alternative to the iPhone for people who don't want the data plan (your case).
.
Nonsense...
The point is that I don't require an 'always on connection'. I need connectivity away from wifi about once a week. I'm almost always within wifi range. I do need voice more frequently and don't really like carrying 2 devices.
And the idea of touch competing with iPhone is also silly. The touch took even Apple by suprise and its on its way to becoming a peer. If it ultimately displaces the iPhone with VOIP, then all the better... no pain to Apple there.
Again, go to a gas tank model and let me decide how many minutes I want to keep charged for voice/data.
So what other iPhone feature do I not have to use to disqualify me from getting one? You're missing the point of priorities and compromise, and how some people are willing to forgo certain features to gain others. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition.
Ok, What are the most attractive iPhone features the iPod Touch don't offer (other than the phone)? My point was why pay for something if you don't want/need it? If AT&T and Apple offer the iPhone without a data plan, then I am sure you will pay much more than $199. If money is a real problem for you and you don't want a data plan then why spend $599 for the iPhone while you can get the iPod Touch ($229) and free phone from any carrier?!
Umm, what? Are those meant for low income consumers?
Lower cost does not mean catering to 'lower income', just catering to value.
You really think any company cares what the income is of its customers? My $200 is as valuable to Apple as is Warren Buffett's.
Lower cost does not mean catering to 'lower income', just catering to value.
You really think any company cares what the income is of its customers? My $200 is as valuable to Apple as is Warren Buffett's.
You're actually proving my point. Look at the comments I'm replying to. I was saying that it didn't sound like Apple in the statement "to attract lower income consumers" and he mentioned the ipod mini/ nano like apple specifically made those for that very reason.
Nonsense...
The point is that I don't require an 'always on connection'. I need connectivity away from wifi about once a week. I'm almost always within wifi range. I do need voice more frequently and don't really like carrying 2 devices.
And the idea of touch competing with iPhone is also silly. The touch took even Apple by suprise and its on its way to becoming a peer. If it ultimately displaces the iPhone with VOIP, then all the better... no pain to Apple there.
Again, go to a gas tank model and let me decide how many minutes I want to keep charged for voice/data.
You seem to miss the last point in my post where I said it is a good idea to have limited data plan. I don't know who told you that the Touch took Apple by surprise! Everyone knew the iPod touch was going to sell very well.
If money is a real problem for you and you don't want a data plan then why spend $599 for the iPhone while you can get the iPod Touch ($229) and free phone from any carrier?!
And if you hate AT&T enough and you're geeky enough, you can even setup a wifi access point using your phone so your ipod touch can have internet access
Since every single one of your posts regarding the iPhone is like a twin to its predecessor, you might consider just copy&paste... never mind being off topic ofc
He would, but considering the iphone doesn't have cut copy paste yet, how would you propose he does that?
And if you hate AT&T enough and you're geeky enough, you can even setup a wifi access point using your phone so your ipod touch can have internet access
Since the 3.0 upgrade will open the dock connector to developers, how long do you think before someone develop a dock connector extension to turn the iPod Touch into a phone?
And don't tell me that that would be same as a Touch... because it isn't!
Jim
"To attract lower income consumers" - doesn't sound like Apple.
actually it's a good idea and a well recognized business strategy
Intel and MS both captured their markets by starting at the very bottom and working their way up. In each case their competitor ruled the high end and lost by not marketing to the bottom end of the market.
you need the bottom end to protect your high end high margin products. not for profit.
the iphone is a hit because it's actually cheaper than a lot of it's competition. not because people think it's worth it paying a premium. the EDGE iphone before the app store was a slow seller and didn't meet sales expectations because it was overpriced
A $20 limited data plan and a $99 iPhone would be sweet indeed for us poor folk.
I have no doubt, knowing ATT, that the $20 plan is going to end up costing more than the current plan when all is said and done.
Intel and MS both captured their markets by starting at the very bottom and working their way up. In each case their competitor ruled the high end and lost by not marketing to the bottom end of the market.
They did? How do you figure?
I have no doubt, knowing ATT, that the $20 plan is going to end up costing more than the current plan when all is said and done.
It would? How do you figure?
actually it's a good idea and a well recognized business strategy
Intel and MS both captured their markets by starting at the very bottom and working their way up. In each case their competitor ruled the high end and lost by not marketing to the bottom end of the market.
you need the bottom end to protect your high end high margin products. not for profit.
the iphone is a hit because it's actually cheaper than a lot of it's competition. not because people think it's worth it paying a premium. the EDGE iphone before the app store was a slow seller and didn't meet sales expectations because it was overpriced
But see, everything you just said is countered with the exact opposite argument when this subject comes up regarding Apple's laptops. People insist if Apple released a main stream affordable macbook, it "wouldn't be a mac." But then again that's a bit more complicated. A 2gb iphone for 100 bucks doesn't sound out of this world I suppose.
Well, if the rumor is true, then I have a few observations. #1, I already have a $20 iPhone plan, on the original plan. The $30 data plan introduced with the iPhone 3G is *precisely* why I did not buy a 3G. (Apple, AT&T, ya better be paying attention - I'm guessing I'm not the only one) #2 If AT&T continues to be greedy in this regard, and issues a new $20 data plan that is crippled, then I can assure both AT&T and Apple that I will not be buying the next iPhone that comes out in June either. If Apple wants to sell more iPhones, they need to "reign" AT&T in again, and pressure them to quit being so greedy. Don't get me wrong, I think all cell companies are greedy, but sadly we're stuck with AT&T for the moment.
What I'm also curious about is what happens when those of us with 1st gen iPhones' 2-yr contract is up (June 30th +/-), aren't we free to switch carriers, and isn't Apple then forced to allow this?
I said it before and I'll say it again.
you paid $200 more for the phone. people with 3g pay 10 more a month, over a 2 year contract, so we only pay 40 more than you over the 2 years, but we don't have the up front costs you had. sure it's a little more over 2 years... but people with 1st gen phones who continue to complain about the higher monthly fees associated with the phone but didn't bat an eye when they were rung up for 200 more for the phone are beyond ridiculous.
I have no doubt, knowing ATT, that the $20 plan is going to end up costing more than the current plan when all is said and done.
Just like the cable companies, I'm sure that they'd structure it in such a way that you won't save nearly as much as you should by going to a lower tier. Their goal is always to push you to higher tiers, just as the 'per channel' cost on cable is lower for top end packages than it would be for 'ala carte'. A racket, but what can you do?
In other words - if you target audience is folks who make $40k or more and your surveys indicate that no one making less than $75k is buying your product - then you need to make some kind of adjustment.
They did? How do you figure?
Intel and Microsoft were very aggressive when it came to influencing the direction of the PC market. Their focus was affordability, which meant low cost, low range machines compared to what IBM was churning out.