People who don't know much about these phones, and read this article will come away with the impression that everything he said is true. Actually, he glossed over much of his praise by not explaining exactly how these features work, or exactly what they are.
If, for example, he explained that the apps won't be much more than overblown widgets that are more limited than "real" programs, and likely won't equal the iPhone apps, how would people have voted then?
If he explained that the screen is noticeable smaller, how would people have voted?
If he mentioned that there were complaints that your fingers constantly hit the top part of the phone when you typed using the top row of keys, and it isn't known if they fixed that, how would people have voted?
I don't take that "poll" as being useful.
We?ve seen these polls many times before. Palm does well to hype their device for the past 6 months. they need it and it looks like they?ve spent their advertising budget well, but it?s the actual device that will have to prove itself shortly. Will we see a 50% return rate like with the Storm?
Another thing about these polls is that they will change quickly. Palm is talking up their new device so people are interested in it. I am currently interest in the Pre more than other smartphone right now because I know all about my current iPhone and the next iPhone is just rumours. If they do that poll after June 8th I imagine that things will look differently.
"We don't intend to advertise it heavily early on because we think we are going to have shortages for a while. We won't be able to keep up with demand for the device in the early period of time."
So it doesn't look like Palm is going to be able to do much to exploit that little window of mindshare opportunity before Apple announces at WWDC.
Plus, it turns out Best Buy is going to go the instant rebate route, which is good for early Pre buyers but bad for a nice clean rollout that's on message.
Way back when there was talk of how Palm's management seemed to be, uh, underwhelming, and that there was the possibility that they would simply fuck up the Pre introduction.
The rushed to market feel of (barely) beating Apple, extremely constrained initial supplies with not much advertising and an inconsistent effective sell price are not good.
There's a reason Palm has fallen on hard times. They are not a well managed company. The Foleo fiasco wasn't that long ago.
It's great that Palm hired a bunch of Apple engineers who built them what appears to be a nice phone. But unless they can execute on selling the thing it will be for naught.
People assume that it always works like Apple-- that if you make the next insanely great thing the world will beat a path to your door-- but it's easy to forget what a relentless marketing machine Apple is, and how well choreographed the iPhone rollout was.
Palm is a company on the brink, and it's been generally acknowledged that they pretty much have to do everything perfectly to buy the time they need to recover. If they've already managed to screw up some particulars, well before the Pre is even out the door, that does not bode well at all.
"We don't intend to advertise it heavily early on because we think we are going to have shortages for a while. We won't be able to keep up with demand for the device in the early period of time."
That is a load of bull. They have advertising the crap out of it, and rightly so. It definitely peaked interest and their semi-truthful marketing is working. Now all they have to do is make the product work as advertised and within expectations when it arrives.
That is a load of bull. They have advertising the crap out of it, and rightly so. It definitely peaked interest and their semi-truthful marketing is working. Now all they have to do is make the product work as advertised and within expectations when it arrives.
Are you saying that you don't think the Pre will actually be supply constrained? Seems like a weird thing to say, if not. And if it is, they really don't want to drive a frenzy, because if they run out right away and can't resupply it'll be some bad publicity where they really don't need it.
As far as advertising goes, outside of internet tech buzz, I haven't seen much at all. I always find it hard to distinguish between the kinds of things that seem prominent, to me, because of my surfing habits, and what "average" people (whoever that is) are aware of, but that's my impression.
At this point in the original iPhone launch there was widespread awareness of the product and it's capacities. I don't think it's true that "widespread awareness" really applies to the Pre.
It's just anecdotal, but everyone in my (completely nontechnical) family had at least some passing awareness and interest in the iPhone in the weeks before its release. Not a one of them are even aware such thing as a Pre exists.
Are you saying that you don't think the Pre will actually be supply constrained? Seems like a weird thing to say, if not. And if it is, they really don't want to drive a frenzy, because if they run out right away and can't resupply it'll be some bad publicity where they really don't need it.
As far as advertising goes, outside of internet tech buzz, I haven't seen much at all. I always find it hard to distinguish between the kinds of things that seem prominent, to me, because of my surfing habits, and what "average" people (whoever that is) are aware of, but that's my impression.
At this point in the original iPhone launch there was widespread awareness of the product and it's capacities. I don't think it's true that "widespread awareness" really applies to the Pre.
It's just anecdotal, but everyone in my (completely nontechnical) family had at least some passing awareness and interest in the iPhone in the weeks before its release. Not a one of them are even aware such thing as a Pre exists.
Other than internet advertisements, the only ad I've seen for the Pre has been an ad for Sprint and their 4g network mainly. They featured it but never really addressed it.
The limited supply of Pre's doesn't surprise me. Palm's in a bad spot financially, so taking a conservative route for it's premiere seems logical. Besides that, since it's the first build group of the very first generation, odds are defective units might be higher at first while they iron out the kinks. First adopters of the Instinct or Touch Pro (both from Sprint) know what I'm talking about. I bet marketing research shows an identifiable pattern in any device where the number of defective units are highest after the initial launch (even the iphone.)
Are you saying that you don't think the Pre will actually be supply constrained? Seems like a weird thing to say, if not. And if it is, they really don't want to drive a frenzy, because if they run out right away and can't resupply it'll be some bad publicity where they really don't need it.
As far as advertising goes, outside of internet tech buzz, I haven't seen much at all. I always find it hard to distinguish between the kinds of things that seem prominent, to me, because of my surfing habits, and what "average" people (whoever that is) are aware of, but that's my impression.
At this point in the original iPhone launch there was widespread awareness of the product and it's capacities. I don't think it's true that "widespread awareness" really applies to the Pre.
It's just anecdotal, but everyone in my (completely nontechnical) family had at least some passing awareness and interest in the iPhone in the weeks before its release. Not a one of them are even aware such thing as a Pre exists.
The first time I saw the Pre demoed in a video at CES 2009 back in January, then on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon back in March. I?ve seen it on at least one other talk show and their viral campaigning seems extensive. It?s their best play and they seem to be doing well with it. I don?t think the word-of-mouth hype is anywhere near the iPhone?s level but I think they have been trying, and rightly so.
As for constrained supplies isn?t every in limited supply? How many they sell right away, I don?t know. It?s a marketing move to increase the appearance of desire for a product which will in turn crease real desire by making an item hard to find. I know I want what I can?t have.
The first time I saw the Pre demoed in a video at CES 2009 back in January, then on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon back in March. I’ve seen it on at least one other talk show and their viral campaigning seems extensive. It’s their best play and they seem to be doing well with it. I don’t think the word-of-mouth hype is anywhere near the iPhone’s level but I think they have been trying, and rightly so.
As for constrained supplies isn’t every in limited supply? How many they sell right away, I don’t know. It’s a marketing move to increase the appearance of desire for a product which will in turn crease real desire by making an item hard to find. I know I want what I can’t have.
Sounds to me like they've done some scattershot product placement and a bit of "viral" stuff, but nothing like the kind of relentless drumbeat we might have expected. Why dick around with a little stealth exposure when you could, you know, advertise? And why haven't they sent out unchaperoned units for independent review?
Maybe Palm actually doesn't have the cash on hand to make big ad buys, buts that's a problem, not a strategy.
As far as artificial constraints, yes, it's a marketing technique, but the CEO is saying only 30,000 at launch, which sound less like a plan and more like they just barely got the thing out the door, which makes me wonder how finished it is. Again, the fact that less than three weeks before launch they still haven't allowed reviewers to spend any real time with a Pre seems like a warning sign, to me.
Of course, we'll see for ourselves soon enough, and maybe all will be well. Maybe the Pre will totally live up to the hype, buyers will be ecstatic, and the word of mouth will be good enough to keep potential switchers hanging on until the manufacturing chain can get ironed out.
But that's a lot of ifs, and Palm doesn't have a lot of margin for error.
As far as artificial constraints, yes, it's a marketing technique, but the CEO is saying only 30,000 at launch, which sound less like a plan and more like they just barely got the thing out the door, which makes me wonder how finished it is. Again, the fact that less than three weeks before launch they still haven't allowed reviewers to spend any real time with a Pre seems like a warning sign, to me.
30,000 is a soft launch. Effectively it's a beta product because even Palm can afford to launch with more than 30K units if they had any confidence it wouldn't faceplant in large numbers. Christ...there must be some folks really sweating bullets over there.
You're missing a point about Apple's exclusive contract with AT&T.
Apple needed an exclusive contract with a company that was willing to allow Apple to do what they thought they needed to do. AT&T was willing to allow that. But in return AT&T needed the exclusivity. If Apple wouldn't give them that, why would they have bothered to build out their network, re-work their software for Apple's Visual E-mail, and give them the right to build an app store that they got nothing out of, as well as allow them to sell music and ringtones, again, without getting anything for it?
No other network anywhere around the world had allowed all this to any other manufacturer. Some of it, no one else had even thought of doing!
Apple broke the unwritten contract between cell phone manufacturers and cell network providers. They revolutionized the industry. And that's not overestimating what happened.
AT&T needed a several year deal for them to make back the enormous amount of money they had to spend in order to make this work, plus a good enough amount of profit.
But all deals end. This isn't a 20 year contract, a 10 year contract, and likely not a 5 year contract. Maybe just a 3 year contract, which seems reasonable.
Possibly now, AT&T wishes it was a 5 year, or longer contract.
But in 2010, though more likely 2011 to 2012, when LTE is established across the country, we'll see Verizon withthe iPhone as well.
Sprint seems to be going in another direction entirely, which isn't a good thing for them. If they continue on that path, they will be shut out of most phones that they would want and need.
The truth is that with both AT&T and Verizon using LTE, it will put both Sprint and T-Mobile in a corner.
It will do irreparable damage to both their businesses.
Palm, on the other hand, has a (short?) exclusive contract with a company that bleeding customers. Not the best of all possible worlds. You can bet that they wish it was otherwise, but likely, they had no choice.
As I said earlier, if the Pre doesn't sell enough within the time it's exclusive to Sprint, what will happen to a deal with Verizon? If sales blister, Verizon will want it, but if they blow, they might not. They might take it anyway, but at what cost to Palm?
Yes, all of what you said is true (as i said, there are tons of reasons, benefiting both carrier and the handset creator, that i didn't outline). However, you all ready admitted that I am right -- it is unwise and not good business practice to keep a phone such as the iPhone on one carrier. Such as, the iPhone will, sooner rather than later, go to other carriers. More customers possible, means more sales.
However, what you said about Sprint -- I don't completely understand. What is Sprint doing that is "bad" and what is "LTE?" Furthermore, Palm's phone will sell. There are a lot of people on other sites that have said they will switch for the Pre. That doesn't always translate into sales, but the $200 price tag will help to get those expectant customers into actual paying customers. And if a phone such as the Instinct can sell well on the Sprint network, then so can the pre -- which is from a better company and is a better phone.
Also, you and others love to say Sprint is "bleeding customers", which is very true, but it's mostly from the Nextel division because companies are cutting back and not paying for the Nextel service, so Sprint looses customers. Part of that 49+ million customers are business like college campuses all over the US that pay for Nextel's Direct Connect service. So what Sprint has to do is get more regular customers to join -- and they are doing that with their Simply Everything plans and (hopefully) will do this with the Pre. But we shall see!
Yes, all of what you said is true (as i said, there are tons of reasons, benefiting both carrier and the handset creator, that i didn't outline). However, you all ready admitted that I am right -- it is unwise and not good business practice to keep a phone such as the iPhone on one carrier. Such as, the iPhone will, sooner rather than later, go to other carriers. More customers possible, means more sales.
It already has. It?s in 80 countries and, as i recall, about 60 carriers. What you are saying is that it has to go to different carriers within the same market, but that isn?t necessarily true and neither is your statement about more carriers would equal more customers which would equal more sales. Those statements are ONLY true if you have a limited view of the cellphone market. Apple is not doing what others did in the past. They are specifically tying themselves to carriers and requiring them to tweak their network for their needs. This is not simply about getting higher subsidization price from the network while it?s still exclusive.
I?ll ask this again, yet I have yet to get an answer: If the carrier exclusivity is such a poor decision for Apple why have they continued to do it with every country that will legally allow it and are continuing to offer exclusivity. Note that these other countries are almost all GSM-based, which means it would not require different HW in any way, shape or form, unlike the US which does require a different device which not only adds to R&D but adds to inventory and consumer confusion.
Quote:
However, what you said about Sprint -- I don't completely understand. What is Sprint doing that is "bad" and what is "LTE?" Furthermore, Palm's phone will sell. There are a lot of people on other sites that have said they will switch for the Pre. That doesn't always translate into sales, but the $200 price tag will help to get those expectant customers into actual paying customers. And if a phone such as the Instinct can sell well on the Sprint network, then so can the pre -- which is from a better company and is a better phone.
LTE is 3GPP?s 4G standard. It?s fast, a lot faster than WiMAX and it won?t in cellphones for many years. Not that it matter since WCDMA(3G) has a lot more room to grow (42Mbps down/22Mbps up) before it obsolesces. the real benefit in the US is that all carriers will be able to use the same radios.
There is no way to see how well the Pre will do in this changed market. The Verizon BB Storm sold well but then reportedly had a 50% return rate. That isn?t good. You have to advertise to entice the customer, then make the sale, and then they have to keep the sale. The iPhone and other BBs seems to do very in this department. I?m figure Nokia does, too, but they aren?t popular enough in the US for me to certify it as a anecdotal statement.
The Pre?s rebate will put many people. A 50% higher out of pocket price than the iPhone and other devices will be a deterant, but I don?t expect that to last, anyway.
The Samsung Instinct is a perfect example of a well marketed failure. Is that phone still exclusive to Sprint?
It already has. It’s in 80 countries and, as i recall, about 60 carriers. What you are saying is that it has to go to different carriers within the same market, but that isn’t necessarily true and neither is your statement about more carriers would equal more customers which would equal more sales. Those statements are ONLY true if you have a limited view of the cellphone market. Apple is not doing what others did in the past. They are specifically tying themselves to carriers and requiring them to tweak their network for their needs. This is not simply about getting higher subsidization price from the network while it’s still exclusive.
I’ll ask this again, yet I have yet to get an answer: If the carrier exclusivity is such a poor decision for Apple why have they continued to do it with every country that will legally allow it and are continuing to offer exclusivity. Note that these other countries are almost all GSM-based, which means it would not require different HW in any way, shape or form, unlike the US which does require a different device which not only adds to R&D but adds to inventory and consumer confusion.
LTE is 3GPP’s 4G standard. It’s fast, a lot faster than WiMAX and it won’t in cellphones for many years. Not that it matter since WCDMA(3G) has a lot more room to grow (42Mbps down/22Mbps up) before it obsolesces. the real benefit in the US is that all carriers will be able to use the same radios.
There is no way to see how well the Pre will do in this changed market. The Verizon BB Storm sold well but then reportedly had a 50% return rate. That isn’t good. You have to advertise to entice the customer, then make the sale, and then they have to keep the sale. The iPhone and other BBs seems to do very in this department. I’m figure Nokia does, too, but they aren’t popular enough in the US for me to certify it as a anecdotal statement.
The Pre’s rebate will put many people. A 50% higher out of pocket price than the iPhone and other devices will be a deterant, but I don’t expect that to last, anyway.
The Samsung Instinct is a perfect example of a well marketed failure. Is that phone still exclusive to Sprint?
Sorry that I was not specific. I was merely talking about America, or more then one carrier in one country. Like the Blackberry being on every major (and even a lot of minor) carriers.
About how you brought up that more possible customers doesn't add to more customers is just plain stupid. If you can only sell you product to 70 nillion customers (lets just say thats how many ppl in AT&T) -- you can't sell more then 70 million units. Amd we have to assume that the people who wants a iPhone on said network, has one. And that most of the ppl who want an iPhone thats not on said network also has purchased. And you can advertise, try to get ppl to go to AT&T, but that costs a lot of money for ad's, and it may not work. But every network is trying to make an "iPhone", because its a good phone. If Apple brings said good phone to other carriers, then said carriers(in America) wont have to help make new phones: they just have to get the iPhone. Then the ppl who wanted on on, say Sprint/Verizon, who is loyal to their carrier and wont change but still wants an iPhone will get one.
And you love to say that Apple will extend their exclusiveness to AT&T, but every source we have says otherwise. That they are looking for more carriers, that they are thinking about moving their phone to say Verizon Wireless. They might extend it to 2011 -- but thaT would mostly because AT&T has done a lot for Apple and their relationship, just like the relationship Palm and Sprint has and that created a partnership for the Palm Pre.
And you have recived several reasons. Apple can work with the carriers to make better features for the iPhone. It's a good stratagy. It is also so they can work with the carrier and get "free advertisement", because AT&T did advertise that the iPhone is an exclusive for their carrier. That is free ad's for Apple. It also allows them to develop a fan base on a very big network. That way tons of people will have an iPhone and ppl will see it at malls, school, work, and as they see it in action they will want one -- enough to switch to AT&T if that person needs to? Well, a lot of people did that.
However, on a side note, I believe Apple choose the wrong network. Why? AT&T had to improve their network for the iPhone. Sprint would only have to add a new feature (visual voicemail) because their network has been 3G for a while -- and at the time, was faster then the EDGE network and some still swear the Sprint 3G network is faster then the AT&T 3G. But, it worked out OK for them both, and AT&T is a good n etwork (not good enough for me -- I hated Cingluar, and don't like AT&T).
And thanks for answering my question about LTE.
Technically, as I said in my post, yes the Instinct is still an exclusive. Samsung has created many clones with different features (most of the time, the Instinct has better features including battery life then the clones) and these clones are on different networks. So yes, it still is, but it has moved to other networks on some shape or form.
Sorry that I was not specific. I was merely talking about America, or more then one carrier in one country. Like the Blackberry being on every major (and even a lot of minor) carriers.
About how you brought up that more possible customers doesn't add to more customers is just plain stupid. If you can only sell you product to 70 nillion customers (lets just say thats how many ppl in AT&T) -- you can't sell more then 70 million units. Amd we have to assume that the people who wants a iPhone on said network, has one. And that most of the ppl who want an iPhone thats not on said network also has purchased. And you can advertise, try to get ppl to go to AT&T, but that costs a lot of money for ad's, and it may not work. But every network is trying to make an "iPhone", because its a good phone. If Apple brings said good phone to other carriers, then said carriers(in America) wont have to help make new phones: they just have to get the iPhone. Then the ppl who wanted on on, say Sprint/Verizon, who is loyal to their carrier and wont change but still wants an iPhone will get one.
And you love to say that Apple will extend their exclusiveness to AT&T, but every source we have says otherwise. That they are looking for more carriers, that they are thinking about moving their phone to say Verizon Wireless. They might extend it to 2011 -- but thaT would mostly because AT&T has done a lot for Apple and their relationship, just like the relationship Palm and Sprint has and that created a partnership for the Palm Pre.
And you have recived several reasons. Apple can work with the carriers to make better features for the iPhone. It's a good stratagy. It is also so they can work with the carrier and get "free advertisement", because AT&T did advertise that the iPhone is an exclusive for their carrier. That is free ad's for Apple. It also allows them to develop a fan base on a very big network. That way tons of people will have an iPhone and ppl will see it at malls, school, work, and as they see it in action they will want one -- enough to switch to AT&T if that person needs to? Well, a lot of people did that.
However, on a side note, I believe Apple choose the wrong network. Why? AT&T had to improve their network for the iPhone. Sprint would only have to add a new feature (visual voicemail) because their network has been 3G for a while -- and at the time, was faster then the EDGE network and some still swear the Sprint 3G network is faster then the AT&T 3G. But, it worked out OK for them both, and AT&T is a good n etwork (not good enough for me -- I hated Cingluar, and don't like AT&T).
And thanks for answering my question about LTE.
1) I didn?t say ?more possible customers doesn't add to more customers?, I said it doesnt? necessarily lead to more sales, though in your defense I should have written profits. In the US you take in consideration higher R&D, packaging, inventory, potential user confusion if Apple plans to sell the handset in their stores, the lack of control with carrier to add services that Apple wants, lower subsidized selling price, and more potential issues are the first things that come to mind.
2) At the time they signed with AT&T/Cingular they were the largest the network in the US. You say Sprint would have been the better choice immediately after you state that the more subscribers the better, yet Sprint was and is number 3.
3) You say that Apple has no reason to extend their contract, but to make another phone for Verizon/Sprint (and I guess another one for T-Mobile?), but you still haven?t answered why they would go to all that effort when they have signed up 80 some countries with a single carrier model well after the device became established, why they are continuing to that with the next 3 countries planned and why the talks of a Chinese iPhone revolve around an exclusivity and Apple controlling their device, which is not an easy thing for China to give to a private company, much less an outsider. Until you have an answer for that, saying that it makes sense for Apple to make a completely new phone for each carrier in the US is bullocks. I understand that CDMA is better than GSM and that AT&T doesn?t have the coverage Verizon does, but look at the big picture, not just the US.
4) Apple wants a lot more control than Visual Voicemail. When you dial 611 on your iPhone in the US you get an option to get accounting or technical assistance. The accounting part is handled by AT&T, of course, but the HW support is handled by Apple in a US-based call center. Verizon would not go for that. There are a lot of services that Verizon would not go for. Google Maps and YouTube come to mind. The only thing I?m surprised about is the lack of more carrier and vendor integration between AT&T and Apple.
5) We can talk about how we would like Apple to do things a certain way to fit our needs or how we would have done things differently than Apple, but that isn?t a smart way to look at it. What you need to do if figure out what Apple, being Apple, will likely do next. Based on the info above I doubt that they would drop AT&T for a more complex setup. If it was just about the unit sales than all these GSM/WCDMA-based countries with multiple carriers would all have the iPhone -AND- Apple wouldn?t have given all these rich updates to the iPhone for free. Even the original iPhone going into its 3rd year of use will be getting OS X 3.0. That is not how make money if you only have a short sided goal of selling a few more units in the current quarter. Remember that Apple is playing a very, very long game.
6) If these exclusivity contracts are so damning to a product why are they still done? Why is the Pre simply not being sold to Sprint and Verizon, both on CDMA? Why are they not making one for each carrier? What about the Storm or the Android or the hundreds of other phones that started out as exclusive but then went to other carriers after the desire faded? For one thing, Apple has released a new model each year so far so the desire hasn?t faded, but there is a lot more to it than that.
Sounds to me like they've done some scattershot product placement and a bit of "viral" stuff, but nothing like the kind of relentless drumbeat we might have expected. Why dick around with a little stealth exposure when you could, you know, advertise? And why haven't they sent out unchaperoned units for independent review?
Maybe Palm actually doesn't have the cash on hand to make big ad buys, buts that's a problem, not a strategy.
As far as artificial constraints, yes, it's a marketing technique, but the CEO is saying only 30,000 at launch, which sound less like a plan and more like they just barely got the thing out the door, which makes me wonder how finished it is. Again, the fact that less than three weeks before launch they still haven't allowed reviewers to spend any real time with a Pre seems like a warning sign, to me.
Of course, we'll see for ourselves soon enough, and maybe all will be well. Maybe the Pre will totally live up to the hype, buyers will be ecstatic, and the word of mouth will be good enough to keep potential switchers hanging on until the manufacturing chain can get ironed out.
But that's a lot of ifs, and Palm doesn't have a lot of margin for error.
Palm, like Apple, is getting a hundred million in free publicity with this phone. That means they don't have to spend as much, which is good for them because, unlike Apple these days, they really can't afford it.
But when you give your publicity over to uncontrolled elements, you may have the problem of them going overboard, causing expectations to rise so high that they can't be met.
Of course, when your own CEO makes those kind of statements, and then has to be cut down by the legal department, you can't entirely blame the blogisphere either.
30,000 is a soft launch. Effectively it's a beta product because even Palm can afford to launch with more than 30K units if they had any confidence it wouldn't faceplant in large numbers. Christ...there must be some folks really sweating bullets over there.
If that number is correct, then it's crazy!
I expect the phone to sell well enough in the beginning so that that number would mean they'll run out of them the first day or so.
Either they have much lower expectations of sales than they are leading us to believe, or the number is wrong, or they're having major production screw-ups of some kind.
Yes, all of what you said is true (as i said, there are tons of reasons, benefiting both carrier and the handset creator, that i didn't outline). However, you all ready admitted that I am right -- it is unwise and not good business practice to keep a phone such as the iPhone on one carrier. Such as, the iPhone will, sooner rather than later, go to other carriers. More customers possible, means more sales.
In the beginning, Apple NEEDED to have one willing carrier, so that they could show off the features of their wares. Offering it to several carriers would have resulted in Apple having no leverage over any of them.
But now it's different. They should, and are trying to get it to as many carriers as possible. But they still have requirements that they shouldn't give in on, and that sometimes makes negotiations difficult.
We expected the phone to be in China by now, but the carriers are giving Apple a hard time. China mobile for example, wants to run the App Store, determine what gets to sell, and take the profits. No way Apple can allow that. They also want Apple to remove WiFi and 3G. That MAY be negotiable.
Quote:
However, what you said about Sprint -- I don't completely understand. What is Sprint doing that is "bad" and what is "LTE?" Furthermore, Palm's phone will sell. There are a lot of people on other sites that have said they will switch for the Pre. That doesn't always translate into sales, but the $200 price tag will help to get those expectant customers into actual paying customers. And if a phone such as the Instinct can sell well on the Sprint network, then so can the pre -- which is from a better company and is a better phone.
Also, you and others love to say Sprint is "bleeding customers", which is very true, but it's mostly from the Nextel division because companies are cutting back and not paying for the Nextel service, so Sprint looses customers. Part of that 49+ million customers are business like college campuses all over the US that pay for Nextel's Direct Connect service. So what Sprint has to do is get more regular customers to join -- and they are doing that with their Simply Everything plans and (hopefully) will do this with the Pre. But we shall see!
Sol already explained this, so I don't have to.
Sprint is losing all over. If you read reports about them, the wonder is whether they are a viable business.
They would have been a very poor choice for Apple. Palm likely has no choice. They would probably would have preferred Verizon or AT&T at first, but were limited by contract to offer it to Sprint first.
I first went to Sprint years ago because they were the only ones to offer the superior Samsung i300. So Sprint and Palmphones go way back. That's where I got my Treo 700p from as well.
Sorry that I was not specific. I was merely talking about America, or more then one carrier in one country. Like the Blackberry being on every major (and even a lot of minor) carriers.
About how you brought up that more possible customers doesn't add to more customers is just plain stupid. If you can only sell you product to 70 nillion customers (lets just say thats how many ppl in AT&T) -- you can't sell more then 70 million units. Amd we have to assume that the people who wants a iPhone on said network, has one. And that most of the ppl who want an iPhone thats not on said network also has purchased. And you can advertise, try to get ppl to go to AT&T, but that costs a lot of money for ad's, and it may not work. But every network is trying to make an "iPhone", because its a good phone. If Apple brings said good phone to other carriers, then said carriers(in America) wont have to help make new phones: they just have to get the iPhone. Then the ppl who wanted on on, say Sprint/Verizon, who is loyal to their carrier and wont change but still wants an iPhone will get one.
And you love to say that Apple will extend their exclusiveness to AT&T, but every source we have says otherwise. That they are looking for more carriers, that they are thinking about moving their phone to say Verizon Wireless. They might extend it to 2011 -- but thaT would mostly because AT&T has done a lot for Apple and their relationship, just like the relationship Palm and Sprint has and that created a partnership for the Palm Pre.
And you have recived several reasons. Apple can work with the carriers to make better features for the iPhone. It's a good stratagy. It is also so they can work with the carrier and get "free advertisement", because AT&T did advertise that the iPhone is an exclusive for their carrier. That is free ad's for Apple. It also allows them to develop a fan base on a very big network. That way tons of people will have an iPhone and ppl will see it at malls, school, work, and as they see it in action they will want one -- enough to switch to AT&T if that person needs to? Well, a lot of people did that.
However, on a side note, I believe Apple choose the wrong network. Why? AT&T had to improve their network for the iPhone. Sprint would only have to add a new feature (visual voicemail) because their network has been 3G for a while -- and at the time, was faster then the EDGE network and some still swear the Sprint 3G network is faster then the AT&T 3G. But, it worked out OK for them both, and AT&T is a good n etwork (not good enough for me -- I hated Cingluar, and don't like AT&T).
And thanks for answering my question about LTE.
Technically, as I said in my post, yes the Instinct is still an exclusive. Samsung has created many clones with different features (most of the time, the Instinct has better features including battery life then the clones) and these clones are on different networks. So yes, it still is, but it has moved to other networks on some shape or form.
I'm pretty sure that Apple would give this to as many carriers as they could?if the carriers agreed to Apple's needs. But if they don't, then Apple will go with those that will.
Apple does have as many as three carriers in at least one country.
Worse news on the starting to look like the old Palm rollout: only 4 phones per Best Buy, maybe two or three per Radio Shack, courtesy of BGR:
Quote:
One of our most-trusty of ninjas just dropped this bomb in our mailbox ? it?s going to be rough out there on June 6th, folks. We?ve been told that there are only roughly 4,250 Palm Pres that Best Buy stores will be receiving for launch day on June 6th. Scott Anderson of Best Buy Mobile told us there were around 1,000 Best Buy locations that would be selling the Pre, so this leaves us with around 4 units per store. For launch. Incredible, isn?t it?
If true, we really have to figure that the Pre just wasn't ready and Palm decided that they had to do whatever was necessary to get something out before the new iPhone announcement.
1) I didn?t say ?more possible customers doesn't add to more customers?, I said it doesnt? necessarily lead to more sales, though in your defense I should have written profits. In the US you take in consideration higher R&D, packaging, inventory, potential user confusion if Apple plans to sell the handset in their stores, the lack of control with carrier to add services that Apple wants, lower subsidized selling price, and more potential issues are the first things that come to mind.
2) At the time they signed with AT&T/Cingular they were the largest the network in the US. You say Sprint would have been the better choice immediately after you state that the more subscribers the better, yet Sprint was and is number 3.
3) You say that Apple has no reason to extend their contract, but to make another phone for Verizon/Sprint (and I guess another one for T-Mobile?), but you still haven?t answered why they would go to all that effort when they have signed up 80 some countries with a single carrier model well after the device became established, why they are continuing to that with the next 3 countries planned and why the talks of a Chinese iPhone revolve around an exclusivity and Apple controlling their device, which is not an easy thing for China to give to a private company, much less an outsider. Until you have an answer for that, saying that it makes sense for Apple to make a completely new phone for each carrier in the US is bullocks. I understand that CDMA is better than GSM and that AT&T doesn?t have the coverage Verizon does, but look at the big picture, not just the US.
4) Apple wants a lot more control than Visual Voicemail. When you dial 611 on your iPhone in the US you get an option to get accounting or technical assistance. The accounting part is handled by AT&T, of course, but the HW support is handled by Apple in a US-based call center. Verizon would not go for that. There are a lot of services that Verizon would not go for. Google Maps and YouTube come to mind. The only thing I?m surprised about is the lack of more carrier and vendor integration between AT&T and Apple.
5) We can talk about how we would like Apple to do things a certain way to fit our needs or how we would have done things differently than Apple, but that isn?t a smart way to look at it. What you need to do if figure out what Apple, being Apple, will likely do next. Based on the info above I doubt that they would drop AT&T for a more complex setup. If it was just about the unit sales than all these GSM/WCDMA-based countries with multiple carriers would all have the iPhone -AND- Apple wouldn?t have given all these rich updates to the iPhone for free. Even the original iPhone going into its 3rd year of use will be getting OS X 3.0. That is not how make money if you only have a short sided goal of selling a few more units in the current quarter. Remember that Apple is playing a very, very long game.
6) If these exclusivity contracts are so damning to a product why are they still done? Why is the Pre simply not being sold to Sprint and Verizon, both on CDMA? Why are they not making one for each carrier? What about the Storm or the Android or the hundreds of other phones that started out as exclusive but then went to other carriers after the desire faded? For one thing, Apple has released a new model each year so far so the desire hasn?t faded, but there is a lot more to it than that.
To melgross, your right that they will only go to other carriers if they allow them to do their features.
To Sol, I keep answering ur question but u keep saying I am not. So I am going to explain one thing: The reason I believe that Sprint would have made a better choice is not for the number of subscribers, but because of it's technology. Sprint has always had respectable speeds and Apple could have created the Apple 3G first, and not put WiFi in because the EDGE network was slow (and some of that is because AT&T is so big and so vast, that there are more users using it, so it's slower by default). However, as I stated, they did fine with the evil network AT&T (every friend I have had that had them (not prepaid) has been screwed by them, and I know quite a lot of ppl who use(ed) them). I even think Verizon would have been the better choice, and actually, so did Apple. But they were turned down, so they had to make do. But as I said -- it worked out for them.
To Sol, I keep answering ur question but u keep saying I am not. So I am going to explain one thing: The reason I believe that Sprint would have made a better choice is not for the number of subscribers, but because of it's technology. Sprint has always had respectable speeds and Apple could have created the Apple 3G first, and not put WiFi in because the EDGE network was slow (and some of that is because AT&T is so big and so vast, that there are more users using it, so it's slower by default). However, as I stated, they did fine with the evil network AT&T (every friend I have had that had them (not prepaid) has been screwed by them, and I know quite a lot of ppl who use(ed) them). I even think Verizon would have been the better choice, and actually, so did Apple. But they were turned down, so they had to make do. But as I said -- it worked out for them.
1) I don?t recall you answering my questions about why it?s perfectly okay for Apple to release multiple HW versions of the iPhone in the US just to be on multiple carriers despite contractual obligations, but when releasing the same exact device on multiple carriers in other countries it ludicrous, even though it would about 3x the current non-US subscriber potential. Link me to the post please, no need to rewrite it all out again.
2) The iPhone needed WiFi. Why smartphones hadn?t done WiFi before was a bit of a technological crime and something vendors probably had to agree to get their device in carrier stores, since cellphone vendors dont? usually have stores. Sony and Nokia do, but not that many, at least not in the US.
3) I swore that I?d never go back to Cingular. But the iPhone was on AT&T, I gave it shot and it?s been great for nearly two years. I problem I had with Cingular was the phone itself. I would be calling into customer service after I was already peeved. I can now get just under 2Mbps down and 1.4Mbps up in several areas, which the average being above 1Mbps up and down. This is great, I just hope it stays like that after the wave of iPhones hit.
4) Verizon would not have been the best choice. Looking only at coverage or subscribers or any one single aspect is not how you plan a release. Plus, despite Verizon?s CEO stating that they went to them first, which I think is true, I think that Apple most likely used that as leverage against AT&T to get the deal they wanted. I don?t think Apple every really intended to make a CDMA iPhone.
I think they did/doing the same thing with China Unicom which Apple is rumored to be in talks with after negotiations failed with China Mobile, China?s largest carrier with 415 million subscribers. China Unicom recently sold off it?s CDMA and is now completely GSM-based with an upcoming WCDMA network. Unicom has 125M customers and is the 2nd largest Chinese carrier in comparison to the CDMA-based China Mobile. If those 415M and the 125M are so important why even strike a deal with them that gives any control to Apple. That is nearly 550M subscribers right now and they are growing rapidly, so if it?s just about handset sales Apple would have had the iPhone officially selling in China a long time ago. Just because we wouldn?t do business a certain way doesn?t mean that it?s the wrong way to business.
Comments
People who don't know much about these phones, and read this article will come away with the impression that everything he said is true. Actually, he glossed over much of his praise by not explaining exactly how these features work, or exactly what they are.
If, for example, he explained that the apps won't be much more than overblown widgets that are more limited than "real" programs, and likely won't equal the iPhone apps, how would people have voted then?
If he explained that the screen is noticeable smaller, how would people have voted?
If he mentioned that there were complaints that your fingers constantly hit the top part of the phone when you typed using the top row of keys, and it isn't known if they fixed that, how would people have voted?
I don't take that "poll" as being useful.
We?ve seen these polls many times before. Palm does well to hype their device for the past 6 months. they need it and it looks like they?ve spent their advertising budget well, but it?s the actual device that will have to prove itself shortly. Will we see a 50% return rate like with the Storm?
Another thing about these polls is that they will change quickly. Palm is talking up their new device so people are interested in it. I am currently interest in the Pre more than other smartphone right now because I know all about my current iPhone and the next iPhone is just rumours. If they do that poll after June 8th I imagine that things will look differently.
Palm CEO says
"We don't intend to advertise it heavily early on because we think we are going to have shortages for a while. We won't be able to keep up with demand for the device in the early period of time."
So it doesn't look like Palm is going to be able to do much to exploit that little window of mindshare opportunity before Apple announces at WWDC.
Plus, it turns out Best Buy is going to go the instant rebate route, which is good for early Pre buyers but bad for a nice clean rollout that's on message.
Way back when there was talk of how Palm's management seemed to be, uh, underwhelming, and that there was the possibility that they would simply fuck up the Pre introduction.
The rushed to market feel of (barely) beating Apple, extremely constrained initial supplies with not much advertising and an inconsistent effective sell price are not good.
There's a reason Palm has fallen on hard times. They are not a well managed company. The Foleo fiasco wasn't that long ago.
It's great that Palm hired a bunch of Apple engineers who built them what appears to be a nice phone. But unless they can execute on selling the thing it will be for naught.
People assume that it always works like Apple-- that if you make the next insanely great thing the world will beat a path to your door-- but it's easy to forget what a relentless marketing machine Apple is, and how well choreographed the iPhone rollout was.
Palm is a company on the brink, and it's been generally acknowledged that they pretty much have to do everything perfectly to buy the time they need to recover. If they've already managed to screw up some particulars, well before the Pre is even out the door, that does not bode well at all.
This doesn't seem helpful: Pre to be in short supply initially.
Palm CEO says
"We don't intend to advertise it heavily early on because we think we are going to have shortages for a while. We won't be able to keep up with demand for the device in the early period of time."
That is a load of bull. They have advertising the crap out of it, and rightly so. It definitely peaked interest and their semi-truthful marketing is working. Now all they have to do is make the product work as advertised and within expectations when it arrives.
That is a load of bull. They have advertising the crap out of it, and rightly so. It definitely peaked interest and their semi-truthful marketing is working. Now all they have to do is make the product work as advertised and within expectations when it arrives.
Are you saying that you don't think the Pre will actually be supply constrained? Seems like a weird thing to say, if not. And if it is, they really don't want to drive a frenzy, because if they run out right away and can't resupply it'll be some bad publicity where they really don't need it.
As far as advertising goes, outside of internet tech buzz, I haven't seen much at all. I always find it hard to distinguish between the kinds of things that seem prominent, to me, because of my surfing habits, and what "average" people (whoever that is) are aware of, but that's my impression.
At this point in the original iPhone launch there was widespread awareness of the product and it's capacities. I don't think it's true that "widespread awareness" really applies to the Pre.
It's just anecdotal, but everyone in my (completely nontechnical) family had at least some passing awareness and interest in the iPhone in the weeks before its release. Not a one of them are even aware such thing as a Pre exists.
Are you saying that you don't think the Pre will actually be supply constrained? Seems like a weird thing to say, if not. And if it is, they really don't want to drive a frenzy, because if they run out right away and can't resupply it'll be some bad publicity where they really don't need it.
As far as advertising goes, outside of internet tech buzz, I haven't seen much at all. I always find it hard to distinguish between the kinds of things that seem prominent, to me, because of my surfing habits, and what "average" people (whoever that is) are aware of, but that's my impression.
At this point in the original iPhone launch there was widespread awareness of the product and it's capacities. I don't think it's true that "widespread awareness" really applies to the Pre.
It's just anecdotal, but everyone in my (completely nontechnical) family had at least some passing awareness and interest in the iPhone in the weeks before its release. Not a one of them are even aware such thing as a Pre exists.
Other than internet advertisements, the only ad I've seen for the Pre has been an ad for Sprint and their 4g network mainly. They featured it but never really addressed it.
The limited supply of Pre's doesn't surprise me. Palm's in a bad spot financially, so taking a conservative route for it's premiere seems logical. Besides that, since it's the first build group of the very first generation, odds are defective units might be higher at first while they iron out the kinks. First adopters of the Instinct or Touch Pro (both from Sprint) know what I'm talking about. I bet marketing research shows an identifiable pattern in any device where the number of defective units are highest after the initial launch (even the iphone.)
Are you saying that you don't think the Pre will actually be supply constrained? Seems like a weird thing to say, if not. And if it is, they really don't want to drive a frenzy, because if they run out right away and can't resupply it'll be some bad publicity where they really don't need it.
As far as advertising goes, outside of internet tech buzz, I haven't seen much at all. I always find it hard to distinguish between the kinds of things that seem prominent, to me, because of my surfing habits, and what "average" people (whoever that is) are aware of, but that's my impression.
At this point in the original iPhone launch there was widespread awareness of the product and it's capacities. I don't think it's true that "widespread awareness" really applies to the Pre.
It's just anecdotal, but everyone in my (completely nontechnical) family had at least some passing awareness and interest in the iPhone in the weeks before its release. Not a one of them are even aware such thing as a Pre exists.
The first time I saw the Pre demoed in a video at CES 2009 back in January, then on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon back in March. I?ve seen it on at least one other talk show and their viral campaigning seems extensive. It?s their best play and they seem to be doing well with it. I don?t think the word-of-mouth hype is anywhere near the iPhone?s level but I think they have been trying, and rightly so.
As for constrained supplies isn?t every in limited supply? How many they sell right away, I don?t know. It?s a marketing move to increase the appearance of desire for a product which will in turn crease real desire by making an item hard to find. I know I want what I can?t have.
The first time I saw the Pre demoed in a video at CES 2009 back in January, then on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon back in March. I’ve seen it on at least one other talk show and their viral campaigning seems extensive. It’s their best play and they seem to be doing well with it. I don’t think the word-of-mouth hype is anywhere near the iPhone’s level but I think they have been trying, and rightly so.
As for constrained supplies isn’t every in limited supply? How many they sell right away, I don’t know. It’s a marketing move to increase the appearance of desire for a product which will in turn crease real desire by making an item hard to find. I know I want what I can’t have.
Sounds to me like they've done some scattershot product placement and a bit of "viral" stuff, but nothing like the kind of relentless drumbeat we might have expected. Why dick around with a little stealth exposure when you could, you know, advertise? And why haven't they sent out unchaperoned units for independent review?
Maybe Palm actually doesn't have the cash on hand to make big ad buys, buts that's a problem, not a strategy.
As far as artificial constraints, yes, it's a marketing technique, but the CEO is saying only 30,000 at launch, which sound less like a plan and more like they just barely got the thing out the door, which makes me wonder how finished it is. Again, the fact that less than three weeks before launch they still haven't allowed reviewers to spend any real time with a Pre seems like a warning sign, to me.
Of course, we'll see for ourselves soon enough, and maybe all will be well. Maybe the Pre will totally live up to the hype, buyers will be ecstatic, and the word of mouth will be good enough to keep potential switchers hanging on until the manufacturing chain can get ironed out.
But that's a lot of ifs, and Palm doesn't have a lot of margin for error.
As far as artificial constraints, yes, it's a marketing technique, but the CEO is saying only 30,000 at launch, which sound less like a plan and more like they just barely got the thing out the door, which makes me wonder how finished it is. Again, the fact that less than three weeks before launch they still haven't allowed reviewers to spend any real time with a Pre seems like a warning sign, to me.
30,000 is a soft launch. Effectively it's a beta product because even Palm can afford to launch with more than 30K units if they had any confidence it wouldn't faceplant in large numbers. Christ...there must be some folks really sweating bullets over there.
You're missing a point about Apple's exclusive contract with AT&T.
Apple needed an exclusive contract with a company that was willing to allow Apple to do what they thought they needed to do. AT&T was willing to allow that. But in return AT&T needed the exclusivity. If Apple wouldn't give them that, why would they have bothered to build out their network, re-work their software for Apple's Visual E-mail, and give them the right to build an app store that they got nothing out of, as well as allow them to sell music and ringtones, again, without getting anything for it?
No other network anywhere around the world had allowed all this to any other manufacturer. Some of it, no one else had even thought of doing!
Apple broke the unwritten contract between cell phone manufacturers and cell network providers. They revolutionized the industry. And that's not overestimating what happened.
AT&T needed a several year deal for them to make back the enormous amount of money they had to spend in order to make this work, plus a good enough amount of profit.
But all deals end. This isn't a 20 year contract, a 10 year contract, and likely not a 5 year contract. Maybe just a 3 year contract, which seems reasonable.
Possibly now, AT&T wishes it was a 5 year, or longer contract.
But in 2010, though more likely 2011 to 2012, when LTE is established across the country, we'll see Verizon withthe iPhone as well.
Sprint seems to be going in another direction entirely, which isn't a good thing for them. If they continue on that path, they will be shut out of most phones that they would want and need.
The truth is that with both AT&T and Verizon using LTE, it will put both Sprint and T-Mobile in a corner.
It will do irreparable damage to both their businesses.
Palm, on the other hand, has a (short?) exclusive contract with a company that bleeding customers. Not the best of all possible worlds. You can bet that they wish it was otherwise, but likely, they had no choice.
As I said earlier, if the Pre doesn't sell enough within the time it's exclusive to Sprint, what will happen to a deal with Verizon? If sales blister, Verizon will want it, but if they blow, they might not. They might take it anyway, but at what cost to Palm?
Yes, all of what you said is true (as i said, there are tons of reasons, benefiting both carrier and the handset creator, that i didn't outline). However, you all ready admitted that I am right -- it is unwise and not good business practice to keep a phone such as the iPhone on one carrier. Such as, the iPhone will, sooner rather than later, go to other carriers. More customers possible, means more sales.
However, what you said about Sprint -- I don't completely understand. What is Sprint doing that is "bad" and what is "LTE?" Furthermore, Palm's phone will sell. There are a lot of people on other sites that have said they will switch for the Pre. That doesn't always translate into sales, but the $200 price tag will help to get those expectant customers into actual paying customers. And if a phone such as the Instinct can sell well on the Sprint network, then so can the pre -- which is from a better company and is a better phone.
Also, you and others love to say Sprint is "bleeding customers", which is very true, but it's mostly from the Nextel division because companies are cutting back and not paying for the Nextel service, so Sprint looses customers. Part of that 49+ million customers are business like college campuses all over the US that pay for Nextel's Direct Connect service. So what Sprint has to do is get more regular customers to join -- and they are doing that with their Simply Everything plans and (hopefully) will do this with the Pre. But we shall see!
Yes, all of what you said is true (as i said, there are tons of reasons, benefiting both carrier and the handset creator, that i didn't outline). However, you all ready admitted that I am right -- it is unwise and not good business practice to keep a phone such as the iPhone on one carrier. Such as, the iPhone will, sooner rather than later, go to other carriers. More customers possible, means more sales.
It already has. It?s in 80 countries and, as i recall, about 60 carriers. What you are saying is that it has to go to different carriers within the same market, but that isn?t necessarily true and neither is your statement about more carriers would equal more customers which would equal more sales. Those statements are ONLY true if you have a limited view of the cellphone market. Apple is not doing what others did in the past. They are specifically tying themselves to carriers and requiring them to tweak their network for their needs. This is not simply about getting higher subsidization price from the network while it?s still exclusive.
I?ll ask this again, yet I have yet to get an answer: If the carrier exclusivity is such a poor decision for Apple why have they continued to do it with every country that will legally allow it and are continuing to offer exclusivity. Note that these other countries are almost all GSM-based, which means it would not require different HW in any way, shape or form, unlike the US which does require a different device which not only adds to R&D but adds to inventory and consumer confusion.
However, what you said about Sprint -- I don't completely understand. What is Sprint doing that is "bad" and what is "LTE?" Furthermore, Palm's phone will sell. There are a lot of people on other sites that have said they will switch for the Pre. That doesn't always translate into sales, but the $200 price tag will help to get those expectant customers into actual paying customers. And if a phone such as the Instinct can sell well on the Sprint network, then so can the pre -- which is from a better company and is a better phone.
LTE is 3GPP?s 4G standard. It?s fast, a lot faster than WiMAX and it won?t in cellphones for many years. Not that it matter since WCDMA(3G) has a lot more room to grow (42Mbps down/22Mbps up) before it obsolesces. the real benefit in the US is that all carriers will be able to use the same radios.
There is no way to see how well the Pre will do in this changed market. The Verizon BB Storm sold well but then reportedly had a 50% return rate. That isn?t good. You have to advertise to entice the customer, then make the sale, and then they have to keep the sale. The iPhone and other BBs seems to do very in this department. I?m figure Nokia does, too, but they aren?t popular enough in the US for me to certify it as a anecdotal statement.
The Pre?s rebate will put many people. A 50% higher out of pocket price than the iPhone and other devices will be a deterant, but I don?t expect that to last, anyway.
The Samsung Instinct is a perfect example of a well marketed failure. Is that phone still exclusive to Sprint?
It already has. It’s in 80 countries and, as i recall, about 60 carriers. What you are saying is that it has to go to different carriers within the same market, but that isn’t necessarily true and neither is your statement about more carriers would equal more customers which would equal more sales. Those statements are ONLY true if you have a limited view of the cellphone market. Apple is not doing what others did in the past. They are specifically tying themselves to carriers and requiring them to tweak their network for their needs. This is not simply about getting higher subsidization price from the network while it’s still exclusive.
I’ll ask this again, yet I have yet to get an answer: If the carrier exclusivity is such a poor decision for Apple why have they continued to do it with every country that will legally allow it and are continuing to offer exclusivity. Note that these other countries are almost all GSM-based, which means it would not require different HW in any way, shape or form, unlike the US which does require a different device which not only adds to R&D but adds to inventory and consumer confusion.
LTE is 3GPP’s 4G standard. It’s fast, a lot faster than WiMAX and it won’t in cellphones for many years. Not that it matter since WCDMA(3G) has a lot more room to grow (42Mbps down/22Mbps up) before it obsolesces. the real benefit in the US is that all carriers will be able to use the same radios.
There is no way to see how well the Pre will do in this changed market. The Verizon BB Storm sold well but then reportedly had a 50% return rate. That isn’t good. You have to advertise to entice the customer, then make the sale, and then they have to keep the sale. The iPhone and other BBs seems to do very in this department. I’m figure Nokia does, too, but they aren’t popular enough in the US for me to certify it as a anecdotal statement.
The Pre’s rebate will put many people. A 50% higher out of pocket price than the iPhone and other devices will be a deterant, but I don’t expect that to last, anyway.
The Samsung Instinct is a perfect example of a well marketed failure. Is that phone still exclusive to Sprint?
Sorry that I was not specific. I was merely talking about America, or more then one carrier in one country. Like the Blackberry being on every major (and even a lot of minor) carriers.
About how you brought up that more possible customers doesn't add to more customers is just plain stupid. If you can only sell you product to 70 nillion customers (lets just say thats how many ppl in AT&T) -- you can't sell more then 70 million units. Amd we have to assume that the people who wants a iPhone on said network, has one. And that most of the ppl who want an iPhone thats not on said network also has purchased. And you can advertise, try to get ppl to go to AT&T, but that costs a lot of money for ad's, and it may not work. But every network is trying to make an "iPhone", because its a good phone. If Apple brings said good phone to other carriers, then said carriers(in America) wont have to help make new phones: they just have to get the iPhone. Then the ppl who wanted on on, say Sprint/Verizon, who is loyal to their carrier and wont change but still wants an iPhone will get one.
And you love to say that Apple will extend their exclusiveness to AT&T, but every source we have says otherwise. That they are looking for more carriers, that they are thinking about moving their phone to say Verizon Wireless. They might extend it to 2011 -- but thaT would mostly because AT&T has done a lot for Apple and their relationship, just like the relationship Palm and Sprint has and that created a partnership for the Palm Pre.
And you have recived several reasons. Apple can work with the carriers to make better features for the iPhone. It's a good stratagy. It is also so they can work with the carrier and get "free advertisement", because AT&T did advertise that the iPhone is an exclusive for their carrier. That is free ad's for Apple. It also allows them to develop a fan base on a very big network. That way tons of people will have an iPhone and ppl will see it at malls, school, work, and as they see it in action they will want one -- enough to switch to AT&T if that person needs to? Well, a lot of people did that.
However, on a side note, I believe Apple choose the wrong network. Why? AT&T had to improve their network for the iPhone. Sprint would only have to add a new feature (visual voicemail) because their network has been 3G for a while -- and at the time, was faster then the EDGE network and some still swear the Sprint 3G network is faster then the AT&T 3G. But, it worked out OK for them both, and AT&T is a good n etwork (not good enough for me -- I hated Cingluar, and don't like AT&T).
And thanks for answering my question about LTE.
Technically, as I said in my post, yes the Instinct is still an exclusive. Samsung has created many clones with different features (most of the time, the Instinct has better features including battery life then the clones) and these clones are on different networks. So yes, it still is, but it has moved to other networks on some shape or form.
Sorry that I was not specific. I was merely talking about America, or more then one carrier in one country. Like the Blackberry being on every major (and even a lot of minor) carriers.
About how you brought up that more possible customers doesn't add to more customers is just plain stupid. If you can only sell you product to 70 nillion customers (lets just say thats how many ppl in AT&T) -- you can't sell more then 70 million units. Amd we have to assume that the people who wants a iPhone on said network, has one. And that most of the ppl who want an iPhone thats not on said network also has purchased. And you can advertise, try to get ppl to go to AT&T, but that costs a lot of money for ad's, and it may not work. But every network is trying to make an "iPhone", because its a good phone. If Apple brings said good phone to other carriers, then said carriers(in America) wont have to help make new phones: they just have to get the iPhone. Then the ppl who wanted on on, say Sprint/Verizon, who is loyal to their carrier and wont change but still wants an iPhone will get one.
And you love to say that Apple will extend their exclusiveness to AT&T, but every source we have says otherwise. That they are looking for more carriers, that they are thinking about moving their phone to say Verizon Wireless. They might extend it to 2011 -- but thaT would mostly because AT&T has done a lot for Apple and their relationship, just like the relationship Palm and Sprint has and that created a partnership for the Palm Pre.
And you have recived several reasons. Apple can work with the carriers to make better features for the iPhone. It's a good stratagy. It is also so they can work with the carrier and get "free advertisement", because AT&T did advertise that the iPhone is an exclusive for their carrier. That is free ad's for Apple. It also allows them to develop a fan base on a very big network. That way tons of people will have an iPhone and ppl will see it at malls, school, work, and as they see it in action they will want one -- enough to switch to AT&T if that person needs to? Well, a lot of people did that.
However, on a side note, I believe Apple choose the wrong network. Why? AT&T had to improve their network for the iPhone. Sprint would only have to add a new feature (visual voicemail) because their network has been 3G for a while -- and at the time, was faster then the EDGE network and some still swear the Sprint 3G network is faster then the AT&T 3G. But, it worked out OK for them both, and AT&T is a good n etwork (not good enough for me -- I hated Cingluar, and don't like AT&T).
And thanks for answering my question about LTE.
1) I didn?t say ?more possible customers doesn't add to more customers?, I said it doesnt? necessarily lead to more sales, though in your defense I should have written profits. In the US you take in consideration higher R&D, packaging, inventory, potential user confusion if Apple plans to sell the handset in their stores, the lack of control with carrier to add services that Apple wants, lower subsidized selling price, and more potential issues are the first things that come to mind.
2) At the time they signed with AT&T/Cingular they were the largest the network in the US. You say Sprint would have been the better choice immediately after you state that the more subscribers the better, yet Sprint was and is number 3.
3) You say that Apple has no reason to extend their contract, but to make another phone for Verizon/Sprint (and I guess another one for T-Mobile?), but you still haven?t answered why they would go to all that effort when they have signed up 80 some countries with a single carrier model well after the device became established, why they are continuing to that with the next 3 countries planned and why the talks of a Chinese iPhone revolve around an exclusivity and Apple controlling their device, which is not an easy thing for China to give to a private company, much less an outsider. Until you have an answer for that, saying that it makes sense for Apple to make a completely new phone for each carrier in the US is bullocks. I understand that CDMA is better than GSM and that AT&T doesn?t have the coverage Verizon does, but look at the big picture, not just the US.
4) Apple wants a lot more control than Visual Voicemail. When you dial 611 on your iPhone in the US you get an option to get accounting or technical assistance. The accounting part is handled by AT&T, of course, but the HW support is handled by Apple in a US-based call center. Verizon would not go for that. There are a lot of services that Verizon would not go for. Google Maps and YouTube come to mind. The only thing I?m surprised about is the lack of more carrier and vendor integration between AT&T and Apple.
5) We can talk about how we would like Apple to do things a certain way to fit our needs or how we would have done things differently than Apple, but that isn?t a smart way to look at it. What you need to do if figure out what Apple, being Apple, will likely do next. Based on the info above I doubt that they would drop AT&T for a more complex setup. If it was just about the unit sales than all these GSM/WCDMA-based countries with multiple carriers would all have the iPhone -AND- Apple wouldn?t have given all these rich updates to the iPhone for free. Even the original iPhone going into its 3rd year of use will be getting OS X 3.0. That is not how make money if you only have a short sided goal of selling a few more units in the current quarter. Remember that Apple is playing a very, very long game.
6) If these exclusivity contracts are so damning to a product why are they still done? Why is the Pre simply not being sold to Sprint and Verizon, both on CDMA? Why are they not making one for each carrier? What about the Storm or the Android or the hundreds of other phones that started out as exclusive but then went to other carriers after the desire faded? For one thing, Apple has released a new model each year so far so the desire hasn?t faded, but there is a lot more to it than that.
Sounds to me like they've done some scattershot product placement and a bit of "viral" stuff, but nothing like the kind of relentless drumbeat we might have expected. Why dick around with a little stealth exposure when you could, you know, advertise? And why haven't they sent out unchaperoned units for independent review?
Maybe Palm actually doesn't have the cash on hand to make big ad buys, buts that's a problem, not a strategy.
As far as artificial constraints, yes, it's a marketing technique, but the CEO is saying only 30,000 at launch, which sound less like a plan and more like they just barely got the thing out the door, which makes me wonder how finished it is. Again, the fact that less than three weeks before launch they still haven't allowed reviewers to spend any real time with a Pre seems like a warning sign, to me.
Of course, we'll see for ourselves soon enough, and maybe all will be well. Maybe the Pre will totally live up to the hype, buyers will be ecstatic, and the word of mouth will be good enough to keep potential switchers hanging on until the manufacturing chain can get ironed out.
But that's a lot of ifs, and Palm doesn't have a lot of margin for error.
Palm, like Apple, is getting a hundred million in free publicity with this phone. That means they don't have to spend as much, which is good for them because, unlike Apple these days, they really can't afford it.
But when you give your publicity over to uncontrolled elements, you may have the problem of them going overboard, causing expectations to rise so high that they can't be met.
Of course, when your own CEO makes those kind of statements, and then has to be cut down by the legal department, you can't entirely blame the blogisphere either.
30,000 is a soft launch. Effectively it's a beta product because even Palm can afford to launch with more than 30K units if they had any confidence it wouldn't faceplant in large numbers. Christ...there must be some folks really sweating bullets over there.
If that number is correct, then it's crazy!
I expect the phone to sell well enough in the beginning so that that number would mean they'll run out of them the first day or so.
Either they have much lower expectations of sales than they are leading us to believe, or the number is wrong, or they're having major production screw-ups of some kind.
Yes, all of what you said is true (as i said, there are tons of reasons, benefiting both carrier and the handset creator, that i didn't outline). However, you all ready admitted that I am right -- it is unwise and not good business practice to keep a phone such as the iPhone on one carrier. Such as, the iPhone will, sooner rather than later, go to other carriers. More customers possible, means more sales.
In the beginning, Apple NEEDED to have one willing carrier, so that they could show off the features of their wares. Offering it to several carriers would have resulted in Apple having no leverage over any of them.
But now it's different. They should, and are trying to get it to as many carriers as possible. But they still have requirements that they shouldn't give in on, and that sometimes makes negotiations difficult.
We expected the phone to be in China by now, but the carriers are giving Apple a hard time. China mobile for example, wants to run the App Store, determine what gets to sell, and take the profits. No way Apple can allow that. They also want Apple to remove WiFi and 3G. That MAY be negotiable.
However, what you said about Sprint -- I don't completely understand. What is Sprint doing that is "bad" and what is "LTE?" Furthermore, Palm's phone will sell. There are a lot of people on other sites that have said they will switch for the Pre. That doesn't always translate into sales, but the $200 price tag will help to get those expectant customers into actual paying customers. And if a phone such as the Instinct can sell well on the Sprint network, then so can the pre -- which is from a better company and is a better phone.
Also, you and others love to say Sprint is "bleeding customers", which is very true, but it's mostly from the Nextel division because companies are cutting back and not paying for the Nextel service, so Sprint looses customers. Part of that 49+ million customers are business like college campuses all over the US that pay for Nextel's Direct Connect service. So what Sprint has to do is get more regular customers to join -- and they are doing that with their Simply Everything plans and (hopefully) will do this with the Pre. But we shall see!
Sol already explained this, so I don't have to.
Sprint is losing all over. If you read reports about them, the wonder is whether they are a viable business.
They would have been a very poor choice for Apple. Palm likely has no choice. They would probably would have preferred Verizon or AT&T at first, but were limited by contract to offer it to Sprint first.
I first went to Sprint years ago because they were the only ones to offer the superior Samsung i300. So Sprint and Palmphones go way back. That's where I got my Treo 700p from as well.
But now I'm with AT&T.
Sorry that I was not specific. I was merely talking about America, or more then one carrier in one country. Like the Blackberry being on every major (and even a lot of minor) carriers.
About how you brought up that more possible customers doesn't add to more customers is just plain stupid. If you can only sell you product to 70 nillion customers (lets just say thats how many ppl in AT&T) -- you can't sell more then 70 million units. Amd we have to assume that the people who wants a iPhone on said network, has one. And that most of the ppl who want an iPhone thats not on said network also has purchased. And you can advertise, try to get ppl to go to AT&T, but that costs a lot of money for ad's, and it may not work. But every network is trying to make an "iPhone", because its a good phone. If Apple brings said good phone to other carriers, then said carriers(in America) wont have to help make new phones: they just have to get the iPhone. Then the ppl who wanted on on, say Sprint/Verizon, who is loyal to their carrier and wont change but still wants an iPhone will get one.
And you love to say that Apple will extend their exclusiveness to AT&T, but every source we have says otherwise. That they are looking for more carriers, that they are thinking about moving their phone to say Verizon Wireless. They might extend it to 2011 -- but thaT would mostly because AT&T has done a lot for Apple and their relationship, just like the relationship Palm and Sprint has and that created a partnership for the Palm Pre.
And you have recived several reasons. Apple can work with the carriers to make better features for the iPhone. It's a good stratagy. It is also so they can work with the carrier and get "free advertisement", because AT&T did advertise that the iPhone is an exclusive for their carrier. That is free ad's for Apple. It also allows them to develop a fan base on a very big network. That way tons of people will have an iPhone and ppl will see it at malls, school, work, and as they see it in action they will want one -- enough to switch to AT&T if that person needs to? Well, a lot of people did that.
However, on a side note, I believe Apple choose the wrong network. Why? AT&T had to improve their network for the iPhone. Sprint would only have to add a new feature (visual voicemail) because their network has been 3G for a while -- and at the time, was faster then the EDGE network and some still swear the Sprint 3G network is faster then the AT&T 3G. But, it worked out OK for them both, and AT&T is a good n etwork (not good enough for me -- I hated Cingluar, and don't like AT&T).
And thanks for answering my question about LTE.
Technically, as I said in my post, yes the Instinct is still an exclusive. Samsung has created many clones with different features (most of the time, the Instinct has better features including battery life then the clones) and these clones are on different networks. So yes, it still is, but it has moved to other networks on some shape or form.
I'm pretty sure that Apple would give this to as many carriers as they could?if the carriers agreed to Apple's needs. But if they don't, then Apple will go with those that will.
Apple does have as many as three carriers in at least one country.
One of our most-trusty of ninjas just dropped this bomb in our mailbox ? it?s going to be rough out there on June 6th, folks. We?ve been told that there are only roughly 4,250 Palm Pres that Best Buy stores will be receiving for launch day on June 6th. Scott Anderson of Best Buy Mobile told us there were around 1,000 Best Buy locations that would be selling the Pre, so this leaves us with around 4 units per store. For launch. Incredible, isn?t it?
If true, we really have to figure that the Pre just wasn't ready and Palm decided that they had to do whatever was necessary to get something out before the new iPhone announcement.
1) I didn?t say ?more possible customers doesn't add to more customers?, I said it doesnt? necessarily lead to more sales, though in your defense I should have written profits. In the US you take in consideration higher R&D, packaging, inventory, potential user confusion if Apple plans to sell the handset in their stores, the lack of control with carrier to add services that Apple wants, lower subsidized selling price, and more potential issues are the first things that come to mind.
2) At the time they signed with AT&T/Cingular they were the largest the network in the US. You say Sprint would have been the better choice immediately after you state that the more subscribers the better, yet Sprint was and is number 3.
3) You say that Apple has no reason to extend their contract, but to make another phone for Verizon/Sprint (and I guess another one for T-Mobile?), but you still haven?t answered why they would go to all that effort when they have signed up 80 some countries with a single carrier model well after the device became established, why they are continuing to that with the next 3 countries planned and why the talks of a Chinese iPhone revolve around an exclusivity and Apple controlling their device, which is not an easy thing for China to give to a private company, much less an outsider. Until you have an answer for that, saying that it makes sense for Apple to make a completely new phone for each carrier in the US is bullocks. I understand that CDMA is better than GSM and that AT&T doesn?t have the coverage Verizon does, but look at the big picture, not just the US.
4) Apple wants a lot more control than Visual Voicemail. When you dial 611 on your iPhone in the US you get an option to get accounting or technical assistance. The accounting part is handled by AT&T, of course, but the HW support is handled by Apple in a US-based call center. Verizon would not go for that. There are a lot of services that Verizon would not go for. Google Maps and YouTube come to mind. The only thing I?m surprised about is the lack of more carrier and vendor integration between AT&T and Apple.
5) We can talk about how we would like Apple to do things a certain way to fit our needs or how we would have done things differently than Apple, but that isn?t a smart way to look at it. What you need to do if figure out what Apple, being Apple, will likely do next. Based on the info above I doubt that they would drop AT&T for a more complex setup. If it was just about the unit sales than all these GSM/WCDMA-based countries with multiple carriers would all have the iPhone -AND- Apple wouldn?t have given all these rich updates to the iPhone for free. Even the original iPhone going into its 3rd year of use will be getting OS X 3.0. That is not how make money if you only have a short sided goal of selling a few more units in the current quarter. Remember that Apple is playing a very, very long game.
6) If these exclusivity contracts are so damning to a product why are they still done? Why is the Pre simply not being sold to Sprint and Verizon, both on CDMA? Why are they not making one for each carrier? What about the Storm or the Android or the hundreds of other phones that started out as exclusive but then went to other carriers after the desire faded? For one thing, Apple has released a new model each year so far so the desire hasn?t faded, but there is a lot more to it than that.
To melgross, your right that they will only go to other carriers if they allow them to do their features.
To Sol, I keep answering ur question but u keep saying I am not. So I am going to explain one thing: The reason I believe that Sprint would have made a better choice is not for the number of subscribers, but because of it's technology. Sprint has always had respectable speeds and Apple could have created the Apple 3G first, and not put WiFi in because the EDGE network was slow (and some of that is because AT&T is so big and so vast, that there are more users using it, so it's slower by default). However, as I stated, they did fine with the evil network AT&T (every friend I have had that had them (not prepaid) has been screwed by them, and I know quite a lot of ppl who use(ed) them). I even think Verizon would have been the better choice, and actually, so did Apple. But they were turned down, so they had to make do. But as I said -- it worked out for them.
To Sol, I keep answering ur question but u keep saying I am not. So I am going to explain one thing: The reason I believe that Sprint would have made a better choice is not for the number of subscribers, but because of it's technology. Sprint has always had respectable speeds and Apple could have created the Apple 3G first, and not put WiFi in because the EDGE network was slow (and some of that is because AT&T is so big and so vast, that there are more users using it, so it's slower by default). However, as I stated, they did fine with the evil network AT&T (every friend I have had that had them (not prepaid) has been screwed by them, and I know quite a lot of ppl who use(ed) them). I even think Verizon would have been the better choice, and actually, so did Apple. But they were turned down, so they had to make do. But as I said -- it worked out for them.
1) I don?t recall you answering my questions about why it?s perfectly okay for Apple to release multiple HW versions of the iPhone in the US just to be on multiple carriers despite contractual obligations, but when releasing the same exact device on multiple carriers in other countries it ludicrous, even though it would about 3x the current non-US subscriber potential. Link me to the post please, no need to rewrite it all out again.
2) The iPhone needed WiFi. Why smartphones hadn?t done WiFi before was a bit of a technological crime and something vendors probably had to agree to get their device in carrier stores, since cellphone vendors dont? usually have stores. Sony and Nokia do, but not that many, at least not in the US.
3) I swore that I?d never go back to Cingular. But the iPhone was on AT&T, I gave it shot and it?s been great for nearly two years. I problem I had with Cingular was the phone itself. I would be calling into customer service after I was already peeved. I can now get just under 2Mbps down and 1.4Mbps up in several areas, which the average being above 1Mbps up and down. This is great, I just hope it stays like that after the wave of iPhones hit.
4) Verizon would not have been the best choice. Looking only at coverage or subscribers or any one single aspect is not how you plan a release. Plus, despite Verizon?s CEO stating that they went to them first, which I think is true, I think that Apple most likely used that as leverage against AT&T to get the deal they wanted. I don?t think Apple every really intended to make a CDMA iPhone.
I think they did/doing the same thing with China Unicom which Apple is rumored to be in talks with after negotiations failed with China Mobile, China?s largest carrier with 415 million subscribers. China Unicom recently sold off it?s CDMA and is now completely GSM-based with an upcoming WCDMA network. Unicom has 125M customers and is the 2nd largest Chinese carrier in comparison to the CDMA-based China Mobile. If those 415M and the 125M are so important why even strike a deal with them that gives any control to Apple. That is nearly 550M subscribers right now and they are growing rapidly, so if it?s just about handset sales Apple would have had the iPhone officially selling in China a long time ago. Just because we wouldn?t do business a certain way doesn?t mean that it?s the wrong way to business.