That is not likely to happen. Apple is making exclusive deals with a single carrier in every country that allows it. It has nothing to do with radio type since most countries are completely they enter are completely GSM-based. Part of Apple?s plan requires some control over the carrier.
Motorola is a perfect example as to how market-share and free for all in sales can destroy your product. Motorola hasn?t been doing very well as of late and there appears to be no recovery in sight.
The push and pull demands for distribution is always dependent upon control of any expansion. Apple will have to address expansion at some point if they want to sell to the masses - or a notch below where they sit now. Obviously, anyone who wants a smart phone in a year or two will be able to get one for much less than they are selling for now. At this time, competition is not pushing the absolute need to do so. However, If the product line is ready to expand to other markets (lower price = expanded distribution) the ATT contract (and other exclusives) will not meet the demand potential of that lower priced expansion. This is why exclusives always collapse with expanded product lines in consumer electronics. Brand, price, economy of scale and life cycle of a product or category all are important factors in recognizing the need or opportunity to expand distribution in order to expand sales.
My take is that the ipod example will serve apple well in the near future if not this year. They will expand their phone line to meet price points where more business can be achieved. it is the dogma of consumer electronics in general.. reduced price comes with factors mentioned above and others in the marketing mix. i expect a less expensive phone to hit the streets soon. It will take the wind out of competition is the primary reason for doing it. It protects what "IS" and it takes what as of today "isn't" Apple can be two years ahead of some who haven't even thought about a low priced smart phone yet. Apple has economy of scale in purchasing large quantities of everything. Only the big will be able to compete with for major sales numbers of a phone category like smart phones. This will push Rimm, Palm and others back where they belong in the race and keep apple out front.. To do this they will have to eventually open some (low priced smart phone) if not all products up to more customers. The idea that ATT will be a lone distributor.. when expansion of distribution (best buy for example) is already in place is a reason to stay where they are for now. However, the services of VZ are so strong in some markets that Apple will not be able to ignore that sales opportunity for far into the future. I want them to do it now - as expansion specifically to one more network will be far more productive than destructive at this stage of an open ended product cycle. Where would mercedes be if you could only buy a 500 series 6.3 for $120,000 is a simple example. The phone (car) business is enormous. But, VZ for example, i understand will not be ready with format computability until 2011. that will be just fine too - if not a little late for an ideal expansion to another network of service providers in the USA.
No seriously. If they cut them off now it will create tons of bad press and lawsuits. If they allow it to remain they shoot themself in the foot and set precedence. They should have cut it off before it was able to even get acknowledged.
What would Microsoft do? Introduce some tricky code that makes the competitor's product seem extremely buggy.
It seems quite logical. The iPhone, like the Palm Pre, require a data plan because the subsidized cost of the handset is much higher than other phones. For AT&T or Sprint to not require a $30/month unlimited plan for said devices would mean a higher initial cost. AT&T doesn't sell the phone contract-free but other countries do, and the price is much greater than the $200 subsidation of typical higher-end phones without data plans. There is some evidence that the unsibsudized Palm Pre is $850, yet it's still locked to Sprint and would presumably still require the $70/month minimum plan unless you can trick Sprint by switching SIM cards from a phone with a SERO plan.
wow, thank you. Somebody else who is able to logically follow somebody's argument.
I'm agreeing with TS, so grab a bucket and see if it's raining beer, but here goes. I don't need to use every app everywhere. I'm getting my work done just fine with a Samsung 737 and an IPT - but that's two things. I don't text. I don't need to shop for ringtones or wallpapers on the ATT mall or whatever the default buttons do that always needs phone data. I have no problem only getting my email and surfing when I can get a WiFi signal, and I could then keep my reasonable cell plan and have just one thing to carry. And 3G is NG at work and home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTL215
why would anybody get an iPhone if you don't want the data? That's the whole point of the iPhone. If you just want a basic phone and an ipod, then buy a basic phone and an iPod.
No seriously. If they cut them off now it will create tons of bad press and lawsuits. If they allow it to remain they shoot themself in the foot and set precedence. They should have cut it off before it was able to even get acknowledged.
Since no one will have one, other than you, I don't think it will be a big issue.
How could anyone justify a lawsuit???
Also: iTunes is free, can someone be sued over a free product, in this situation.
I'd love to see that the data revenues are the deal breaker, then it would be clear. Where is this info?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTL215
Why is it so hard for some pople to understand that AT&T can't afford the iPhone subsidy without the data revenue? If a "sizable group" is theoretically willing to pay as you go, does that sizable group shrink at all when the upfront cost of the iPhone jumps from, idk $199 to $399 with no data contract? I bet it does.
I'm agreeing with TS, so grab a bucket and see if it's raining beer, but here goes. I don't need to use every app everywhere. I'm getting my work done just fine with a Samsung 737 and an IPT - but that's two things. I don't text. I don't need to shop for ringtones or wallpapers on the ATT mall or whatever the default buttons do that always needs phone data. I have no problem only getting my email and surfing when I can get a WiFi signal, and I could then keep my reasonable cell plan and have just one thing to carry. And 3G is NG at work and home.
Every individual is looking for a solution to their own needs. Apple and AT&T present you with a particular value proposition. If it falls short (or exceeds) your particular needs, feel free to move on. Those who pontificate that Apple and AT&T need to adjust their business model to suit them are lunatics. Get a different phone if you don't like what's being offered. They're in the business of selling as many phones / contracts as possible.
Declines in AT&T’s fourth-quarter income show the company was both helped and hurt by the iPhone 3G, the subsidies for which cut into profits despite bringing in the majority of new subscribers and boosting revenue.
I'm agreeing with TS, so grab a bucket and see if it's raining beer, but here goes. I don't need to use every app everywhere. I'm getting my work done just fine with a Samsung 737 and an IPT - but that's two things. I don't text. I don't need to shop for ringtones or wallpapers on the ATT mall or whatever the default buttons do that always needs phone data. I have no problem only getting my email and surfing when I can get a WiFi signal, and I could then keep my reasonable cell plan and have just one thing to carry. And 3G is NG at work and home.
TS would have a point if his focus wasn't pejorative rhetoric about how Apple and AT&T are raping and forcing cuatoemrs with underhanded tactics blah blah blah Apple is wrong for doing business that suits their needs and bot mine blah blah blah.
The truth of the situation, as wee been saying since it's announcement 2.5 years ago is that there is a much larger market for an iPhone without a required data plan, but we have to consider the selling priceof the handset if AT&T were to do that with the first two devices. There would have to be a significantly cheaper produced iPhone to make that possible. And it may be possible at this point in the game and will happen, just like with the iPod once te cutter high-end market reaches the ideal saturation point.
On top of that, there is an even greater maker for an iPhone that combines just the cellphone and iPod, while foregoing the "Internet communicator" and all those 3rd-party apps. As usual as I find mobile Safari and the 3rd-party apps, most people couldn't care less about them. The question is: Does such a device work for Apple's long term iPhone plan?
Granted usage of phones can vary from person to person. Generally people are using the data resources of their iPhone exponentially more than they used their previous phone.
From my own anecdotal use the apps that I use most are: Facebook, Wikipedia, Dictionary.com, Twitter, Instant Messaging, AOL Radio, Pandora, Google. Without the iPhone I likely would not use these services as much as I have grown to. Because I have a constant connection to them, I do use them.
A couple of weeks ago I helped a friend drive their car cross country from California to New York. We had physical maps. But for various reasons we pretty much ended up using the GPS on the iPhone. One large reason was because GPS shows you exactly where you are at that moment.
We were always able to get an accurate amount of distance and time from where we were at any moment to the next city. With a physical map it used to be a best guess.
When we stopped in a small town in the middle of nowhere. I was able to easily locate hotels or restaurants that would have other wise been difficult to find.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpellino
I'm agreeing with TS, so grab a bucket and see if it's raining beer, but here goes. I don't need to use every app everywhere. I'm getting my work done just fine with a Samsung 737 and an IPT - but that's two things. I don't text. I don't need to shop for ringtones or wallpapers on the ATT mall or whatever the default buttons do that always needs phone data. I have no problem only getting my email and surfing when I can get a WiFi signal, and I could then keep my reasonable cell plan and have just one thing to carry. And 3G is NG at work and home.
Which is still $200 cheaper than paying for data plan I DON'T NEED!!
Jeez.
I don't want AT&T subsidies on ANYTHING. I particularly cringe when I hear reports that Apple may be adopting this model for laptops as well... built-in data connection to the great Satan.
You might, but the majority does want a subsidized phones. Apple sold in 6 months of subsidized iPhone 3G what they have sold in a whole year before subsidizing.
I do remember SJ saying that the iPhone will switch to Wifi when in range "to save" money or something like that. I think they figured a $20 for a mandatory data plan is not a big deal at that time since the original iPhone had no competition then.
I do agree that the $30 data plan, even though cheaper than the optional $35 one, is still high for those who don't need unlimited access. The problem is that everyone now is doing it and it doesn't seem like it is going away completely (maybe lower price in the future).
If initial cost is not problem for you, you can buy a brand new officially unlocked, without a contract, and unsubsidized iPhone from ebay for $750 include shipping to the US. If every phone manufacturer tried to meet the requirement and desires of every single buyer then we would have 2 billion phone models.
To be as blunt as I can be, you guys must be nuts to think Apple will ever only have one "iPhone" design for sale at a given time. Different people have different needs, one device will never make everybody happy.
As to the price reductions I don't see that on current hardware but rather a new lowend device. It should be easy for them to do as the current iphone is priced rather high. Combine that with newer high integration chips and a limited feature set, a lower cost iPhone is a snap. Apple might even be able to maintain margins on the device. Apple could limit the feature set by dropping WiFi or GPS for example, do the system on a modern SoC and you are likely to get better performance at a lower cost.
The low cost iPhone won't be delivered in a vacuum either. Obviously for this to work alternative planes must be available. It is all about marketing to people with different needs.
Likewise some people don't even need that smart of a smart phone running unix. This is why I still see an iPhone Nano as a really good possibility. It is about meeting needs, as such some people would prefer a simple cell functionality with a bit of 3G mixed in. 3G mostly for iTunes.
The interesting thing here is that it is Friday and we are wound up over something that will be cleared up come Monday.
I don't know what phone plans with iPhone are in other countries, but you can get a 16 GB one here in Norway without data plan from Telenor and it costs roughly 770 USD in all (with one-year contract). That is a fair deal if you ask me.
I don't know what phone plans with iPhone are in other countries, but you can get a 16 GB one here in Norway without data plan from Telenor and it costs roughly 770 USD in all (with one-year contract). That is a fair deal if you ask me.
so if a 16gb costs 300 here, that's an extra $470 for the privilidge of being off contract. That's $39/month. Data contract is $30/month. Worth it? Now, obviously you're in Norway and who knows what an off-contract price would be here in the US, but your example clearly illustrates what happens when you drop the data revenue from a contract - retail selling price goes UP UP UP!
I think this whole discussion is funny, we went from talking about an analyst to talking about at&t's service. i currently work for the company and I can say this, Yes i believe the data packages for the smart phones are a little on the high side. But at the same time it is true that you get what you pay for. I can go on all day and tell you stories of when i had Verizon and had no service in my area, but that would not get me anywhere. The point is everyone has their own opinion about their mobile carriers. Yeah i could have the everything package from sprint for $99.99 but then again i know what sprints coverage area looks like. I am the kind of person who is willing to pay the extra dollar to have service. But in all honesty i do believe the data package should atleast be dropped by ten dollars. Bring back the old iphone data packages!
on another note, I dont really see the need for a smaller iphone (4gb?) So what would be the purpose of this? and what kind of demographic would this be attracting? In all honesty i believe that if there was an iphone nano or whatever you wanna call it and its supposed to be attracting a different audience looking for cheaper iphones and rate plans you may see this....
4gb iphone- data package $20.00 (texting extra of course) less features on iphone, going rate for this i can guess around $99.99 for the device itself
all higher iphone models will probably still keep the $30.00 data packages and sport all the iphone features if not some new ones, possibly a higher res camera and autofocus.
the point is this- if we drop the data rates on the iphones, then all smart phones would have to come down as well. this would be a huge shift in pricing which would be cool. So not only would you be selling more iphones but also blackberrys and so on, this would be a huge push for the smartphone industry
Anyway, Apple and ATT present whatever they think they can make money on. Maybe it's a data-less phone. Who knows? I'm merely offering that that could be a viable piece. Especially if Apple can reduce the price of the unit, requiring less subsidy. I'm not waiting for a cheaper unit, I'd pay the current $199 tomorrow. I'm waiting for a cheaper plan. And in its absence, I make do with a plain phone and IPT. And as for business model, you apparently believe (though you cite no data) that data-less can't be done without ATT tanking. All tenobell showed was that there are about a dozen things contributing to ATT's bottom line performance, but none of these were singled out as data-plan-revenue-related. And by the way, if I don't buy data, they don't have to supply it. If that doesn't end up net-zero to ATT, then there's something seriously wrong with ATT's data plan business model.
Apple's BTO works just fine for computers, actually it was the saving grace of the Apple Store. Maybe it could work for iPhones bought from Apple. Pick the radio you want in the unit, pick the RAM... Who knows? Not you, not TS, not me. I do know that "love it or lump it" is on the less-successful end of the consumer-centered business model spectrum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTL215
Every individual is looking for a solution to their own needs. Apple and AT&T present you with a particular value proposition. If it falls short (or exceeds) your particular needs, feel free to move on. Those who pontificate that Apple and AT&T need to adjust their business model to suit them are lunatics. Get a different phone if you don't like what's being offered. They're in the business of selling as many phones / contracts as possible.
so if a 16gb costs 300 here, that's an extra $470 for the privilidge of being off contract. That's $39/month. Data contract is $30/month. Worth it? Now, obviously you're in Norway and who knows what an off-contract price would be here in the US, but your example clearly illustrates what happens when you drop the data revenue from a contract - retail selling price goes UP UP UP!
The monthly cost is actually about $20 while the initial phone cost is $530. Yes the retail selling price goes up when I opt for anything but the data plan, but the data plan is whopping expensive here. One has to pay around $60/month for the least expensive data plan and the total cost is over $300 more. Why should I pay that much more for something I rarely use?
You might, but the majority does want a subsidized phones. Apple sold in 6 months of subsidized iPhone 3G what they have sold in a whole year before subsidizing.
I do agree with the thought, but that's an inconclusive example. There are several other differences between the two generations of product, including a far wider distribution, I don't think it's a good idea to simply attribute all or most of the differences to subsidized vs. unsubsidized.
Quote:
If initial cost is not problem for you, you can buy a brand new officially unlocked, without a contract, and unsubsidized iPhone from ebay for $750 include shipping to the US. If every phone manufacturer tried to meet the requirement and desires of every single buyer then we would have 2 billion phone models.
There is a problem though, you don't get a discount on the service for having brought your own phone, for the same service contract, as far as I can tell, you pay the same price whether or not you buy one of their phones.
Of course their are several things contributing to AT&T's bottom line, its a huge business. Their wireless business is the bulk of their revenue. The important part that applies to this discussion is that AT&T states that iPhone subsidies cut into their profits.
Providing wireless communications is their entire business model as is the business model for every mobile carrier. All of the mobile carriers spend billions on providing data services. The point of investing in infrastructure is to make profit from it. The flaw isn't in their business model its in your understanding of the type of service they provide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpellino
All tenobell showed was that there are about a dozen things contributing to ATT's bottom line performance, but none of these were singled out as data-plan-revenue-related. And by the way, if I don't buy data, they don't have to supply it. If that doesn't end up net-zero to ATT, then there's something seriously wrong with ATT's data plan business model.
Comments
That is not likely to happen. Apple is making exclusive deals with a single carrier in every country that allows it. It has nothing to do with radio type since most countries are completely they enter are completely GSM-based. Part of Apple?s plan requires some control over the carrier.
Motorola is a perfect example as to how market-share and free for all in sales can destroy your product. Motorola hasn?t been doing very well as of late and there appears to be no recovery in sight.
The push and pull demands for distribution is always dependent upon control of any expansion. Apple will have to address expansion at some point if they want to sell to the masses - or a notch below where they sit now. Obviously, anyone who wants a smart phone in a year or two will be able to get one for much less than they are selling for now. At this time, competition is not pushing the absolute need to do so. However, If the product line is ready to expand to other markets (lower price = expanded distribution) the ATT contract (and other exclusives) will not meet the demand potential of that lower priced expansion. This is why exclusives always collapse with expanded product lines in consumer electronics. Brand, price, economy of scale and life cycle of a product or category all are important factors in recognizing the need or opportunity to expand distribution in order to expand sales.
My take is that the ipod example will serve apple well in the near future if not this year. They will expand their phone line to meet price points where more business can be achieved. it is the dogma of consumer electronics in general.. reduced price comes with factors mentioned above and others in the marketing mix. i expect a less expensive phone to hit the streets soon. It will take the wind out of competition is the primary reason for doing it. It protects what "IS" and it takes what as of today "isn't" Apple can be two years ahead of some who haven't even thought about a low priced smart phone yet. Apple has economy of scale in purchasing large quantities of everything. Only the big will be able to compete with for major sales numbers of a phone category like smart phones. This will push Rimm, Palm and others back where they belong in the race and keep apple out front.. To do this they will have to eventually open some (low priced smart phone) if not all products up to more customers. The idea that ATT will be a lone distributor.. when expansion of distribution (best buy for example) is already in place is a reason to stay where they are for now. However, the services of VZ are so strong in some markets that Apple will not be able to ignore that sales opportunity for far into the future. I want them to do it now - as expansion specifically to one more network will be far more productive than destructive at this stage of an open ended product cycle. Where would mercedes be if you could only buy a 500 series 6.3 for $120,000 is a simple example. The phone (car) business is enormous. But, VZ for example, i understand will not be ready with format computability until 2011. that will be just fine too - if not a little late for an ideal expansion to another network of service providers in the USA.
No seriously. If they cut them off now it will create tons of bad press and lawsuits. If they allow it to remain they shoot themself in the foot and set precedence. They should have cut it off before it was able to even get acknowledged.
What would Microsoft do? Introduce some tricky code that makes the competitor's product seem extremely buggy.
It seems quite logical. The iPhone, like the Palm Pre, require a data plan because the subsidized cost of the handset is much higher than other phones. For AT&T or Sprint to not require a $30/month unlimited plan for said devices would mean a higher initial cost. AT&T doesn't sell the phone contract-free but other countries do, and the price is much greater than the $200 subsidation of typical higher-end phones without data plans. There is some evidence that the unsibsudized Palm Pre is $850, yet it's still locked to Sprint and would presumably still require the $70/month minimum plan unless you can trick Sprint by switching SIM cards from a phone with a SERO plan.
wow, thank you. Somebody else who is able to logically follow somebody's argument.
why would anybody get an iPhone if you don't want the data? That's the whole point of the iPhone. If you just want a basic phone and an ipod, then buy a basic phone and an iPod.
Originally Posted by teckstud
No seriously. If they cut them off now it will create tons of bad press and lawsuits. If they allow it to remain they shoot themself in the foot and set precedence. They should have cut it off before it was able to even get acknowledged.
Since no one will have one, other than you, I don't think it will be a big issue.
How could anyone justify a lawsuit???
Also: iTunes is free, can someone be sued over a free product, in this situation.
Why is it so hard for some pople to understand that AT&T can't afford the iPhone subsidy without the data revenue? If a "sizable group" is theoretically willing to pay as you go, does that sizable group shrink at all when the upfront cost of the iPhone jumps from, idk $199 to $399 with no data contract? I bet it does.
I'm agreeing with TS, so grab a bucket and see if it's raining beer, but here goes. I don't need to use every app everywhere. I'm getting my work done just fine with a Samsung 737 and an IPT - but that's two things. I don't text. I don't need to shop for ringtones or wallpapers on the ATT mall or whatever the default buttons do that always needs phone data. I have no problem only getting my email and surfing when I can get a WiFi signal, and I could then keep my reasonable cell plan and have just one thing to carry. And 3G is NG at work and home.
Every individual is looking for a solution to their own needs. Apple and AT&T present you with a particular value proposition. If it falls short (or exceeds) your particular needs, feel free to move on. Those who pontificate that Apple and AT&T need to adjust their business model to suit them are lunatics. Get a different phone if you don't like what's being offered. They're in the business of selling as many phones / contracts as possible.
iPhone 3G Helps Revenue, Hurts Profit at AT&T
I'd love to see that the data revenues are the deal breaker, then it would be clear. Where is this info?
I'm agreeing with TS, so grab a bucket and see if it's raining beer, but here goes. I don't need to use every app everywhere. I'm getting my work done just fine with a Samsung 737 and an IPT - but that's two things. I don't text. I don't need to shop for ringtones or wallpapers on the ATT mall or whatever the default buttons do that always needs phone data. I have no problem only getting my email and surfing when I can get a WiFi signal, and I could then keep my reasonable cell plan and have just one thing to carry. And 3G is NG at work and home.
TS would have a point if his focus wasn't pejorative rhetoric about how Apple and AT&T are raping and forcing cuatoemrs with underhanded tactics blah blah blah Apple is wrong for doing business that suits their needs and bot mine blah blah blah.
The truth of the situation, as wee been saying since it's announcement 2.5 years ago is that there is a much larger market for an iPhone without a required data plan, but we have to consider the selling priceof the handset if AT&T were to do that with the first two devices. There would have to be a significantly cheaper produced iPhone to make that possible. And it may be possible at this point in the game and will happen, just like with the iPod once te cutter high-end market reaches the ideal saturation point.
On top of that, there is an even greater maker for an iPhone that combines just the cellphone and iPod, while foregoing the "Internet communicator" and all those 3rd-party apps. As usual as I find mobile Safari and the 3rd-party apps, most people couldn't care less about them. The question is: Does such a device work for Apple's long term iPhone plan?
From my own anecdotal use the apps that I use most are: Facebook, Wikipedia, Dictionary.com, Twitter, Instant Messaging, AOL Radio, Pandora, Google. Without the iPhone I likely would not use these services as much as I have grown to. Because I have a constant connection to them, I do use them.
A couple of weeks ago I helped a friend drive their car cross country from California to New York. We had physical maps. But for various reasons we pretty much ended up using the GPS on the iPhone. One large reason was because GPS shows you exactly where you are at that moment.
We were always able to get an accurate amount of distance and time from where we were at any moment to the next city. With a physical map it used to be a best guess.
When we stopped in a small town in the middle of nowhere. I was able to easily locate hotels or restaurants that would have other wise been difficult to find.
I'm agreeing with TS, so grab a bucket and see if it's raining beer, but here goes. I don't need to use every app everywhere. I'm getting my work done just fine with a Samsung 737 and an IPT - but that's two things. I don't text. I don't need to shop for ringtones or wallpapers on the ATT mall or whatever the default buttons do that always needs phone data. I have no problem only getting my email and surfing when I can get a WiFi signal, and I could then keep my reasonable cell plan and have just one thing to carry. And 3G is NG at work and home.
Which is still $200 cheaper than paying for data plan I DON'T NEED!!
Jeez.
I don't want AT&T subsidies on ANYTHING. I particularly cringe when I hear reports that Apple may be adopting this model for laptops as well... built-in data connection to the great Satan.
You might, but the majority does want a subsidized phones. Apple sold in 6 months of subsidized iPhone 3G what they have sold in a whole year before subsidizing.
I do remember SJ saying that the iPhone will switch to Wifi when in range "to save" money or something like that. I think they figured a $20 for a mandatory data plan is not a big deal at that time since the original iPhone had no competition then.
I do agree that the $30 data plan, even though cheaper than the optional $35 one, is still high for those who don't need unlimited access. The problem is that everyone now is doing it and it doesn't seem like it is going away completely (maybe lower price in the future).
If initial cost is not problem for you, you can buy a brand new officially unlocked, without a contract, and unsubsidized iPhone from ebay for $750 include shipping to the US. If every phone manufacturer tried to meet the requirement and desires of every single buyer then we would have 2 billion phone models.
I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with techstud on something.
Hah, not as good as the fact that I agree with a broken clock twice a day....
As to the price reductions I don't see that on current hardware but rather a new lowend device. It should be easy for them to do as the current iphone is priced rather high. Combine that with newer high integration chips and a limited feature set, a lower cost iPhone is a snap. Apple might even be able to maintain margins on the device. Apple could limit the feature set by dropping WiFi or GPS for example, do the system on a modern SoC and you are likely to get better performance at a lower cost.
The low cost iPhone won't be delivered in a vacuum either. Obviously for this to work alternative planes must be available. It is all about marketing to people with different needs.
Likewise some people don't even need that smart of a smart phone running unix. This is why I still see an iPhone Nano as a really good possibility. It is about meeting needs, as such some people would prefer a simple cell functionality with a bit of 3G mixed in. 3G mostly for iTunes.
The interesting thing here is that it is Friday and we are wound up over something that will be cleared up come Monday.
Dave
I don't know what phone plans with iPhone are in other countries, but you can get a 16 GB one here in Norway without data plan from Telenor and it costs roughly 770 USD in all (with one-year contract). That is a fair deal if you ask me.
so if a 16gb costs 300 here, that's an extra $470 for the privilidge of being off contract. That's $39/month. Data contract is $30/month. Worth it? Now, obviously you're in Norway and who knows what an off-contract price would be here in the US, but your example clearly illustrates what happens when you drop the data revenue from a contract - retail selling price goes UP UP UP!
on another note, I dont really see the need for a smaller iphone (4gb?) So what would be the purpose of this? and what kind of demographic would this be attracting? In all honesty i believe that if there was an iphone nano or whatever you wanna call it and its supposed to be attracting a different audience looking for cheaper iphones and rate plans you may see this....
4gb iphone- data package $20.00 (texting extra of course) less features on iphone, going rate for this i can guess around $99.99 for the device itself
all higher iphone models will probably still keep the $30.00 data packages and sport all the iphone features if not some new ones, possibly a higher res camera and autofocus.
the point is this- if we drop the data rates on the iphones, then all smart phones would have to come down as well. this would be a huge shift in pricing which would be cool. So not only would you be selling more iphones but also blackberrys and so on, this would be a huge push for the smartphone industry
Anyway, Apple and ATT present whatever they think they can make money on. Maybe it's a data-less phone. Who knows? I'm merely offering that that could be a viable piece. Especially if Apple can reduce the price of the unit, requiring less subsidy. I'm not waiting for a cheaper unit, I'd pay the current $199 tomorrow. I'm waiting for a cheaper plan. And in its absence, I make do with a plain phone and IPT. And as for business model, you apparently believe (though you cite no data) that data-less can't be done without ATT tanking. All tenobell showed was that there are about a dozen things contributing to ATT's bottom line performance, but none of these were singled out as data-plan-revenue-related. And by the way, if I don't buy data, they don't have to supply it. If that doesn't end up net-zero to ATT, then there's something seriously wrong with ATT's data plan business model.
Apple's BTO works just fine for computers, actually it was the saving grace of the Apple Store. Maybe it could work for iPhones bought from Apple. Pick the radio you want in the unit, pick the RAM... Who knows? Not you, not TS, not me. I do know that "love it or lump it" is on the less-successful end of the consumer-centered business model spectrum.
Every individual is looking for a solution to their own needs. Apple and AT&T present you with a particular value proposition. If it falls short (or exceeds) your particular needs, feel free to move on. Those who pontificate that Apple and AT&T need to adjust their business model to suit them are lunatics. Get a different phone if you don't like what's being offered. They're in the business of selling as many phones / contracts as possible.
so if a 16gb costs 300 here, that's an extra $470 for the privilidge of being off contract. That's $39/month. Data contract is $30/month. Worth it? Now, obviously you're in Norway and who knows what an off-contract price would be here in the US, but your example clearly illustrates what happens when you drop the data revenue from a contract - retail selling price goes UP UP UP!
The monthly cost is actually about $20 while the initial phone cost is $530. Yes the retail selling price goes up when I opt for anything but the data plan, but the data plan is whopping expensive here. One has to pay around $60/month for the least expensive data plan and the total cost is over $300 more. Why should I pay that much more for something I rarely use?
You might, but the majority does want a subsidized phones. Apple sold in 6 months of subsidized iPhone 3G what they have sold in a whole year before subsidizing.
I do agree with the thought, but that's an inconclusive example. There are several other differences between the two generations of product, including a far wider distribution, I don't think it's a good idea to simply attribute all or most of the differences to subsidized vs. unsubsidized.
If initial cost is not problem for you, you can buy a brand new officially unlocked, without a contract, and unsubsidized iPhone from ebay for $750 include shipping to the US. If every phone manufacturer tried to meet the requirement and desires of every single buyer then we would have 2 billion phone models.
There is a problem though, you don't get a discount on the service for having brought your own phone, for the same service contract, as far as I can tell, you pay the same price whether or not you buy one of their phones.
Providing wireless communications is their entire business model as is the business model for every mobile carrier. All of the mobile carriers spend billions on providing data services. The point of investing in infrastructure is to make profit from it. The flaw isn't in their business model its in your understanding of the type of service they provide.
All tenobell showed was that there are about a dozen things contributing to ATT's bottom line performance, but none of these were singled out as data-plan-revenue-related. And by the way, if I don't buy data, they don't have to supply it. If that doesn't end up net-zero to ATT, then there's something seriously wrong with ATT's data plan business model.