In the US I would attribute most of the increased sales to the fact that you could buy an iPhone for $200/$300 as opposed to $400/$600. That's a huge price difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I don't think it's a good idea to simply attribute all or most of the differences to subsidized vs. unsubsidized.
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.
Cell phone history, even though short, showed that subsidized phones are more attractive and sell much more. It's common sense. Paying $400 over the next two years saves you money over paying the same amount now and people know that.
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.
I'm not so certain, and I honestly don't know how anyone outside of AT&T and Apple can be so certain. Those of us who believe that AT&T could offer a tiered data and talk time plan (as is rumored) aren't suggesting that the subsidy would go away, or even be reduced, only that it could be structured differently than it is currently. You know, changing times, changing conditions? Competition and all that? We should also consider whether Apple hasn't lowered their costs of production on the iPhone, and thus is in a position to demand a smaller kickback from AT&T. It's the dead certainty that this simply cannot possibly happen which I am arguing against.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTL215
wow, thank you. Somebody else who is able to logically follow somebody's argument.
You didn't make an argument, only a statement. Not the same thing, at least not in my book.
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.
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.
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 agree with you Dave - 100%. I've always said Apple should have come out with a slider phone last year but now Palm has beat them to it. Now it would only be considered a copy job.
Cell phone history, even though short, showed that subsidized phones are more attractive and sell much more. It's common sense. Paying $400 over the next two years saves you money over paying the same amount now and people know that.
I think that's true, but I prefer "common sense" to be backed up with good supporting information, because common sense is easily fooled, and data with poor controls and constraints to properly isolate the effect properly may as well not be data at all.
I'd need to know if your example is US sales for US sales, because if that's worldwide, then the example goes out the door because iPhone distribution grew from about 12 countries for G1 to 60 countries for G2. Then there's that little bit of the model being upgraded to 3G, something that's important to the more developed countries.
I wonder why we keep having a debate about data costs as if there were something in the least bit unusual about requiring a data plan with a smartphone?
People inevitably weigh in about "greedy AT&T" and how they would love, no, demand a data free iPhone without ever acknowledging that the iPhone data plans are entirely normal for the US cell industry as a whole.
Sure, we can talk about T-Mobile this or Sprint that, grandfathered in plans on minority carriers desperate for subscribers, or how I can save a few hundred dollars over several years by taking advantage of a cheaper "everything" plan, but for god's sake. The way some people carry on you'd think that AT&T and Apple had cooked up some kind of unusual scam designed to fleece poor consumers that have no choice but to get an iPhone and yet are, alas!, forced to pay these obscene rates for the privilege.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but what a bunch of fucking nonsense. Attack the prevailing rates of US cell carriers all you want, but please, please stop pretending that Apple or AT&T are somehow doing you wrong in some especially greedy way.
Except that with the increasing coverage of WiFi, cell data is less compelling than it once was. For some of us it's already reached that tipping point where we prefer one over the other. I don't think they're doing anything "wrong". However, the only leg left for tenobell's info does argue for "greedy" - though a better word could be found - if the data plan is so profitable then that's the only reason to require it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
I wonder why we keep having a debate about data costs as if there were something in the least bit unusual about requiring a data plan with a smartphone?
People inevitably weigh in about "greedy AT&T" and how they would love, no, demand a data free iPhone without ever acknowledging that the iPhone data plans are entirely normal for the US cell industry as a whole.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but what a bunch of fucking nonsense. Attack the prevailing rates of US cell carriers all you want, but please, please stop pretending that Apple or AT&T are somehow doing you wrong in some especially greedy way.
I can be 1000% certain the next iPhone will not be a slider phone. Apple is more into solid designs with no moving parts or removable hatches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
I agree with you Dave - 100%. I've always said Apple should have come out with a slider phone last year but now Palm has beat them to it. Now it would only be considered a copy job.
So iPhone subsidies (which are made of combined voice and data plans) cut into their profits. OK. But the gist of the discussion has been that there's no way to do this without a data plan contributing to that subsidy. Your analysis isn't fine-grained enough to know that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
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.
Except that with the increasing coverage of WiFi, cell data is less compelling than it once was. For some of us it's already reached that tipping point where we prefer one over the other. I don't think they're doing anything "wrong". However, the only leg left for tenobell's info does argue for "greedy" - though a better word could be found - if the data plan is so profitable then that's the only reason to require it.
Then "greedy" is a term that applies to the US cell industry as a whole, although you'd have to ask "compared to what"? Internet service providers? The cable industry? McDonalds?
I think we can all agree that on average US corporation are "greedy" in that they all want to maximize profits. When we use that term to describe what are fairly uniform practices and charges across a particular market, however, it doesn't seem to mean much more than "I want them to sell me what I want for less", in which case every vendor that ever was is properly understood to be greedy.
At any rate, my main point is that taking this somewhat shaky, bordering on indefensible general idea of what proper cell data rates ought to be and conflating it with some patently ridiculous notion that iPhone plans in particular are usurious is stupid squared.
Revenue from the mandatory data offsets the high cost of subsidy which in turn makes the iPhone a profitable proposition for AT&T.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpellino
So iPhone subsidies (which are made of combined voice and data plans) cut into their profits. OK. But the gist of the discussion has been that there's no way to do this without a data plan contributing to that subsidy. Your analysis isn't fine-grained enough to know that.
WiFi coverage depends on where you are. Here in New York three to four years ago you could find lots of open unlocked WiFi signals around. Today everyone has locked their signals. The ubiquity of WiFi is becoming more dependent on subscribing to a service.
Quote:
Except that with the increasing coverage of WiFi, cell data is less compelling than it once was. For some of us it's already reached that tipping point where we prefer one over the other.
I think that's true, but I prefer "common sense" to be backed up with good supporting information, because common sense is easily fooled, and data with poor controls and constraints to properly isolate the effect properly may as well not be data at all.
I'd need to know if your example is US sales for US sales, because if that's worldwide, then the example goes out the door because iPhone distribution grew from about 12 countries for G1 to 60 countries for G2. Then there's that little bit of the model being upgraded to 3G, something that's important to the more developed countries.
Follow the post. Our discussion was about AT&T and we were talking about AT&T and Apple decision to make one size for all mandatory data plan. International carriers offer different plans and contracts.
However, I wouldn't say the example goes out of the door world wide since the US by itself accounted for more than half the iPhone sales in 2008 (54% to be exact) and we really don't know the exact figures for each country but we now that sales doubled, even in international countries that already had the iPhone, and the most influential factor appears to be cost subsidizing by the carriers. You have to ask yourself, if Apple went to those 60 countries with the first generation iPhone would they have sold the double the numbers? 3G and GPS had increased the sales but not doubling by themselves.
This is based on my observations. If you have another theory I will be more than happy to accept it if it make sense.
My first gen iPhone contract is nearly up. I have to say that if nothing more than what has been speculated on actually materializes with the new iPhone software/hardware, I will be defecting. My service is sketchy and has done a bit of disservice to my business clients because of dropped calls during very important on the road conversations. Apple builds beautiful products, but it doesn't rise above its core value if the service provider SUCKS. This is very disappointing. Oh well. I still have my Mac and Touch.
BYW, I have a business acquaintance that had the luxury of playing with the Pre for about a week. He's a BB user, and thinks the Pre will fade with user abandonment like the first gen Storm. Curiously he said the phone's quality and it's ability to keep your attention is LOW. We will see.
Unless you subscribe or a client of their stock reporting services, you have no right to be so indignant. Only their bosses or more important, investors that made buying/selling/holding-off positions re their stock portfolio are so-entitled.
Analysts are monitored continuously. Accuracy is paramount. An analyst's career is predicated on how well he/she performs. Brokers and those that delve in the stock market use analysts' reports as a guidance in their recommendations to their clients or for making purchase decisions respectively. Obviously, if your analyst/broker errs on their recommendation and more importantly causes you to lose monies, you go elsewhere.
Note that analysts are not reviewers. You go to someone else to get those 'lies'.
That is a nice fantasy you believe in. Do you know what it takes to be a financial advisor? All you have to do is pass the Series 6, Series 63, and maybe throw in the Series 7, and you can call yourself a financial advisor with no training whatsoever. So if you can read a book and pass a test, you can be a financial advisor. Doesn't mean you will know what you are talking about.
Every new data technology starts out as a barely sustainable model, then makes some money, then due to advances and economy of scale gets more profitable. They all eventually sell you more for less. Remember the days of Ma bell, when they had you convinced that every call incurred a real fee that you had to pay for as if they hired someone to run a special cable to some random person's house? See what you pay for a fixed rate landline now? Ditto cell phones. The first wave of contracts were all by the minute. Now you pay a fixed rate the worst of which is a bargain compared to the best of rates in the first wave. Ditto cable. Ditto satellite. Care to see my ancient MCIMail bills? Remember paying $11 per hour for CompuServe? Things get cheaper. I don't think it's usurious, but at some point the lines on the graph cross. For a while they cruise, and then competition starts.
But that's not my point. I'm in a class of people who don't want or need data. It would be nice if they could remove it without losing the rest of the iPhone model. There's nothing technical preventing it, you have an opinion that it would ruin the business model, and there's no evidence that that's the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Then "greedy" is a term that applies to the US cell industry as a whole, although you'd have to ask "compared to what"? Internet service providers? The cable industry? McDonalds?
I think we can all agree that on average US corporation are "greedy" in that they all want to maximize profits. When we use that term to describe what are fairly uniform practices and charges across a particular market, however, it doesn't seem to mean much more than "I want them to sell me what I want for less", in which case every vendor that ever was is properly understood to be greedy.
At any rate, my main point is that taking this somewhat shaky, bordering on indefensible general idea of what proper cell data rates ought to be and conflating it with some patently ridiculous notion that iPhone plans in particular are usurious is stupid squared.
I don't know what's harder to believe - that there's a viable market for pay as you go iPhone users, or that Teckstud actually has 2 friends.
Do you even think before you post something? This response reflects more about you, as a person, than whatever techstud is or the validity of his opinions, or the viability of a pay as you go plan.
To my knowledge, there are quite a number of companies, including some of the big telephone companies that offer "pay as you go plans". I do not know teckstud but I do not find it too difficult to believe that (s)he may have more than two friends.
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.
Do you even read other posts before and after yours? Orr, are you the kind of person that thinks what you believe to be a fact -- however illogical it may be -- must apply to everyone?
"....That's the whole point of the iPhone." Who said so? Did Apple made this a law or something? Or, were you just brainwashed to believe that "data" is synonymous with "phone"?
Many before and after your postings -- in this and other articles here and other forums-- have provided reasons why other people want other options.
Personally, I have a phone, I have an iPod. I would prefer to have both in one device. But, I don't do messaging because I find it impractical and I consider the cost highway robbery. This makes other options more attractive for me, as others already stated, here and other articles; and in other forums.
Thus, as much as I am fascinated with the promise of mobile computing, and iPhone and iPod touch, right now, I opted not to buy an iPhone nor upgraded to an iPod.
I am amazed how certain people are about whether "Apple will do this or not that -- to the extent that they would malign others who might think otherwise.
Based from the pattern of Apple products, be it the computer and iPods -- they always started with one model but eventually diversify the modules, as the product matures. Also, while Apple may not attempt to reach everyone, it is not aversed to provide cheaper versions of their products. This was much more apparent with the iPod. In terms of computers, they kept the white MacBook and the mini for this very reason.
Thus, as to whether Apple will or will not eventually provide other models is just a matter of time. From my previous readings, the main caveat that Apple has stated is that they are sensitive to ensure "compatibility". For example, they are aware that they already have perhaps more than 40 million base of iPhone and iPod touch. At the same time, they are aware also that in a global market, the technplogical state of telecommunication in many countries do vary quite greatly and not always as advanced as that in the United States, or other more technologically advanced countries.
In consumer psychology research, it is known also that the "initial price of entry" as opposed to "total cost" -- however logical that may or may not be -- has a bearing on consumer purchasing habits. This is the reason why some may buy a cheaper computer rather than a higher priced Apple computer -- even if it may prove to be the case that owning an Apple computer may proved to be more cost effective, in the long run.
That is a nice fantasy you believe in. Do you know what it takes to be a financial advisor? All you have to do is pass the Series 6, Series 63, and maybe throw in the Series 7, and you can call yourself a financial advisor with no training whatsoever. So if you can read a book and pass a test, you can be a financial advisor. Doesn't mean you will know what you are talking about.
Kathryn Huberty is a frigg'n research analyst that works for Morgan Stanley (MS). She is not a financial advisor or a broker. As an analysts, she has quite an excellent rating, otherwise she wouldn't be working for MS. And bet your last dollar, MS is very strict on how their analysts comply with the rules of the road. http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/analysts.htm
Every new data technology starts out as a barely sustainable model, then makes some money, then due to advances and economy of scale gets more profitable. They all eventually sell you more for less. Remember the days of Ma bell, when they had you convinced that every call incurred a real fee that you had to pay for as if they hired someone to run a special cable to some random person's house? See what you pay for a fixed rate landline now? Ditto cell phones. The first wave of contracts were all by the minute. Now you pay a fixed rate the worst of which is a bargain compared to the best of rates in the first wave. Ditto cable. Ditto satellite. Care to see my ancient MCIMail bills? Remember paying $11 per hour for CompuServe? Things get cheaper. I don't think it's usurious, but at some point the lines on the graph cross. For a while they cruise, and then competition starts.
But that's not my point. I'm in a class of people who don't want or need data. It would be nice if they could remove it without losing the rest of the iPhone model. There's nothing technical preventing it, you have an opinion that it would ruin the business model, and there's no evidence that that's the case.
I have nowhere stated that I think cheaper or nonexistent data plans will ruin anyone's business model. All I have said is that mandatory data plans with smartphones is an industry norm, and that the rates for those data plans tend to be similar across carriers.
I'm sure it would be great for a customer such as yourself to get an iPhone with voice only, but that would make the iPhone, Apple, and AT&T pretty much unique in the industry, so it doesn't seem like a very reasonable thing to expect.
I expect you to be able to get an iPhone sans data plan about the time Verizon starts selling Blackberries that way.
Comments
I don't think it's a good idea to simply attribute all or most of the differences to subsidized vs. unsubsidized.
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.
Cell phone history, even though short, showed that subsidized phones are more attractive and sell much more. It's common sense. Paying $400 over the next two years saves you money over paying the same amount now and people know that.
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.
I'm not so certain, and I honestly don't know how anyone outside of AT&T and Apple can be so certain. Those of us who believe that AT&T could offer a tiered data and talk time plan (as is rumored) aren't suggesting that the subsidy would go away, or even be reduced, only that it could be structured differently than it is currently. You know, changing times, changing conditions? Competition and all that? We should also consider whether Apple hasn't lowered their costs of production on the iPhone, and thus is in a position to demand a smaller kickback from AT&T. It's the dead certainty that this simply cannot possibly happen which I am arguing against.
wow, thank you. Somebody else who is able to logically follow somebody's argument.
You didn't make an argument, only a statement. Not the same thing, at least not in my book.
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.
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.
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 agree with you Dave - 100%. I've always said Apple should have come out with a slider phone last year but now Palm has beat them to it. Now it would only be considered a copy job.
We shall see Monday.
Cell phone history, even though short, showed that subsidized phones are more attractive and sell much more. It's common sense. Paying $400 over the next two years saves you money over paying the same amount now and people know that.
I think that's true, but I prefer "common sense" to be backed up with good supporting information, because common sense is easily fooled, and data with poor controls and constraints to properly isolate the effect properly may as well not be data at all.
I'd need to know if your example is US sales for US sales, because if that's worldwide, then the example goes out the door because iPhone distribution grew from about 12 countries for G1 to 60 countries for G2. Then there's that little bit of the model being upgraded to 3G, something that's important to the more developed countries.
People inevitably weigh in about "greedy AT&T" and how they would love, no, demand a data free iPhone without ever acknowledging that the iPhone data plans are entirely normal for the US cell industry as a whole.
Sure, we can talk about T-Mobile this or Sprint that, grandfathered in plans on minority carriers desperate for subscribers, or how I can save a few hundred dollars over several years by taking advantage of a cheaper "everything" plan, but for god's sake. The way some people carry on you'd think that AT&T and Apple had cooked up some kind of unusual scam designed to fleece poor consumers that have no choice but to get an iPhone and yet are, alas!, forced to pay these obscene rates for the privilege.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but what a bunch of fucking nonsense. Attack the prevailing rates of US cell carriers all you want, but please, please stop pretending that Apple or AT&T are somehow doing you wrong in some especially greedy way.
What would Microsoft do? Introduce some tricky code that makes the competitor's product seem extremely buggy.
And that is exactly what some on here are suggesting should follow. becuase if it syncs now than anything short later would appear just as you state.
I wonder why we keep having a debate about data costs as if there were something in the least bit unusual about requiring a data plan with a smartphone?
People inevitably weigh in about "greedy AT&T" and how they would love, no, demand a data free iPhone without ever acknowledging that the iPhone data plans are entirely normal for the US cell industry as a whole.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but what a bunch of fucking nonsense. Attack the prevailing rates of US cell carriers all you want, but please, please stop pretending that Apple or AT&T are somehow doing you wrong in some especially greedy way.
I agree with you Dave - 100%. I've always said Apple should have come out with a slider phone last year but now Palm has beat them to it. Now it would only be considered a copy job.
We shall see Monday.
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.
Except that with the increasing coverage of WiFi, cell data is less compelling than it once was. For some of us it's already reached that tipping point where we prefer one over the other. I don't think they're doing anything "wrong". However, the only leg left for tenobell's info does argue for "greedy" - though a better word could be found - if the data plan is so profitable then that's the only reason to require it.
Then "greedy" is a term that applies to the US cell industry as a whole, although you'd have to ask "compared to what"? Internet service providers? The cable industry? McDonalds?
I think we can all agree that on average US corporation are "greedy" in that they all want to maximize profits. When we use that term to describe what are fairly uniform practices and charges across a particular market, however, it doesn't seem to mean much more than "I want them to sell me what I want for less", in which case every vendor that ever was is properly understood to be greedy.
At any rate, my main point is that taking this somewhat shaky, bordering on indefensible general idea of what proper cell data rates ought to be and conflating it with some patently ridiculous notion that iPhone plans in particular are usurious is stupid squared.
So iPhone subsidies (which are made of combined voice and data plans) cut into their profits. OK. But the gist of the discussion has been that there's no way to do this without a data plan contributing to that subsidy. Your analysis isn't fine-grained enough to know that.
WiFi coverage depends on where you are. Here in New York three to four years ago you could find lots of open unlocked WiFi signals around. Today everyone has locked their signals. The ubiquity of WiFi is becoming more dependent on subscribing to a service.
Except that with the increasing coverage of WiFi, cell data is less compelling than it once was. For some of us it's already reached that tipping point where we prefer one over the other.
I think that's true, but I prefer "common sense" to be backed up with good supporting information, because common sense is easily fooled, and data with poor controls and constraints to properly isolate the effect properly may as well not be data at all.
I'd need to know if your example is US sales for US sales, because if that's worldwide, then the example goes out the door because iPhone distribution grew from about 12 countries for G1 to 60 countries for G2. Then there's that little bit of the model being upgraded to 3G, something that's important to the more developed countries.
Follow the post. Our discussion was about AT&T and we were talking about AT&T and Apple decision to make one size for all mandatory data plan. International carriers offer different plans and contracts.
However, I wouldn't say the example goes out of the door world wide since the US by itself accounted for more than half the iPhone sales in 2008 (54% to be exact) and we really don't know the exact figures for each country but we now that sales doubled, even in international countries that already had the iPhone, and the most influential factor appears to be cost subsidizing by the carriers. You have to ask yourself, if Apple went to those 60 countries with the first generation iPhone would they have sold the double the numbers? 3G and GPS had increased the sales but not doubling by themselves.
This is based on my observations. If you have another theory I will be more than happy to accept it if it make sense.
BYW, I have a business acquaintance that had the luxury of playing with the Pre for about a week. He's a BB user, and thinks the Pre will fade with user abandonment like the first gen Storm. Curiously he said the phone's quality and it's ability to keep your attention is LOW. We will see.
Cheers.
Unless you subscribe or a client of their stock reporting services, you have no right to be so indignant. Only their bosses or more important, investors that made buying/selling/holding-off positions re their stock portfolio are so-entitled.
Analysts are monitored continuously. Accuracy is paramount. An analyst's career is predicated on how well he/she performs. Brokers and those that delve in the stock market use analysts' reports as a guidance in their recommendations to their clients or for making purchase decisions respectively. Obviously, if your analyst/broker errs on their recommendation and more importantly causes you to lose monies, you go elsewhere.
Note that analysts are not reviewers. You go to someone else to get those 'lies'.
Analyzing Analyst Recommendations. http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/analysts.htm
That is a nice fantasy you believe in. Do you know what it takes to be a financial advisor? All you have to do is pass the Series 6, Series 63, and maybe throw in the Series 7, and you can call yourself a financial advisor with no training whatsoever. So if you can read a book and pass a test, you can be a financial advisor. Doesn't mean you will know what you are talking about.
But that's not my point. I'm in a class of people who don't want or need data. It would be nice if they could remove it without losing the rest of the iPhone model. There's nothing technical preventing it, you have an opinion that it would ruin the business model, and there's no evidence that that's the case.
Then "greedy" is a term that applies to the US cell industry as a whole, although you'd have to ask "compared to what"? Internet service providers? The cable industry? McDonalds?
I think we can all agree that on average US corporation are "greedy" in that they all want to maximize profits. When we use that term to describe what are fairly uniform practices and charges across a particular market, however, it doesn't seem to mean much more than "I want them to sell me what I want for less", in which case every vendor that ever was is properly understood to be greedy.
At any rate, my main point is that taking this somewhat shaky, bordering on indefensible general idea of what proper cell data rates ought to be and conflating it with some patently ridiculous notion that iPhone plans in particular are usurious is stupid squared.
I don't know what's harder to believe - that there's a viable market for pay as you go iPhone users, or that Teckstud actually has 2 friends.
Do you even think before you post something? This response reflects more about you, as a person, than whatever techstud is or the validity of his opinions, or the viability of a pay as you go plan.
To my knowledge, there are quite a number of companies, including some of the big telephone companies that offer "pay as you go plans". I do not know teckstud but I do not find it too difficult to believe that (s)he may have more than two friends.
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.
Do you even read other posts before and after yours? Orr, are you the kind of person that thinks what you believe to be a fact -- however illogical it may be -- must apply to everyone?
"....That's the whole point of the iPhone." Who said so? Did Apple made this a law or something? Or, were you just brainwashed to believe that "data" is synonymous with "phone"?
Many before and after your postings -- in this and other articles here and other forums-- have provided reasons why other people want other options.
Personally, I have a phone, I have an iPod. I would prefer to have both in one device. But, I don't do messaging because I find it impractical and I consider the cost highway robbery. This makes other options more attractive for me, as others already stated, here and other articles; and in other forums.
Thus, as much as I am fascinated with the promise of mobile computing, and iPhone and iPod touch, right now, I opted not to buy an iPhone nor upgraded to an iPod.
Based from the pattern of Apple products, be it the computer and iPods -- they always started with one model but eventually diversify the modules, as the product matures. Also, while Apple may not attempt to reach everyone, it is not aversed to provide cheaper versions of their products. This was much more apparent with the iPod. In terms of computers, they kept the white MacBook and the mini for this very reason.
Thus, as to whether Apple will or will not eventually provide other models is just a matter of time. From my previous readings, the main caveat that Apple has stated is that they are sensitive to ensure "compatibility". For example, they are aware that they already have perhaps more than 40 million base of iPhone and iPod touch. At the same time, they are aware also that in a global market, the technplogical state of telecommunication in many countries do vary quite greatly and not always as advanced as that in the United States, or other more technologically advanced countries.
In consumer psychology research, it is known also that the "initial price of entry" as opposed to "total cost" -- however logical that may or may not be -- has a bearing on consumer purchasing habits. This is the reason why some may buy a cheaper computer rather than a higher priced Apple computer -- even if it may prove to be the case that owning an Apple computer may proved to be more cost effective, in the long run.
That is a nice fantasy you believe in. Do you know what it takes to be a financial advisor? All you have to do is pass the Series 6, Series 63, and maybe throw in the Series 7, and you can call yourself a financial advisor with no training whatsoever. So if you can read a book and pass a test, you can be a financial advisor. Doesn't mean you will know what you are talking about.
Perhaps you should view the previous link, as well as this one: http://www.investorguide.com/igu-art...etirement.html
Kathryn Huberty is a frigg'n research analyst that works for Morgan Stanley (MS). She is not a financial advisor or a broker. As an analysts, she has quite an excellent rating, otherwise she wouldn't be working for MS. And bet your last dollar, MS is very strict on how their analysts comply with the rules of the road. http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/analysts.htm
Every new data technology starts out as a barely sustainable model, then makes some money, then due to advances and economy of scale gets more profitable. They all eventually sell you more for less. Remember the days of Ma bell, when they had you convinced that every call incurred a real fee that you had to pay for as if they hired someone to run a special cable to some random person's house? See what you pay for a fixed rate landline now? Ditto cell phones. The first wave of contracts were all by the minute. Now you pay a fixed rate the worst of which is a bargain compared to the best of rates in the first wave. Ditto cable. Ditto satellite. Care to see my ancient MCIMail bills? Remember paying $11 per hour for CompuServe? Things get cheaper. I don't think it's usurious, but at some point the lines on the graph cross. For a while they cruise, and then competition starts.
But that's not my point. I'm in a class of people who don't want or need data. It would be nice if they could remove it without losing the rest of the iPhone model. There's nothing technical preventing it, you have an opinion that it would ruin the business model, and there's no evidence that that's the case.
I have nowhere stated that I think cheaper or nonexistent data plans will ruin anyone's business model. All I have said is that mandatory data plans with smartphones is an industry norm, and that the rates for those data plans tend to be similar across carriers.
I'm sure it would be great for a customer such as yourself to get an iPhone with voice only, but that would make the iPhone, Apple, and AT&T pretty much unique in the industry, so it doesn't seem like a very reasonable thing to expect.
I expect you to be able to get an iPhone sans data plan about the time Verizon starts selling Blackberries that way.