Based on a series of calculated assumptions, including those related to price declines and subsidy increases, Wolf compiled a 10-year iPhone revenue and earnings forecast. In his model, the analyst assumed that Cingular will subsidize the iPhone $100 initially with the subsidy increasing $5 annually to $150 by the final year in his forecast.
This is what I hate about economics, they're all based on assumptions which are usually wrong. And this is the case here, it's been well stated that the phone will not be subsidized when it first comes out, ergo there will bo no "$100 dollar subsidiztion" at inital launch, and all his figures are based on that number.
This is not news, this is some jacka**'s predictions. (who obviously doesn't pay attention to any coverage on the price of the iphone if he's making that assumption)
Actually, if you'd seen the CNBC interview with Steve Jobs, he did note in response to a question about price that he expected the price to drop, and made a passing mention of economies of scale as sales increase. Pretty much like the iPod has.
Yes, as newer models have been introduced, prices bumped again, but the sales price has in large part dropped from the original price.
But you're missing the point. Once you get past the initial over-pricing of a product (be it computer, ipod, etc), and it hits a price point, it rarely goes any lower. Apple has no problem jacking up capacities, adding features, etc. But they do NOT like to slash prices. If apple took last years MacBook, they could sell it for cheaper then the current ones sell for. But they don't want that cheaper price. So they keep ratcheting up the 'value' in order to keep the prices high. That's what apple does, and very consistently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahrens
Just look at the computers. Same thing. A new version that introduces new tech often comes at a higher price, but as speed bumped models appear later, the price has tended downward. Macs today are much more comparable with PCs, which can be attributed to higher PC prices and lower Mac prices.
But, yeah, new features do come faster than price breaks.
Keep in mind that few of apple's new releases include what I would consider 'new tech' (sorry, chip bumps don't count). As such, its not this that causes the higher prices.
And macs aren't much lower in price then they used to be, they're still sitting where they were. PCs are still much cheaper, until you try to do the fabled "Yeah, but if you configure the PC with all those features that the Mac has, whether you want them or not, the prices are comparable!" argument.
This is what I hate about economics, they're all based on assumptions which are usually wrong. And this is the case here, it's been well stated that the phone will not be subsidized when it first comes out, ergo there will bo no "$100 dollar subsidiztion" at inital launch, and all his figures are based on that number.
This is not news, this is some jacka**'s predictions. (who obviously doesn't pay attention to any coverage on the price of the iphone if he's making that assumption)
Guess I missed that part where someone has specifically came out and said Cingular was not subsidizing the phone.
Some have already been complaining that the iPhone doesn't have a "true" widescreen display. It seems to be a little silly complaint, but it is true that it isn't 16:10 or 16:9.
Not too useful for most phones, I think we can agree.
The Communicator dos have a long display. Not good for anything much except for typing. It also costs $1,000.
Keep in mind that few of apple's new releases include what I would consider 'new tech' (sorry, chip bumps don't count). As such, its not this that causes the higher prices.
And macs aren't much lower in price then they used to be, they're still sitting where they were. PCs are still much cheaper, until you try to do the fabled "Yeah, but if you configure the PC with all those features that the Mac has, whether you want them or not, the prices are comparable!" argument.
I think I DID mention speed bumps somewhere as being where they often let the price soften a bit... I didn't say they counted as new tech. Go back and read it agin.
Oh, yeah, the "fabled..." bit. As if that isn't true. Which it IS - there are plenty of places in the last 6 to 8 months that have done just such comparisons, and they are valid, no matter what you may think.
The difference that is left, where there is one, is due to the fact that Microsoft, as a monopoly, can underprice their main product, Windows OEM version, and leverage their monopoly to undercut their competition. If they had to compete in a REAL competitive market, their prices would be higher, you betcha.
I think I DID mention speed bumps somewhere as being where they often let the price soften a bit... I didn't say they counted as new tech. Go back and read it agin.
Oh, yeah, the "fabled..." bit. As if that isn't true. Which it IS - there are plenty of places in the last 6 to 8 months that have done just such comparisons, and they are valid, no matter what you may think.
The difference that is left, where there is one, is due to the fact that Microsoft, as a monopoly, can underprice their main product, Windows OEM version, and leverage their monopoly to undercut their competition. If they had to compete in a REAL competitive market, their prices would be higher, you betcha.
I wasn't discounting the speed bumps, just saying that they never come with price cuts, they're done in lieu of price cuts.
I by 'fabled', I did not mean 'make-believe'. What I meant was the never-ending comparisons people bring up to try to explain the mac's high price. And they may be true. The problem is that they never cover two important areas:
Add in costs of features available on the PC that aren't on the mac. For example, a stock PC usually has some 8 USB ports. No Mac/PC comparison ever adds in the price of a USB hub for the Mac. Or external HD cases to 'cover' the fact that the PC can hold an extra drive. Or even taking into account that no macs have swappable video cards, except the non-consumer MacPros. Stuff like that.
Never price out the cost of the Mac to bring it down in specs to the PC. Oh, right. You can't remove features you have absolutely no interest in.
Discuss the fact that, while the prices can be the same, you are actually able to get an equivalent MacBook Pro box in a 12" case, or a MacBook in a 15" case, or a mini-tower with expandability. Or a computer without a built-in monitor so you don't have to throw everything out if you want just a new CPU.
But if you ignore all the above, you're right, the Macs and PCs are similarly priced!
That's just being absurd. I don't think anyone ever meant that every year it is reduced by 20% of the original value.
I didn't realize that you couldn't recognize that I was being patently absurd. Nevertheless, I think the paid professional analyst was also being absurd. How much does a 5GB HDD iPod cost today? That's a dumb question because Apple doesn't sell such a product anymore.
Historically, Apple delivers more value in each release while keeping the prices relatively stable. By 2012, the fifth generation iPhone might hold 100 GB and have a 7-inch folding touchscreen and allow you to do real-time videoconferencing and still cost about $500. It will probably also make smoothies.
To think that the original iPhone will be around long enough to experience the exponential decay in price seems like some pretty dumb analysis to me. And I'm telling this to you for FREE!
Nevertheless, I think the paid professional analyst was also being absurd. How much does a 5GB HDD iPod cost today? That's a dumb question because Apple doesn't sell such a product anymore.
I think this is being asinine because it's quite arrogant to suggest that the analyst and his/her audience doesn't know that products are updated over the years. Why should an analyst specifically state that it won't be the exact same model? Whatever will be sold five years from now will probably have the name regardless of what the specs are. Your argument also ignores the (IMO) likelyhood that sub-models will be made. Five years ago it was iPod, it still is iPod, but it is now offered in much cheaper variations under the same iPod name. It is also those cheaper variations that are selling far more than the flagship version.
Besides, how do you know that the report doesn't say this? We don't get the original report without paying, what we get is a digest version of the report made by a third party.
I wasn't discounting the speed bumps, just saying that they never come with price cuts, they're done in lieu of price cuts.
I by 'fabled', I did not mean 'make-believe'. What I meant was the never-ending comparisons people bring up to try to explain the mac's high price. And they may be true. The problem is that they never cover two important areas:
Add in costs of features available on the PC that aren't on the mac. For example, a stock PC usually has some 8 USB ports. No Mac/PC comparison ever adds in the price of a USB hub for the Mac. Or external HD cases to 'cover' the fact that the PC can hold an extra drive. Or even taking into account that no macs have swappable video cards, except the non-consumer MacPros. Stuff like that.
Never price out the cost of the Mac to bring it down in specs to the PC. Oh, right. You can't remove features you have absolutely no interest in.
Discuss the fact that, while the prices can be the same, you are actually able to get an equivalent MacBook Pro box in a 12" case, or a MacBook in a 15" case, or a mini-tower with expandability. Or a computer without a built-in monitor so you don't have to throw everything out if you want just a new CPU.
But if you ignore all the above, you're right, the Macs and PCs are similarly priced!
Sure, I've seen 'em do that. Of course, you can get a good hub for $40, I have one sitting next to my G4 right now. But most of the comparisons I've seen didn't show PCs with that many ports. "No Macs have swappable graphics cards..." Bullshit. iMacs sure do. MacBook Pro does, too. Get your facts straight.
Why remove features - you're right. Apple makes their computers in each line conform to certain base specs, like all manufacturers do. If you want to compare specs, you have to build up the one with lower specs to the one with better specs. That's just good sense. Your argument is just a straw man to add another bullet to your list.
The whole point is, that Macs ARE similarly priced to similarly equipped PCs. Period, end of story. Make what whiney nits you want, but the fact is, that's the market today.
You don't have to buy 'em, or like 'em, or necessarily agree. But there have been plenty of good comparisons (and some by unbiased journalists as well as in PC mag itself) that show just that. If you want to insist that they are all wrong, then there's nothing I can do to change your mind.
So just go play with your PCs and I'll keep using my macs and we can both be happy.
"No Macs have swappable graphics cards..." Bullshit. iMacs sure do. MacBook Pro does, too. Get your facts straight.
I've never heard that the MacBook Pro has swappable video, last I heard, it's soldered on. The iMac (and IIRC, only the 24") might hypothetically be swappable, there aren't any aftermarket modules for it.
Besides, how do you know that the report doesn't say this? We don't get the original report without paying, what we get is a digest version of the report made by a third party.
That's right. I often bring that point up.
These public releases are just a short condensed version, much as the synopsis of a novel on the back of the book.
Sure, I've seen 'em do that. Of course, you can get a good hub for $40, I have one sitting next to my G4 right now. But most of the comparisons I've seen didn't show PCs with that many ports. "No Macs have swappable graphics cards..." Bullshit. iMacs sure do. MacBook Pro does, too. Get your facts straight.
That's nice you have a good hub for $40. The point is that no one adds those to the Mac side, regardless of its price. They just try to add whatever they can to the PC side to get the prices up. And almost every PC I've seen has more USB ports then Macs out there (hell, the G5 tower I have has a laughable 2 (after taking out the keyboard use), and one is on the front).
As for graphic cards, please pass along all links to shipping upgrade cards to those mac models you listed (actual Mac-verified graphic cards, not just "this will fit" without knowing whether they'll work).
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahrens
Why remove features - you're right. Apple makes their computers in each line conform to certain base specs, like all manufacturers do. If you want to compare specs, you have to build up the one with lower specs to the one with better specs. That's just good sense. Your argument is just a straw man to add another bullet to your list.
No, you missed the point. You CANNOT get a mac laptop without a built-in camera. That's my point. You can make your whole "to compare prices, you have to match specs" argument, but the fact is that it misses the point that you have so many other choices on the PC side, where you can configure your laptop to what you need, not what apple wants you to have.
I'm looking for a replacement for my 12" iBook. I want a 15" screen, though. What's my cheapest choice? $2000 worth of computer. Can someone please explain to me how it needs to cost $2000 for someone to buy a 15" laptop. Or can you explain how Apple has determined that only pros need 15+" screens, and only consumers need 12" screens? You can get 15" PC laptops for less then $1000, but, on the mac side, you're forced into their pre-defined product holes. But what do I know. Apparently I think consumers in the market for a desktop without a built-in monitor should be able to buy one for way less than $1000 (and that comes with a keyboard, a mouse, and expandability options!)
And if you don't like my arguments, let's go to the car analogy. A Mercedes may be more expensive, sure. But take that honda accord, and deck it out with all the features of the Mercedes, and, hey, they're the same price! Of course, if you don't need all those features, you can get the Honda, but there's no way to get the Mercedes without them. But how many people actually keep going on and on about how the Mercedes is "competitively priced" when you spec the Honda accordingly? None, because people no its a nonsensical argument. But Mac lovers do it all the time to try to explain the macs high cost, rather then saying "Hey, if apple actually made computers that more people wanted, they could actually sell them at lower prices and perhaps drive even more people to the platform"
Comments
Based on a series of calculated assumptions, including those related to price declines and subsidy increases, Wolf compiled a 10-year iPhone revenue and earnings forecast. In his model, the analyst assumed that Cingular will subsidize the iPhone $100 initially with the subsidy increasing $5 annually to $150 by the final year in his forecast.
This is what I hate about economics, they're all based on assumptions which are usually wrong. And this is the case here, it's been well stated that the phone will not be subsidized when it first comes out, ergo there will bo no "$100 dollar subsidiztion" at inital launch, and all his figures are based on that number.
This is not news, this is some jacka**'s predictions. (who obviously doesn't pay attention to any coverage on the price of the iphone if he's making that assumption)
Actually, if you'd seen the CNBC interview with Steve Jobs, he did note in response to a question about price that he expected the price to drop, and made a passing mention of economies of scale as sales increase. Pretty much like the iPod has.
Yes, as newer models have been introduced, prices bumped again, but the sales price has in large part dropped from the original price.
But you're missing the point. Once you get past the initial over-pricing of a product (be it computer, ipod, etc), and it hits a price point, it rarely goes any lower. Apple has no problem jacking up capacities, adding features, etc. But they do NOT like to slash prices. If apple took last years MacBook, they could sell it for cheaper then the current ones sell for. But they don't want that cheaper price. So they keep ratcheting up the 'value' in order to keep the prices high. That's what apple does, and very consistently.
Just look at the computers. Same thing. A new version that introduces new tech often comes at a higher price, but as speed bumped models appear later, the price has tended downward. Macs today are much more comparable with PCs, which can be attributed to higher PC prices and lower Mac prices.
But, yeah, new features do come faster than price breaks.
Keep in mind that few of apple's new releases include what I would consider 'new tech' (sorry, chip bumps don't count). As such, its not this that causes the higher prices.
And macs aren't much lower in price then they used to be, they're still sitting where they were. PCs are still much cheaper, until you try to do the fabled "Yeah, but if you configure the PC with all those features that the Mac has, whether you want them or not, the prices are comparable!" argument.
This is what I hate about economics, they're all based on assumptions which are usually wrong. And this is the case here, it's been well stated that the phone will not be subsidized when it first comes out, ergo there will bo no "$100 dollar subsidiztion" at inital launch, and all his figures are based on that number.
This is not news, this is some jacka**'s predictions. (who obviously doesn't pay attention to any coverage on the price of the iphone if he's making that assumption)
Guess I missed that part where someone has specifically came out and said Cingular was not subsidizing the phone.
Some have already been complaining that the iPhone doesn't have a "true" widescreen display. It seems to be a little silly complaint, but it is true that it isn't 16:10 or 16:9.
Not too useful for most phones, I think we can agree.
The Communicator dos have a long display. Not good for anything much except for typing. It also costs $1,000.
Keep in mind that few of apple's new releases include what I would consider 'new tech' (sorry, chip bumps don't count). As such, its not this that causes the higher prices.
And macs aren't much lower in price then they used to be, they're still sitting where they were. PCs are still much cheaper, until you try to do the fabled "Yeah, but if you configure the PC with all those features that the Mac has, whether you want them or not, the prices are comparable!" argument.
I think I DID mention speed bumps somewhere as being where they often let the price soften a bit... I didn't say they counted as new tech. Go back and read it agin.
Oh, yeah, the "fabled..." bit. As if that isn't true. Which it IS - there are plenty of places in the last 6 to 8 months that have done just such comparisons, and they are valid, no matter what you may think.
The difference that is left, where there is one, is due to the fact that Microsoft, as a monopoly, can underprice their main product, Windows OEM version, and leverage their monopoly to undercut their competition. If they had to compete in a REAL competitive market, their prices would be higher, you betcha.
I think I DID mention speed bumps somewhere as being where they often let the price soften a bit... I didn't say they counted as new tech. Go back and read it agin.
Oh, yeah, the "fabled..." bit. As if that isn't true. Which it IS - there are plenty of places in the last 6 to 8 months that have done just such comparisons, and they are valid, no matter what you may think.
The difference that is left, where there is one, is due to the fact that Microsoft, as a monopoly, can underprice their main product, Windows OEM version, and leverage their monopoly to undercut their competition. If they had to compete in a REAL competitive market, their prices would be higher, you betcha.
I wasn't discounting the speed bumps, just saying that they never come with price cuts, they're done in lieu of price cuts.
I by 'fabled', I did not mean 'make-believe'. What I meant was the never-ending comparisons people bring up to try to explain the mac's high price. And they may be true. The problem is that they never cover two important areas:
- Add in costs of features available on the PC that aren't on the mac. For example, a stock PC usually has some 8 USB ports. No Mac/PC comparison ever adds in the price of a USB hub for the Mac. Or external HD cases to 'cover' the fact that the PC can hold an extra drive. Or even taking into account that no macs have swappable video cards, except the non-consumer MacPros. Stuff like that.
- Never price out the cost of the Mac to bring it down in specs to the PC. Oh, right. You can't remove features you have absolutely no interest in.
- Discuss the fact that, while the prices can be the same, you are actually able to get an equivalent MacBook Pro box in a 12" case, or a MacBook in a 15" case, or a mini-tower with expandability. Or a computer without a built-in monitor so you don't have to throw everything out if you want just a new CPU.
But if you ignore all the above, you're right, the Macs and PCs are similarly priced!That's just being absurd. I don't think anyone ever meant that every year it is reduced by 20% of the original value.
I didn't realize that you couldn't recognize that I was being patently absurd. Nevertheless, I think the paid professional analyst was also being absurd. How much does a 5GB HDD iPod cost today? That's a dumb question because Apple doesn't sell such a product anymore.
Historically, Apple delivers more value in each release while keeping the prices relatively stable. By 2012, the fifth generation iPhone might hold 100 GB and have a 7-inch folding touchscreen and allow you to do real-time videoconferencing and still cost about $500. It will probably also make smoothies.
To think that the original iPhone will be around long enough to experience the exponential decay in price seems like some pretty dumb analysis to me. And I'm telling this to you for FREE!
Nevertheless, I think the paid professional analyst was also being absurd. How much does a 5GB HDD iPod cost today? That's a dumb question because Apple doesn't sell such a product anymore.
I think this is being asinine because it's quite arrogant to suggest that the analyst and his/her audience doesn't know that products are updated over the years. Why should an analyst specifically state that it won't be the exact same model? Whatever will be sold five years from now will probably have the name regardless of what the specs are. Your argument also ignores the (IMO) likelyhood that sub-models will be made. Five years ago it was iPod, it still is iPod, but it is now offered in much cheaper variations under the same iPod name. It is also those cheaper variations that are selling far more than the flagship version.
Besides, how do you know that the report doesn't say this? We don't get the original report without paying, what we get is a digest version of the report made by a third party.
I wasn't discounting the speed bumps, just saying that they never come with price cuts, they're done in lieu of price cuts.
I by 'fabled', I did not mean 'make-believe'. What I meant was the never-ending comparisons people bring up to try to explain the mac's high price. And they may be true. The problem is that they never cover two important areas:
- Add in costs of features available on the PC that aren't on the mac. For example, a stock PC usually has some 8 USB ports. No Mac/PC comparison ever adds in the price of a USB hub for the Mac. Or external HD cases to 'cover' the fact that the PC can hold an extra drive. Or even taking into account that no macs have swappable video cards, except the non-consumer MacPros. Stuff like that.
- Never price out the cost of the Mac to bring it down in specs to the PC. Oh, right. You can't remove features you have absolutely no interest in.
- Discuss the fact that, while the prices can be the same, you are actually able to get an equivalent MacBook Pro box in a 12" case, or a MacBook in a 15" case, or a mini-tower with expandability. Or a computer without a built-in monitor so you don't have to throw everything out if you want just a new CPU.
But if you ignore all the above, you're right, the Macs and PCs are similarly priced!Sure, I've seen 'em do that. Of course, you can get a good hub for $40, I have one sitting next to my G4 right now. But most of the comparisons I've seen didn't show PCs with that many ports. "No Macs have swappable graphics cards..." Bullshit. iMacs sure do. MacBook Pro does, too. Get your facts straight.
Why remove features - you're right. Apple makes their computers in each line conform to certain base specs, like all manufacturers do. If you want to compare specs, you have to build up the one with lower specs to the one with better specs. That's just good sense. Your argument is just a straw man to add another bullet to your list.
The whole point is, that Macs ARE similarly priced to similarly equipped PCs. Period, end of story. Make what whiney nits you want, but the fact is, that's the market today.
You don't have to buy 'em, or like 'em, or necessarily agree. But there have been plenty of good comparisons (and some by unbiased journalists as well as in PC mag itself) that show just that. If you want to insist that they are all wrong, then there's nothing I can do to change your mind.
So just go play with your PCs and I'll keep using my macs and we can both be happy.
"No Macs have swappable graphics cards..." Bullshit. iMacs sure do. MacBook Pro does, too. Get your facts straight.
I've never heard that the MacBook Pro has swappable video, last I heard, it's soldered on. The iMac (and IIRC, only the 24") might hypothetically be swappable, there aren't any aftermarket modules for it.
=JeffDM;1034523
Besides, how do you know that the report doesn't say this? We don't get the original report without paying, what we get is a digest version of the report made by a third party.
That's right. I often bring that point up.
These public releases are just a short condensed version, much as the synopsis of a novel on the back of the book.
Sure, I've seen 'em do that. Of course, you can get a good hub for $40, I have one sitting next to my G4 right now. But most of the comparisons I've seen didn't show PCs with that many ports. "No Macs have swappable graphics cards..." Bullshit. iMacs sure do. MacBook Pro does, too. Get your facts straight.
That's nice you have a good hub for $40. The point is that no one adds those to the Mac side, regardless of its price. They just try to add whatever they can to the PC side to get the prices up. And almost every PC I've seen has more USB ports then Macs out there (hell, the G5 tower I have has a laughable 2 (after taking out the keyboard use), and one is on the front).
As for graphic cards, please pass along all links to shipping upgrade cards to those mac models you listed (actual Mac-verified graphic cards, not just "this will fit" without knowing whether they'll work).
Why remove features - you're right. Apple makes their computers in each line conform to certain base specs, like all manufacturers do. If you want to compare specs, you have to build up the one with lower specs to the one with better specs. That's just good sense. Your argument is just a straw man to add another bullet to your list.
No, you missed the point. You CANNOT get a mac laptop without a built-in camera. That's my point. You can make your whole "to compare prices, you have to match specs" argument, but the fact is that it misses the point that you have so many other choices on the PC side, where you can configure your laptop to what you need, not what apple wants you to have.
I'm looking for a replacement for my 12" iBook. I want a 15" screen, though. What's my cheapest choice? $2000 worth of computer. Can someone please explain to me how it needs to cost $2000 for someone to buy a 15" laptop. Or can you explain how Apple has determined that only pros need 15+" screens, and only consumers need 12" screens? You can get 15" PC laptops for less then $1000, but, on the mac side, you're forced into their pre-defined product holes. But what do I know. Apparently I think consumers in the market for a desktop without a built-in monitor should be able to buy one for way less than $1000 (and that comes with a keyboard, a mouse, and expandability options!)
And if you don't like my arguments, let's go to the car analogy. A Mercedes may be more expensive, sure. But take that honda accord, and deck it out with all the features of the Mercedes, and, hey, they're the same price! Of course, if you don't need all those features, you can get the Honda, but there's no way to get the Mercedes without them. But how many people actually keep going on and on about how the Mercedes is "competitively priced" when you spec the Honda accordingly? None, because people no its a nonsensical argument. But Mac lovers do it all the time to try to explain the macs high cost, rather then saying "Hey, if apple actually made computers that more people wanted, they could actually sell them at lower prices and perhaps drive even more people to the platform"