Superbass, the price will come down in the same way it did for the iPod. CPUs, storage media, the LCD, other components will drop in price, manufacturing will shore up a bit, and the line will diversify. It may take a year or two rather than the month or so the immediate gratification brigade is targeting, but it'll happen. Personally, I'll probably buy one when the unlocked model hits $400-$500. By then it'll be about time to replace my unlocked RAZR anyway.
$30 for voice + $20 for data and I am in, but not for 70 to 100.
I am not afraid of the handset cost that is a one time cost, I am afraid of the recurring monthly charges.
Come to think of it, the wife wants one and my kid also, thats 3 phones plus whatever the cost for a family plan for 2 years, ouch!!!!!!!!!!
I too have no problem for the handset cost for me and my daughter. However, I hope they will offer a family plan for data/email surfing/web surfing. Then I would be fine with me. My problem is also the same as yours, multiple recurring cost streams for the service beyond the voice plan.
FYI, I've had a BB before and my wife has one now ----BUT I am yet to find a single phone that can get me to websites and look up info. NYTimes, or Yahoo Finance or Google News or Google search.
This is what I hope the Iphone will change--but given AT&T wirlesss tech I am not so sure. IT may be still be PRETTY slow!
Assuming this is correct, sounds like they anounced the price before sufficient research.
Many of us said that it was overpriced by 100 dollars. While it is two devices in one, a lot of the components are shared such as casing, cpu, software, battery, charging hardware, etc. It is not fair pricing to just add the total MSRP of two products just because the one device does the work of both.
You probably disagree, but 100 down to me is the sweet and fair spot for the iPhone.
Assuming this is correct, sounds like they anounced the price before sufficient research.
Many of us said that it was overpriced by 100 dollars. While it is two devices in one, a lot of the components are shared such as casing, cpu, software, battery, charging hardware, etc. It is not fair pricing to just add the total MSRP of two products just because the one device does the work of both.
That part of what they said was nonsense. The "iPod" part is just an app, while that development has to be paid for, it almost totally cuts out the incremental cost of hardware, with the exception of a fancy-pants DAC to get one like the main iPod has.
But the original presentation also factored in some intangibles, such as ease of use.
Wow! Up to 145 from 118. On a 1 year target? That is amazing. I've never really gotten a straight answer though. Is this a 12 month target, renewed every time the new target is announced, or is it a target for some specific date?
The few people that I knew that had plans near that price range actually do use the services enough to justify the costs. But I don't know many like that, I think they use cheaper plans that aren't so expensive.
We have a plan with Sprint for three phones that comes to over $150 (without all the junk my daughter downloads each month). It's 2,000 minutes a month, and includes unlimited data.
We have a plan with Sprint for three phones that comes to over $150 (without all the junk my daughter downloads each month). It's 2,000 minutes a month, and includes unlimited data.
Yes but three phones is more than one isn't it?. Would you get three iphones if each phone resulted in a plan cost of $150?. I presume the conversation was about the bill for one phone or else the comparison is meaningless.. there are companies that pay thousands for phone bills (some cab companies for instance), there are some small businesses that also pay hundreds and possibly thousands.. just cause the phone bill for ONE iphone is less than their aggregate bill does not mean they run out and get an iphone.
So yes, anyone who pays 150 for a single phone bill has too much money and i can direct them where to donate it to a worthy cause (me). The only reason i would ever pay $150 for a phone plan is if somehow it is responsible for revenue that far exceeds it's cost (ie, a business tool)... i remember saying in another post that unless apple opens this iphone to outside development, it will be limited as a business tool. Businesses don't care if they can play itunes on their phones. I am finding it hard to fanthom exactly what customer demographic (except for the apple diehards who would buy shit if it came out of jobs ass) apple is aiming for. It's a weak business tool so the people who would most likely pay the exorbitant fee is disinterested, it's way more expensive than a consumer device.. who exactly are they aiming for?.. Richie rich kids?.
Assuming this is correct, sounds like they anounced the price before sufficient research.
Many of us said that it was overpriced by 100 dollars. While it is two devices in one, a lot of the components are shared such as casing, cpu, software, battery, charging hardware, etc. It is not fair pricing to just add the total MSRP of two products just because the one device does the work of both.
You probably disagree, but 100 down to me is the sweet and fair spot for the iPhone.
The iPhone is not two devices in one it is one device and with the new technology, software development, and component cost they have come up with a price for the product. I'm sure they took other things into consideration as well such as fair market price and gross as well as net profit margins. You statement about cost savings on the case, CPU, etc. is off base, especially since we dont know what components that the iPone will be using in the final version that is released to consumers. It also does not take into account the extra cost of the components that the iPone has that the other available products do not such as the larger (multi) touch screen which alone could add quite a bit of expense in R&D, software development, and component cost.
Uh..do you know how the tech economy works? When the first iPod came out, it was more expensive than most iPods today, had almost no storage, no clickwheel, no color screen, no video, and was big and clunky. Today the average nano is 10x better and cheaper, too. The iPhone will follow the same path.
Yes, but with the iPod, the low cost options are shuffle, with no screen, tiny memory, no features other than playing music, or nano, which is also a tiny fraction of the memory of large ipod...
Using a model like this, the low budget iphone would just be another phone, if they released a model with no touchscreen , or only 512kb memory, or a more limited user interface... Even if it was half the price of the existing iPhone, that's still a high price for an average phone when you'll still be locked into a 2 year plan...
Apple has never adopted a policy of selling year-old tech as a "discount line", so we can't expect the current iPhone to become the discount line next year when the iPhone gets smaller, more memory, wifi, etc...
The iPhone is not two devices in one it is one device and with the new technology, software development, and component cost they have come up with a price for the product. I'm sure they took other things into consideration as well such as fair market price and gross as well as net profit margins. You statement about cost savings on the case, CPU, etc. is off base, especially since we dont know what components that the iPone will be using in the final version that is released to consumers. It also does not take into account the extra cost of the components that the iPone has that the other available products do not such as the larger (multi) touch screen which alone could add quite a bit of expense in R&D, software development, and component cost.
Dude, apple never have ever charged prices for their devices based on their cost. Which planet are you from?. Apple is gonna charge 500 or 600 until customers tells jobs to shove it up his ass then they will price the device according to cost. Without even knowing what the component cost is, i can say it is way less than what apple is charging.. wanna know how i know this?.. cause apple always charge way more than is justified by their cost. Also, the cost of the device was broken down. While this is an estimate, it's not an estimate based on a blind man picking a number. Here is the link
Notice the component price of the 499 iphone is estimated at $245.83. So 499 represents a 50% profit. Even apple research and development cannot justify a 50% markup.. motorola have research and development cost too, so do nokia, etc.. and apple already knew how to make an ipod so this research was basically apple figuring out how to make an ipod make phone calls and before you scream touch screen.. my treo has a touch screen. Apple has not reinvented the wheel.. there is no leap in technology. Apple can claim leap in UI (that is still to be determined by consumers) but the tech was already there, apple putting it together does not justify 50% margin.
The iPhone is not two devices in one it is one device and with the new technology, software development, and component cost they have come up with a price for the product. I'm sure they took other things into consideration as well such as fair market price and gross as well as net profit margins. You statement about cost savings on the case, CPU, etc. is off base, especially since we dont know what components that the iPone will be using in the final version that is released to consumers. It also does not take into account the extra cost of the components that the iPone has that the other available products do not such as the larger (multi) touch screen which alone could add quite a bit of expense in R&D, software development, and component cost.
I chose my words based on how Steve presented the iPhone, he said it was 3 devices in one, and did the price comparison himself by adding the price of the iPod to the price of a phone to come up with the price he wanted us to pay. Check the presentation.
I do not think it is fair to consider the R&D on it, you always have R&D for new models of anything including a paperclip.
I did not assign a price based on the two major "devices", Steve did. I simply took what Steve did and took it to the next level, they are saving on a case, a battery, the construction of one device, etc, therefore the customers should get a piece of that and not just add the MSRP of two devices in the market for one device that does the functionality of two.
I can buy a stove with the oven built-in, or i can buy the two of them separetly. The separate solution is a hell of a lot more expensive check Sears and others. There are savings in one device with multiple functionalities. Those savings should go to the customer, it is called value for your money.
Take the video iPod, it used to be a music player, now it displays photos and also plays movies. There was some R&D on that. But Apple does not ask us to pay the MSRP of a small TV plus the MSRP of an iPod. That is value.
Dude, apple never have ever charged prices for their devices based on their cost. Which planet are you from?. Apple is gonna charge 500 or 600 until customers tells jobs to shove it up his ass then they will price the device according to cost. Without even knowing what the component cost is, i can say it is way less than what apple is charging.. wanna know how i know this?.. cause apple always charge way more than is justified by their cost. Also, the cost of the device was broken down. While this is an estimate, it's not an estimate based on a blind man picking a number. Here is the link
Notice the component price of the 499 iphone is estimated at $245.83. So 499 represents a 50% profit. Even apple research and development cannot justify a 50% markup.. motorola have research and development cost too, so do nokia, etc.. and apple already knew how to make an ipod so this research was basically apple figuring out how to make an ipod make phone calls and before you scream touch screen.. my treo has a touch screen. Apple has not reinvented the wheel.. there is no leap in technology. Apple can claim leap in UI (that is still to be determined by consumers) but the tech was already there, apple putting it together does not justify 50% margin.
Right, because iPhones manufacture, package, ship, advertise, account, and offer phone assistance and Apple Care for themselves.
Comments
Yeah, this is definitely a phone for the rich.
If you put about $2500 into apple stock today, by fall it will pretty much pay for the iPhone.
And anyone who knows Apple knows that they would NEVER support "mail-in" rebates. They'd sooner cut their own prices before stooping to that level.
Umm, Apple offers mail-in rebates every back to school season on their iPods.
I am not afraid of the handset cost that is a one time cost, I am afraid of the recurring monthly charges.
Come to think of it, the wife wants one and my kid also, thats 3 phones plus whatever the cost for a family plan for 2 years, ouch!!!!!!!!!!
$30 for voice + $20 for data and I am in, but not for 70 to 100.
I am not afraid of the handset cost that is a one time cost, I am afraid of the recurring monthly charges.
Come to think of it, the wife wants one and my kid also, thats 3 phones plus whatever the cost for a family plan for 2 years, ouch!!!!!!!!!!
I too have no problem for the handset cost for me and my daughter. However, I hope they will offer a family plan for data/email surfing/web surfing. Then I would be fine with me. My problem is also the same as yours, multiple recurring cost streams for the service beyond the voice plan.
FYI, I've had a BB before and my wife has one now ----BUT I am yet to find a single phone that can get me to websites and look up info. NYTimes, or Yahoo Finance or Google News or Google search.
This is what I hope the Iphone will change--but given AT&T wirlesss tech I am not so sure. IT may be still be PRETTY slow!
Many of us said that it was overpriced by 100 dollars. While it is two devices in one, a lot of the components are shared such as casing, cpu, software, battery, charging hardware, etc. It is not fair pricing to just add the total MSRP of two products just because the one device does the work of both.
You probably disagree, but 100 down to me is the sweet and fair spot for the iPhone.
Assuming this is correct, sounds like they anounced the price before sufficient research.
Many of us said that it was overpriced by 100 dollars. While it is two devices in one, a lot of the components are shared such as casing, cpu, software, battery, charging hardware, etc. It is not fair pricing to just add the total MSRP of two products just because the one device does the work of both.
That part of what they said was nonsense. The "iPod" part is just an app, while that development has to be paid for, it almost totally cuts out the incremental cost of hardware, with the exception of a fancy-pants DAC to get one like the main iPod has.
But the original presentation also factored in some intangibles, such as ease of use.
Wow! Up to 145 from 118. On a 1 year target? That is amazing. I've never really gotten a straight answer though. Is this a 12 month target, renewed every time the new target is announced, or is it a target for some specific date?
End of 2008 fiscal year, apparently.
No doubt. I've known folks that pay close to $150 a month on cell.
Yes, they are idiots.
Yes, they are idiots.
The few people that I knew that had plans near that price range actually do use the services enough to justify the costs. But I don't know many like that, I think they use cheaper plans that aren't so expensive.
Yes, they are idiots.
We have a plan with Sprint for three phones that comes to over $150 (without all the junk my daughter downloads each month). It's 2,000 minutes a month, and includes unlimited data.
We have a plan with Sprint for three phones that comes to over $150 (without all the junk my daughter downloads each month). It's 2,000 minutes a month, and includes unlimited data.
Yes but three phones is more than one isn't it?. Would you get three iphones if each phone resulted in a plan cost of $150?. I presume the conversation was about the bill for one phone or else the comparison is meaningless.. there are companies that pay thousands for phone bills (some cab companies for instance), there are some small businesses that also pay hundreds and possibly thousands.. just cause the phone bill for ONE iphone is less than their aggregate bill does not mean they run out and get an iphone.
So yes, anyone who pays 150 for a single phone bill has too much money and i can direct them where to donate it to a worthy cause (me). The only reason i would ever pay $150 for a phone plan is if somehow it is responsible for revenue that far exceeds it's cost (ie, a business tool)... i remember saying in another post that unless apple opens this iphone to outside development, it will be limited as a business tool. Businesses don't care if they can play itunes on their phones. I am finding it hard to fanthom exactly what customer demographic (except for the apple diehards who would buy shit if it came out of jobs ass) apple is aiming for. It's a weak business tool so the people who would most likely pay the exorbitant fee is disinterested, it's way more expensive than a consumer device.. who exactly are they aiming for?.. Richie rich kids?.
Assuming this is correct, sounds like they anounced the price before sufficient research.
Many of us said that it was overpriced by 100 dollars. While it is two devices in one, a lot of the components are shared such as casing, cpu, software, battery, charging hardware, etc. It is not fair pricing to just add the total MSRP of two products just because the one device does the work of both.
You probably disagree, but 100 down to me is the sweet and fair spot for the iPhone.
The iPhone is not two devices in one it is one device and with the new technology, software development, and component cost they have come up with a price for the product. I'm sure they took other things into consideration as well such as fair market price and gross as well as net profit margins. You statement about cost savings on the case, CPU, etc. is off base, especially since we dont know what components that the iPone will be using in the final version that is released to consumers. It also does not take into account the extra cost of the components that the iPone has that the other available products do not such as the larger (multi) touch screen which alone could add quite a bit of expense in R&D, software development, and component cost.
Uh..do you know how the tech economy works? When the first iPod came out, it was more expensive than most iPods today, had almost no storage, no clickwheel, no color screen, no video, and was big and clunky. Today the average nano is 10x better and cheaper, too. The iPhone will follow the same path.
Yes, but with the iPod, the low cost options are shuffle, with no screen, tiny memory, no features other than playing music, or nano, which is also a tiny fraction of the memory of large ipod...
Using a model like this, the low budget iphone would just be another phone, if they released a model with no touchscreen , or only 512kb memory, or a more limited user interface... Even if it was half the price of the existing iPhone, that's still a high price for an average phone when you'll still be locked into a 2 year plan...
Apple has never adopted a policy of selling year-old tech as a "discount line", so we can't expect the current iPhone to become the discount line next year when the iPhone gets smaller, more memory, wifi, etc...
If you put about $2500 into apple stock today, by fall it will pretty much pay for the iPhone.
Let me guess, you're 16 years old?
The iPhone is not two devices in one it is one device and with the new technology, software development, and component cost they have come up with a price for the product. I'm sure they took other things into consideration as well such as fair market price and gross as well as net profit margins. You statement about cost savings on the case, CPU, etc. is off base, especially since we dont know what components that the iPone will be using in the final version that is released to consumers. It also does not take into account the extra cost of the components that the iPone has that the other available products do not such as the larger (multi) touch screen which alone could add quite a bit of expense in R&D, software development, and component cost.
Dude, apple never have ever charged prices for their devices based on their cost. Which planet are you from?. Apple is gonna charge 500 or 600 until customers tells jobs to shove it up his ass then they will price the device according to cost. Without even knowing what the component cost is, i can say it is way less than what apple is charging.. wanna know how i know this?.. cause apple always charge way more than is justified by their cost. Also, the cost of the device was broken down. While this is an estimate, it's not an estimate based on a blind man picking a number. Here is the link
http://articles.techrepublic.com.com...1-6151185.html
Notice the component price of the 499 iphone is estimated at $245.83. So 499 represents a 50% profit. Even apple research and development cannot justify a 50% markup.. motorola have research and development cost too, so do nokia, etc.. and apple already knew how to make an ipod so this research was basically apple figuring out how to make an ipod make phone calls and before you scream touch screen.. my treo has a touch screen. Apple has not reinvented the wheel.. there is no leap in technology. Apple can claim leap in UI (that is still to be determined by consumers) but the tech was already there, apple putting it together does not justify 50% margin.
The iPhone is not two devices in one it is one device and with the new technology, software development, and component cost they have come up with a price for the product. I'm sure they took other things into consideration as well such as fair market price and gross as well as net profit margins. You statement about cost savings on the case, CPU, etc. is off base, especially since we dont know what components that the iPone will be using in the final version that is released to consumers. It also does not take into account the extra cost of the components that the iPone has that the other available products do not such as the larger (multi) touch screen which alone could add quite a bit of expense in R&D, software development, and component cost.
I chose my words based on how Steve presented the iPhone, he said it was 3 devices in one, and did the price comparison himself by adding the price of the iPod to the price of a phone to come up with the price he wanted us to pay. Check the presentation.
I do not think it is fair to consider the R&D on it, you always have R&D for new models of anything including a paperclip.
I did not assign a price based on the two major "devices", Steve did. I simply took what Steve did and took it to the next level, they are saving on a case, a battery, the construction of one device, etc, therefore the customers should get a piece of that and not just add the MSRP of two devices in the market for one device that does the functionality of two.
I can buy a stove with the oven built-in, or i can buy the two of them separetly. The separate solution is a hell of a lot more expensive check Sears and others. There are savings in one device with multiple functionalities. Those savings should go to the customer, it is called value for your money.
Take the video iPod, it used to be a music player, now it displays photos and also plays movies. There was some R&D on that. But Apple does not ask us to pay the MSRP of a small TV plus the MSRP of an iPod. That is value.
Dude, apple never have ever charged prices for their devices based on their cost. Which planet are you from?. Apple is gonna charge 500 or 600 until customers tells jobs to shove it up his ass then they will price the device according to cost. Without even knowing what the component cost is, i can say it is way less than what apple is charging.. wanna know how i know this?.. cause apple always charge way more than is justified by their cost. Also, the cost of the device was broken down. While this is an estimate, it's not an estimate based on a blind man picking a number. Here is the link
http://articles.techrepublic.com.com...1-6151185.html
Notice the component price of the 499 iphone is estimated at $245.83. So 499 represents a 50% profit. Even apple research and development cannot justify a 50% markup.. motorola have research and development cost too, so do nokia, etc.. and apple already knew how to make an ipod so this research was basically apple figuring out how to make an ipod make phone calls and before you scream touch screen.. my treo has a touch screen. Apple has not reinvented the wheel.. there is no leap in technology. Apple can claim leap in UI (that is still to be determined by consumers) but the tech was already there, apple putting it together does not justify 50% margin.
Right, because iPhones manufacture, package, ship, advertise, account, and offer phone assistance and Apple Care for themselves.
That other $255 is just PURE profit.