I agree with much of your other premise but totally disagree with this annotated statement above. which technical advantage are we talking about? Touch screens? Nokia, and SE have been there years before. EDGE? Been there done, that about 3 years ago. 2 Megapixel cameras? The list continues. What Apple did was to innovate and implement on and older technology, i.e the touch screen and they did this quite well. The iPhone is far from ground breaking but the implementation is quite evolutionary as opposed to revolutionary.
I love reading stuff like this, because it really does point out the fundamental difference between Apple and its competitors with regard to business psychology. Most people still don't get the fact that Apple succeeds because their products are usability driven, NOT feature driven something that is still lost on many people, including the above poster.
What good does a product with tons of features do if the user experience is sub par? The iPhone succeeds because it implements the features that it has really, really well. Why else does it have the highest customer satisfaction ratings of any cell phone EVER? Anybody who has honestly compared WM6, Linux and Symbian-based smartphones with the the iPhone knows that the iPhone wins hands down in terms of useability. How the poster above can so easily dismiss that is very short sighted in my opinion. Stuff like 5MP cameras on a phone is more marketing hype than anything else, and 3G is not as widely available in the USA - the iPhone's main market - as it is in Europe and Asia, but a 3G iPhone is coming, so the iPhone's lack of 3G is a moot point.
It's very easy to debunk many more of the points the above post tries to make, so I won't go there. What I will say is: if Nokia and SE's implementation of all these technologies is so superior to the iPhone's, then why are those two companies trying so hard to recreate (read: copy) the iPhone in their forthcoming products?
Not quite sure about that. Do you mean the patent? If Apple has the patent, then you have a point, but if not, I will only concede that currently Apple has a better implementation of an old technology.
Multi-Touch is not simply a better implementation of touch screens. It has had an entirely different research and development path dating back to 1982. Apple bought FingerWorks a company that was first to successfully develop and market multi-touch keyboards. Apple owns the Fingerworks intellectual property and the patents.
Doesn't matter - if you're going into the cellphone market you hshould have more than one great product to offer. Apple should have had more than one version of cellphone when they intially entered the market. Cellphones go stale very fast- look what happened with the Razr and Motorola. The razr lost the cool factor and Motorola had nothing to offer in addition to it. LG, Blackberry, SoneEricksonetc all have many good models to choose from. Apple needs to saturate the market with different phones and fast to keep up the competitive pace and pricing of the cellphone market.
I'd agree that apple will need to keep updating the iPhone and will need to introduce a new model before long...but I don't see why they needed more than one model at launch? Why?
Demand has been excellent for a product with only one model, it seems like it makes much more sense to roll out new things on an ongoing basis than to try and have more options than necessary at launch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
The general public probably does not think they are paying $400-$500 for a cellphone's OS. They think only of the physical make of the phone.
I don't agree - while the public probably doesn't talk about the OS, there's no question that they talk about ease of use. And that's the OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
The problem with you argument is that the world market for cell phones is already 1.1 billion LAST YEAR.
I don't see how that's a problem with my argument. Jobs made that prediction midway through last year, he was going off a projection since obviously nobody knew for sure how many would be sold during the year. What do you disagree with?
Dwindling demand of the iPhone was my point- not Macs. The lead article of the thread even states that it cost too much.
Well, in this case: pardon. But you said "products" and mentioned Shuffle and movie rentals...
The lead article quotes an analyst - and I think he is, at least partially, wrong. Sure there should be a cheaper, less featured, iPhone to gain more market share and make Apple a bigger player in the cell phone market, just: I do not really consider the iPhone overpriced for now. It sells pretty well for an expensive device and Apple has to do the math - will a cheaper price point generate more income, especially considering an unlocking rate of maybe 30 - 40% by now? Maybe not. They will bring the price down before introducing a new model.
"In" is the same as "by the end of". They both occur within the 2008 timeframe.
How can you say they are the same?
"We will sell 10 million in 2008". (total 14 million)
"We will sell 10 million by the end of 2008" (total 10 million)
"We will have reached 10 million sold in 2008" (total 10+ million by the end of 2008)
Apple has consistently worded it the first way. And that's the only way that's consistent with calling 10 million 1% of the billion phones expected to be sold in 2008.
"We will sell 10 million in 2008". (total 14 million)
"We will sell 10 million by the end of 2008" (total 10 million)
"We will have reached 10 million sold in 2008" (total 10+ million by the end of 2008)
Apple has consistently worded it the first way. And that's the only way that's consistent with calling 10 million 1% of the billion phones expected to be sold in 2008.
Nope. Its 10M by the end of 2008. Review videos and PR releases carefully please.
Doesn't matter- the pricing was formulated before unlocking became an issue and are overpriced regardless. .
It does matter.
If the profit on the iPhone is $100 how can they lower it much? If they lowered it $100 as many suggest then every iPhone sold and unlocked then becomes almost unprofitable.
If 1 million of the 5 million iPhones sold to date are unlocked then that would be 20% of the iPhone sold AT NO PROFIT.
Apple cannot and will not do that. The iPhone may drop another $50 but that's about as low as it can go if the numbers in the article are correct. People hoping Apple will sell the iPhone at cost are kidding themselves. Apple will accept not reaching the '10 million sold goal' before that happens.
Personally I think the 3g version needs to arrive sooner. That'll open up the Asian markets, which may embrace the iPhone, and will probably help European sales which are soft.
I don't see how that's a problem with my argument. Jobs made that prediction midway through last year, he was going off a projection since obviously nobody knew for sure how many would be sold during the year. What do you disagree with?
No, Jobs made the presentation in January 2007 --- using 2006 world market data.
At the time of the original presentation in January 2007, analysts have already projected the worldwide mobile phone market to grow to 1.1 billion in 2007.
If you found a source for Jobs or another apple official saying "by the end of", by all means post it. Until then, you are making claims with zero facts to back them up.
If the profit on the iPhone is $100 how can they lower it much? If they lowered it $100 as many suggest then every iPhone sold and unlocked then becomes almost unprofitable.
If 1 million of the 5 million iPhones sold to date are unlocked then that would be 20% of the iPhone sold AT NO PROFIT.
Apple cannot and will not do that. The iPhone may drop another $50 but that's about as low as it can go if the numbers in the article are correct. People hoping Apple will sell the iPhone at cost are kidding themselves. Apple will accept not reaching the '10 million sold goal' before that happens.
Personally I think the 3g version needs to arrive sooner. That'll open up the Asian markets, which may embrace the iPhone, and will probably help European sales which are soft.
What are you talkin about? they have up to 50% margins, and how are they not making profit on unlocked phones? They make just as much profit whether someone jailbreaks it, uses it in afghanistan, or throws it in the toilet... as long as its legally purchased off the shelves.
I'm so fed up of analysts failing to see the point.
The point is, Apple will sell 10m iPhones because they will release the 3G one around summertime, which will bump up sales.
I am so fed up of fanbois who don't read the fine print.
Sacconaghi is saying that without a iphone launch in Asia, a 3G iphone launch and a iphone price cut --- the 10 million sales goal would be difficult to reach.
The general public probably does not think they are paying $400-$500 for a cellphone's OS. They think only of the physical make of the phone. And if that OS is not compatible with corporate OS requirements it doesn't matter how fantastic the OS is, if your place of business does not subsidize it.
The "general public" doesn't even think about devices having OS's. But they DO think they are paying for all the things an OS platform gives them:
* WHAT they can do (software, not just hardware specs)
* HOW WELL they can do it (how easily, quickly, etc.)
The "general public" also doesn't think about "corporate OS requirements." That's a more specific, Microsoft-tied segment that Apple does not depend on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
"In" is the same as "by the end of". They both occur within the 2008 timeframe.
But some people see "by the end of 2008" and lump 2007 in there too--which is inaccurate in this case. "In" does NOT mean the same as "by the end of" because "in" excludes 2007, while "by the end of" is vague on that. "In" is what Apple said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Evreyone keeps asking why the stock keeps dropping and this pinpoints a main factor- too many overpriced products and dwindling demand for them. Finally we have just received a cheaper shuffle and .99cent movie rentals - so it looks like Apple is trying to offest the lopsided pricing in the product line with these more democratic price offerings.
The drop is no mystery:
* Apple stock fluctuates wildly based on the little hard info. Nothing new there. Any time any one of Apple's many ventures performs amazingly--but slightly LESS amazingly than someone expected--some see it as a failure. And analysts DO manipulate tech stocks with false analysis for profit. Illegally yet brazenly.
* The whole economy is down.
* Apple issued conservative guidance for next quarter (but not in any huge way, and they did not back down on iPhone predictions for the year).
The stock drop hardly pinpoints problems with "overpriced" products. Look at:
* The fact that Apple's HIGH-end models are doing great. The CHEAP models have been the ones to see lower sales. Apple has created demand for higher-end devices, which would once have been only a small niche.
* What other companies charge for smart devices with big screens, big storage and WiFi--yet lacking mobile OS X and multitouch. (And if you look at subsidized prices, add up what that costs you monthly.)
As for .99 rentals--that's a one-title weekly promo, nothing more.
Demand is not "dwindling" for the iPhone. For the Shuffle, yes--if "dwindling" means still selling great but not AS great--and so it got a price drop just like every product gets eventually.
Apple cannot and will not do that. The iPhone may drop another $50 but that's about as low as it can go if the numbers in the article are correct. People hoping Apple will sell the iPhone at cost are kidding themselves. Apple will accept not reaching the '10 million sold goal' before that happens.
I think the real problem is the unlocking. Other companies give away phones because they are subsidized by monthly fees. Apple isn't going to be able to compete with that forever, they're going to have to lower prices and make it up in monthly income from ATT.
I don't see why they just don't require users to sign up for the ATT contract in the store before they let them walk with the phone. I know they take pride in the iTunes unlocking thing, but wouldn't that pretty much eliminate all sales without a contract? That's what they do with all other free and discounted phones, isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
I am so fed up of fanbois who don't read the fine print.
Sacconaghi is saying that without a iphone launch in Asia, a 3G iphone launch and a iphone price cut --- the 10 million sales goal would be difficult to reach.
You seem to be the one not reading here...we get those points. We just don't agree that there will be no launch in Asia, no 3G, and no price cut this year. Do you think that none of those will happen?
What are you talkin about? they have up to 50% margins, and how are they not making profit on unlocked phones? They make just as much profit whether someone jailbreaks it, uses it in afghanistan, or throws it in the toilet... as long as its legally purchased off the shelves.
Did you read the article?
"We believe Apple generates more than $200 in gross profit over the life of the phone, compared with approximately $100 for the actual sale of the phone,"
I don't know if his numbers are acurate but if they are then the make $100 of profit on the sale of the phone. That's a 25% profit margin not 50%. I don't know where you got your numbers, I 'm going by what is in the article.
They do make a profit on unlocked phones now but I contend that the large number of phones sold and unlocked limits Apple's ability to cut the price of the handset.
I think the real problem is the unlocking. Other companies give away phones because they are subsidized by monthly fees. Apple isn't going to be able to compete with that forever, they're going to have to lower prices and make it up in monthly income from ATT.
I don't see why they just don't require users to sign up for the ATT contract in the store before they let them walk with the phone. I know they take pride in the iTunes unlocking thing, but wouldn't that pretty much eliminate all sales without a contract? That's what they do with all other free and discounted phones, isn't it?
I agree and that's an excellent point about the in store activation.
I don't see why they just don't require users to sign up for the ATT contract in the store before they let them walk with the phone. I know they take pride in the iTunes unlocking thing, but wouldn't that pretty much eliminate all sales without a contract? That's what they do with all other free and discounted phones, isn't it?
I don't think Apple WANTS to eliminate unlocked iPhones. AT&T does for sure, but I suspect Apple is happy to have all that income from the unlocked iPhones, knowing that further efforts to enforce the lock would make SOME additional shared revenue, but not, I am guessing, as much as Apple makes on ALL those unlocked phone purchases.
The amount of unlocking is an interesting side effect of the massive mindshare and demand, and I'm sure Apple is watching it closely--but I bet it's mainly AT&T who cares. (And even they are doing quite well off the iPhone regardless--winning many converts from other carriers.)
If you found a source for Jobs or another apple official saying "by the end of", by all means post it. Until then, you are making claims with zero facts to back them up.
Jobs clearly says Apple will try to grab 1% by 2008 (the 1st full year). 1% market share in that presentation equals 10M iPhones total by the end of 2008. Case Closed.
If you listen too, you will see just how tiny the consoles market is, and how Apple made a smart decision by selling iPhones instead.
"We believe Apple generates more than $200 in gross profit over the life of the phone, compared with approximately $100 for the actual sale of the phone,"
I don't know if his numbers are acurate but if they are then the make $100 of profit on the sale of the phone. That's a 25% profit margin not 50%. I don't know where you got your numbers, I 'm going by what is in the article.
They do make a profit on unlocked phones now but I contend that the large number of phones sold and unlocked limits Apple's ability to cut the price of the handset.
I'm sure prices for parts have dropped since its intro, hence the price drop and the introduction of the 16GB model. I bet they are making between 25-50% easily.
btw, where are you getting your numbers from, genius? post the source.
Comments
I agree with much of your other premise but totally disagree with this annotated statement above. which technical advantage are we talking about? Touch screens? Nokia, and SE have been there years before. EDGE? Been there done, that about 3 years ago. 2 Megapixel cameras? The list continues. What Apple did was to innovate and implement on and older technology, i.e the touch screen and they did this quite well. The iPhone is far from ground breaking but the implementation is quite evolutionary as opposed to revolutionary.
I love reading stuff like this, because it really does point out the fundamental difference between Apple and its competitors with regard to business psychology. Most people still don't get the fact that Apple succeeds because their products are usability driven, NOT feature driven something that is still lost on many people, including the above poster.
What good does a product with tons of features do if the user experience is sub par? The iPhone succeeds because it implements the features that it has really, really well. Why else does it have the highest customer satisfaction ratings of any cell phone EVER? Anybody who has honestly compared WM6, Linux and Symbian-based smartphones with the the iPhone knows that the iPhone wins hands down in terms of useability. How the poster above can so easily dismiss that is very short sighted in my opinion. Stuff like 5MP cameras on a phone is more marketing hype than anything else, and 3G is not as widely available in the USA - the iPhone's main market - as it is in Europe and Asia, but a 3G iPhone is coming, so the iPhone's lack of 3G is a moot point.
It's very easy to debunk many more of the points the above post tries to make, so I won't go there. What I will say is: if Nokia and SE's implementation of all these technologies is so superior to the iPhone's, then why are those two companies trying so hard to recreate (read: copy) the iPhone in their forthcoming products?
Not quite sure about that. Do you mean the patent? If Apple has the patent, then you have a point, but if not, I will only concede that currently Apple has a better implementation of an old technology.
Multi-Touch is not simply a better implementation of touch screens. It has had an entirely different research and development path dating back to 1982. Apple bought FingerWorks a company that was first to successfully develop and market multi-touch keyboards. Apple owns the Fingerworks intellectual property and the patents.
Doesn't matter - if you're going into the cellphone market you hshould have more than one great product to offer. Apple should have had more than one version of cellphone when they intially entered the market. Cellphones go stale very fast- look what happened with the Razr and Motorola. The razr lost the cool factor and Motorola had nothing to offer in addition to it. LG, Blackberry, SoneEricksonetc all have many good models to choose from. Apple needs to saturate the market with different phones and fast to keep up the competitive pace and pricing of the cellphone market.
I'd agree that apple will need to keep updating the iPhone and will need to introduce a new model before long...but I don't see why they needed more than one model at launch? Why?
Demand has been excellent for a product with only one model, it seems like it makes much more sense to roll out new things on an ongoing basis than to try and have more options than necessary at launch.
The general public probably does not think they are paying $400-$500 for a cellphone's OS. They think only of the physical make of the phone.
I don't agree - while the public probably doesn't talk about the OS, there's no question that they talk about ease of use. And that's the OS.
The problem with you argument is that the world market for cell phones is already 1.1 billion LAST YEAR.
I don't see how that's a problem with my argument. Jobs made that prediction midway through last year, he was going off a projection since obviously nobody knew for sure how many would be sold during the year. What do you disagree with?
Dwindling demand of the iPhone was my point- not Macs. The lead article of the thread even states that it cost too much.
Dwindling demand?
Everyone and their grandmother that I know owns an iPhone. Those freakin things are everywhere. What are these analysts talking about?
Dwindling demand of the iPhone was my point- not Macs. The lead article of the thread even states that it cost too much.
Well, in this case: pardon. But you said "products" and mentioned Shuffle and movie rentals...
The lead article quotes an analyst - and I think he is, at least partially, wrong. Sure there should be a cheaper, less featured, iPhone to gain more market share and make Apple a bigger player in the cell phone market, just: I do not really consider the iPhone overpriced for now. It sells pretty well for an expensive device and Apple has to do the math - will a cheaper price point generate more income, especially considering an unlocking rate of maybe 30 - 40% by now? Maybe not. They will bring the price down before introducing a new model.
"In" is the same as "by the end of". They both occur within the 2008 timeframe.
How can you say they are the same?
"We will sell 10 million in 2008". (total 14 million)
"We will sell 10 million by the end of 2008" (total 10 million)
"We will have reached 10 million sold in 2008" (total 10+ million by the end of 2008)
Apple has consistently worded it the first way. And that's the only way that's consistent with calling 10 million 1% of the billion phones expected to be sold in 2008.
How can you say they are the same?
"We will sell 10 million in 2008". (total 14 million)
"We will sell 10 million by the end of 2008" (total 10 million)
"We will have reached 10 million sold in 2008" (total 10+ million by the end of 2008)
Apple has consistently worded it the first way. And that's the only way that's consistent with calling 10 million 1% of the billion phones expected to be sold in 2008.
Nope. Its 10M by the end of 2008. Review videos and PR releases carefully please.
They are already more than halfway there.
The point is, Apple will sell 10m iPhones because they will release the 3G one around summertime, which will bump up sales.
Doesn't matter- the pricing was formulated before unlocking became an issue and are overpriced regardless. .
It does matter.
If the profit on the iPhone is $100 how can they lower it much? If they lowered it $100 as many suggest then every iPhone sold and unlocked then becomes almost unprofitable.
If 1 million of the 5 million iPhones sold to date are unlocked then that would be 20% of the iPhone sold AT NO PROFIT.
Apple cannot and will not do that. The iPhone may drop another $50 but that's about as low as it can go if the numbers in the article are correct. People hoping Apple will sell the iPhone at cost are kidding themselves. Apple will accept not reaching the '10 million sold goal' before that happens.
Personally I think the 3g version needs to arrive sooner. That'll open up the Asian markets, which may embrace the iPhone, and will probably help European sales which are soft.
I don't see how that's a problem with my argument. Jobs made that prediction midway through last year, he was going off a projection since obviously nobody knew for sure how many would be sold during the year. What do you disagree with?
No, Jobs made the presentation in January 2007 --- using 2006 world market data.
At the time of the original presentation in January 2007, analysts have already projected the worldwide mobile phone market to grow to 1.1 billion in 2007.
Nope. Its 10M by the end of 2008. Review videos and PR releases carefully please.
Did you even read the rest of this thread?
There's a screenshot from the keynote, plus links to two videos of the keynote with the times where jobs says "10M in 2008".
Please look at these - are you saying I'm hearing wrong and he says "by the end of"?
So that's three sources direct from Jobs.
Here's another:
"Q: Do you still think you'll sell 10 million iPhones in the first calendar year ? or will it be more?
Jobs: We think 10 million is a realistic goal."
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinv...enson-qa_N.htm
Calendar year is Jan 1 to December 31.
If you found a source for Jobs or another apple official saying "by the end of", by all means post it. Until then, you are making claims with zero facts to back them up.
It does matter.
If the profit on the iPhone is $100 how can they lower it much? If they lowered it $100 as many suggest then every iPhone sold and unlocked then becomes almost unprofitable.
If 1 million of the 5 million iPhones sold to date are unlocked then that would be 20% of the iPhone sold AT NO PROFIT.
Apple cannot and will not do that. The iPhone may drop another $50 but that's about as low as it can go if the numbers in the article are correct. People hoping Apple will sell the iPhone at cost are kidding themselves. Apple will accept not reaching the '10 million sold goal' before that happens.
Personally I think the 3g version needs to arrive sooner. That'll open up the Asian markets, which may embrace the iPhone, and will probably help European sales which are soft.
What are you talkin about? they have up to 50% margins, and how are they not making profit on unlocked phones? They make just as much profit whether someone jailbreaks it, uses it in afghanistan, or throws it in the toilet... as long as its legally purchased off the shelves.
I'm so fed up of analysts failing to see the point.
The point is, Apple will sell 10m iPhones because they will release the 3G one around summertime, which will bump up sales.
I am so fed up of fanbois who don't read the fine print.
Sacconaghi is saying that without a iphone launch in Asia, a 3G iphone launch and a iphone price cut --- the 10 million sales goal would be difficult to reach.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7010138345
The general public probably does not think they are paying $400-$500 for a cellphone's OS. They think only of the physical make of the phone. And if that OS is not compatible with corporate OS requirements it doesn't matter how fantastic the OS is, if your place of business does not subsidize it.
The "general public" doesn't even think about devices having OS's. But they DO think they are paying for all the things an OS platform gives them:
* WHAT they can do (software, not just hardware specs)
* HOW WELL they can do it (how easily, quickly, etc.)
The "general public" also doesn't think about "corporate OS requirements." That's a more specific, Microsoft-tied segment that Apple does not depend on.
"In" is the same as "by the end of". They both occur within the 2008 timeframe.
But some people see "by the end of 2008" and lump 2007 in there too--which is inaccurate in this case. "In" does NOT mean the same as "by the end of" because "in" excludes 2007, while "by the end of" is vague on that. "In" is what Apple said.
Evreyone keeps asking why the stock keeps dropping and this pinpoints a main factor- too many overpriced products and dwindling demand for them. Finally we have just received a cheaper shuffle and .99cent movie rentals - so it looks like Apple is trying to offest the lopsided pricing in the product line with these more democratic price offerings.
The drop is no mystery:
* Apple stock fluctuates wildly based on the little hard info. Nothing new there. Any time any one of Apple's many ventures performs amazingly--but slightly LESS amazingly than someone expected--some see it as a failure. And analysts DO manipulate tech stocks with false analysis for profit. Illegally yet brazenly.
* The whole economy is down.
* Apple issued conservative guidance for next quarter (but not in any huge way, and they did not back down on iPhone predictions for the year).
The stock drop hardly pinpoints problems with "overpriced" products. Look at:
* The fact that Apple's HIGH-end models are doing great. The CHEAP models have been the ones to see lower sales. Apple has created demand for higher-end devices, which would once have been only a small niche.
* What other companies charge for smart devices with big screens, big storage and WiFi--yet lacking mobile OS X and multitouch. (And if you look at subsidized prices, add up what that costs you monthly.)
As for .99 rentals--that's a one-title weekly promo, nothing more.
Demand is not "dwindling" for the iPhone. For the Shuffle, yes--if "dwindling" means still selling great but not AS great--and so it got a price drop just like every product gets eventually.
Apple cannot and will not do that. The iPhone may drop another $50 but that's about as low as it can go if the numbers in the article are correct. People hoping Apple will sell the iPhone at cost are kidding themselves. Apple will accept not reaching the '10 million sold goal' before that happens.
I think the real problem is the unlocking. Other companies give away phones because they are subsidized by monthly fees. Apple isn't going to be able to compete with that forever, they're going to have to lower prices and make it up in monthly income from ATT.
I don't see why they just don't require users to sign up for the ATT contract in the store before they let them walk with the phone. I know they take pride in the iTunes unlocking thing, but wouldn't that pretty much eliminate all sales without a contract? That's what they do with all other free and discounted phones, isn't it?
I am so fed up of fanbois who don't read the fine print.
Sacconaghi is saying that without a iphone launch in Asia, a 3G iphone launch and a iphone price cut --- the 10 million sales goal would be difficult to reach.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7010138345
You seem to be the one not reading here...we get those points. We just don't agree that there will be no launch in Asia, no 3G, and no price cut this year. Do you think that none of those will happen?
What are you talkin about? they have up to 50% margins, and how are they not making profit on unlocked phones? They make just as much profit whether someone jailbreaks it, uses it in afghanistan, or throws it in the toilet... as long as its legally purchased off the shelves.
Did you read the article?
"We believe Apple generates more than $200 in gross profit over the life of the phone, compared with approximately $100 for the actual sale of the phone,"
I don't know if his numbers are acurate but if they are then the make $100 of profit on the sale of the phone. That's a 25% profit margin not 50%. I don't know where you got your numbers, I 'm going by what is in the article.
They do make a profit on unlocked phones now but I contend that the large number of phones sold and unlocked limits Apple's ability to cut the price of the handset.
I think the real problem is the unlocking. Other companies give away phones because they are subsidized by monthly fees. Apple isn't going to be able to compete with that forever, they're going to have to lower prices and make it up in monthly income from ATT.
I don't see why they just don't require users to sign up for the ATT contract in the store before they let them walk with the phone. I know they take pride in the iTunes unlocking thing, but wouldn't that pretty much eliminate all sales without a contract? That's what they do with all other free and discounted phones, isn't it?
I agree and that's an excellent point about the in store activation.
I don't see why they just don't require users to sign up for the ATT contract in the store before they let them walk with the phone. I know they take pride in the iTunes unlocking thing, but wouldn't that pretty much eliminate all sales without a contract? That's what they do with all other free and discounted phones, isn't it?
I don't think Apple WANTS to eliminate unlocked iPhones. AT&T does for sure, but I suspect Apple is happy to have all that income from the unlocked iPhones, knowing that further efforts to enforce the lock would make SOME additional shared revenue, but not, I am guessing, as much as Apple makes on ALL those unlocked phone purchases.
The amount of unlocking is an interesting side effect of the massive mindshare and demand, and I'm sure Apple is watching it closely--but I bet it's mainly AT&T who cares. (And even they are doing quite well off the iPhone regardless--winning many converts from other carriers.)
Did you even read the rest of this thread?
There's a screenshot from the keynote, plus links to two videos of the keynote with the times where jobs says "10M in 2008".
Please look at these - are you saying I'm hearing wrong and he says "by the end of"?
So that's three sources direct from Jobs.
Here's another:
"Q: Do you still think you'll sell 10 million iPhones in the first calendar year ? or will it be more?
Jobs: We think 10 million is a realistic goal."
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinv...enson-qa_N.htm
Calendar year is Jan 1 to December 31.
If you found a source for Jobs or another apple official saying "by the end of", by all means post it. Until then, you are making claims with zero facts to back them up.
Watch this... from about the 3 minute mark http://youtube.com/watch?v=D-X_nLCz6Hc&feature=related
Jobs clearly says Apple will try to grab 1% by 2008 (the 1st full year). 1% market share in that presentation equals 10M iPhones total by the end of 2008. Case Closed.
If you listen too, you will see just how tiny the consoles market is, and how Apple made a smart decision by selling iPhones instead.
Did you read the article?
"We believe Apple generates more than $200 in gross profit over the life of the phone, compared with approximately $100 for the actual sale of the phone,"
I don't know if his numbers are acurate but if they are then the make $100 of profit on the sale of the phone. That's a 25% profit margin not 50%. I don't know where you got your numbers, I 'm going by what is in the article.
They do make a profit on unlocked phones now but I contend that the large number of phones sold and unlocked limits Apple's ability to cut the price of the handset.
I'm sure prices for parts have dropped since its intro, hence the price drop and the introduction of the 16GB model. I bet they are making between 25-50% easily.
btw, where are you getting your numbers from, genius? post the source.