RBC on shortage; Apple vs. Big Apple; T-Mobile's 99 Euro iPhones

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 65
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,972member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post


    sales through proper channels may be disappointing, but many iphones were shipped from the US for the grey market.



    All of my friends had bought an iphone from the US to be used in the UK months before it began selling through the proper channels.



    That still wasn't a large amount of phones, and we're talking about now, not before the phones shipped in Europe.
  • Reply 42 of 65
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,972member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Charel View Post


    You must be talking of the old Europe. Apple could form an EU subsidiary that is recognized throughout the Union. They could use an international ad agency and a multinational legal office.



    Apple could make a point of working with the European Commission and parliament to iron out problems in advance.



    Europe is a single market and the Eurozone has a single currency to make trading there easier.

    The potential market rivals that of the US.



    All I would like to see is for Apple to treat us as valuable customers and not as addendum to be milked by overcharging.



    Oh, and by the way, I live on the border of Belgium and the Netherlands.



    Old Europe or new Europe, there isn't much difference, though Europeans like to think so. BS about the single market.
  • Reply 43 of 65
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,972member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    And demand in the US is not really US demand at all --- because most of that US sales ends up in China and Russia.



    No, most of the US demand ends up in the US. That was a silly statement. I don't see the point of it.
  • Reply 44 of 65
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    No, most of the US demand ends up in the US. That was a silly statement. I don't see the point of it.



    AT&T activated 900K iphones in the christmas quarter when the US sales totalled a little over 2 million iphones in the same time frame.
  • Reply 45 of 65
    mark2005mark2005 Posts: 1,158member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    I don't recall seeing any document that supports the contention that Apple does not allow the carrier to "subsidize" the cost of the iPhone. Really there is no need for Apple to care what price an "AT&T" sells the iPhone for as long as Apple gets their contracted price. Heck, if AT&T gave the iPhone away for nothing, I don?t know of any way that Apple could stop them. However,?



    Altho there isn't a public document to prove it, I'm pretty sure Apple holds the line on pricing via its contract with the resellers. (Apple certainly does it with iPods and Macs - where discounts are never more than 10%.) But there are exceptions, and the big one is when the products reach End-of-Life status, Apple allows much bigger discounts (instead of taking back the inventory). This promo strongly points to the end of the current iPhone model on June 30. There will be new iPhone models for both 3G and non-3G.



    It is possible that the discount may result in T-mobile paying less to Apple per iPhone. But I think it is more likely that T-mobile had already agreed to a contracted price for its desired inventory of iPhones, which it is now trying to move before June 30.



    Apple is giving up some revenue in not selling unlocked iPhones, but Apple doesn't seem to be and isn't in a hurry to book revenue. They have a long-term strategy to change the cellular industry, one country at a time. We'll see the next steps soon enough.
  • Reply 46 of 65
    bageljoeybageljoey Posts: 1,763member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    AT&T activated 900K iphones in the christmas quarter when the US sales totalled a little over 2 million iphones in the same time frame.



    When did the December quarter end? If it ended with the calendar year, it possible that many phones were bought in the Dec quarter activated in the next...



    or not... this just occurred to me...
  • Reply 47 of 65
    charelcharel Posts: 93member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Old Europe or new Europe, there isn't much difference, though Europeans like to think so. BS about the single market.



    You must be living in the UK
  • Reply 48 of 65
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,972member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    AT&T activated 900K iphones in the christmas quarter when the US sales totalled a little over 2 million iphones in the same time frame.



    Except that the time frames don't match up.
  • Reply 49 of 65
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,972member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Charel View Post


    You must be living in the UK



    My location says NYC.
  • Reply 50 of 65
    abster2coreabster2core Posts: 2,501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post


    Altho there isn't a public document to prove it, I'm pretty sure Apple holds the line on pricing via its contract with the resellers. (Apple certainly does it with iPods and Macs - where discounts are never more than 10%.) But there are exceptions, and the big one is when the products reach End-of-Life status, Apple allows much bigger discounts (instead of taking back the inventory). This promo strongly points to the end of the current iPhone model on June 30. There will be new iPhone models for both 3G and non-3G.



    It is possible that the discount may result in T-mobile paying less to Apple per iPhone. But I think it is more likely that T-mobile had already agreed to a contracted price for its desired inventory of iPhones, which it is now trying to move before June 30.



    Apple is giving up some revenue in not selling unlocked iPhones, but Apple doesn't seem to be and isn't in a hurry to book revenue. They have a long-term strategy to change the cellular industry, one country at a time. We'll see the next steps soon enough.



    Although the Supreme Court did give manufacturers more control over resale prices 10 months ago, it is basically against the law for a manufacturer to tell you what you can sell a product for. That and in many cases, state laws and foreign regulations definitely disallow it.



    As well documented, Apple's primary goal of single-vendor and locked phone was to ensure that product worked as planned in the first place and guaranteed that the consumer would not be unduly charge for cell services; something that would have happened if the iPhone was unilaterally released to every provider.



    Spending nearly $200 million in development, one cannot blame Apple for taking such action.



    Sure, Apple has much control in how there products are priced once they leave the door. However, much of that is based on the fact that margins for electronics are extremely low. Underselling to get a few extra units sold is not good business. That and Apples Store and on-line store are just too strong and good.



    By the way, MacMall has great prices for new Macs. Thus widely discounting much of what you contend and admittedly my premise for using Macs as loss leaders. And Germany's recent move certainly suggests that Apple does not control prices.



    I would suggest that Apple will to some degree, allow more providers into the action, but not until they are more assured that the cell phone companies won't use products to drive up prices for service. That, recognizing that one must first learn to walk before running, is a well entrenched strategy that Jobs has instituted for decades.
  • Reply 51 of 65
    charelcharel Posts: 93member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    My location says NYC.



    Then what makes you an expert on the workings of the EU's single market as it functions to-day?

    In my experience progress has been substantial, although it is far from perfect. We are getting there though.

    BS is no argument, but your opinion, so this does not get us very far.
  • Reply 52 of 65
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    It's the law…





    P.S. It is unfortunate that Apple has to take what some would consider 'frivolous' steps. However, just look at all the equally perceived ridiculous actions Apple is currently fighting.



    .



    It was one thing when Steve Jobs created a computer company and stole Apple records "apple" because he liked the Beatles. We all know Apple Computer was fighting the lawsuit left and right for years and finally settled.

    But it's rather audacious for Apple Inc to sue New York "the big Apple" for something similar.

    I think the creator of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" and all other science fiction writers should sue Apple for stealing the word "pod"?

    And it's not frivolous if someone's actual application is stolen, as some of the other lawsuits claim
  • Reply 53 of 65
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,443member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    It was one thing when Steve Jobs created a computer company and stole Apple records "apple" because he liked the Beatles. We all know Apple Computer was fighting the lawsuit left and right for years and finally settled.

    But it's rather audacious for Apple Inc to sue New York "the big Apple" for something similar.

    I think the creator of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" and all other science fiction writers should sue Apple for stealing the word "pod"?

    And it's not frivolous if someone's actual application is stolen, as some of the other lawsuits claim



    Good one lol. Apple's lawyers (I surely this is being generated at some bureaucratic level) seem very worried about this logo confusion, I mean someone might mistake New York for a computer ... or worse a Mac for a City ... Hello?
  • Reply 54 of 65
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,972member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    Although the Supreme Court did give manufacturers more control over resale prices 10 months ago, it is basically against the law for a manufacturer to tell you what you can sell a product for. That and in many cases, state laws and foreign regulations definitely disallow it.



    As well documented, Apple's primary goal of single-vendor and locked phone was to ensure that product worked as planned in the first place and guaranteed that the consumer would not be unduly charge for cell services; something that would have happened if the iPhone was unilaterally released to every provider.



    Spending nearly $200 million in development, one cannot blame Apple for taking such action.



    Sure, Apple has much control in how there products are priced once they leave the door. However, much of that is based on the fact that margins for electronics are extremely low. Underselling to get a few extra units sold is not good business. That and Apples Store and on-line store are just too strong and good.



    By the way, MacMall has great prices for new Macs. Thus widely discounting much of what you contend and admittedly my premise for using Macs as loss leaders. And Germany's recent move certainly suggests that Apple does not control prices.



    I would suggest that Apple will to some degree, allow more providers into the action, but not until they are more assured that the cell phone companies won't use their product to drive up prices for service. That, recognizing that one must first learn to walk before running, a well entrenched strategy that Jobs has instituted for decades.



    Apple's gives dealers small margins to work with, normally 20%, and this has been their complaint from day one.



    Usually, margins in electronics are 40% , sometimes as high as 50%. That's why you can see Tv's and other goods being sold at such high discounts, esp. during sales. But, Apple prices their goods at sales margins to begin with, so there's really little room to maneuver.
  • Reply 55 of 65
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,972member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Charel View Post


    Then what makes you an expert on the workings of the EU's single market as it functions to-day?

    In my experience progress has been substantial, although it is far from perfect. We are getting there though.

    BS is no argument, but your opinion, so this does not get us very far.



    I understand it, because unlike some people here, I don't live in a little room, where I don't get to understand the wide, wide world out there.



    There is such a thing as being able to read what is going on in other places, even that info from the EU itself. I also have friends in Europe, and we do talk about these situations.



    If you've bothered to pay attention to what is happening in Europe with forced mergers, disallowed mergers, variable pricing models, exclusionary banking laws, a voted down constitution, and other areas of interest, you would see what I mean.



    One doesn't have to live in a place to know more about it than many people who do live there. Unfortunately, most people aren't interested enough in their own situation to find out about it. I'm constantly amazed by this.



    Europeans seem to be very naive about how things actually work over there, as opposed to how they are supposed to work.
  • Reply 56 of 65
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Except that the time frames don't match up.



    The timeframe does match up because both Apple and AT&T has quarters ending Dec 31.



    Look at the SEC filings, not the press releases.
  • Reply 57 of 65
    charelcharel Posts: 93member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I understand it, because unlike some people here, I don't live in a little room, where I don't get to understand the wide, wide world out there.



    There is such a thing as being able to read what is going on in other places, even that info from the EU itself. I also have friends in Europe, and we do talk about these situations.



    If you've bothered to pay attention to what is happening in Europe with forced mergers, disallowed mergers, variable pricing models, exclusionary banking laws, a voted down constitution, and other areas of interest, you would see what I mean.



    One doesn't have to live in a place to know more about it than many people who do live there. Unfortunately, most people aren't interested enough in their own situation to find out about it. I'm constantly amazed by this.



    Europeans seem to be very naive about how things actually work over there, as opposed to how they are supposed to work.



    And you have time left over to post almost 13000 times on this forum. I stand corrected. You are obviously well informed, but mostly on the negative side. I am sure that the many companies, be they American, Japanese and European have great difficulties doing business in Europe.



    I stick to my initial point though, that Apple Corp could do much more to increase their footprint here to the benefit of their shareholders and customers. Their competitors do it quite successfully.
  • Reply 58 of 65
    abster2coreabster2core Posts: 2,501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Charel View Post


    I stick to my initial point though, that Apple Corp could do much more to increase their footprint here to the benefit of their shareholders and customers. Their competitors do it quite successfully.



    I would suggest that Apple does everything they can do. However, it appears that you don't understand the complications of doing business in a foreign land.



    Europe, regardless of EU, consist of 45 countries that rightfully so deem themselves separate and independent. Setting up a business venture to supply goods in any foreign country is extremely time consuming and costly.



    Not only do you have to understand the markets and they all have their individual idiosyncracies, their are legal, bureaucratic, multi-level jurisdictions from importation to opening up a foreign kiosk with which to address. Local agents, lawyers and even media has to be contended with.



    Most important the 'home' competition has to coddle, e.g., don't think that SAAB, Nokia, Philips and the like aren't actively developing counter strategies for the intrusion of 'outsiders' into their domains and in many cases actively conditioning their citizenry and lobbying their governments against the invading hordes. Their livelihoods are dependent upon it



    The communication industry and everything tied to it face even more difficult obstacles as national security issues are a major concern when is comes to letting a foreign made product into the country. As my geopolitical prof told me years ago, easiest way to take over a country is command the radio and TV stations.



    As such, any suggestion that anybody else does it quite better is only relative. Apple, as everybody knows is one of the most successful brands in the world. Obviously they didn't get there by 'invading' and not considering the people of the land.



    And no matter how much we think that we are important and though many others will agree, there are many more that don't or won't let us be. But patience is virtue. Frustrating mind you, but still better than being 'shocked and awed'.
  • Reply 59 of 65
    abster2coreabster2core Posts: 2,501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Usually, margins in electronics are 40% , sometimes as high as 50%. That's why you can see Tv's and other goods being sold at such high discounts, esp. during sales. But, Apple prices their goods at sales margins to begin with, so there's really little room to maneuver.



    On paper perhaps. Ever wonder how many sales have appeared at 70% off? How many companies have or are going under. How Dell is struggling so?



    I would suggest that many manufacturers are posting higher suggested retail prices to help their distributors and resellers in their discount claims. Interesting that there are so many new products which are immediately discounted on the day they are introduced. But not Apple.



    Best is on brand new cars. Instant $2000 rebate. 0% interest.



    In Canada and a number of other countries, some pharmaceutical companies gave massive discounts to specific major accounts to offset impending generic substitution. Until that is, some of the provincial formularies passed laws that declared that the lowest price offered anywhere in the country now became their established price to everybody in their respective provinces.
  • Reply 60 of 65
    davidwdavidw Posts: 977member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    It was one thing when Steve Jobs created a computer company and stole Apple records "apple" because he liked the Beatles. We all know Apple Computer was fighting the lawsuit left and right for years and finally settled.

    But it's rather audacious for Apple Inc to sue New York "the big Apple" for something similar.

    I think the creator of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" and all other science fiction writers should sue Apple for stealing the word "pod"?

    And it's not frivolous if someone's actual application is stolen, as some of the other lawsuits claim





    And guess what Apple Studios did. They sued Apple Computer to protect their trademark. Even though the color Apple logo at the time didn't come close to resembling the Apple Studios logo. Except for the "byte" taken out of it.



    The lawsuits you're refering to had nothing to do with the trademark. It was Apple Computer entering the "music business" after they had agreed with Apple Studios that they wouldn't. This was in exchange for Apple Studios to drop their lawsuit againt Apple Computer concerning the Apple logo. And by "music business", Apple Studios considered Macs' being able to compose and play music, with a MIDI connection, as entering the "music business". This was in 1989 (or so). Apple Computer settled with Apple Studios and paid them an undisclosed amount in the settlement. Rumored to be more than $50 million but less than $100 million. A new contract was drawn between them outlining in detail what "music business" entails.



    Apple Studios sued Apple Computer again in 2002 (or so) because of iPods and iTunes Store. Once again Apple Studios considered Apple Computer was not abiding by the contract and entering the "music business". However this time Apple Computer prevailed (in the U.K. none the less) and did not have to paid Apple Studios. The U.K. courts ruled that Apple Computer was not violating the contract that was newly agreed upon in the last settlement.



    But thanks anyway for reminding us that Apple Computer was also sued by Apple Studios over a perceived infringement of trademark. Apple Studios took the necessary steps to protect their trademark and it took the courts to settle the issue.



    BTW- your "pod" reference is showing your ignorance of what a "trademark" is. You can not trademark a common word or phrase. "iPod" can be a trademark because it's not a common word found in the dictionary (at the time). "Pod" is a common word. Just like most people, that don't know any better, assumed that Apple Studios sued Apple Computers over the word "apple" in their name. It was the logo that was in question. The word "apple" can not be trademarked as it's a common word. You can have an Apple Shoe Shine Stand, or an Apple Coffee House, or an Apple Gift Store, etc. So long as you don't have an "apple" logo that can be confused with that of Apple Computer (Inc.) or Apple Studios.
Sign In or Register to comment.