If you cannot understand where there are two products of a given product type (and the category of mobile phones are one such item) are competing against each other for your money, then maybe you should talk to a marketing person so they can explain it to you.
The marketing person would understand that within similar products there are categories differentiated on features, services, and prices that don't directly compete with each other.
Someone looking to pay for more features or services isn't in the market for the cheaper option with less features or services. Someone who does not want to pay more is not in the market for the more expensive option. They don't compete with each other.
No, that would be your logic. They are not even a similar products.
Thanks for making my point.
A smart phone and a dumb phone are not even similar products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
If you cannot understand where there are two products of a given product type (and the category of mobile phones are one such item) are competing against each other for your money, then maybe you should talk to a marketing person so they can explain it to you.
A smart phone, and a dumb phone, are not the same "category of mobile phones" as you call it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Can you provide a list of the "most dumb phones are already free"? I can't find any (unsubsidised phones).
Well now genious, you got me with your crystal clear arguement.
It is true that you can't get a dumb phone for free and get it with no cell service.
So..... you're saying that dumb phones that people want to have that you CAN'T use to make phone calls are meaningful.
All right, you got me there.
So I'll compare just cell phones that are used to make phone calls.
A dumb phone.... that you use a service to make phone calls.... is free and also meaningless in the market.
BTW:Some dumb phones cost less than being free. You can actually get money, if you choose to use one with the service. Now, if they have to pay you to take the phone and it still doesn't get you, clearly it's not the same thing.
And if you're seriously saying that a dumb phone that they have to give you a 25 dollar gas card to take is the "competition" or "competes with the iPhone", you might as well say ice cream is in competition with the iPhone because the only criteria the phone companies would use to see them in competition is that they both cost money.
You say those ice cream and phones aren't the same thing even though they both compete for your money.
Well, I say a dumb phone and a smart phone are not the same thing.
Rimm says that too, Apple says that too, even the dumb-phone manufacturers say that.
Who knows, they could ALL be wrong and YOU could be right? ......
If you cannot understand where there are two products of a given product type (and the category of mobile phones are one such item) are competing against each other for your money, then maybe you should talk to a marketing person so they can explain it to you.
Perhaps you can help me, then: all these pesky cars in competition with each other! I keep looking over and looking over the spec sheets and I just cannot decide between the Kia Rio and the Lamborghini Murciélago! The competition is so close! I'm so confused! Oh wise one, please advise me!
A smart phone and a dumb phone are not even similar products.
Yes they are, you make phone calls on both
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbrasington
A smart phone, and a dumb phone, are not the same "category of mobile phones" as you call it.
That I will give you, but they are still both mobile phones
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbrasington
Well now genious, you got me with your crystal clear arguement.
It is true that you can't get a dumb phone for free and get it with no cell service.
So..... you're saying that dumb phones that people want to have that you CAN'T use to make phone calls are meaningful.
All right, you got me there.
So I'll compare just cell phones that are used to make phone calls.
A dumb phone.... that you use a service to make phone calls.... is free and also meaningless in the market.
BTW:Some dumb phones cost less than being free. You can actually get money, if you choose to use one with the service. Now, if they have to pay you to take the phone and it still doesn't get you, clearly it's not the same thing.
And if you're seriously saying that a dumb phone that they have to give you a 25 dollar gas card to take is the "competition" or "competes with the iPhone", you might as well say ice cream is in competition with the iPhone because the only criteria the phone companies would use to see them in competition is that they both cost money.
You say those ice cream and phones aren't the same thing even though they both compete for your money.
Well, I say a dumb phone and a smart phone are not the same thing.
Rimm says that too, Apple says that too, even the dumb-phone manufacturers say that.
Who knows, they could ALL be wrong and YOU could be right? ......
I never said they were the same thing, I said they were in competition with each other, a big difference
I'm still confused about these "free" or -ve cost "dumb" phones you talke about. I'm can't find any, I had a look around at various providers and couldn't find an unsubsidised phone for under ?50, far from free.
If they provide an incentive for you to get the phone (a subsidy, a discount on another item etc), that doesn't make it free, you are still paying for it somehow.
Perhaps you can help me, then: all these pesky cars in competition with each other! I keep looking over and looking over the spec sheets and I just cannot decide between the Kia Rio and the Lamborghini Murciélago! The competition is so close! I'm so confused! Oh wise one, please advise me!
sorry to quite wikipedia, but it has quite a good section on this...
Three levels of economic competition have been classified:
1. The most narrow form is direct competition (also called category competition or brand competition), where products which perform the same function compete against each other. For example, a brand of pick-up trucks competes with several different brands of pick-up trucks. Sometimes two companies are rivals and one adds new products to their line so that each company distributes the same thing and they compete.
2. The next form is substitute or indirect competition, where products which are close substitutes for one another compete. For example, butter competes with margarine, mayonnaise, and other various sauces and spreads.
3. The broadest form of competition is typically called budget competition. Included in this category is anything on which the consumer might want to spend their available money. For example, a family which has $20,000 available may choose to spend it on many different items, which can all be seen as competing with each other for the family's available money.
Even though your choice is between two different cars, those two cars are not in the same category of car, so I think your choice would fall under number 3, but at the end of the day, if you can afford either one, the choice is yours
sorry to quite wikipedia, but it has quite a good section on this...
Even though your choice is between two different cars, those two cars are not in the same category of car, so I think your choice would fall under number 3, but at the end of the day, if you can afford either one, the choice is yours
I don't see how that link supports what you are saying at all.
Number 3 is saying that every product that a family could potentially purchase is competing for that families limited budget.
I don't see how that link supports what you are saying at all.
Number 3 is saying that every product that a family could potentially purchase is competing for that families limited budget.
Well, I am saying every model of cellphone competes against each other. The articule lists three differents forms of compeition. the first being the competion of items of a similar type (or narrowed down to a sub-category as well). The third was a budget based one (ie what you choose to do with your money).
The peson I was quoting was wanting advice on the choice of a budget car, or a supercar, both are competing for his money, and at the end of the day you purchase what you can afford (or you get yourself into debt)
I'm still confused about these "free" or -ve cost "dumb" phones you talke about. I'm can't find any, I had a look around at various providers and couldn't find an unsubsidised phone for under ?50, far from free.
If they provide an incentive for you to get the phone (a subsidy, a discount on another item etc), that doesn't make it free, you are still paying for it somehow.
You are being a bit obtuse. If you buy a cheap phone, you will still need to make calls. Unless you want to buy phone cards, or pay as you go, you still need some sort of plan, esp. if you want services that you can't receive the other ways. You sometimes get service on a monthly basis, but in the long run, without a contract, you pay more. You may as well get the contract, and the phone that comes with it.
I'm sure that in some countries, its a bit different, but we have to talk bout what's realistic where we do live.
Even though your choice is between two different cars, those two cars are not in the same category of car, so I think your choice would fall under number 3, but at the end of the day, if you can afford either one, the choice is yours
None of those fit the case we've been talking about.
One of the reasons is because it recognizes, though with the typical Wiki incompleteness, that there are products in a broad category that don't directly compete with one another. We've been trying to get you to understand that, but you haven't, so far.
You are being a bit obtuse. If you buy a cheap phone, you will still need to make calls. Unless you want to buy phone cards, or pay as you go, you still need some sort of plan, esp. if you want services that you can't receive the other ways. You sometimes get service on a monthly basis, but in the long run, without a contract, you pay more. You may as well get the contract, and the phone that comes with it.
I'm sure that in some countries, its a bit different, but we have to talk bout what's realistic where we do live.
Well considering you live in the US, and I don't might have something to do with it.
I like to buy unlocked phones, the only time I haven't is when I have got cheap phones for my kids.
I also only have a pre-pay connection, as I refuse to pay the extremely high rate they want to charge for both contract connections, and data connections.
I am about to purchase three new phones shortly, they will all be unsubsidised, full price phones, and all unlocked.
And depending on where you are located, pre-pay can be a lot cheaper, I only pay around 15 EURO per month for four connections at the moment
None of those fit the case we've been talking about.
One of the reasons is because it recognizes, though with the typical Wiki incompleteness, that there are products in a broad category that don't directly compete with one another. We've been trying to get you to understand that, but you haven't, so far.
I understand perfectly what you are trying to say. You are trying to say that there are certain items that are different enough that you do not think they directly influence consumers choices.
What I am saying, and maybe because I come from a country that is not as rich as yours. Various products regardless of the category do directly compete for consumers spending.
ie. Does a pensioner who receives the equivalent of US$135 per week spend their money on heating, or groceries?
And all items in a category (in which mobile phones is one) compete against each other.
If that is the case, why did Apple "drop" the price of it?
Also, I didn't say it was, I was referring to the fact that all items are in competition to each other.
That argument goes against your argument as well. Lower price points allow for an item to be financially obtainable be a larger group of people. Though the smart ones will realise that the TOS is actually slightly more than the old iPhone.
The argument that all items are in competition with each other is also not valid. Do you hem and haw over a 5 star dinner or hitting a convenient store for a dog and soda each night? In the sense that my money could go to any food other product, or otherwise, I guess one could say they are in competition but that is the on vying for the funds as a whole, not the products themselves.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you are rare breed that has some odd sense of value that will look at $150 Kobe steak and a $2 hotdog wondering which to consume or ponder whether to get a $88,000 Vertu or a $50 cellphone, but most people don't do that so these items in the same general category are not competing with each other.
That argument goes against your argument as well. Lower price points allow for an item to be financially obtainable be a larger group of people. Though the smart ones will realise that the TOS is actually slightly more than the old iPhone.
So reducing the price gives the device a competitive advantage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
The argument that all items are in competition with each other is also not valid. Do you hem and haw over a 5 star dinner or hitting a convenient store for a dog and soda each night? In the sense that my money could go to any food other product, or otherwise, I guess one could say they are in competition but that is the on vying for the funds as a whole, not the products themselves.
Well actually they are, I have the choice of dining out, or purchasing the ingredients and making the food myself. I would rather make the food myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you are rare breed that has some odd sense of value that will look at $150 Kobe steak and a $2 hotdog wondering which to consume or ponder whether to get a $88,000 Vertu or a $50 cellphone, but most people don't do that so these items in the same general category are not competing with each other.
I could buy half a cow for $150 (assuming you are referring to US$)
I have no problem purchasing an expensive item, as long as I can justify to myself why I did it.
I can see you do not understand what I am trying to say, I will put it down to cultural differences and will not waste your time, or my time carrying on with this.
So, what does multiple Japanese magazines dedicated to the iPhone mean for its popularity? I suppose the basic argument would be that the creation of such magazines defines a potential or perceived interest, but does not validate an actual interest.
So, what does multiple Japanese magazines dedicated to the iPhone mean for its popularity? I suppose the creation of magazine defines a potential or perceived interest and the sale defines an actual interest.
Obviously. For some reason three posters on these threads who are from, or say they are from Japan, don't want to admit that the phone is, at least so far, popular there.
The more I read about Japanese phones and services, the more it seems as though only some people over there use them, though the phone manufacturers and carriers push them hard because they make more money off them.
I also remember that it took years for 3G to catch on in Japan. It first, people were texting to save money. The carriers complained that no one wanted the new expensive services.
It could even be that a lot of consumers in Japan are breathing a sigh of relief at the appearance of the iPhone, so that they don't have to pretend they are using those services.
I'm sure that while a fair number of people do use them, from what is written, enough don't, so that the iPhone can get good sales numbers.
We also read here, and in other places, that some of those services don't work all that well, even if they are not too complex for people to figure out.
Obviously. For some reason three posters on these threads who are from, or say they are from Japan, don't want to admit that the phone is, at least so far, popular there.
Maybe they are misrepresenting their statements.
For example. People here in Finland like the iPhones. Love them but will not pay for them. They hate the way APPLE made the operators cave to get them. So for the Finns, it is a matter of pride, stubbornness, etc... that is preventing a larger uptake. If the iPhone was unlocked here, they would be sold out completely. As it stands you can walk in any Sonera Piste and get one. No waiting.
For example. People here in Finland like the iPhones. Love them but will not pay for them. They hate the way APPLE made the operators cave to get them. So for the Finns, it is a matter of pride, stubbornness, etc... that is preventing a larger uptake. If the iPhone was unlocked here, they would be sold out completely. As it stands you can walk in any Sonera Piste and get one. No waiting.
I remember once I spoke of Finnish pride (well deserved) as being a reason, and you argued about that. Oh well, water under the bridge and all that.
But they do seem to be buying the phones in Japan at a good clip.
Remember that it was also said that Japanese manufacturers and music services in Japan were so well entrenched that Apple didn't stand a chance. Look what happened.
I don't expect the iPhone to take over in Japan, but I do expect it to get a good marketshare, considering its price. Of course, SoftBank is the third in size there, much as Sprint is here, and that will limit its spread. That must be understood as well.
As the iPhone would sell much better here in the US if it were available on all four major networks. In a number of countries, it is on sale from several carriers.
I remember once I spoke of Finnish pride (well deserved) as being a reason, and you argued about that. Oh well, water under the bridge and all that.
Could have been one of my senior moments.
Quote:
But they do seem to be buying the phones in Japan at a good clip.
Remember that it was also said that Japanese manufacturers and music services in Japan were so well entrenched that Apple didn't stand a chance. Look what happened.
I don't expect the iPhone to take over in Japan, but I do expect it to get a good marketshare, considering its price. Of course, SoftBank is the third in size there, much as Sprint is here, and that will limit its spread. That must be understood as well.
As the iPhone would sell much better here in the US if it were available on all four major networks. In a number of countries, it is on sale from several carriers.
The iPhone will make money no matter where it sells for anyone to deny that is simply lost in la la land. To what extent, that is another matter. If Sonera can open up the iPhone, they will have an instant hit here.
Comments
If you cannot understand where there are two products of a given product type (and the category of mobile phones are one such item) are competing against each other for your money, then maybe you should talk to a marketing person so they can explain it to you.
The marketing person would understand that within similar products there are categories differentiated on features, services, and prices that don't directly compete with each other.
Someone looking to pay for more features or services isn't in the market for the cheaper option with less features or services. Someone who does not want to pay more is not in the market for the more expensive option. They don't compete with each other.
No, that would be your logic. They are not even a similar products.
Thanks for making my point.
A smart phone and a dumb phone are not even similar products.
If you cannot understand where there are two products of a given product type (and the category of mobile phones are one such item) are competing against each other for your money, then maybe you should talk to a marketing person so they can explain it to you.
A smart phone, and a dumb phone, are not the same "category of mobile phones" as you call it.
Can you provide a list of the "most dumb phones are already free"? I can't find any (unsubsidised phones).
Well now genious, you got me with your crystal clear arguement.
It is true that you can't get a dumb phone for free and get it with no cell service.
So..... you're saying that dumb phones that people want to have that you CAN'T use to make phone calls are meaningful.
All right, you got me there.
So I'll compare just cell phones that are used to make phone calls.
A dumb phone.... that you use a service to make phone calls.... is free and also meaningless in the market.
BTW:Some dumb phones cost less than being free. You can actually get money, if you choose to use one with the service. Now, if they have to pay you to take the phone and it still doesn't get you, clearly it's not the same thing.
And if you're seriously saying that a dumb phone that they have to give you a 25 dollar gas card to take is the "competition" or "competes with the iPhone", you might as well say ice cream is in competition with the iPhone because the only criteria the phone companies would use to see them in competition is that they both cost money.
You say those ice cream and phones aren't the same thing even though they both compete for your money.
Well, I say a dumb phone and a smart phone are not the same thing.
Rimm says that too, Apple says that too, even the dumb-phone manufacturers say that.
Who knows, they could ALL be wrong and YOU could be right? ......
If you cannot understand where there are two products of a given product type (and the category of mobile phones are one such item) are competing against each other for your money, then maybe you should talk to a marketing person so they can explain it to you.
Perhaps you can help me, then: all these pesky cars in competition with each other! I keep looking over and looking over the spec sheets and I just cannot decide between the Kia Rio and the Lamborghini Murciélago! The competition is so close! I'm so confused! Oh wise one, please advise me!
Thanks for making my point.
A smart phone and a dumb phone are not even similar products.
Yes they are, you make phone calls on both
A smart phone, and a dumb phone, are not the same "category of mobile phones" as you call it.
That I will give you, but they are still both mobile phones
Well now genious, you got me with your crystal clear arguement.
It is true that you can't get a dumb phone for free and get it with no cell service.
So..... you're saying that dumb phones that people want to have that you CAN'T use to make phone calls are meaningful.
All right, you got me there.
So I'll compare just cell phones that are used to make phone calls.
A dumb phone.... that you use a service to make phone calls.... is free and also meaningless in the market.
BTW:Some dumb phones cost less than being free. You can actually get money, if you choose to use one with the service. Now, if they have to pay you to take the phone and it still doesn't get you, clearly it's not the same thing.
And if you're seriously saying that a dumb phone that they have to give you a 25 dollar gas card to take is the "competition" or "competes with the iPhone", you might as well say ice cream is in competition with the iPhone because the only criteria the phone companies would use to see them in competition is that they both cost money.
You say those ice cream and phones aren't the same thing even though they both compete for your money.
Well, I say a dumb phone and a smart phone are not the same thing.
Rimm says that too, Apple says that too, even the dumb-phone manufacturers say that.
Who knows, they could ALL be wrong and YOU could be right? ......
I never said they were the same thing, I said they were in competition with each other, a big difference
I'm still confused about these "free" or -ve cost "dumb" phones you talke about. I'm can't find any, I had a look around at various providers and couldn't find an unsubsidised phone for under ?50, far from free.
If they provide an incentive for you to get the phone (a subsidy, a discount on another item etc), that doesn't make it free, you are still paying for it somehow.
Perhaps you can help me, then: all these pesky cars in competition with each other! I keep looking over and looking over the spec sheets and I just cannot decide between the Kia Rio and the Lamborghini Murciélago! The competition is so close! I'm so confused! Oh wise one, please advise me!
sorry to quite wikipedia, but it has quite a good section on this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competi...s_and_business
This part in particular
Three levels of economic competition have been classified:
1. The most narrow form is direct competition (also called category competition or brand competition), where products which perform the same function compete against each other. For example, a brand of pick-up trucks competes with several different brands of pick-up trucks. Sometimes two companies are rivals and one adds new products to their line so that each company distributes the same thing and they compete.
2. The next form is substitute or indirect competition, where products which are close substitutes for one another compete. For example, butter competes with margarine, mayonnaise, and other various sauces and spreads.
3. The broadest form of competition is typically called budget competition. Included in this category is anything on which the consumer might want to spend their available money. For example, a family which has $20,000 available may choose to spend it on many different items, which can all be seen as competing with each other for the family's available money.
Even though your choice is between two different cars, those two cars are not in the same category of car, so I think your choice would fall under number 3, but at the end of the day, if you can afford either one, the choice is yours
sorry to quite wikipedia, but it has quite a good section on this...
Even though your choice is between two different cars, those two cars are not in the same category of car, so I think your choice would fall under number 3, but at the end of the day, if you can afford either one, the choice is yours
I don't see how that link supports what you are saying at all.
Number 3 is saying that every product that a family could potentially purchase is competing for that families limited budget.
I don't see how that link supports what you are saying at all.
Number 3 is saying that every product that a family could potentially purchase is competing for that families limited budget.
Well, I am saying every model of cellphone competes against each other. The articule lists three differents forms of compeition. the first being the competion of items of a similar type (or narrowed down to a sub-category as well). The third was a budget based one (ie what you choose to do with your money).
The peson I was quoting was wanting advice on the choice of a budget car, or a supercar, both are competing for his money, and at the end of the day you purchase what you can afford (or you get yourself into debt)
I'm still confused about these "free" or -ve cost "dumb" phones you talke about. I'm can't find any, I had a look around at various providers and couldn't find an unsubsidised phone for under ?50, far from free.
If they provide an incentive for you to get the phone (a subsidy, a discount on another item etc), that doesn't make it free, you are still paying for it somehow.
You are being a bit obtuse. If you buy a cheap phone, you will still need to make calls. Unless you want to buy phone cards, or pay as you go, you still need some sort of plan, esp. if you want services that you can't receive the other ways. You sometimes get service on a monthly basis, but in the long run, without a contract, you pay more. You may as well get the contract, and the phone that comes with it.
I'm sure that in some countries, its a bit different, but we have to talk bout what's realistic where we do live.
sorry to quite wikipedia, but it has quite a good section on this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competi...s_and_business
This part in particular
Even though your choice is between two different cars, those two cars are not in the same category of car, so I think your choice would fall under number 3, but at the end of the day, if you can afford either one, the choice is yours
None of those fit the case we've been talking about.
One of the reasons is because it recognizes, though with the typical Wiki incompleteness, that there are products in a broad category that don't directly compete with one another. We've been trying to get you to understand that, but you haven't, so far.
You are being a bit obtuse. If you buy a cheap phone, you will still need to make calls. Unless you want to buy phone cards, or pay as you go, you still need some sort of plan, esp. if you want services that you can't receive the other ways. You sometimes get service on a monthly basis, but in the long run, without a contract, you pay more. You may as well get the contract, and the phone that comes with it.
I'm sure that in some countries, its a bit different, but we have to talk bout what's realistic where we do live.
Well considering you live in the US, and I don't might have something to do with it.
I like to buy unlocked phones, the only time I haven't is when I have got cheap phones for my kids.
I also only have a pre-pay connection, as I refuse to pay the extremely high rate they want to charge for both contract connections, and data connections.
I am about to purchase three new phones shortly, they will all be unsubsidised, full price phones, and all unlocked.
And depending on where you are located, pre-pay can be a lot cheaper, I only pay around 15 EURO per month for four connections at the moment
None of those fit the case we've been talking about.
One of the reasons is because it recognizes, though with the typical Wiki incompleteness, that there are products in a broad category that don't directly compete with one another. We've been trying to get you to understand that, but you haven't, so far.
I understand perfectly what you are trying to say. You are trying to say that there are certain items that are different enough that you do not think they directly influence consumers choices.
What I am saying, and maybe because I come from a country that is not as rich as yours. Various products regardless of the category do directly compete for consumers spending.
ie. Does a pensioner who receives the equivalent of US$135 per week spend their money on heating, or groceries?
And all items in a category (in which mobile phones is one) compete against each other.
ie. Does a pensioner who receives the equivalent of US$135 per week spend their money on heating, or groceries?
And all items in a category (in which mobile phones is one) compete against each other.
This argument is also invalid as the iPhone or its service plan aren't even a consideration for someone who has so little income.
This argument is also invalid as the iPhone or its service plan aren't even a consideration for someone who has so little income.
If that is the case, why did Apple "drop" the price of it?
Also, I didn't say it was, I was referring to the fact that all items are in competition to each other.
If that is the case, why did Apple "drop" the price of it?
Also, I didn't say it was, I was referring to the fact that all items are in competition to each other.
That argument goes against your argument as well. Lower price points allow for an item to be financially obtainable be a larger group of people. Though the smart ones will realise that the TOS is actually slightly more than the old iPhone.
The argument that all items are in competition with each other is also not valid. Do you hem and haw over a 5 star dinner or hitting a convenient store for a dog and soda each night? In the sense that my money could go to any food other product, or otherwise, I guess one could say they are in competition but that is the on vying for the funds as a whole, not the products themselves.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you are rare breed that has some odd sense of value that will look at $150 Kobe steak and a $2 hotdog wondering which to consume or ponder whether to get a $88,000 Vertu or a $50 cellphone, but most people don't do that so these items in the same general category are not competing with each other.
That argument goes against your argument as well. Lower price points allow for an item to be financially obtainable be a larger group of people. Though the smart ones will realise that the TOS is actually slightly more than the old iPhone.
So reducing the price gives the device a competitive advantage?
The argument that all items are in competition with each other is also not valid. Do you hem and haw over a 5 star dinner or hitting a convenient store for a dog and soda each night? In the sense that my money could go to any food other product, or otherwise, I guess one could say they are in competition but that is the on vying for the funds as a whole, not the products themselves.
Well actually they are, I have the choice of dining out, or purchasing the ingredients and making the food myself. I would rather make the food myself.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you are rare breed that has some odd sense of value that will look at $150 Kobe steak and a $2 hotdog wondering which to consume or ponder whether to get a $88,000 Vertu or a $50 cellphone, but most people don't do that so these items in the same general category are not competing with each other.
I could buy half a cow for $150 (assuming you are referring to US$)
I have no problem purchasing an expensive item, as long as I can justify to myself why I did it.
I can see you do not understand what I am trying to say, I will put it down to cultural differences and will not waste your time, or my time carrying on with this.
So, what does multiple Japanese magazines dedicated to the iPhone mean for its popularity? I suppose the creation of magazine defines a potential or perceived interest and the sale defines an actual interest.
Obviously. For some reason three posters on these threads who are from, or say they are from Japan, don't want to admit that the phone is, at least so far, popular there.
The more I read about Japanese phones and services, the more it seems as though only some people over there use them, though the phone manufacturers and carriers push them hard because they make more money off them.
I also remember that it took years for 3G to catch on in Japan. It first, people were texting to save money. The carriers complained that no one wanted the new expensive services.
It could even be that a lot of consumers in Japan are breathing a sigh of relief at the appearance of the iPhone, so that they don't have to pretend they are using those services.
I'm sure that while a fair number of people do use them, from what is written, enough don't, so that the iPhone can get good sales numbers.
We also read here, and in other places, that some of those services don't work all that well, even if they are not too complex for people to figure out.
Obviously. For some reason three posters on these threads who are from, or say they are from Japan, don't want to admit that the phone is, at least so far, popular there.
Maybe they are misrepresenting their statements.
For example. People here in Finland like the iPhones. Love them but will not pay for them. They hate the way APPLE made the operators cave to get them. So for the Finns, it is a matter of pride, stubbornness, etc... that is preventing a larger uptake. If the iPhone was unlocked here, they would be sold out completely. As it stands you can walk in any Sonera Piste and get one. No waiting.
Maybe they are misrepresenting their statements.
For example. People here in Finland like the iPhones. Love them but will not pay for them. They hate the way APPLE made the operators cave to get them. So for the Finns, it is a matter of pride, stubbornness, etc... that is preventing a larger uptake. If the iPhone was unlocked here, they would be sold out completely. As it stands you can walk in any Sonera Piste and get one. No waiting.
I remember once I spoke of Finnish pride (well deserved) as being a reason, and you argued about that. Oh well, water under the bridge and all that.
But they do seem to be buying the phones in Japan at a good clip.
Remember that it was also said that Japanese manufacturers and music services in Japan were so well entrenched that Apple didn't stand a chance. Look what happened.
I don't expect the iPhone to take over in Japan, but I do expect it to get a good marketshare, considering its price. Of course, SoftBank is the third in size there, much as Sprint is here, and that will limit its spread. That must be understood as well.
As the iPhone would sell much better here in the US if it were available on all four major networks. In a number of countries, it is on sale from several carriers.
I remember once I spoke of Finnish pride (well deserved) as being a reason, and you argued about that. Oh well, water under the bridge and all that.
Could have been one of my senior moments.
But they do seem to be buying the phones in Japan at a good clip.
Remember that it was also said that Japanese manufacturers and music services in Japan were so well entrenched that Apple didn't stand a chance. Look what happened.
I don't expect the iPhone to take over in Japan, but I do expect it to get a good marketshare, considering its price. Of course, SoftBank is the third in size there, much as Sprint is here, and that will limit its spread. That must be understood as well.
As the iPhone would sell much better here in the US if it were available on all four major networks. In a number of countries, it is on sale from several carriers.
The iPhone will make money no matter where it sells for anyone to deny that is simply lost in la la land. To what extent, that is another matter. If Sonera can open up the iPhone, they will have an instant hit here.