Although my phone sits on Wifi 90% of the time, offering a $20 monthly limited access data plan is not a good sales pitch if you take into account how terrible and slow AT&T 3G service is. How about dropping the $30 plan down to $20. Right now it probably cost Apple 1/2 of what it did 1 year ago to built the units so how about a price cut too, or maybe they already did that and AT&T is being all greedy about it.
"To attract lower income consumers" - doesn't sound like Apple.
The Mac mini and iPod shuffle are priced/equipped to attract consumers who have less discretionary dollars to spend.
Both items are still "high priced" when matched against comparable products from competitors (PCs, Sandisk players) but they are still in an affordable price range for those who aspire to have a device from a "high quality name brand." It's the same marketing/sales pitch that Abercrombie&Fitch, Coach, Movado, or BMW/Mini makes with its "lower-priced" items, but that's what you can do when you've established a brand name that has a quality or cool aura.
Apple is playing with Palm by making these statements, while daring Palm/Sprint to show its hand. Apple's product secrecy combined with these possible pricing statements puts Palm in a tough spot since the Pre will certainly be compared to the next iPhone. If Palm goes lower, Apple can still be higher-priced, because people already expect the Apple and AT&T brands to be higher-priced. If Palm goes $199 or higher (and Sprint charges $30/mo), and Apple and/or AT&T offers a cheaper option, that will steal a lot of Palm/Sprint's thunder even if the cheaper Apple option really is less value (less capable phone, limited included data). And once Palm announces (if before iPhone), it would look really bad to reprice after the iPhone is announced as it would reinforce the image that Palm is the reactionary follower, and Apple is the leader. But to avoid all this, would Palm dare to take the difficult marketing option of announcing/releasing after iPhone (and will iPhone really be announced on June 8)? Apple has Palm between a rock and a hard place.
I gotta say your analysis of the potential strategy behind the announcement is remarkably sensible. Sounds very plausible.
Let's see, current yearly income: around $20k. The first generation, 4GB iPod mini was the first iPod I ever owned. I'm pretty sure I'm below the poverty line.
I'm also typing this on my 15" PowerBook G4 that I bought on sale for $1600 a few years ago. You don't have to be rich to put some money into a savings account. (Well that and America's socialist Pell Grant program. )
Yeah, if i had it to do over, I wouldn't have gotten the iphone. I didn't properly consider the costs of the monthly plan. First, I thought I would be able to get 400 text messages for $4.99 like I did with T-mobile only to find out I only get 200 for that price with AT&T with the next tier being 1500 text messages for $15/month. I only need 400!! And I don't need 900 min/month, but 450 minutes is too little. If they want to create tiered plans, create more tiers for the voice and text messaging plans. I wouldn't want to risk a limited data plan so they can charge me $$/kb if I go over. I would love to see something like Sprint's Simple Everything plan for $99.99. Unlimited data, talk, and text/picture/video messaging. That would be prefect and cheaper than what I'm paying now without any limits. I pay $59.99 for 900 minutes, $30 for the data plan, and $15 for 1500 text messages for a total of $104.99 plus tax.
I would prefer for AT&T to offer a voice only plan for the IPhone. I want a Touch and I need a cell phone and I don't want to carry to devices. I would pay $100 more for the IPhone if I did not have to get the data plan. Think how many Touch buyers AT&T could have signed up if they had such a plan.
I have a $70 per month iPhone plan. I was able to opt out of SMS texting which is good because I never use that. The 450 minutes are about 400 more than I need. The telephone is about twelfth or thirteenth on the list of what I use the iPhone for. I like the unlimited data plan but would like for the cost of the voice plan to be cut about 90 percent because I'm being charged for something that I don't need, want, or use much.
Apple is playing with Palm by making these statements, while daring Palm/Sprint to show its hand. Apple's product secrecy combined with these possible pricing statements puts Palm in a tough spot since the Pre will certainly be compared to the next iPhone. ... Apple has Palm between a rock and a hard place.
This was my first thought as well. At the initial Pre announcement, the Palm CEO alluded to the idea that it wouldn't be priced as a loss-leader, and in fact would be so good that it would stay above the low-end battles. Since that time the economy has become a central focus for many consumers, and Palm has had to dance around the price issue.
If Apple introduces a lower-end iPhone (essentially the current model with a price drop), then Palm will have a difficult time gaining market share with their 1.0 product. They have to get everything exactly right at the launch, from inventory to activation to app store to developer acceptance to pundit reviews, or else they are essentially sunk. There is no room for Palm for any screw-ups.
If Apple introduces a lower-end iPhone (essentially the current model with a price drop), then Palm will have a difficult time gaining market share with their 1.0 product. They have to get everything exactly right at the launch, from inventory to activation to app store to developer acceptance to pundit reviews, or else they are essentially sunk. There is no room for Palm for any screw-ups.
The Pre has an app store? As for the price, Palm has alluded to the possibility that the Pre will actually cost more than the iPhone.
I would prefer for AT&T to offer a voice only plan for the IPhone. I want a Touch and I need a cell phone and I don't want to carry to devices. I would pay $100 more for the IPhone if I did not have to get the data plan.
I've been holding out, and will consider buying the next generation iPhone when it arives. But... I am closely watching the activation and account cancellation process. While I like the idea of an always-connected data device, I have lived this long without one. I'm fine with WiFi-only for data.
I have an existing AT&T phone plan (a grandfathered $29/month voice-only) and my SIM card works fine in an iPhone (I've tested it). So my plan is to buy a new iPhone and associated iPhone voice/data plan, pay the cancellation fee, and use the device with my existing SIM. In the long run the cancellation fee is far less than the two-year iPhone plan, especially after taxes and fees.
Yes, I'll be missing out on some of the goodies like A-GPS and maps, but again, I don't have those now. The value of a phone, camera, and iPod Touch bundled into a single device is worth the compromise and accompanying savings.
I would prefer for AT&T to offer a voice only plan for the IPhone. I want a Touch and I need a cell phone and I don't want to carry to devices. I would pay $100 more for the IPhone if I did not have to get the data plan. Think how many Touch buyers AT&T could have signed up if they had such a plan.
Totally agree and have made that point since day one. You can get a Blackberry wihtout data plan - why not iPhone?
How about a cheaper voice plan? I only use about 100 minutes per month.
YES!!!. I barely use my phone as a phone. There's a waste of $30 a month. Plus, with email and SMS, how many phone calls get made any more? Why not cut the phone end a bit.
OK- how's this. While it may be fantastic that AT&T and Apple are now catering to those on the lower end of the financial spectrum, how does MMS factor into their data plan? Will it be extra? Will this be disclosed?
Yes it will be disclosed! Are you a moron (rhetoricalquestion)? Do you really think they are going to publish that information now when MMS isn't even available yet? The features you talk about are not even available yet! They will be soon enough with 3.0 and THEN you'll get the answers to your question. Patience people 3.0 will be here soon enough.
Well, if the rumor is true, then I have a few observations. #1, I already have a $20 iPhone plan, on the original plan. The $30 data plan introduced with the iPhone 3G is *precisely* why I did not buy a 3G. (Apple, AT&T, ya better be paying attention - I'm guessing I'm not the only one) #2 If AT&T continues to be greedy in this regard, and issues a new $20 data plan that is crippled, then I can assure both AT&T and Apple that I will not be buying the next iPhone that comes out in June either. If Apple wants to sell more iPhones, they need to "reign" AT&T in again, and pressure them to quit being so greedy. Don't get me wrong, I think all cell companies are greedy, but sadly we're stuck with AT&T for the moment.
What I'm also curious about is what happens when those of us with 1st gen iPhones' 2-yr contract is up (June 30th +/-), aren't we free to switch carriers, and isn't Apple then forced to allow this?
I would prefer for AT&T to offer a voice only plan for the IPhone. I want a Touch and I need a cell phone and I don't want to carry to devices. I would pay $100 more for the IPhone if I did not have to get the data plan. Think how many Touch buyers AT&T could have signed up if they had such a plan.
I thought you could do voice only with the iPhone.
Well, apparently, you didn't get the point of his comment. Read the headline again. "AT&T may introduced $20 limited iPhone data plan." He is talking about proofreading their work before publishing. If they did, they wouldn't publish an article with such a glaring mistake in the headline. The rest of the article is a grammatical mess anyway.
Sorry, I misread his post. I shouldn't be allowed to post this early in the morning.
For me, the iPhone just has to be unlocked for international roaming. I have paid twice the "estimated" cost of the phone with excessive roaming charges when I am out of the country.
My old Blackberry was expensive to roam with, but there was still an unlimited international plan available. Now, I'm not even willing to go for that-- I'll go back to what I used to do with my Nokia 770 and tether with bluetooth to a cheap phone before paying for another smart-phone that isn't (economically) functional outside the US!
Comments
Yeah, 'cause the whole lower-priced iPod Mini/Nano idea was a complete failure.
Those were meant for lower income people?
Are you genuinely this obtuse, or is it just an affectation?
Neither. However you appear to be genuinely clueless at to what lower income means.
"To attract lower income consumers" - doesn't sound like Apple.
The Mac mini and iPod shuffle are priced/equipped to attract consumers who have less discretionary dollars to spend.
Both items are still "high priced" when matched against comparable products from competitors (PCs, Sandisk players) but they are still in an affordable price range for those who aspire to have a device from a "high quality name brand." It's the same marketing/sales pitch that Abercrombie&Fitch, Coach, Movado, or BMW/Mini makes with its "lower-priced" items, but that's what you can do when you've established a brand name that has a quality or cool aura.
Apple is playing with Palm by making these statements, while daring Palm/Sprint to show its hand. Apple's product secrecy combined with these possible pricing statements puts Palm in a tough spot since the Pre will certainly be compared to the next iPhone. If Palm goes lower, Apple can still be higher-priced, because people already expect the Apple and AT&T brands to be higher-priced. If Palm goes $199 or higher (and Sprint charges $30/mo), and Apple and/or AT&T offers a cheaper option, that will steal a lot of Palm/Sprint's thunder even if the cheaper Apple option really is less value (less capable phone, limited included data). And once Palm announces (if before iPhone), it would look really bad to reprice after the iPhone is announced as it would reinforce the image that Palm is the reactionary follower, and Apple is the leader. But to avoid all this, would Palm dare to take the difficult marketing option of announcing/releasing after iPhone (and will iPhone really be announced on June 8)? Apple has Palm between a rock and a hard place.
I gotta say your analysis of the potential strategy behind the announcement is remarkably sensible. Sounds very plausible.
Those were meant for lower income people?
Let's see, current yearly income: around $20k. The first generation, 4GB iPod mini was the first iPod I ever owned. I'm pretty sure I'm below the poverty line.
I'm also typing this on my 15" PowerBook G4 that I bought on sale for $1600 a few years ago. You don't have to be rich to put some money into a savings account.
Apple is playing with Palm by making these statements, while daring Palm/Sprint to show its hand. Apple's product secrecy combined with these possible pricing statements puts Palm in a tough spot since the Pre will certainly be compared to the next iPhone. ... Apple has Palm between a rock and a hard place.
This was my first thought as well. At the initial Pre announcement, the Palm CEO alluded to the idea that it wouldn't be priced as a loss-leader, and in fact would be so good that it would stay above the low-end battles. Since that time the economy has become a central focus for many consumers, and Palm has had to dance around the price issue.
If Apple introduces a lower-end iPhone (essentially the current model with a price drop), then Palm will have a difficult time gaining market share with their 1.0 product. They have to get everything exactly right at the launch, from inventory to activation to app store to developer acceptance to pundit reviews, or else they are essentially sunk. There is no room for Palm for any screw-ups.
If Apple introduces a lower-end iPhone (essentially the current model with a price drop), then Palm will have a difficult time gaining market share with their 1.0 product. They have to get everything exactly right at the launch, from inventory to activation to app store to developer acceptance to pundit reviews, or else they are essentially sunk. There is no room for Palm for any screw-ups.
The Pre has an app store?
I would prefer for AT&T to offer a voice only plan for the IPhone. I want a Touch and I need a cell phone and I don't want to carry to devices. I would pay $100 more for the IPhone if I did not have to get the data plan.
I've been holding out, and will consider buying the next generation iPhone when it arives. But... I am closely watching the activation and account cancellation process. While I like the idea of an always-connected data device, I have lived this long without one. I'm fine with WiFi-only for data.
I have an existing AT&T phone plan (a grandfathered $29/month voice-only) and my SIM card works fine in an iPhone (I've tested it). So my plan is to buy a new iPhone and associated iPhone voice/data plan, pay the cancellation fee, and use the device with my existing SIM. In the long run the cancellation fee is far less than the two-year iPhone plan, especially after taxes and fees.
Yes, I'll be missing out on some of the goodies like A-GPS and maps, but again, I don't have those now. The value of a phone, camera, and iPod Touch bundled into a single device is worth the compromise and accompanying savings.
I would prefer for AT&T to offer a voice only plan for the IPhone. I want a Touch and I need a cell phone and I don't want to carry to devices. I would pay $100 more for the IPhone if I did not have to get the data plan. Think how many Touch buyers AT&T could have signed up if they had such a plan.
Totally agree and have made that point since day one. You can get a Blackberry wihtout data plan - why not iPhone?
How about a cheaper voice plan? I only use about 100 minutes per month.
YES!!!. I barely use my phone as a phone. There's a waste of $30 a month. Plus, with email and SMS, how many phone calls get made any more? Why not cut the phone end a bit.
OK- how's this. While it may be fantastic that AT&T and Apple are now catering to those on the lower end of the financial spectrum, how does MMS factor into their data plan? Will it be extra? Will this be disclosed?
Yes it will be disclosed! Are you a moron (rhetoricalquestion)? Do you really think they are going to publish that information now when MMS isn't even available yet? The features you talk about are not even available yet! They will be soon enough with 3.0 and THEN you'll get the answers to your question. Patience people 3.0 will be here soon enough.
What I'm also curious about is what happens when those of us with 1st gen iPhones' 2-yr contract is up (June 30th +/-), aren't we free to switch carriers, and isn't Apple then forced to allow this?
Totally agree and have made that point since day one. You can get a Blackberry wihtout data plan - why not iPhone?
And I'm opposite. I'd buy an iphone without a voice plan just to get net access when no wifi is available...
I would prefer for AT&T to offer a voice only plan for the IPhone. I want a Touch and I need a cell phone and I don't want to carry to devices. I would pay $100 more for the IPhone if I did not have to get the data plan. Think how many Touch buyers AT&T could have signed up if they had such a plan.
I thought you could do voice only with the iPhone.
I think you may have missed his point....
Well, apparently, you didn't get the point of his comment. Read the headline again. "AT&T may introduced $20 limited iPhone data plan." He is talking about proofreading their work before publishing. If they did, they wouldn't publish an article with such a glaring mistake in the headline. The rest of the article is a grammatical mess anyway.
Sorry, I misread his post. I shouldn't be allowed to post this early in the morning.
My old Blackberry was expensive to roam with, but there was still an unlimited international plan available. Now, I'm not even willing to go for that-- I'll go back to what I used to do with my Nokia 770 and tether with bluetooth to a cheap phone before paying for another smart-phone that isn't (economically) functional outside the US!