This is the problem I have, from a consumers point of view, why are people so happy for Apple (or anyone really) to be making such a large margin on these devices (products etc)?
Because the benefit I get from the device isn't coupled to the margin the company gets?
My value of the iPhone is not tied to Apple's profit. While I wouldn't mind paying less (who wouldn't?!?) unless someone can beat Apple's value proposition, why shouldn't Apple get to make more money if they are able to release a product that is priced similar to other competing products but delivers much better value?
When users start flocking to another device, perhaps then Apple might use price as a differentiator - but why should they now when they clearly have a lead on everyone else? Why shouldn't they be rewarded for that? After all, that's a major motivator to go into business - to get something in return for your effort.
And where do you get the idea from that the USA is the"smallest cellphone market of them all"? Even the EU isn't one cell market, with the differing laws and such.
For reporting yes (although the middle east does pip you for bottom spot)
Even if we recognize that the analysts used the GAAP adjustment, there is no way that they can accurately forecast operating expenses directly related to any specific product.
But without a declaration of the protocol used in the report we can only assume.
Because the rest of Apple's operations (mac computers, software and ipods) are relatively straight forward and well understood as an industry --- so whatever is left is the relatively complicated iphone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
Mark, how did you calculate the GAAP adjustments? To be accurate you would have to know the actually individual units for each of the 2 iPhones.
The problem is that they count SIM cards --- the rest of the world are dominated by prepaid and basically everybody have multiple SIM cards in their desk drawers. You can't have mobile penetration rate of 120-130% without double and triple counting.
US and Canada are postpaid dominated --- which means that their numbers are more accurate to the actual people count.
The problem is that they count SIM cards --- the rest of the world are dominated by prepaid and basically everybody have multiple SIM cards in their desk drawers. You can't have mobile penetration rate of 120-130% without double and triple counting.
US and Canada are postpaid dominated --- which means that their numbers are more accurate to the actual people count.
They don't count SIM cards, if they did the CDMA market would be a bit hard to account for...
And the carriers disconnect those unused cards after a set time, so they are not counted any more. There are other ways of getting over 100% penetration, company phones, data devices etc. They are still users on the network, and should still be counted
So do you get twice the benefit of a device that costs half as much?
You have to show that equivalent devices cost substantially less. You can't discuss the phones in a vacuum as you are doing. how much does the N97 go for unlocked? The Pre? The Storm2, the top Blackberry, whichever that is. What about the top phones from the other dozen or so companies.
Well, first, there's being a dick, and then there's aggravated dickery.
LOL! Understood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Political outsider is its the site's cesspool. I don't remember if a non-member can even see that. I'm pretty sure Lundy would rather do away with that place if he could.
I agree. Perhaps that forum should be renamed "The Cesspool." The few times I've waded into that muck, I always felt dirty afterwards.
Don't blame me, i didn't create the table. But at the end of the day, Canada/USA only makes up 7% of the worlds cellphone connections
And "connections" are defined as SIM cards --- which is a self-serving statistic by the GSMA.
Canada/US as a market is a lot larger than those statistics said --- those 300 million connections are real connections because they are basically all postpaid.
You have to show that equivalent devices cost substantially less. You can't discuss the phones in a vacuum as you are doing. how much does the N97 go for unlocked? The Pre? The Storm2, the top Blackberry, whichever that is. What about the top phones from the other dozen or so companies.
Compare the prices, and then come back.
I'm not, I asked if the experience he/she was getting from their current phone was twice that of a phone priced half as much. I haven't mentioned a brand there, it was the other user that stated they had an iPhone.
I know for a fact if I was going to purchase an iPhone today, it would cost 4 times what my current phone cost, and the monthly charges would be 2-3 times as high as my current charges. Would I can that much benefit from the iPhone, no I wouldn't, but I am not saying that others will feel the same way.
And "connections" are defined as SIM cards --- which is a self-serving statistic by the GSMA.
Canada/US as a market is a lot larger than those statistics said --- those 300 million connections are real connections because they are basically all postpaid.
Comments
But you know the way things go around here. You are going to be blamed one way or another.
Well, I won't deny that people have been privately mailing me about it, and that I have discussed it. But it came as a surprise to Jeff and myself.
It's possible that someone infractioned him out, and he automatically went "poof", for a while at least.
This is the problem I have, from a consumers point of view, why are people so happy for Apple (or anyone really) to be making such a large margin on these devices (products etc)?
Because the benefit I get from the device isn't coupled to the margin the company gets?
My value of the iPhone is not tied to Apple's profit. While I wouldn't mind paying less (who wouldn't?!?) unless someone can beat Apple's value proposition, why shouldn't Apple get to make more money if they are able to release a product that is priced similar to other competing products but delivers much better value?
When users start flocking to another device, perhaps then Apple might use price as a differentiator - but why should they now when they clearly have a lead on everyone else? Why shouldn't they be rewarded for that? After all, that's a major motivator to go into business - to get something in return for your effort.
And where do you get the idea from that the USA is the"smallest cellphone market of them all"? Even the EU isn't one cell market, with the differing laws and such.
For reporting yes (although the middle east does pip you for bottom spot)
http://gsmworld.com/newsroom/market-...ta_summary.htm
Even if we recognize that the analysts used the GAAP adjustment, there is no way that they can accurately forecast operating expenses directly related to any specific product.
But without a declaration of the protocol used in the report we can only assume.
Because the rest of Apple's operations (mac computers, software and ipods) are relatively straight forward and well understood as an industry --- so whatever is left is the relatively complicated iphone.
Mark, how did you calculate the GAAP adjustments? To be accurate you would have to know the actually individual units for each of the 2 iPhones.
As well, could you peruse the RIM CSO relative to this report? http://press.rim.com/release.jsp?id=2248
Read the last chart and footnote (a):
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/07/21results.html
Because the benefit I get from the device isn't coupled to the margin the company gets?
So do you get twice the benefit of a device that costs half as much?
For reporting yes (although the middle east does pip you for bottom spot)
http://gsmworld.com/newsroom/market-...ta_summary.htm
The problem is that they count SIM cards --- the rest of the world are dominated by prepaid and basically everybody have multiple SIM cards in their desk drawers. You can't have mobile penetration rate of 120-130% without double and triple counting.
US and Canada are postpaid dominated --- which means that their numbers are more accurate to the actual people count.
So do you get twice the benefit of a device that costs half as much?
No - but that's my point - the two aren't coupled at all.
While it would be nice to pay half as much, I'm more then willing to pay the current prices because they are more than worth it to me.
I'm paying less for my iPhone then I was paying for my POS Treo with Sprint. Want to talk about getting ripped off!
For reporting yes (although the middle east does pip you for bottom spot)
http://gsmworld.com/newsroom/market-...ta_summary.htm
That's an odd definition. It doesn't break it down by markets, just by an arbitrary definition of area.
Japan is a "market", China is a "market", The USA is a "market".
What they show are world "regions". Those aren't markets.
The problem is that they count SIM cards --- the rest of the world are dominated by prepaid and basically everybody have multiple SIM cards in their desk drawers. You can't have mobile penetration rate of 120-130% without double and triple counting.
US and Canada are postpaid dominated --- which means that their numbers are more accurate to the actual people count.
They don't count SIM cards, if they did the CDMA market would be a bit hard to account for...
And the carriers disconnect those unused cards after a set time, so they are not counted any more. There are other ways of getting over 100% penetration, company phones, data devices etc. They are still users on the network, and should still be counted
No - but that's my point - the two aren't coupled at all.
So, you are saying that if you purchased a device that was half the price of the iPhone, it would still be giving you a similar benefit as the iPhone?
That's an odd definition. It doesn't break it down by markets, just by an arbitrary definition of area.
Japan is a "market", China is a "market", The USA is a "market".
What they show are world "regions". Those aren't markets.
Don't blame me, i didn't create the table. But at the end of the day, Canada/USA only makes up 7% of the worlds cellphone connections
So do you get twice the benefit of a device that costs half as much?
You have to show that equivalent devices cost substantially less. You can't discuss the phones in a vacuum as you are doing. how much does the N97 go for unlocked? The Pre? The Storm2, the top Blackberry, whichever that is. What about the top phones from the other dozen or so companies.
Compare the prices, and then come back.
Well, first, there's being a dick, and then there's aggravated dickery.
LOL! Understood.
Political outsider is its the site's cesspool. I don't remember if a non-member can even see that. I'm pretty sure Lundy would rather do away with that place if he could.
I agree. Perhaps that forum should be renamed "The Cesspool." The few times I've waded into that muck, I always felt dirty afterwards.
Don't blame me, i didn't create the table. But at the end of the day, Canada/USA only makes up 7% of the worlds cellphone connections
It doesn't matter. Europe is about the same once you break out the different countries laws and networks. Maybe smaller.
You might as well include Mexico in the USA/Canada make-up. So much of this is meaningless.
What would be interesting, and more important on several levels, is to know what the VALUE of each market is.
So, you are saying that if you purchased a device that was half the price of the iPhone, it would still be giving you a similar benefit as the iPhone?
Only if it delivered the same or significantly better experience then the iPhone.
That experience is the hardware, software and the way they are integrated - it's not just some checklist of features or the cost of the handset.
Only if it delivered the same or significantly better experience then the iPhone.
That experience is the hardware, software and the way they are integrated - it's not just some checklist of features or the cost of the handset.
In other words, you don't know and you are now justifying your purchase?
Don't blame me, i didn't create the table. But at the end of the day, Canada/USA only makes up 7% of the worlds cellphone connections
And "connections" are defined as SIM cards --- which is a self-serving statistic by the GSMA.
Canada/US as a market is a lot larger than those statistics said --- those 300 million connections are real connections because they are basically all postpaid.
You have to show that equivalent devices cost substantially less. You can't discuss the phones in a vacuum as you are doing. how much does the N97 go for unlocked? The Pre? The Storm2, the top Blackberry, whichever that is. What about the top phones from the other dozen or so companies.
Compare the prices, and then come back.
I'm not, I asked if the experience he/she was getting from their current phone was twice that of a phone priced half as much. I haven't mentioned a brand there, it was the other user that stated they had an iPhone.
I know for a fact if I was going to purchase an iPhone today, it would cost 4 times what my current phone cost, and the monthly charges would be 2-3 times as high as my current charges. Would I can that much benefit from the iPhone, no I wouldn't, but I am not saying that others will feel the same way.
It doesn't matter. Europe is about the same once you break out the different countries laws and networks. Maybe smaller.
You might as well include Mexico in the USA/Canada make-up. So much of this is meaningless.
What would be interesting, and more important on several levels, is to know what the VALUE of each market is.
Actually I believe is included in the Americas figure.
And what does it matter if they group Europe together (they actually have it split in two), they group other regions together as well.
And "connections" are defined as SIM cards --- which is a self-serving statistic by the GSMA.
Canada/US as a market is a lot larger than those statistics said --- those 300 million connections are real connections because they are basically all postpaid.
Try again, you are wrong.