iPhones aren't $99 and this article just repeats the same line Apple said at the time. In many markets that aren't so contractually moribund, the actual walk-away price is about $600-700.
The $99 is just a magic but total BS number prepared by marketing that neither Apple or the carrier are going to let you have the phone for.
There's a massive market of young people who can't afford the cost of an iPhone, and more importantly it's contract. These are traditionally a big market for the iPod, so it'd make sense to try to get a phone that could be approaching the iPod Touch's price - hard, but not impossible.
It would be AT&T that would need to budge more than Apple. Apple *could* drop their price to AT&T some, but would AT&T be willing to pass that along?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roc Ingersol
Lowering handset price further makes no sense. As mentioned, specials already hit $50. Taking that down to $0 is going to have a limited effect.
What would help, is offering the iPad's 250MB/mo data plan on the iPhone. My guess is AT&T really doesn't want to do that though, as most iPhone owners are going to be under 250MB/mo, so they'd be leaving $15/mo on the table.
I would benefit from a $15 250MB/mo plan. My phone shows 45MB of use of data since mid-December. Even if that's off by a factor of 5x (seems unlikely), I would be well within the plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGuessSo
I know it's silly to choose a non-iPhone because the handset is $50 or $100 less when you're facing several thousand dollars of contract fees, but based on my experience running a cell phone store a few years ago, that's exactly what many many people do.
Going for a non-iPhone might mean going for a non-smartphone too, that's where the biggest savings would be, if not going for a prepaid plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831
First of all, no one is accessing these sites on an iPad. It hasn't shipped yet.
True, but I don't know how that changes it. That person probably mentioned it because, despite not being released, we already know isn't going to fundamentally change how the site in question works, the biggest reason being no flash.
Quote:
While you can access Facebook on an iPhone via a dedicated app, there is still a large number of users accessing the site from Internet Explorer on a Windows box.
You can use the main Facebook site on Safari. Just not the games and videos.
So the 3Gs is the more popular of the two models despite the higher price; therefore Apple should release a cheaper phone. The logic simply doesn't match the data.
I agree it's more about the data plan pricing than anything else, however I thought contracts in countries other than the US were generally allot less expensive comparatively. So obviously she's only talking about the US or is she somehow using US data to extrapolate international pricing?
I agree, this analyst is way off base. A sub $99 phone doesn't seem like a good fit for a premium brand like Apple.
You'd probably sell allot of Mercedes sub $20k too, but you don't see it happening.
Also, I'm tired of people who say flash is a must. I don't even use flash on my desktop or laptop anymore. Why would anyone want it on their mobil? All I can gather is that anyone who cries about flash watches way too much porn. As far as games go; flash games are horrendous, not designed for touch UI's and there are far better games (even at .99) Apple would rather you buy from their store and support their developers.
I suppose lack of flash killed the Nintendo DS and the PSP as well? Please explain to me what flash games and video content are so important, because I can't find anything that I'd want to use that's flash based, let alone a flash based something or other that is a "must". I truly want to know what you guys are talking about because it's beyond me. Perhaps the naysayers would understand your perspective if you told us what you "must have" that you cannot without flash.
i take it you don't have any kids
and apple with all the cheapo stuff they sell at wal mart has stopped being a premium brand a long time ago
I don't think price is a key. Many of my friends that cried about the price acted odd when the $99 model was released, they bought the 3gs. I suspect it is human nature not to grab the lowest model. In the end, price had little to do with the decision.
an unsubsidized iphone is very expensive, specially in developing countries
Yes, and even in the US it is nice to load the whole family with phones. The iPhone doesn't lend itself to that task very well price-wise. Blackberry, on the other hand, had a 2 for 1 deal that was simply great and propelled their market share. If I can get them for $50 a piece then that would be dandy.
I completely disagree of Apple iPad success, iPad as it is is so limited that in my opinion won't sell much, it as no USB, it just can't run two apps on the same time, so no messenger or itunes while surfing the net, it's just ridiculous, no camera for video call, no Java, no Flash, wow, for what do you really need it?
For what do I need such huge GPS? Can't even get it on my network free Holliday House because it's network dependent!
For me it's just a very expensive Digital Photo Frame!
And for the money it sells I can get so much better!!!
and apple with all the cheapo stuff they sell at wal mart has stopped being a premium brand a long time ago
Just because they sell cheapish iPods in Walmart does not support your conclusion at all. First, those iPods are still expensive vs. the competition (Sandisk etc.) so within the Walmart ecosystem, they are still absolutely premium. You can't count the flood of cheap iPod accessories made by other people (cases, cables, speakers etc.) - that has no bearing on the premium nature of Apple stuff.
Secondarily, all the data around >$1000 computers - Apple owns that market. That is the very definition of the premium market for the industry Apple is in. I bet Apple owns the >$2000, and >$5000 markets too. It used to be that Corporations bought $3000 laptops for road warriors but these days, the standard roadwarrior laptops (e.g. a Lenovo T410/510) are costing about $1000 or less in bulk.
Apple is the very definition of a premium brand by all metrics for its industry - yep - it ain't Rolex with very limited distribution and sky high absolute prices but for its market (music players/phones/computers) it is THE premium brand. In general, Rolex owners will own Macs (probably at the high end) since there is a perception that Apple is THE premium computer brand. What else - premium gaming rigs, high end media PCs? All small beer...
I completely disagree of Apple iPad success, iPad as it is is so limited that in my opinion won't sell much, it as no USB, it just can't run two apps on the same time, so no messenger or itunes while surfing the net, it's just ridiculous, no camera for video call, no Java, no Flash, wow, for what do you really need it?
For what do I need such huge GPS? Can't even get it on my network free Holliday House because it's network dependent!
For me it's just a very expensive Digital Photo Frame!
And for the money it sells I can get so much better!!!
This has been covered ad infinitum in so many other posts - don't beat a dead horse. Your opinion is just yours and makes no difference to the overall market perception of the iPad.
Whether you buy one or not has no bearing on success in the broader market where there are 100 non-technical/casual/style-driven potential buyers for everyone like you or me. That is the iPad target market and it will probably sell like hotcakes to that much larger market.
Just leave it alone - it is just not interesting any more and about 4 weeks late...
The data is pathetic (2008???). Depending on when in 2008, the iPhone was not in many markets, where it was it was often unsubsidized e.g. US until June 2008 and had super premium pricing even where subsidized to the early adopters.
These days, the iPhone is free with a decent post-paid contract (e.g. in the UK/France) and well subsidized with a low (20GBP per month) contract.
However it is better to be lucky than good... as some have noted, in pre-paid markets, the iPhone is still super-expensive because it is a high-priced piece of kit under the subsidy but that is constantly improving too. NOTE - the iPhone is not crazy expensive vs. the competition in the unlocked market - high end BBs, and even POS Nokia N-series also cost hundreds of $s and most high-end Android phones are only just trickling to the unlocked market and command similarly high prices (see Google N1 unlocked).
However, as China is showing, there is still a sizeable market even in developing countries for premium phones and as iPhone costs fall (as they do every quarter), and incomes rise there will continue to be more aggressive pricing, particularly off contract. Remember, Apple succeeds on its margins, not its market share - they won't sacrifice those (quite rightly) to grow volumes since you can never get those $s back.
I know we probably don't have any real investment types visiting this forum but I would like to know if analysts like this Huberty suffer any consequences when their predictions and models prove to be wrong. It would seem that investors who make their buy/sell decisions based on analyst's reports would be impacted negatively by bad information. For example, Huberty has turned a 180 on Apple. Now she thinks it's the cat's meow. So what about those Morgan Stanley customers who lost out on Apple's big run up? Do they complain to Huberty's boss or file lawsuits for incompetence?
Consequences to those on Wall Street for misleading people or causing financial losses? Are you new here?
Just because they sell cheapish iPods in Walmart does not support your conclusion at all. First, those iPods are still expensive vs. the competition (Sandisk etc.) so within the Walmart ecosystem, they are still absolutely premium. You can't count the flood of cheap iPod accessories made by other people (cases, cables, speakers etc.) - that has no bearing on the premium nature of Apple stuff.
Secondarily, all the data around >$1000 computers - Apple owns that market. That is the very definition of the premium market for the industry Apple is in. I bet Apple owns the >$2000, and >$5000 markets too. It used to be that Corporations bought $3000 laptops for road warriors but these days, the standard roadwarrior laptops (e.g. a Lenovo T410/510) are costing about $1000 or less in bulk.
Apple is the very definition of a premium brand by all metrics for its industry - yep - it ain't Rolex with very limited distribution and sky high absolute prices but for its market (music players/phones/computers) it is THE premium brand. In general, Rolex owners will own Macs (probably at the high end) since there is a perception that Apple is THE premium computer brand. What else - premium gaming rigs, high end media PCs? All small beer...
Sorry if you were being sarcastic -couldn't tell
the iPod Shuffle starts at $59 just like all the cheapo MP3 players out there. Apple is selling cheapo stuff because that's how competitors start to take your marketshare. that's how MS drove everyone else out of business. NT 4 was cheap and good enough for everyone. Now Windows Server 2008 R2 is finally getting features that UNIX has had for years.
I don't think price is a key. Many of my friends that cried about the price acted odd when the $99 model was released, they bought the 3gs. I suspect it is human nature not to grab the lowest model. In the end, price had little to do with the decision.
I do agree there should be a family data plan.
i tell this to people. the difference over 2 years between a 3GS and a 3G is $100 to $200 depending on which on you get. it's not worth it buying a 3G since the monthly cost is the same.
I'm disappointed that you are unable to see this yourself, but there are two sites on the Internet that drive the use of Flash: YouTube and FaceBook.
It will be years before HTML5 can pry the cold claws of Flash off the face of the Internet (especially on the desktop), but hopefully the lack of Flash on mobile devices will accelerate this transition.
Hmm... As far as I know, Google has completely revamped its YouTube so that it will work with the iPhone and iPod Touch -- so that its videos may be viewed without Flash.
Similarly, Facebook has created its site so that it will work with the iPhone and other iPhone OS based mobile products. In fact many commercial sites. e.g., NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Baseball, etc. as well as non-commercial sites have developed Apps so that their site contents will be viewed in iPhone OS mobile products.
Commercial sites will not ignore the much more well off owners of iPhone and other iPhone OS products. It will be what will force them to change. just to reach these audience.
A friend if mine is "addicted" to YouTube, and does most of her "internet" interaction now via her iPhone, and never complained that there were sites she could not view because the iPhone has no Flash. More than likely, she would blame a site for not "working" if it will not show up properly. And she will just browse another site.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831
Yes, FaceBook games are enormously popular and some of them are highly profitable. That's why Flash is so important on that site.
For YouTube, yes, I realize that there is h.264 support and the content is accessible in a variety of ways from a variety of hardware and browser platforms, but most desktop computer users are still visiting the site with Internet Explorer on a Windows machine. They will need Flash for a considerable amount of time.
Just a few years ago, Yahoo sites were the most popular destinations, they no longer are. In fact, Yahoo finally buried the last remnants of its greatest investment of around $4billion acquisition sometime in late 1990s -- Geocities, if ever heard of it -- because they did not innovate.
Sites do change to adjust to technological changes that they think is the future direction of any industry or field of endeavor. Even Microsoft has announced recently that it will revamp its "mobile computing" software completely because its prior Mobile 6.5, which it insists is a very popular system is losing many of the companies that make mobile devices.
So nothing is permanent. They will change if it is the direction of the future. If not, they will be doomed.
"One more thing"... Apple's main intention is not to be the most popular product, it has never its main intention to reach everyone... its main intention is to make a good product to reach those that matter and make a lot of money in the end. That is why they have more than $40billion cash and no debt.
Tell me a company that can make a similar state of health, as a company.
This has been covered ad infinitum in so many other posts - don't beat a dead horse. Your opinion is just yours and makes no difference to the overall market perception of the iPad.
Whether you buy one or not has no bearing on success in the broader market where there are 100 non-technical/casual/style-driven potential buyers for everyone like you or me. That is the iPad target market and it will probably sell like hotcakes to that much larger market.
Just leave it alone - it is just not interesting any more and about 4 weeks late...
In other words, if Apple thinks it's right, it's right according to Apple Insider forum posters. If Apple doesn't offer it, then you don't need it and your a fool to even want it, right? Matte Screen, Flash, Blu Ray, MMS, Verizon, etc etc.
If Apple wants to sell more iPhones, they could lower the price. Or they could try opening the phone up to other carriers. But as you say, that has been covered ad infinitum in so many other posts.
I find it quite funny when I see US customers complaining about the iPhone's price. Do you have any idea how much you have to pay for a 32Gb 3GS over here (Portugal)? ?700! That's around $950!!! You may eventually get a deal (with a new contract) for about ?400, but that's still $550, almost twice as much as in the US.
So don't tell us, in Europe at least, about the iPhone being expensive...
Acabei de voltar de la... sim vida esta cara. Mesmo assim o pessoal vive bem e nao vi ninguem a viver na rua.
Hmm... As far as I know, Google has completely revamped its YouTube so that it will work with the iPhone and iPod Touch -- so that its videos may be viewed without Flash.
Similarly, Facebook has created its site so that it will work with the iPhone and other iPhone OS based mobile products. In fact many commercial sites. e.g., NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Baseball, etc. as well as non-commercial sites have developed Apps so that their site contents will be viewed in iPhone OS mobile products.
Commercial sites will not ignore the much more well off owners of iPhone and other iPhone OS products. It will be what will force them to change. just to reach these audience.
A friend if mine is "addicted" to YouTube, and does most of her "internet" interaction now via her iPhone, and never complained that there were sites she could not view because the iPhone has no Flash. More than likely, she would blame a site for not "working" if it will not show up properly. And she will just browse another site.
Just a few years ago, Yahoo sites were the most popular destinations, they no longer are. Sites do change to adjust to technological changes that they think is the future direction of any industry or field of endeavor. Even Microsoft has announced recently that it will revamp its "mobile computing" software completely because its prior Mobile 6.5, which it insists is a very popular system is losing many of the companies that make mobile devices.
So nothing is permanent. They will change if it is the direction of the future. If not, they will be doomed.
"One more thing"... Apple's main intention is not to be the most popular product, it has never its main intention to reach everyone... its main intention is to make a good product to reach those that matter and make a lot of money in the end. That is why they have more than $40billion cash and no debt.
Tell me a company that can make a similar state of health, as a company.
CGC
demographically the US is in a baby boom. every kid website requires flash. going forward every smartphone is going to need flash since kids will be using it
SOME Facebook games are Flash based, I play Mafia Wars from an iPhone quite a lot and there are quite a few things you can do with Farmville without loading the Flash components.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831
Yes, FaceBook games are enormously popular and some of them are highly profitable. That's why Flash is so important on that site.
For YouTube, yes, I realize that there is h.264 support and the content is accessible in a variety of ways from a variety of hardware and browser platforms, but most desktop computer users are still visiting the site with Internet Explorer on a Windows machine. They will need Flash for a considerable amount of time.
It won't sell well to SOME geeks <5% of the overall market.
Enjoy your generic Win 7 netbook.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltWater
I completely disagree of Apple iPad success, iPad as it is is so limited that in my opinion won't sell much, it as no USB, it just can't run two apps on the same time, so no messenger or itunes while surfing the net, it's just ridiculous, no camera for video call, no Java, no Flash, wow, for what do you really need it?
For what do I need such huge GPS? Can't even get it on my network free Holliday House because it's network dependent!
For me it's just a very expensive Digital Photo Frame!
And for the money it sells I can get so much better!!!
The past quality of Huberty's AAPL analysis speaks for itself. For first quarter fiscal 2010, her estimate vs. actual was 18% low for EPS and 15% low for iPod unit volume. In those categories they were the furthest off among 20 Wall Street analysts.
Comments
The $99 is just a magic but total BS number prepared by marketing that neither Apple or the carrier are going to let you have the phone for.
There's a massive market of young people who can't afford the cost of an iPhone, and more importantly it's contract. These are traditionally a big market for the iPod, so it'd make sense to try to get a phone that could be approaching the iPod Touch's price - hard, but not impossible.
It would be AT&T that would need to budge more than Apple. Apple *could* drop their price to AT&T some, but would AT&T be willing to pass that along?
Lowering handset price further makes no sense. As mentioned, specials already hit $50. Taking that down to $0 is going to have a limited effect.
What would help, is offering the iPad's 250MB/mo data plan on the iPhone. My guess is AT&T really doesn't want to do that though, as most iPhone owners are going to be under 250MB/mo, so they'd be leaving $15/mo on the table.
I would benefit from a $15 250MB/mo plan. My phone shows 45MB of use of data since mid-December. Even if that's off by a factor of 5x (seems unlikely), I would be well within the plan.
I know it's silly to choose a non-iPhone because the handset is $50 or $100 less when you're facing several thousand dollars of contract fees, but based on my experience running a cell phone store a few years ago, that's exactly what many many people do.
Going for a non-iPhone might mean going for a non-smartphone too, that's where the biggest savings would be, if not going for a prepaid plan.
First of all, no one is accessing these sites on an iPad. It hasn't shipped yet.
True, but I don't know how that changes it. That person probably mentioned it because, despite not being released, we already know isn't going to fundamentally change how the site in question works, the biggest reason being no flash.
While you can access Facebook on an iPhone via a dedicated app, there is still a large number of users accessing the site from Internet Explorer on a Windows box.
You can use the main Facebook site on Safari. Just not the games and videos.
So the 3Gs is the more popular of the two models despite the higher price; therefore Apple should release a cheaper phone.
I agree it's more about the data plan pricing than anything else, however I thought contracts in countries other than the US were generally allot less expensive comparatively. So obviously she's only talking about the US or is she somehow using US data to extrapolate international pricing?
I agree, this analyst is way off base. A sub $99 phone doesn't seem like a good fit for a premium brand like Apple.
You'd probably sell allot of Mercedes sub $20k too, but you don't see it happening.
Also, I'm tired of people who say flash is a must. I don't even use flash on my desktop or laptop anymore. Why would anyone want it on their mobil? All I can gather is that anyone who cries about flash watches way too much porn. As far as games go; flash games are horrendous, not designed for touch UI's and there are far better games (even at .99) Apple would rather you buy from their store and support their developers.
I suppose lack of flash killed the Nintendo DS and the PSP as well? Please explain to me what flash games and video content are so important, because I can't find anything that I'd want to use that's flash based, let alone a flash based something or other that is a "must". I truly want to know what you guys are talking about because it's beyond me. Perhaps the naysayers would understand your perspective if you told us what you "must have" that you cannot without flash.
i take it you don't have any kids
and apple with all the cheapo stuff they sell at wal mart has stopped being a premium brand a long time ago
I do agree there should be a family data plan.
not every person lives in the us
an unsubsidized iphone is very expensive, specially in developing countries
Yes, and even in the US it is nice to load the whole family with phones. The iPhone doesn't lend itself to that task very well price-wise. Blackberry, on the other hand, had a 2 for 1 deal that was simply great and propelled their market share. If I can get them for $50 a piece then that would be dandy.
For what do I need such huge GPS? Can't even get it on my network free Holliday House because it's network dependent!
For me it's just a very expensive Digital Photo Frame!
And for the money it sells I can get so much better!!!
i take it you don't have any kids
and apple with all the cheapo stuff they sell at wal mart has stopped being a premium brand a long time ago
Just because they sell cheapish iPods in Walmart does not support your conclusion at all. First, those iPods are still expensive vs. the competition (Sandisk etc.) so within the Walmart ecosystem, they are still absolutely premium. You can't count the flood of cheap iPod accessories made by other people (cases, cables, speakers etc.) - that has no bearing on the premium nature of Apple stuff.
Secondarily, all the data around >$1000 computers - Apple owns that market. That is the very definition of the premium market for the industry Apple is in. I bet Apple owns the >$2000, and >$5000 markets too. It used to be that Corporations bought $3000 laptops for road warriors but these days, the standard roadwarrior laptops (e.g. a Lenovo T410/510) are costing about $1000 or less in bulk.
Apple is the very definition of a premium brand by all metrics for its industry - yep - it ain't Rolex with very limited distribution and sky high absolute prices but for its market (music players/phones/computers) it is THE premium brand. In general, Rolex owners will own Macs (probably at the high end) since there is a perception that Apple is THE premium computer brand. What else - premium gaming rigs, high end media PCs? All small beer...
Sorry if you were being sarcastic -couldn't tell
I completely disagree of Apple iPad success, iPad as it is is so limited that in my opinion won't sell much, it as no USB, it just can't run two apps on the same time, so no messenger or itunes while surfing the net, it's just ridiculous, no camera for video call, no Java, no Flash, wow, for what do you really need it?
For what do I need such huge GPS? Can't even get it on my network free Holliday House because it's network dependent!
For me it's just a very expensive Digital Photo Frame!
And for the money it sells I can get so much better!!!
This has been covered ad infinitum in so many other posts - don't beat a dead horse. Your opinion is just yours and makes no difference to the overall market perception of the iPad.
Whether you buy one or not has no bearing on success in the broader market where there are 100 non-technical/casual/style-driven potential buyers for everyone like you or me. That is the iPad target market and it will probably sell like hotcakes to that much larger market.
Just leave it alone - it is just not interesting any more and about 4 weeks late...
Who is this moron blowing to keep her job?
I have often thought the same thing...
The data is pathetic (2008???). Depending on when in 2008, the iPhone was not in many markets, where it was it was often unsubsidized e.g. US until June 2008 and had super premium pricing even where subsidized to the early adopters.
These days, the iPhone is free with a decent post-paid contract (e.g. in the UK/France) and well subsidized with a low (20GBP per month) contract.
However it is better to be lucky than good... as some have noted, in pre-paid markets, the iPhone is still super-expensive because it is a high-priced piece of kit under the subsidy but that is constantly improving too. NOTE - the iPhone is not crazy expensive vs. the competition in the unlocked market - high end BBs, and even POS Nokia N-series also cost hundreds of $s and most high-end Android phones are only just trickling to the unlocked market and command similarly high prices (see Google N1 unlocked).
However, as China is showing, there is still a sizeable market even in developing countries for premium phones and as iPhone costs fall (as they do every quarter), and incomes rise there will continue to be more aggressive pricing, particularly off contract. Remember, Apple succeeds on its margins, not its market share - they won't sacrifice those (quite rightly) to grow volumes since you can never get those $s back.
I know we probably don't have any real investment types visiting this forum but I would like to know if analysts like this Huberty suffer any consequences when their predictions and models prove to be wrong. It would seem that investors who make their buy/sell decisions based on analyst's reports would be impacted negatively by bad information. For example, Huberty has turned a 180 on Apple. Now she thinks it's the cat's meow. So what about those Morgan Stanley customers who lost out on Apple's big run up? Do they complain to Huberty's boss or file lawsuits for incompetence?
Consequences to those on Wall Street for misleading people or causing financial losses? Are you new here?
Just because they sell cheapish iPods in Walmart does not support your conclusion at all. First, those iPods are still expensive vs. the competition (Sandisk etc.) so within the Walmart ecosystem, they are still absolutely premium. You can't count the flood of cheap iPod accessories made by other people (cases, cables, speakers etc.) - that has no bearing on the premium nature of Apple stuff.
Secondarily, all the data around >$1000 computers - Apple owns that market. That is the very definition of the premium market for the industry Apple is in. I bet Apple owns the >$2000, and >$5000 markets too. It used to be that Corporations bought $3000 laptops for road warriors but these days, the standard roadwarrior laptops (e.g. a Lenovo T410/510) are costing about $1000 or less in bulk.
Apple is the very definition of a premium brand by all metrics for its industry - yep - it ain't Rolex with very limited distribution and sky high absolute prices but for its market (music players/phones/computers) it is THE premium brand. In general, Rolex owners will own Macs (probably at the high end) since there is a perception that Apple is THE premium computer brand. What else - premium gaming rigs, high end media PCs? All small beer...
Sorry if you were being sarcastic -couldn't tell
the iPod Shuffle starts at $59 just like all the cheapo MP3 players out there. Apple is selling cheapo stuff because that's how competitors start to take your marketshare. that's how MS drove everyone else out of business. NT 4 was cheap and good enough for everyone. Now Windows Server 2008 R2 is finally getting features that UNIX has had for years.
I don't think price is a key. Many of my friends that cried about the price acted odd when the $99 model was released, they bought the 3gs. I suspect it is human nature not to grab the lowest model. In the end, price had little to do with the decision.
I do agree there should be a family data plan.
i tell this to people. the difference over 2 years between a 3GS and a 3G is $100 to $200 depending on which on you get. it's not worth it buying a 3G since the monthly cost is the same.
I'm disappointed that you are unable to see this yourself, but there are two sites on the Internet that drive the use of Flash: YouTube and FaceBook.
It will be years before HTML5 can pry the cold claws of Flash off the face of the Internet (especially on the desktop), but hopefully the lack of Flash on mobile devices will accelerate this transition.
Hmm... As far as I know, Google has completely revamped its YouTube so that it will work with the iPhone and iPod Touch -- so that its videos may be viewed without Flash.
Similarly, Facebook has created its site so that it will work with the iPhone and other iPhone OS based mobile products. In fact many commercial sites. e.g., NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Baseball, etc. as well as non-commercial sites have developed Apps so that their site contents will be viewed in iPhone OS mobile products.
Commercial sites will not ignore the much more well off owners of iPhone and other iPhone OS products. It will be what will force them to change. just to reach these audience.
A friend if mine is "addicted" to YouTube, and does most of her "internet" interaction now via her iPhone, and never complained that there were sites she could not view because the iPhone has no Flash. More than likely, she would blame a site for not "working" if it will not show up properly. And she will just browse another site.
Yes, FaceBook games are enormously popular and some of them are highly profitable. That's why Flash is so important on that site.
For YouTube, yes, I realize that there is h.264 support and the content is accessible in a variety of ways from a variety of hardware and browser platforms, but most desktop computer users are still visiting the site with Internet Explorer on a Windows machine. They will need Flash for a considerable amount of time.
Just a few years ago, Yahoo sites were the most popular destinations, they no longer are. In fact, Yahoo finally buried the last remnants of its greatest investment of around $4billion acquisition sometime in late 1990s -- Geocities, if ever heard of it -- because they did not innovate.
Sites do change to adjust to technological changes that they think is the future direction of any industry or field of endeavor. Even Microsoft has announced recently that it will revamp its "mobile computing" software completely because its prior Mobile 6.5, which it insists is a very popular system is losing many of the companies that make mobile devices.
So nothing is permanent. They will change if it is the direction of the future. If not, they will be doomed.
"One more thing"... Apple's main intention is not to be the most popular product, it has never its main intention to reach everyone... its main intention is to make a good product to reach those that matter and make a lot of money in the end. That is why they have more than $40billion cash and no debt.
Tell me a company that can make a similar state of health, as a company.
CGC
This has been covered ad infinitum in so many other posts - don't beat a dead horse. Your opinion is just yours and makes no difference to the overall market perception of the iPad.
Whether you buy one or not has no bearing on success in the broader market where there are 100 non-technical/casual/style-driven potential buyers for everyone like you or me. That is the iPad target market and it will probably sell like hotcakes to that much larger market.
Just leave it alone - it is just not interesting any more and about 4 weeks late...
In other words, if Apple thinks it's right, it's right according to Apple Insider forum posters. If Apple doesn't offer it, then you don't need it and your a fool to even want it, right? Matte Screen, Flash, Blu Ray, MMS, Verizon, etc etc.
If Apple wants to sell more iPhones, they could lower the price. Or they could try opening the phone up to other carriers. But as you say, that has been covered ad infinitum in so many other posts.
I find it quite funny when I see US customers complaining about the iPhone's price. Do you have any idea how much you have to pay for a 32Gb 3GS over here (Portugal)? ?700! That's around $950!!! You may eventually get a deal (with a new contract) for about ?400, but that's still $550, almost twice as much as in the US.
So don't tell us, in Europe at least, about the iPhone being expensive...
Acabei de voltar de la... sim vida esta cara. Mesmo assim o pessoal vive bem e nao vi ninguem a viver na rua.
Hmm... As far as I know, Google has completely revamped its YouTube so that it will work with the iPhone and iPod Touch -- so that its videos may be viewed without Flash.
Similarly, Facebook has created its site so that it will work with the iPhone and other iPhone OS based mobile products. In fact many commercial sites. e.g., NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Baseball, etc. as well as non-commercial sites have developed Apps so that their site contents will be viewed in iPhone OS mobile products.
Commercial sites will not ignore the much more well off owners of iPhone and other iPhone OS products. It will be what will force them to change. just to reach these audience.
A friend if mine is "addicted" to YouTube, and does most of her "internet" interaction now via her iPhone, and never complained that there were sites she could not view because the iPhone has no Flash. More than likely, she would blame a site for not "working" if it will not show up properly. And she will just browse another site.
Just a few years ago, Yahoo sites were the most popular destinations, they no longer are. Sites do change to adjust to technological changes that they think is the future direction of any industry or field of endeavor. Even Microsoft has announced recently that it will revamp its "mobile computing" software completely because its prior Mobile 6.5, which it insists is a very popular system is losing many of the companies that make mobile devices.
So nothing is permanent. They will change if it is the direction of the future. If not, they will be doomed.
"One more thing"... Apple's main intention is not to be the most popular product, it has never its main intention to reach everyone... its main intention is to make a good product to reach those that matter and make a lot of money in the end. That is why they have more than $40billion cash and no debt.
Tell me a company that can make a similar state of health, as a company.
CGC
demographically the US is in a baby boom. every kid website requires flash. going forward every smartphone is going to need flash since kids will be using it
I though the biggest barrier to greater iPhone adoption was it's inability to play Flash video or games.
Yes, FaceBook games are enormously popular and some of them are highly profitable. That's why Flash is so important on that site.
For YouTube, yes, I realize that there is h.264 support and the content is accessible in a variety of ways from a variety of hardware and browser platforms, but most desktop computer users are still visiting the site with Internet Explorer on a Windows machine. They will need Flash for a considerable amount of time.
Enjoy your generic Win 7 netbook.
I completely disagree of Apple iPad success, iPad as it is is so limited that in my opinion won't sell much, it as no USB, it just can't run two apps on the same time, so no messenger or itunes while surfing the net, it's just ridiculous, no camera for video call, no Java, no Flash, wow, for what do you really need it?
For what do I need such huge GPS? Can't even get it on my network free Holliday House because it's network dependent!
For me it's just a very expensive Digital Photo Frame!
And for the money it sells I can get so much better!!!
http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune....eets-big-miss/