The problem is the voice and data plan, and lack of tethering. I don't know about anyone else, but it's pretty hard to justify $100/month (plus taxes/fees) for cell phone service.
With no land line, I need unlimited minutes. I already have broadband Internet access at home. Why should I pay $30+ more a month? If I could use that same service at home, via tethering or a broadband/cell data bundle, it would make more sense.
Especially in this economy, I can't believe how many people already pay that much a month. I think it's just guys wanting their toys.
The IPod Touch makes much more sense, but in a different way than the iPhone. To make Skype calls.
So, for now the iPhone is a luxury, an indulgence.
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
One thing we must never ignore is the dynamism of technology: What is considered the norm yesterday may not be the standard today, as today's cannot be guaranteed to still be prevalent in the future.
Where is IBM's card puching computing these days (once the standard of mainframe comouting).. Where is DOS these days, once thhe standard of MIcrosoft system. Why did Microsoft accept defeat and decided to start anew instead of insisting that its once mighty Mobile OS for the mobile computing is still relevant?
Even the incandescent bulb -- which for more than a century. is the standard way of lighting -- is on its way out. People may want to light their home, but no, they will not iosist on keeping the incandescent bulb as the way of the future, simply because it is the "universal standard" today. The telegraph technology was once the standard but already phased out.
The other thing is for competing technologies to "co-exist" sometimes almost foreover -- film, radio, television and internet and other multimedia -- as sources of information and entertainment. Sometimes, such competition lead to the demise of one system over another. At times, it is not even the "superior technology" that would survive, because of the impact of other market forces and human prejudices.
The average person may not know, or even if they do, they may not care less what technology they use. Take the case of social networking sites for example. Once it was AOL Inow almost viritually non-existent) Once it was Geocities in the late 1990's up to early 20000s (where's Geocities now?), then MySpace, then now FaceBook. Do you think they will exxist "foreover"?
As to people and internet sites. It is more their experience when visiting a siteer that matt. As to kids of today, if I am not mistaken, they are the major consumers of iPods, and You Tube, and Apple Apps, and visitors of Facebook, Baseball's MLB, etc. All these sites have deemed it prudent to make sure that their sites are compatible with the iPhone OS -- no Flash already for almost three years and counting.
Why do these commercial and non-commerccial sites (like BBC, PBS, etc) "waste" their time porting to iPhone OS?
Why don't these companies and institutions not use their clout to insist that Flash be made a "standard", like many of your kind seem to suggest? Two simple reasons. Flash is proprietary. And more important, rightly or wrongly, no one can ignore the more than 120 million iTunes "card" members and the more than 70 million iPhone and iPod Touch owners -- soon to be increased further by the incoming iPad owners.
Thus, if they do not ignore the more "affluent" Apple products consumers, then these companies, organizations, institutions must create alternative sites that are compatible with a system that will not accept Flash. Note that these sites did not dismantle their "Flash" rich sites. They just provided alternative modes of viewing the same content -- much like they will provide alternative sites for other mobile computing devices -- if they think they will make money doing so.
Will these guarantee that the iPhone OS will rule "foreover"? NO.
If all of you who seem to parrot the mantra about "Flash" or whatever technology you wish to espouse fully realize these, you may realize how foolish to be making such "pontifications", e.g., "Flash is universal", as I often read here and in many sites.
Nothing is constant like the inevitability of change..
Total cost (including contract) was barrier for me. I don't talk much on the phone so the total talk/data price is just extortive in my case. So I am using a pay as you go dumb phone and an iPod Touch for data wherever wifi is available. If Apple/ATT want me as an iPhone customer, they have some price trimming to do.
First of all, no one is accessing these sites on an iPad. It hasn't shipped yet.
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.
My comments are about Flash technology in general, not about Flash on a specific platform or device.
One thing to bear in mind is that Facebook isn't in the Flash business, they're in the user eyeball business. If a non-trivial number of those users are on devices that don't do Flash, Facebook will accommodate them (there have already been some remarks to that effect from the Facebook people).
This isn't a repeat of the Mac platform being obliged to conform to "industry" (read, Windows) norms, because their small market share meant the industry was unlikely to oblige them. The iPhone/iPod Touch/(soon to be)iPad juggernaut has an enormous and growing online presence. It won't be long before there are hundreds of millions of users of these devices, and Facebook isn't going to simply write off hundreds of millions of potential customers.
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.
Al, give up already. You have no argument even at Walmart. The iPod shuffle is the only "cheap" thing Apple sells and even that is 2-3x the price of the equivalents at WalMart - see the Coby and GPX equivalents sold there ($19 and $25). The ematics nano clone is $28.
One could argue that no brand on sale at Walmart can be premium but it is hard to ignore a retailer with sales of $400Bn per year - Sony can't and nor can Apple - but both only at the lowest end of their ranges. Neither are hurt in their overall brand dynamics and value - just like it doesn't hurt Armani to have lower ranges (AX, AJ etc.) and outlet stores - all part of basic price discrimination. Buy a shuffle in WalMart and save up for a basic MacBook later... I've seen it happen - Macs are very aspirational.
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.
No it has nothing to do with what either of us say - the market will decide - we just have different views of the market.
As for selling more - again - ad infinitum... Apple only wants to sell more at its exceptional margins - that is not opinion but fact based on everything they've done since the first iMac. They do competitively price most things against direct competition but of course no-one prices them against that but vs. nearly equivalent but cheaper things e.g. Q-core desktops vs. Xeon workstations, 4.5lb aluminum laptops vs. 5.5lb plastic ones etc.
The market decides and has clearly endorsed Apple's strategy by making it the most successful PC and CE company of the moment (in growth, profitability, segment share, etc.). Dell and HP may sell more units but would kill for Apple's margins since that is what drives stock price and investment capability (cash piles).
For all the things you mention there are solid reasons - ones you or I could argue against but not invalidate them from Apple's POV.
1) Blu-Ray - Apple's not interested in supporting offline competition and wants to kill it in favor of iTunes HD downloads
2) Flash - Apple wants to kill it to avoid flash apps and avoid the massive performance hit - it is a PIG on my Macs and my PC (via firefox)
3) Matte - market research proves that very few non-pro people care, fewer will pay extra and there are 3rd party solutions. Pro users are a decreasing and small minority of Mac users these days. Apple sells 5x more Macs now than back in 2003 when Pro users may have mattered and almost none of that growth has come from pros.
4) Verizon - want to make only 1 phone for the world, why back a dead technology, Verizon animosity, etc.
None of these reasons you have to agree with but they are part of Apple's agenda and rational from their POV. Several of them are clearly a long game - (BR/Flash) but Apple seems to like to play those these days...
My main point is that Apple is not necessarily stupid for doing things you or I don't agree with and the market has largely proved them right so far... We'll see how that continues.
Where is hate for Flash coming from all of a sudden? Flash is great, it just needs to be optimized...a lot. It's Adobe that is the problem not Flash. They just need to optimize it.
BEWARE: We all know how this game is played.....Microsoft minions are already starting to raise expectations for the next iPhone so that it will become a disappointment when the phone comes out at the same price as before. This is part of the tarnishing of Apple's reputation by MS insiders.
Curious how abruptly the writer of this article had "changed her mind" about Apple, and decided to give them a very POSITIVE outlook. Look what raising expectations did to kill the excitement of the new iPad.
Where is hate for Flash coming from all of a sudden? Flash is great, it just needs to be optimized...a lot. It's Adobe that is the problem not Flash. They just need to optimize it.
On the Macintosh side of things, there has been hate for Flash for a long time because of its performance issues. I think the "all of the sudden" notion that you mention is due to a great deal more discussion of the issue lately, caused in part by the increasing awareness of Apple's refusal to allow it on their ever-growing mobile platform.
The problem is not the price of the handset itself (unless it was sold unsubsidized).
The problem is the voice and data plan, and lack of tethering. I don't know about anyone else, but it's pretty hard to justify $100/month (plus taxes/fees) for cell phone service.
.
Isn't the price of the handset hidden in the price of the contract, thus inflating the voice and data plan and possibly influencing the lack or availability of tethering as well?
A comparison to show the point: The unsubsidised price for an iPhone 3GS 32GB is 800 Euros, when the competition (Highest-end Samsungs and Nokias) with touchsceens, good UIs and better tech specs are 450?. In many places subsidies are forbidden so the question they face is "Will I plunk an extra 480 USD to get the iPhone or will I buy the other phone, which seems to do the same stuff (i.e. touchscreen, fast, good looking, top tier of vendor)". And if we don't look at the tech specs, just the appearance and touchscreen, the competition is at the 170-300 Euro range (cheapest iPhone 3G 8GB is 560 Euros) gives a 350-530 USD difference.
So there's no point in Apple lowering the price of the iPhone if they want more revenue via volume? Especially, when exclusive contract with operators end and operators don't want to subsidise as much anymore because they can't get the subscribers just "because we're the only ones that can give you the iPhone"
Most people after all are not tech freaks or blind fanboys like many of us here on the forum that will buy the iPhone just because it does some unique features known by us (but not necessarily the crowd).
Also remember that increasing iPhone's penetration via lower cost (even though many claim Apple is not interested in massive market share, just quality) means Apple also gets a bigger installed ecosystem for their iPhone/iPad/future devices and services.
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's really easy actually. From the first release I clicked with what would happen. People thought up all sorts of bizzare ideas, iPhone nano for example.
1) 2007 is the tech test model to work out issues
2) 2008 is the global model
3) 2009 starts to stratify the iPhone into a range, the 3G is $99, the 3GS is $199
4) 2010 locks it in $49 3G, $99 3GS, $199 iPhone 4
instead of smaller models, Apple will sell older models, it's still a feature stratified range like the iPod, but it's a different product and market. How the heck is Apple going to release a meaningful "shuffle", obvious, the older model. The 3G is currently the Nano.
Next will be the iPod. The shuffle will stay. The Nano is last years iPod Touch, the "premium" model is the current Touch, then it moves right to the iPad. The classic only exists because flash ram costs too much, this year though? The 128gig Touch, classic is gone. The shuffle is 4 and 8 gig, 16 and 32 gig Touch mid range, 64 and 128 premium.
Part of this is to extend the AppStore and direct buy iTunes to all models, lots of reasons for that.
The iPhone range is the 3G version of the Touch, like with the iPad. After the iPad you plow into the MacBooks or desktops. iPad bridges both as a cross over product and the point between pocket and not. It's desktop and laptop, not just a small laptop.
3 in each range, all bases covered.
Only thing that might shake this up is Voice Control removing the need for displays, but I think that will just make the 8gig shuffle logical. The Appstore and in your hand iTunes is the key because it is finally what Apple has lacked, volume in OS and Software. Media Content is the other key, all iPods must have it in 2010. Instant content.
Then while the analysts spend another year missing the point, still comparing desktop sales as market share. Apple will be voluming out it's OS at the combined rate of iPod, iPhone, iPad and Macs. The analysts still don't get that Apple didn't move 3 million macs, they moved 13million copies of the OS.
They also don't get the 3 tiers of computers that are unfolding. Consumption, creation and distribution.
It's all pretty obvious. Has been for oh more than a decade.
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!!!
You must either not be a very tech savvy person or just trolling.
It's a very cheap and powerful thin client, it's exchange ready, secure, portable and a desktop. It's like uber system for companies. It's the ultimate ridiculously cheap front end for sound studios, and theatre lighting rigs. It's the best system for education, lock it down, remote wipe, custom apps, portable, cheap...
It's a data collector, sales rep unit, presentation and demo tool. It's a point of sale unit. It's about the best system admin tool for data centres and corporate help desk.
Via virtualization it can run as a windows client with office and NONE of the issues.
It's an artist tool, it's a multitouch interface for macs or even winbox.
Oh it also happens to play games, music, videos and read books in case you get bored using it productively non stop.
What you say? They didn't show that during launch.. Nah they said it in one sentence. "it's compatible with almost all of the 140,000 apps in the AppStore". They then let the media show just how dumb it is as none cod think outside the presentation. Take a look at the pro apps in there, it's bleedingly obvious what is about to happen.
As for simulatenous 3rd party apps. That's a software upgrade or a jailbreak away. People really show their clueless ways about this, all iPhone OS devices multitask. There are big issues in providing as secure a system while letting anything run amok. One ponders Apple's solution that/if it is released will suddenly enable some 70million devices and counting to do exactly that.
The only annoyance I've ever had on my iPhone is do with apps not saving their last state when I exit and having to swipe to get to apps I'm bouncing between. Oh that and the bloody phone accept which knocks out active apps instead of a pop up and letting the call happen in background without doing it youself. That wears thin.
BEWARE: We all know how this game is played.....Microsoft minions are already starting to raise expectations for the next iPhone so that it will become a disappointment when the phone comes out at the same price as before. This is part of the tarnishing of Apple's reputation by MS insiders.
Curious how abruptly the writer of this article had "changed her mind" about Apple, and decided to give them a very POSITIVE outlook. Look what raising expectations did to kill the excitement of the new iPad.
This doesn't need a conspiracy theory to explain. All it needs is people airing out their wishlists, someone picking it up, thinking it's a rumor, someone else picking it up and thinking it's likely, and someone picking it up as if it's going to happen. All it takes is a pack wanting click traffic. No Microsoft conspiracy theory necessary to explain.
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!!!
I think a larger-screened GPS would be nice, tiny screens feel cramped.
A photo frame with a 10" IPS screen? It's probably worth the price just for that! All the cheaper ones I've seen so far are garbage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cy_starkman
Via virtualization it can run as a windows client with office and NONE of the issues.
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 would gladly pay full price for a I-pod touch / phone . I will not pay $30.00 a month for the data plan. Just give us the option of the not so smart I-phone, with wi-fi, I-Tunes and all the capabilities of the I-Pod touch. This is a product that I believe there would be a viable market for those of us that don't need the internet on our persons at all times. This would give Apple more market share, and the rest of us the I-Phone experience without the added cost of full time internet.
the iPod Shuffle starts at $59 just like all the cheapo MP3 players out there. Apple is selling cheapo stuff
The iPod shuffle is not cheap, it's inexpensive. I've owned cheap MP3 players and the feel between them and the shuffle is night and day.
And what elitism that if Walmart sells something it's no longer as valuable or has lost value? How shallow do you have to be to be worried about what store sells a product vs. the merits of the product itself?
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.
No, by refusing to try to be all things to all people, what they do focus on can be done extremely well.
Hence their tremendous success and $40B in the bank.
Quote:
If Apple wants to sell more iPhones
Why would they want to lower price just to sell more iPhones? All indications are they can barely keep up with demand now - just listen to our overseas friends complain about constrained supplies.
Apple isn't obsessed with market share - and thank god! It keeps them from doing stupid things out of hubris. Rather than go after market share for market share sake with cheap tricks like pricing gimmicks, they are going after market share by actually earning it. Controlled growth. A steady and methodical plan. Everyone thought they were nuts with their 10 million iPhone goal, but they did it. They didn't come out like Palm and claim they were going to bury their competitor - they focused on reasonable, obtainable goals and they did it.
Notice they rarely talk about their competitors, wax poetic about features or otherwise engage in the inane babble that plagues other tech companies? There's a reason for it and it's a good thing
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 of the largest "kid" properties are Disney. It will be interesting to see if there is any movement with them with the iPad coming out...
Comments
http://forums.appleinsider.com/image.../1confused.gif
The problem is the voice and data plan, and lack of tethering. I don't know about anyone else, but it's pretty hard to justify $100/month (plus taxes/fees) for cell phone service.
With no land line, I need unlimited minutes. I already have broadband Internet access at home. Why should I pay $30+ more a month? If I could use that same service at home, via tethering or a broadband/cell data bundle, it would make more sense.
Especially in this economy, I can't believe how many people already pay that much a month. I think it's just guys wanting their toys.
The IPod Touch makes much more sense, but in a different way than the iPhone. To make Skype calls.
So, for now the iPhone is a luxury, an indulgence.
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
One thing we must never ignore is the dynamism of technology: What is considered the norm yesterday may not be the standard today, as today's cannot be guaranteed to still be prevalent in the future.
Where is IBM's card puching computing these days (once the standard of mainframe comouting).. Where is DOS these days, once thhe standard of MIcrosoft system. Why did Microsoft accept defeat and decided to start anew instead of insisting that its once mighty Mobile OS for the mobile computing is still relevant?
Even the incandescent bulb -- which for more than a century. is the standard way of lighting -- is on its way out. People may want to light their home, but no, they will not iosist on keeping the incandescent bulb as the way of the future, simply because it is the "universal standard" today. The telegraph technology was once the standard but already phased out.
The other thing is for competing technologies to "co-exist" sometimes almost foreover -- film, radio, television and internet and other multimedia -- as sources of information and entertainment. Sometimes, such competition lead to the demise of one system over another. At times, it is not even the "superior technology" that would survive, because of the impact of other market forces and human prejudices.
The average person may not know, or even if they do, they may not care less what technology they use. Take the case of social networking sites for example. Once it was AOL Inow almost viritually non-existent) Once it was Geocities in the late 1990's up to early 20000s (where's Geocities now?), then MySpace, then now FaceBook. Do you think they will exxist "foreover"?
As to people and internet sites. It is more their experience when visiting a siteer that matt. As to kids of today, if I am not mistaken, they are the major consumers of iPods, and You Tube, and Apple Apps, and visitors of Facebook, Baseball's MLB, etc. All these sites have deemed it prudent to make sure that their sites are compatible with the iPhone OS -- no Flash already for almost three years and counting.
Why do these commercial and non-commerccial sites (like BBC, PBS, etc) "waste" their time porting to iPhone OS?
Why don't these companies and institutions not use their clout to insist that Flash be made a "standard", like many of your kind seem to suggest? Two simple reasons. Flash is proprietary. And more important, rightly or wrongly, no one can ignore the more than 120 million iTunes "card" members and the more than 70 million iPhone and iPod Touch owners -- soon to be increased further by the incoming iPad owners.
Thus, if they do not ignore the more "affluent" Apple products consumers, then these companies, organizations, institutions must create alternative sites that are compatible with a system that will not accept Flash. Note that these sites did not dismantle their "Flash" rich sites. They just provided alternative modes of viewing the same content -- much like they will provide alternative sites for other mobile computing devices -- if they think they will make money doing so.
Will these guarantee that the iPhone OS will rule "foreover"? NO.
If all of you who seem to parrot the mantra about "Flash" or whatever technology you wish to espouse fully realize these, you may realize how foolish to be making such "pontifications", e.g., "Flash is universal", as I often read here and in many sites.
Nothing is constant like the inevitability of change..
CGC
Cost is the greatest barrier? Cheapskates can get refurb'd models for sub-$100. Hell, Best Buy had 16GB 3GS phones for $50 this week.
http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1882030
Total cost (including contract) was barrier for me. I don't talk much on the phone so the total talk/data price is just extortive in my case. So I am using a pay as you go dumb phone and an iPod Touch for data wherever wifi is available. If Apple/ATT want me as an iPhone customer, they have some price trimming to do.
First of all, no one is accessing these sites on an iPad. It hasn't shipped yet.
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.
My comments are about Flash technology in general, not about Flash on a specific platform or device.
One thing to bear in mind is that Facebook isn't in the Flash business, they're in the user eyeball business. If a non-trivial number of those users are on devices that don't do Flash, Facebook will accommodate them (there have already been some remarks to that effect from the Facebook people).
This isn't a repeat of the Mac platform being obliged to conform to "industry" (read, Windows) norms, because their small market share meant the industry was unlikely to oblige them. The iPhone/iPod Touch/(soon to be)iPad juggernaut has an enormous and growing online presence. It won't be long before there are hundreds of millions of users of these devices, and Facebook isn't going to simply write off hundreds of millions of potential customers.
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.
Al, give up already. You have no argument even at Walmart. The iPod shuffle is the only "cheap" thing Apple sells and even that is 2-3x the price of the equivalents at WalMart - see the Coby and GPX equivalents sold there ($19 and $25). The ematics nano clone is $28.
One could argue that no brand on sale at Walmart can be premium but it is hard to ignore a retailer with sales of $400Bn per year - Sony can't and nor can Apple - but both only at the lowest end of their ranges. Neither are hurt in their overall brand dynamics and value - just like it doesn't hurt Armani to have lower ranges (AX, AJ etc.) and outlet stores - all part of basic price discrimination. Buy a shuffle in WalMart and save up for a basic MacBook later... I've seen it happen - Macs are very aspirational.
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.
No it has nothing to do with what either of us say - the market will decide - we just have different views of the market.
As for selling more - again - ad infinitum... Apple only wants to sell more at its exceptional margins - that is not opinion but fact based on everything they've done since the first iMac. They do competitively price most things against direct competition but of course no-one prices them against that but vs. nearly equivalent but cheaper things e.g. Q-core desktops vs. Xeon workstations, 4.5lb aluminum laptops vs. 5.5lb plastic ones etc.
The market decides and has clearly endorsed Apple's strategy by making it the most successful PC and CE company of the moment (in growth, profitability, segment share, etc.). Dell and HP may sell more units but would kill for Apple's margins since that is what drives stock price and investment capability (cash piles).
For all the things you mention there are solid reasons - ones you or I could argue against but not invalidate them from Apple's POV.
1) Blu-Ray - Apple's not interested in supporting offline competition and wants to kill it in favor of iTunes HD downloads
2) Flash - Apple wants to kill it to avoid flash apps and avoid the massive performance hit - it is a PIG on my Macs and my PC (via firefox)
3) Matte - market research proves that very few non-pro people care, fewer will pay extra and there are 3rd party solutions. Pro users are a decreasing and small minority of Mac users these days. Apple sells 5x more Macs now than back in 2003 when Pro users may have mattered and almost none of that growth has come from pros.
4) Verizon - want to make only 1 phone for the world, why back a dead technology, Verizon animosity, etc.
None of these reasons you have to agree with but they are part of Apple's agenda and rational from their POV. Several of them are clearly a long game - (BR/Flash) but Apple seems to like to play those these days...
My main point is that Apple is not necessarily stupid for doing things you or I don't agree with and the market has largely proved them right so far... We'll see how that continues.
Curious how abruptly the writer of this article had "changed her mind" about Apple, and decided to give them a very POSITIVE outlook. Look what raising expectations did to kill the excitement of the new iPad.
Where is hate for Flash coming from all of a sudden? Flash is great, it just needs to be optimized...a lot. It's Adobe that is the problem not Flash. They just need to optimize it.
On the Macintosh side of things, there has been hate for Flash for a long time because of its performance issues. I think the "all of the sudden" notion that you mention is due to a great deal more discussion of the issue lately, caused in part by the increasing awareness of Apple's refusal to allow it on their ever-growing mobile platform.
The problem is not the price of the handset itself (unless it was sold unsubsidized).
The problem is the voice and data plan, and lack of tethering. I don't know about anyone else, but it's pretty hard to justify $100/month (plus taxes/fees) for cell phone service.
.
Isn't the price of the handset hidden in the price of the contract, thus inflating the voice and data plan and possibly influencing the lack or availability of tethering as well?
A comparison to show the point: The unsubsidised price for an iPhone 3GS 32GB is 800 Euros, when the competition (Highest-end Samsungs and Nokias) with touchsceens, good UIs and better tech specs are 450?. In many places subsidies are forbidden so the question they face is "Will I plunk an extra 480 USD to get the iPhone or will I buy the other phone, which seems to do the same stuff (i.e. touchscreen, fast, good looking, top tier of vendor)". And if we don't look at the tech specs, just the appearance and touchscreen, the competition is at the 170-300 Euro range (cheapest iPhone 3G 8GB is 560 Euros) gives a 350-530 USD difference.
So there's no point in Apple lowering the price of the iPhone if they want more revenue via volume? Especially, when exclusive contract with operators end and operators don't want to subsidise as much anymore because they can't get the subscribers just "because we're the only ones that can give you the iPhone"
Most people after all are not tech freaks or blind fanboys like many of us here on the forum that will buy the iPhone just because it does some unique features known by us (but not necessarily the crowd).
Also remember that increasing iPhone's penetration via lower cost (even though many claim Apple is not interested in massive market share, just quality) means Apple also gets a bigger installed ecosystem for their iPhone/iPad/future devices and services.
Regs, Jarkko
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's really easy actually. From the first release I clicked with what would happen. People thought up all sorts of bizzare ideas, iPhone nano for example.
1) 2007 is the tech test model to work out issues
2) 2008 is the global model
3) 2009 starts to stratify the iPhone into a range, the 3G is $99, the 3GS is $199
4) 2010 locks it in $49 3G, $99 3GS, $199 iPhone 4
instead of smaller models, Apple will sell older models, it's still a feature stratified range like the iPod, but it's a different product and market. How the heck is Apple going to release a meaningful "shuffle", obvious, the older model. The 3G is currently the Nano.
Next will be the iPod. The shuffle will stay. The Nano is last years iPod Touch, the "premium" model is the current Touch, then it moves right to the iPad. The classic only exists because flash ram costs too much, this year though? The 128gig Touch, classic is gone. The shuffle is 4 and 8 gig, 16 and 32 gig Touch mid range, 64 and 128 premium.
Part of this is to extend the AppStore and direct buy iTunes to all models, lots of reasons for that.
The iPhone range is the 3G version of the Touch, like with the iPad. After the iPad you plow into the MacBooks or desktops. iPad bridges both as a cross over product and the point between pocket and not. It's desktop and laptop, not just a small laptop.
3 in each range, all bases covered.
Only thing that might shake this up is Voice Control removing the need for displays, but I think that will just make the 8gig shuffle logical. The Appstore and in your hand iTunes is the key because it is finally what Apple has lacked, volume in OS and Software. Media Content is the other key, all iPods must have it in 2010. Instant content.
Then while the analysts spend another year missing the point, still comparing desktop sales as market share. Apple will be voluming out it's OS at the combined rate of iPod, iPhone, iPad and Macs. The analysts still don't get that Apple didn't move 3 million macs, they moved 13million copies of the OS.
They also don't get the 3 tiers of computers that are unfolding. Consumption, creation and distribution.
It's all pretty obvious. Has been for oh more than a decade.
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!!!
You must either not be a very tech savvy person or just trolling.
It's a very cheap and powerful thin client, it's exchange ready, secure, portable and a desktop. It's like uber system for companies. It's the ultimate ridiculously cheap front end for sound studios, and theatre lighting rigs. It's the best system for education, lock it down, remote wipe, custom apps, portable, cheap...
It's a data collector, sales rep unit, presentation and demo tool. It's a point of sale unit. It's about the best system admin tool for data centres and corporate help desk.
Via virtualization it can run as a windows client with office and NONE of the issues.
It's an artist tool, it's a multitouch interface for macs or even winbox.
Oh it also happens to play games, music, videos and read books in case you get bored using it productively non stop.
What you say? They didn't show that during launch.. Nah they said it in one sentence. "it's compatible with almost all of the 140,000 apps in the AppStore". They then let the media show just how dumb it is as none cod think outside the presentation. Take a look at the pro apps in there, it's bleedingly obvious what is about to happen.
As for simulatenous 3rd party apps. That's a software upgrade or a jailbreak away. People really show their clueless ways about this, all iPhone OS devices multitask. There are big issues in providing as secure a system while letting anything run amok. One ponders Apple's solution that/if it is released will suddenly enable some 70million devices and counting to do exactly that.
The only annoyance I've ever had on my iPhone is do with apps not saving their last state when I exit and having to swipe to get to apps I'm bouncing between. Oh that and the bloody phone accept which knocks out active apps instead of a pop up and letting the call happen in background without doing it youself. That wears thin.
BEWARE: We all know how this game is played.....Microsoft minions are already starting to raise expectations for the next iPhone so that it will become a disappointment when the phone comes out at the same price as before. This is part of the tarnishing of Apple's reputation by MS insiders.
Curious how abruptly the writer of this article had "changed her mind" about Apple, and decided to give them a very POSITIVE outlook. Look what raising expectations did to kill the excitement of the new iPad.
This doesn't need a conspiracy theory to explain. All it needs is people airing out their wishlists, someone picking it up, thinking it's a rumor, someone else picking it up and thinking it's likely, and someone picking it up as if it's going to happen. All it takes is a pack wanting click traffic. No Microsoft conspiracy theory necessary to explain.
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!!!
I think a larger-screened GPS would be nice, tiny screens feel cramped.
A photo frame with a 10" IPS screen? It's probably worth the price just for that! All the cheaper ones I've seen so far are garbage.
Via virtualization it can run as a windows client with office and NONE of the issues.
With what virtualization system?
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 would gladly pay full price for a I-pod touch / phone . I will not pay $30.00 a month for the data plan. Just give us the option of the not so smart I-phone, with wi-fi, I-Tunes and all the capabilities of the I-Pod touch. This is a product that I believe there would be a viable market for those of us that don't need the internet on our persons at all times. This would give Apple more market share, and the rest of us the I-Phone experience without the added cost of full time internet.
the iPod Shuffle starts at $59 just like all the cheapo MP3 players out there. Apple is selling cheapo stuff
The iPod shuffle is not cheap, it's inexpensive. I've owned cheap MP3 players and the feel between them and the shuffle is night and day.
And what elitism that if Walmart sells something it's no longer as valuable or has lost value? How shallow do you have to be to be worried about what store sells a product vs. the merits of the product itself?
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.
No, by refusing to try to be all things to all people, what they do focus on can be done extremely well.
Hence their tremendous success and $40B in the bank.
If Apple wants to sell more iPhones
Why would they want to lower price just to sell more iPhones? All indications are they can barely keep up with demand now - just listen to our overseas friends complain about constrained supplies.
Apple isn't obsessed with market share - and thank god! It keeps them from doing stupid things out of hubris. Rather than go after market share for market share sake with cheap tricks like pricing gimmicks, they are going after market share by actually earning it. Controlled growth. A steady and methodical plan. Everyone thought they were nuts with their 10 million iPhone goal, but they did it. They didn't come out like Palm and claim they were going to bury their competitor - they focused on reasonable, obtainable goals and they did it.
Notice they rarely talk about their competitors, wax poetic about features or otherwise engage in the inane babble that plagues other tech companies? There's a reason for it and it's a good thing
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 of the largest "kid" properties are Disney. It will be interesting to see if there is any movement with them with the iPad coming out...
beep beep beeeep
9