And what lesson is that? They're still the #1 carrier although not by much and doing quite well selling the line of Droid phones. And for the record VZW did not turn down the iPhone, the two sides just didn't give into the other's demands. Apple and VZW turned each other down.
You're kidding, right? The lesson is they missed out on the most dramatic product of the decade!
You're kidding, right? The lesson is they missed out on the most dramatic product of the decade!
That's the best you can come up with? Has it hurt their customer base considerably? No. Has it hurt their bottom line? No. I am a VZW customer and by far not a fanboy but I am a realist, and realistically speaking they've done quite well without the iPhone and not only that also by offering absolutely crappy phones until the Droid.
And what lesson is that? They're still the #1 carrier although not by much and doing quite well selling the line of Droid phones. And for the record VZW did not turn down the iPhone, the two sides just didn't give into the other's demands. Apple and VZW turned each other down.
You're saying that VZW didn't turn down the iPhone, then saying VZW turned down the iPhone? Don't use exclusive-or logic if you're really saying the truth is inclusive-or.
That's not entirely true. The Droid 1 and the HTC Incredible are pretty much untouched and uncrippled by VZW....
Pretty clearly that was before they realized the possibilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
That's the best you can come up with? Has it hurt their customer base considerably? No. Has it hurt their bottom line? No. I am a VZW customer and by far not a fanboy but I am a realist, and realistically speaking they've done quite well without the iPhone and not only that also by offering absolutely crappy phones until the Droid.
Yes not having the iPhone has effected Verizon. During the launch of the 3G and 3GS Verizon's churn rate rose considerably. Primarily the reason Verizon has been able to maintain such a large customer base is because they absorbed Alltel last year.
That's the best you can come up with? Has it hurt their customer base considerably? No. Has it hurt their bottom line? No. I am a VZW customer and by far not a fanboy but I am a realist, and realistically speaking they've done quite well without the iPhone and not only that also by offering absolutely crappy phones until the Droid.
So, if VZW hasn't lost customers, where did ATT get all those new iPhone customers? ATT has increased their customer base dramatically since they "gave in" to Apple and took on the iPhone.
Maybe VZW didn't lose any customers to ATT with the advent of the iPhone, but they sure didn't gain any iPhone customers like ATT did. Oh, except one that I know of for sure. Me. I left VZW for ATT just for the iPhone. If you looked, I'll bet you could find others like me. I don't know if VZW's customer base or bottom line has been hurt by the iPhone or not. If you do please cite a source. But logic says that ATT's new iPhone customers came from somewhere (possibly Sprint or T-Mobile). But even if they come from providers other than VZW, those are ptontial customers that VZW lost, or at least failed to gain because they didn't do a deal with Apple.
And if you don't agree with that logic, you can't argue that the Droid has brought any customers to VZW either.
All that being said I will be very happy when a VZW iPhone comes out. Competition is a good thing for us customers. Look at how VZW has had to relax their restrictions to keep customers because of the iPhone. Or how ATT has had to improve their network because of VZWs reputation/marketing/performance. However I won't be switching unless VZW offers something more or a better price than ATT, since I have no issues with ATT right now.
So, if VZW hasn't lost customers, where did ATT get all those new iPhone customers? ATT has increased their customer base dramatically since they "gave in" to Apple and took on the iPhone.
Maybe VZW didn't lose any customers to ATT with the advent of the iPhone, but they sure didn't gain any iPhone customers like ATT did. Oh, except one that I know of for sure. Me. I left VZW for ATT just for the iPhone. If you looked, I'll bet you could find others like me. I don't know if VZW's customer base or bottom line has been hurt by the iPhone or not. If you do please cite a source. But logic says that ATT's new iPhone customers came from somewhere (possibly Sprint or T-Mobile). But even if they come from providers other than VZW, those are ptontial customers that VZW lost, or at least failed to gain because they didn't do a deal with Apple.
And if you don't agree with that logic, you can't argue that the Droid has brought any customers to VZW either.
All that being said I will be very happy when a VZW iPhone comes out. Competition is a good thing for us customers. Look at how VZW has had to relax their restrictions to keep customers because of the iPhone. Or how ATT has had to improve their network because of VZWs reputation/marketing/performance. However I won't be switching unless VZW offers something more or a better price than ATT, since I have no issues with ATT right now.
The keyword was "considerably". Of course VZW lost customers and I was almost one of them until I personally was on the other end of a multitude of dropped calls from iPhone owning friends. That was a deal breaker for me. What I can state as fact is that the Droid is the first smartphone for a multitude of VZW subscribers. Keeping one's customer base and getting more money from them at the same is usually a good strategy. BTW with the exception of the iPhone, ATT does its fair share of disabling features and branding of phones. In that sense they're not much different from VZW.
You're saying that VZW didn't turn down the iPhone, then saying VZW turned down the iPhone? Don't use exclusive-or logic if you're really saying the truth is inclusive-or.
Hey cut me some slack. I'm a guy ,and contradicting ourselves is in ours genes lol.
That's the best you can come up with? Has it hurt their customer base considerably? No. Has it hurt their bottom line? No. I am a VZW customer and by far not a fanboy but I am a realist, and realistically speaking they've done quite well without the iPhone and not only that also by offering absolutely crappy phones until the Droid.
When people post worldwide CDMA numbers they really should exclude networks, like South Korea, that have CDMA for ?2G? and UMTS for ?3G?. The real question is how many subscribers worldwide only have CDMA2000 for ?3G?.
The problem with your argument is that South Korean government classifies ev-do (even ev-do rev A) as 2G. The South Korean government took back LG Telecom's 3G license because the government only recognized ev-dv as 3G.
I think we see Apple's goals (or what we believe Apple's goals should be) differently. I think they should do everything they can (with reason of course) to blunt Android and even MS. If that means taking lower margins on sales of phones, so be it. With 2-3% of total phone sales, they still account for almost 40% of the profit. From what I have seen, you believe Apple should follow their Mac strategy - take the cream of the crop and let HTC and Samsung fight over the scraps. Both strategies have some merit, I'll give you that. But if 11 million phones a quarter is all Apple can profitably make, then as the smart phone market balloons they will find themselves with a smaller and smaller piece of the pie. It will probably continue to be very profitable, but small. In my opinion, this would not be the best allocation of Apple's resources given the alternatives.
I think the 40%(39%) represents their total profits of the handset market, but that 2?3% of total phone sales represents smartphones. Maybe not, but either way it?s a moot point. It makes no sense for Apple to follow the path of others into large unit sales with shrinking profits, or worse a net lose quarter of quarter. This is a for profit company and it makes no matter how many handsets are sold to them so long as they are making as much profit as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson1
The point of the AI article is that your first "fact" may not be a fact much longer. Isn't that what generated the discussion?
If a CDMA/CDMA2000 iPhone comes to Verizon or Sprint, that doesn?t mean there will be a CDMA/UMTS iPhone for KT or that the CDMA/CDM2000 iPhone will be used in S. Korea over the GSM/UMTS iPhone. Why would a network that uses UMTS for ?3G? forego that for a voice only service for CDMA? That makes no sense. The only carriers that will be getting the CDMA/CDMA2000 iPhones will be ones with a CDMA/CDMA2000 network, hence my original statement that you shouldn?t count networks that use CDMA for ?2G? and UMTS for ?3G?.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
That's the best you can come up with? Has it hurt their customer base considerably? No. Has it hurt their bottom line? No. I am a VZW customer and by far not a fanboy but I am a realist, and realistically speaking they've done quite well without the iPhone and not only that also by offering absolutely crappy phones until the Droid.
When you look at the number of subs leaving AT&T vs. Verizon, revenue, profit, etc. before and after each new iPhone?s arrival I think it?s safe to say that Verizon lost a lot of money by not taking Apple?s deal. AT&T is pretty close to Verizon?s total subscriber numbers now and has recorded lower turn over than Verizon, something that I don?t recall happening before the iPhone. I think it?s easy to form an argument of direct causal linkage.
If a CDMA/CDMA2000 iPhone comes to Verizon or Sprint, that doesn?t mean there will be a CDMA/UMTS iPhone for KT or that the CDMA/CDM2000 iPhone will be used in S. Korea over the GSM/UMTS iPhone. Why would a network that uses UMTS for ?3G? forego that for a voice only service for CDMA? That makes no sense. The only carriers that will be getting the CDMA/CDMA2000 iPhones will be ones with a CDMA/CDMA2000 network, hence my original statement that you shouldn?t count networks that use CDMA for ?2G? and UMTS for ?3G?.
As I stated earlier, the South Korean government classifies ev-do (even ev-do rev A) as 2G.
I think the 40%(39%) represents their total profits of the handset market, but that 2?3% of total phone sales represents smartphones. Maybe not, but either way it?s a moot point. It makes no sense for Apple to follow the path of others into large unit sales with shrinking profits, or worse a net lose quarter of quarter. This is a for profit company and it makes no matter how many handsets are sold to them so long as they are making as much profit as possible.
I don't want to get in a huge argument with you over this. Obviously we see things differently. Two points:
1. The 2.8% share and 39% profits apply both to all phones, not just smart phones.
2. You're setting up a false dichotomy by arguing that either Apple goes for profits and a small market share or for unit volume and very low margins. With the huge amounts of money Apple is raking in on the iPhone, they can afford to take slightly lower margins to get more customers. I am not saying they should follow the Nokia playbook.
All 3 Korean carriers still have significant CDMA networks --- with 1x voice AND ev-do data.
You honestly think a GSM/UMTS iPhone with a maximum of 7.2Mbps down and 5.76Mbps up will be be replaced with a CDMA/CDMA2000 iPhone on a network that only has EV-DO Rev.0? Come on, Samab, you can be as pro-CDMA and anti-GSM/3GSM as you want but I’m shocked that even you would argue that KT will drop a GSM/UMTS iPhone for a CDMA/CDM2000 iPhone.
Again, all these carriers around the world that have dropped pushing CDMA-based networks in favour of 3GSM-based networks will not be increasing their CDMA2000 support for the iPhone when they already have a perfectly viable network for the current device. Hence, including all CDMA subscribers in a list of potential customers is specious.
BTW, I’m arguing that Apple and all other companies are going for profits. The number of units to attain that profit is incidental and just different ways to go about achieving the same goal of maximizing profits. Can you guess which one is working best and being copied by Moto and other handset vendors?
2. You're setting up a false dichotomy by arguing that either Apple goes for profits and a small market share or for unit volume and very low margins. With the huge amounts of money Apple is raking in on the iPhone, they can afford to take slightly lower margins to get more customers. I am not saying they should follow the Nokia playbook.
Let?s say Apple is selling 3 million iPhone 4s per month this quarter. Let?s also say they go crazy and lower the price by $50 across the line.
The result is Apple making $50 less pre device, times 3 million, times 3 months for the quarter. There are no increased sales, there are no increased profits, just loses.
In your model, you have to allow supply and demand to be unlimited. But these are limited and Foxxcon is building a new factory capable of 3M units per month to deal with this issue. And that doesn?t address the supply issue (like with iPad displays from LG) or any production issues (like with the white glass for the iPhone 4).
Your model is a simplistic, ?if you lower the price you can sell more, thus making more profit with high volume sales.? That isn?t even necessarily true and there is a lot of complex math involved in finding the right price point to maximize your profits.
You can say that Apple is doing all wrong but everything shows that Apple is doing it right. Now that there was no iPhone on the market barely 3 years ago and they are making well over ⅓ of the handset profits for the entire world.
Let?s say Apple is selling 3 million iPhone 4s per month this quarter. Let?s also say they go crazy and lower the price by $50 across the line.
The result is Apple making $50 less pre device, times 3 million, times 3 months for the quarter. There are no increased sales, there are no increased profits, just loses.
In your model, you have to allow supply and demand to be unlimited. But these are limited and Foxxcon is building a new factory capable of 3M units per month to deal with this issue. And that doesn?t address the supply issue (like with iPad displays from LG) or any production issues (like with the white glass for the iPhone 4).
Your model is a simplistic, ?if you lower the price you can sell more, thus making more profit with high volume sales.? That isn?t even necessarily true and there is a lot of complex math involved in finding the right price point to maximize your profits.
You can say that Apple is doing all wrong but everything shows that Apple is doing it right. Now that there was no iPhone on the market barely 3 years ago and they are making well over ⅓ of the handset profits for the entire world.
I don't think they should lower their price - and I never said that. I think they should take lower margins (if they have to) to increase production in order to sell more units (even if the cost of producing those units is slightly higher than it would be manufacturing what they are now) and expand to CDMA carriers.
Comments
And what lesson is that? They're still the #1 carrier although not by much and doing quite well selling the line of Droid phones. And for the record VZW did not turn down the iPhone, the two sides just didn't give into the other's demands. Apple and VZW turned each other down.
You're kidding, right? The lesson is they missed out on the most dramatic product of the decade!
You're kidding, right? The lesson is they missed out on the most dramatic product of the decade!
That's the best you can come up with? Has it hurt their customer base considerably? No. Has it hurt their bottom line? No. I am a VZW customer and by far not a fanboy but I am a realist, and realistically speaking they've done quite well without the iPhone and not only that also by offering absolutely crappy phones until the Droid.
And what lesson is that? They're still the #1 carrier although not by much and doing quite well selling the line of Droid phones. And for the record VZW did not turn down the iPhone, the two sides just didn't give into the other's demands. Apple and VZW turned each other down.
You're saying that VZW didn't turn down the iPhone, then saying VZW turned down the iPhone? Don't use exclusive-or logic if you're really saying the truth is inclusive-or.
That's not entirely true. The Droid 1 and the HTC Incredible are pretty much untouched and uncrippled by VZW....
Pretty clearly that was before they realized the possibilities.
That's the best you can come up with? Has it hurt their customer base considerably? No. Has it hurt their bottom line? No. I am a VZW customer and by far not a fanboy but I am a realist, and realistically speaking they've done quite well without the iPhone and not only that also by offering absolutely crappy phones until the Droid.
Yes not having the iPhone has effected Verizon. During the launch of the 3G and 3GS Verizon's churn rate rose considerably. Primarily the reason Verizon has been able to maintain such a large customer base is because they absorbed Alltel last year.
That's the best you can come up with? Has it hurt their customer base considerably? No. Has it hurt their bottom line? No. I am a VZW customer and by far not a fanboy but I am a realist, and realistically speaking they've done quite well without the iPhone and not only that also by offering absolutely crappy phones until the Droid.
So, if VZW hasn't lost customers, where did ATT get all those new iPhone customers? ATT has increased their customer base dramatically since they "gave in" to Apple and took on the iPhone.
Maybe VZW didn't lose any customers to ATT with the advent of the iPhone, but they sure didn't gain any iPhone customers like ATT did. Oh, except one that I know of for sure. Me. I left VZW for ATT just for the iPhone. If you looked, I'll bet you could find others like me. I don't know if VZW's customer base or bottom line has been hurt by the iPhone or not. If you do please cite a source. But logic says that ATT's new iPhone customers came from somewhere (possibly Sprint or T-Mobile). But even if they come from providers other than VZW, those are ptontial customers that VZW lost, or at least failed to gain because they didn't do a deal with Apple.
And if you don't agree with that logic, you can't argue that the Droid has brought any customers to VZW either.
All that being said I will be very happy when a VZW iPhone comes out. Competition is a good thing for us customers. Look at how VZW has had to relax their restrictions to keep customers because of the iPhone. Or how ATT has had to improve their network because of VZWs reputation/marketing/performance. However I won't be switching unless VZW offers something more or a better price than ATT, since I have no issues with ATT right now.
So, if VZW hasn't lost customers, where did ATT get all those new iPhone customers? ATT has increased their customer base dramatically since they "gave in" to Apple and took on the iPhone.
Maybe VZW didn't lose any customers to ATT with the advent of the iPhone, but they sure didn't gain any iPhone customers like ATT did. Oh, except one that I know of for sure. Me. I left VZW for ATT just for the iPhone. If you looked, I'll bet you could find others like me. I don't know if VZW's customer base or bottom line has been hurt by the iPhone or not. If you do please cite a source. But logic says that ATT's new iPhone customers came from somewhere (possibly Sprint or T-Mobile). But even if they come from providers other than VZW, those are ptontial customers that VZW lost, or at least failed to gain because they didn't do a deal with Apple.
And if you don't agree with that logic, you can't argue that the Droid has brought any customers to VZW either.
All that being said I will be very happy when a VZW iPhone comes out. Competition is a good thing for us customers. Look at how VZW has had to relax their restrictions to keep customers because of the iPhone. Or how ATT has had to improve their network because of VZWs reputation/marketing/performance. However I won't be switching unless VZW offers something more or a better price than ATT, since I have no issues with ATT right now.
The keyword was "considerably". Of course VZW lost customers and I was almost one of them until I personally was on the other end of a multitude of dropped calls from iPhone owning friends. That was a deal breaker for me. What I can state as fact is that the Droid is the first smartphone for a multitude of VZW subscribers. Keeping one's customer base and getting more money from them at the same is usually a good strategy. BTW with the exception of the iPhone, ATT does its fair share of disabling features and branding of phones. In that sense they're not much different from VZW.
You're saying that VZW didn't turn down the iPhone, then saying VZW turned down the iPhone? Don't use exclusive-or logic if you're really saying the truth is inclusive-or.
Hey cut me some slack. I'm a guy ,and contradicting ourselves is in ours genes lol.
That's the best you can come up with? Has it hurt their customer base considerably? No. Has it hurt their bottom line? No. I am a VZW customer and by far not a fanboy but I am a realist, and realistically speaking they've done quite well without the iPhone and not only that also by offering absolutely crappy phones until the Droid.
Twit!
When people post worldwide CDMA numbers they really should exclude networks, like South Korea, that have CDMA for ?2G? and UMTS for ?3G?. The real question is how many subscribers worldwide only have CDMA2000 for ?3G?.
The problem with your argument is that South Korean government classifies ev-do (even ev-do rev A) as 2G. The South Korean government took back LG Telecom's 3G license because the government only recognized ev-dv as 3G.
http://www.telecomskorea.com/beyond-3g-152.html
I think we see Apple's goals (or what we believe Apple's goals should be) differently. I think they should do everything they can (with reason of course) to blunt Android and even MS. If that means taking lower margins on sales of phones, so be it. With 2-3% of total phone sales, they still account for almost 40% of the profit. From what I have seen, you believe Apple should follow their Mac strategy - take the cream of the crop and let HTC and Samsung fight over the scraps. Both strategies have some merit, I'll give you that. But if 11 million phones a quarter is all Apple can profitably make, then as the smart phone market balloons they will find themselves with a smaller and smaller piece of the pie. It will probably continue to be very profitable, but small. In my opinion, this would not be the best allocation of Apple's resources given the alternatives.
I think the 40%(39%) represents their total profits of the handset market, but that 2?3% of total phone sales represents smartphones. Maybe not, but either way it?s a moot point. It makes no sense for Apple to follow the path of others into large unit sales with shrinking profits, or worse a net lose quarter of quarter. This is a for profit company and it makes no matter how many handsets are sold to them so long as they are making as much profit as possible.
The point of the AI article is that your first "fact" may not be a fact much longer. Isn't that what generated the discussion?
If a CDMA/CDMA2000 iPhone comes to Verizon or Sprint, that doesn?t mean there will be a CDMA/UMTS iPhone for KT or that the CDMA/CDM2000 iPhone will be used in S. Korea over the GSM/UMTS iPhone. Why would a network that uses UMTS for ?3G? forego that for a voice only service for CDMA? That makes no sense. The only carriers that will be getting the CDMA/CDMA2000 iPhones will be ones with a CDMA/CDMA2000 network, hence my original statement that you shouldn?t count networks that use CDMA for ?2G? and UMTS for ?3G?.
That's the best you can come up with? Has it hurt their customer base considerably? No. Has it hurt their bottom line? No. I am a VZW customer and by far not a fanboy but I am a realist, and realistically speaking they've done quite well without the iPhone and not only that also by offering absolutely crappy phones until the Droid.
When you look at the number of subs leaving AT&T vs. Verizon, revenue, profit, etc. before and after each new iPhone?s arrival I think it?s safe to say that Verizon lost a lot of money by not taking Apple?s deal. AT&T is pretty close to Verizon?s total subscriber numbers now and has recorded lower turn over than Verizon, something that I don?t recall happening before the iPhone. I think it?s easy to form an argument of direct causal linkage.
If a CDMA/CDMA2000 iPhone comes to Verizon or Sprint, that doesn?t mean there will be a CDMA/UMTS iPhone for KT or that the CDMA/CDM2000 iPhone will be used in S. Korea over the GSM/UMTS iPhone. Why would a network that uses UMTS for ?3G? forego that for a voice only service for CDMA? That makes no sense. The only carriers that will be getting the CDMA/CDMA2000 iPhones will be ones with a CDMA/CDMA2000 network, hence my original statement that you shouldn?t count networks that use CDMA for ?2G? and UMTS for ?3G?.
As I stated earlier, the South Korean government classifies ev-do (even ev-do rev A) as 2G.
Did AAPL ever settle with VZN the argument over AAPL's not allowing a VZN logo on an iPhone?
Actually Verizon would allow a phone with no logo and less control of it too. It was said by one of the execs a few months ago.
As I stated earlier, the South Korean government classifies ev-do (even ev-do rev A) as 2G.
How they define it as has zero barring on my statements.
Actually Verizon would allow a phone with no logo and less control of it too. It was said by one of the execs a few months ago.
Yes, but they have said that lack of VZW branding was one of the reasons they said no to the iPhone. Of course NOW they are willing to do that
How they define it as has zero barring on my statements.
How is it that it has zero barrings?
All 3 Korean carriers still have significant CDMA networks --- with 1x voice AND ev-do data.
Yes, but they have said that lack of VZW branding was one of the reasons they said no to the iPhone. Of course NOW they are willing to do that
Verizon never said that --- in fact, Verizon never really alter smartphones in their history.
Verizon rejected the iphone because of distribution and tech support.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
I think the 40%(39%) represents their total profits of the handset market, but that 2?3% of total phone sales represents smartphones. Maybe not, but either way it?s a moot point. It makes no sense for Apple to follow the path of others into large unit sales with shrinking profits, or worse a net lose quarter of quarter. This is a for profit company and it makes no matter how many handsets are sold to them so long as they are making as much profit as possible.
I don't want to get in a huge argument with you over this. Obviously we see things differently. Two points:
1. The 2.8% share and 39% profits apply both to all phones, not just smart phones.
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/artic...mpaign=feature
2. You're setting up a false dichotomy by arguing that either Apple goes for profits and a small market share or for unit volume and very low margins. With the huge amounts of money Apple is raking in on the iPhone, they can afford to take slightly lower margins to get more customers. I am not saying they should follow the Nokia playbook.
How is it that it has zero barrings?
All 3 Korean carriers still have significant CDMA networks --- with 1x voice AND ev-do data.
You honestly think a GSM/UMTS iPhone with a maximum of 7.2Mbps down and 5.76Mbps up will be be replaced with a CDMA/CDMA2000 iPhone on a network that only has EV-DO Rev.0? Come on, Samab, you can be as pro-CDMA and anti-GSM/3GSM as you want but I’m shocked that even you would argue that KT will drop a GSM/UMTS iPhone for a CDMA/CDM2000 iPhone.
Again, all these carriers around the world that have dropped pushing CDMA-based networks in favour of 3GSM-based networks will not be increasing their CDMA2000 support for the iPhone when they already have a perfectly viable network for the current device. Hence, including all CDMA subscribers in a list of potential customers is specious.
BTW, I’m arguing that Apple and all other companies are going for profits. The number of units to attain that profit is incidental and just different ways to go about achieving the same goal of maximizing profits. Can you guess which one is working best and being copied by Moto and other handset vendors?
2. You're setting up a false dichotomy by arguing that either Apple goes for profits and a small market share or for unit volume and very low margins. With the huge amounts of money Apple is raking in on the iPhone, they can afford to take slightly lower margins to get more customers. I am not saying they should follow the Nokia playbook.
Let?s say Apple is selling 3 million iPhone 4s per month this quarter. Let?s also say they go crazy and lower the price by $50 across the line.
The result is Apple making $50 less pre device, times 3 million, times 3 months for the quarter. There are no increased sales, there are no increased profits, just loses.
In your model, you have to allow supply and demand to be unlimited. But these are limited and Foxxcon is building a new factory capable of 3M units per month to deal with this issue. And that doesn?t address the supply issue (like with iPad displays from LG) or any production issues (like with the white glass for the iPhone 4).
Your model is a simplistic, ?if you lower the price you can sell more, thus making more profit with high volume sales.? That isn?t even necessarily true and there is a lot of complex math involved in finding the right price point to maximize your profits.
You can say that Apple is doing all wrong but everything shows that Apple is doing it right. Now that there was no iPhone on the market barely 3 years ago and they are making well over ⅓ of the handset profits for the entire world.
Let?s say Apple is selling 3 million iPhone 4s per month this quarter. Let?s also say they go crazy and lower the price by $50 across the line.
The result is Apple making $50 less pre device, times 3 million, times 3 months for the quarter. There are no increased sales, there are no increased profits, just loses.
In your model, you have to allow supply and demand to be unlimited. But these are limited and Foxxcon is building a new factory capable of 3M units per month to deal with this issue. And that doesn?t address the supply issue (like with iPad displays from LG) or any production issues (like with the white glass for the iPhone 4).
Your model is a simplistic, ?if you lower the price you can sell more, thus making more profit with high volume sales.? That isn?t even necessarily true and there is a lot of complex math involved in finding the right price point to maximize your profits.
You can say that Apple is doing all wrong but everything shows that Apple is doing it right. Now that there was no iPhone on the market barely 3 years ago and they are making well over ⅓ of the handset profits for the entire world.
I don't think they should lower their price - and I never said that. I think they should take lower margins (if they have to) to increase production in order to sell more units (even if the cost of producing those units is slightly higher than it would be manufacturing what they are now) and expand to CDMA carriers.