jfanning is right. That would be the real cost of the iPhone in a large number of countries. In the UK for example, an unsubsided, unlocked iPhone direct from Apple is 499BGP (790USD).
Don't confuse your 199USD downpayment as the iPhone price. The real price is much higher. Price transparency is something we should all fight for. Results in less confusion.
Don't confuse your 199USD downpayment as the iPhone price. The real price is much higher. Price transparency is something we should all fight for. Results in less confusion.
Here in Norway there is a law that requires all phone ads to include the total price in addition to the subsidised price (is this what the tea party guys would call socialism? ;o). Most ads display the total in smaller letters but you'll always be able to compare. What is often hidden though is the fact that the "subsidising" contract may include a higher minute price than the cheapest contracts, so there are still some calculation to do.
Off-topic: I've ordered a new iPhone4 directly from the Apple Store at 830 USD - a bit expensive but I get a very cheap contract on Tele2 (no monthly fee, 7 cents a minute. 3G data is 28 USD a month for 1 GB but free until January 2011 - and you can end the contract or remove the 3G data anytime you want, no termination fee).
BTW the Sony Ericssson Experia X10 mini still sells with Android 1.6. The entry price (15 cents) + contract is 270 USD, and this for a year-old operating system and only 128 MB of memory. Of course, you get what you pay for...
A report out of the Far East early Thursday claims that Apple has decided on its lineup of component suppliers for the fifth-generation iPhone and second-generation iPad -- both of which will reportedly obtain baseband chips from CDMA inventor Qualcomm.
The Samsung Galaxy S is also £499 from carphone warehouse and it has less memory than the £499 iPhone 4 16GB, the Nokia N8 was preordering in Germany for 499?.
Apple's pricing is quite competitive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
jfanning is right. That would be the real cost of the iPhone in a large number of countries. In the UK for example, an unsubsided, unlocked iPhone direct from Apple is 499BGP (790USD).
Don't confuse your 199USD downpayment as the iPhone price. The real price is much higher. Price transparency is something we should all fight for. Results in less confusion.
In the UK for example, an unsubsided, unlocked iPhone direct from Apple is 499BGP (790USD).
Don't confuse your 199USD downpayment as the iPhone price. The real price is much higher. Price transparency is something we should all fight for. Results in less confusion.
Regs, Jarkko
Is anyone confused?
We can buy the device outright ... or pay less up-front by getting a subsidised handset with a contract.
A lot of expensive devices come with this choice. My car, for example.
We can buy the device outright ... or pay less up-front by getting a subsidised handset with a contract.
A lot of expensive devices come with this choice. My car, for example.
C.
Well judging from the ...huh? from one poster when jfanning mentioned that not everyone can afford a 700USD iPhone - Yes. Some are confused. Since you in the UK do have price transparency for the iPhone it is natural that you are not confused with the real price of the iPhone.
In countries where you cannot buy a device outright without subsidies, you'll have to look harder to see the real costs. This leads to confusion as is apparent in many of the threads on this forum when it comes to iPhone pricing.
The Samsung Galaxy S is also £499 from carphone warehouse and it has less memory than the £499 iPhone 4 16GB, the Nokia N8 was preordering in Germany for 499?.
Apple's pricing is quite competitive.
That wasn't the point was it? One poster seemed to question the 700USD price tag of the iPhone, when jfanning said not everyone can afford a 700USD phone.
Following the original point, these users wouldn't afford the Galaxy S or N8 either, but they could possibly afford the "plasticky Nokia" 5230 (Nuron in the US) touch smartphone for example. Or the even cheaper non-touch phones.
The 700USD phones are nice for us priviledged, not so nice for the rest. Hundreds of millions of people are very thankful for the creaky plasticky phone's. That has nothing to do with competitive pricing, but a lot more with the target markets and the reasons why plasticky phones exist alongside metal and glass phones.
That wasn't the point was it? One poster seemed to question the 700USD price tag of the iPhone, when jfanning said not everyone can afford a 700USD phone.
I was tempted to respond "huh" to jfanning's remark too, but not because I questioned the price of the phone. My reaction was based on jfanning's rather severe interpretation of the previous poster's words.
I was tempted to respond "huh" to jfanning's remark too, but not because I questioned the price of the phone. My reaction was based on jfanning's rather severe interpretation of the previous poster's words.
Good point. For the original: Sorry in advance if I misinterpreted the huh?-response. I guess we all see text with our own preconceptions. And naturally all of this has everything to do with the CDMA iPhone
I hope they don't charge more for this useless feature.
Assuming you're serious (and you might not be), I will say that it's unlikely that a CDMA/GSM iPhone will be sold to GSM-based carriers. It's unlikely that any economies of scale will offset the CDMA royalty fees in every dual-band iPhone. Also, any extra costs would probably be paid mostly by the carriers, not Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingKuei
Hopefully this dispels the iPhone-Verizon rumors for January 2011. The timing of the Qualcomm hire and just the re-engineering required to make the chip fit and work points to a late Spring/Summer unveiling in either the iPhone or iPad.
There have been numerous reports on AI about a CDMA-based iPhone 4 coming in early 2011. Any Qualcomm hires may be to develop a small enough LTE-CDMA-UMTS "world" baseband, that it can fit in an iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Qualcomm has to produce dual capable chip sets or they will become obsolete. Without 3GPP carriers that use UMTS/HSPA+ technology like AT&T and T-Mobile Qualcomm will slowly disappear and force Sprint and even Verizon to switch over to UMTS/HSPA+ as their solution.
Not true, on three counts:
1. Verizon and Sprint aren't going to HSPA, but so-called "4G" technology. The CDMA carriers who went HSPA have sailed earlier; later adopters are doing 4G now.
2. Qualcomm has long made HSPA basebands, as noted earlier.
3. I can't think of a single country that has CDMA, but no GSM or UMTS. A CDMA/GSM iPhone is unnecessary with every single GSM carrier. The GSM capability makes it a "world" phone, in of itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid
China Telecom's 75 million subscribers use a variant of CDMA. And I hear it's used in Korea and other Asian nations too. And I'm sure they're less blatantly lock-in oriented than Verizon.
Those countries also have GSM/UMTS networks, so adding CDMAone support wouldn't gain you any roaming advantage.
Roaming advantage? Maybe not. But a CDMA iPhone would create competitive advantage between carriers. That matters some; it can result in lower prices for iPhones, especially in countries like Japan, China, and the US, which currently are single-carrier.
As for roaming: Sure, there are some people who could travel to multiple countries worldwide, but most people in the Americas and Asia will usually travel within their own continent. Most countries in each of those continents have CDMA, especially in North America. So those who buy a CDMA iPhone, and know what they're doing, won't regret their purchase when it's time to travel.
I was tempted to respond "huh" to jfanning's remark too, but not because I questioned the price of the phone. My reaction was based on jfanning's rather severe interpretation of the previous poster's words.
Thompson
What severe interpretation?
They said
Quote:
o me it shows, Apple is in the driver's seat! And that's good for all of us!
AOL, Yahoo, Google, Dell, Gateway, Compaq, HP, MS, Palm, Nokia, Verizon and Sony had their chance and they chose to sell 'cheap' plastic, creaky, crap with crappy OS's.
Thanks, Apple and thanks to Stevo for making the nerdy engineer produce something usable and worthwhile...
This will be his greatest accomplishment. He is the ultimate liaison bwtn, albeit, gifted programmers/engineers and the end users!
Best
My interpretation is still correct. The majority of the worlds population cannot afford an iPhone, or Galaxy, or N8, or what every other US$700 priced phone you want to list. If it wasn't for these cheaper phones then these users wouldn't have any cellphones. So why should these people thank "Stevo" for making something worthwhile when it (and the others in the same price range) are useless to them?
Roaming advantage? Maybe not. But a CDMA iPhone would create competitive advantage between carriers. That matters some; it can result in lower prices for iPhones, especially in countries like Japan, China, and the US, which currently are single-carrier.
In a couple of countries, sure, but Apple doesn't seem to be having any issues selling a GSM/UMTS based unit in those countries now.
The Samsung Galaxy S is also £499 from carphone warehouse and it has less memory than the £499 iPhone 4 16GB, the Nokia N8 was preordering in Germany for 499?.
Apple's pricing is quite competitive.
As usual you are off on the wrong track. But why do strange comparisions like that, you start quoting pounds, then move to another country for euro. Different countries, different pricing.
I heard from one person that the iPhone 4 in Finland is priced at US$936, and the N8 at US$650. That doesn't sound competitive to me.
I heard from one person that the iPhone 4 in Finland is priced at US$936, and the N8 at US$650. That doesn't sound competitive to me.
Since today, the 16GB iPhone 4 is 589? (800USD) unlocked wihtout contract. 32GB is 689? (the 936USD). Competitiveness depends on the individual's criterias for what fueature's and functionalities they value and by how muchI guess.
I heard from one person that the iPhone 4 in Finland is priced at US$936, and the N8 at US$650. That doesn't sound competitive to me.
And one phone has extremely limited quantities around the world; the other one? I don't live in Europe, so I don't know how hard it is to get an N8, but I'd be very surprised if there's a serious shortage of them.
The more restricted the supply, the higher the price. It's simple supply and demand. I'm not surprised at such a high iPhone 4 price, at this time. In time, if iPhone 4 availability eases, its Finnish price should go down. We shall see.
[EDIT: I read the post that noted lower phone prices than the levels noted in the quote, or may have always been lower. Nevertheless, what I have written about supply and demand still applies.]
Comments
So, what you are saying is, people that can't afford US$700 for a phone, don't deserve to own one?
....Huh?
....Huh?
jfanning is right. That would be the real cost of the iPhone in a large number of countries. In the UK for example, an unsubsided, unlocked iPhone direct from Apple is 499BGP (790USD).
Don't confuse your 199USD downpayment as the iPhone price. The real price is much higher. Price transparency is something we should all fight for. Results in less confusion.
Regs, Jarkko
Don't confuse your 199USD downpayment as the iPhone price. The real price is much higher. Price transparency is something we should all fight for. Results in less confusion.
Here in Norway there is a law that requires all phone ads to include the total price in addition to the subsidised price (is this what the tea party guys would call socialism? ;o). Most ads display the total in smaller letters but you'll always be able to compare. What is often hidden though is the fact that the "subsidising" contract may include a higher minute price than the cheapest contracts, so there are still some calculation to do.
Off-topic: I've ordered a new iPhone4 directly from the Apple Store at 830 USD - a bit expensive but I get a very cheap contract on Tele2 (no monthly fee, 7 cents a minute. 3G data is 28 USD a month for 1 GB but free until January 2011 - and you can end the contract or remove the 3G data anytime you want, no termination fee).
BTW the Sony Ericssson Experia X10 mini still sells with Android 1.6. The entry price (15 cents) + contract is 270 USD, and this for a year-old operating system and only 128 MB of memory. Of course, you get what you pay for...
Known largely as the inventor of CDMA -- the cellular standard behind the wireless networks of Verizon and Sprint
Qualcomm didn't invent CDMA, the US military did. Qualcomm developed a wireless "standard" on-top of CDMA called IS-95.
4G is not CDMA. You are purposely confusing things.
LTE and WiMAX both use a CDMA air interface.
LTE and WiMAX both use a CDMA air interface.
No they don't. LTE uses OFDMA in the downlink and SC-FDMA uplink. Quite different from CDMA.
WIMAX uses OFDMA in both directions
Regs, Jarkko
Yes, I have no desire to ever visit the US and paying to have this useless functionality is not something I am interested in.
Maybe a "world edition", such as Verizon uses for some of their phones, in order to give buyers a choice, would be a good option.
Last I checked, the world consisted of more countries than the US and wherever you're from.
And, how can it be useless if it allows Apple to reduce the cost to you, the end user?
.
A report out of the Far East early Thursday claims that Apple has decided on its lineup of component suppliers for the fifth-generation iPhone and second-generation iPad -- both of which will reportedly obtain baseband chips from CDMA inventor Qualcomm.
How would Far East know what Far West decides?
Apple's pricing is quite competitive.
jfanning is right. That would be the real cost of the iPhone in a large number of countries. In the UK for example, an unsubsided, unlocked iPhone direct from Apple is 499BGP (790USD).
Don't confuse your 199USD downpayment as the iPhone price. The real price is much higher. Price transparency is something we should all fight for. Results in less confusion.
Regs, Jarkko
In the UK for example, an unsubsided, unlocked iPhone direct from Apple is 499BGP (790USD).
Don't confuse your 199USD downpayment as the iPhone price. The real price is much higher. Price transparency is something we should all fight for. Results in less confusion.
Regs, Jarkko
Is anyone confused?
We can buy the device outright ... or pay less up-front by getting a subsidised handset with a contract.
A lot of expensive devices come with this choice. My car, for example.
C.
No they don't. LTE uses OFDMA in the downlink and SC-FDMA uplink. Quite different from CDMA.
WIMAX uses OFDMA in both directionso
Thanks for the correction. You're right.
Is anyone confused?
We can buy the device outright ... or pay less up-front by getting a subsidised handset with a contract.
A lot of expensive devices come with this choice. My car, for example.
C.
Well judging from the ...huh? from one poster when jfanning mentioned that not everyone can afford a 700USD iPhone - Yes. Some are confused. Since you in the UK do have price transparency for the iPhone it is natural that you are not confused with the real price of the iPhone.
In countries where you cannot buy a device outright without subsidies, you'll have to look harder to see the real costs. This leads to confusion as is apparent in many of the threads on this forum when it comes to iPhone pricing.
Regs, Jarkko
The Samsung Galaxy S is also £499 from carphone warehouse and it has less memory than the £499 iPhone 4 16GB, the Nokia N8 was preordering in Germany for 499?.
Apple's pricing is quite competitive.
That wasn't the point was it? One poster seemed to question the 700USD price tag of the iPhone, when jfanning said not everyone can afford a 700USD phone.
Following the original point, these users wouldn't afford the Galaxy S or N8 either, but they could possibly afford the "plasticky Nokia" 5230 (Nuron in the US) touch smartphone for example. Or the even cheaper non-touch phones.
The 700USD phones are nice for us priviledged, not so nice for the rest. Hundreds of millions of people are very thankful for the creaky plasticky phone's. That has nothing to do with competitive pricing, but a lot more with the target markets and the reasons why plasticky phones exist alongside metal and glass phones.
Regs, Jarkko
That wasn't the point was it? One poster seemed to question the 700USD price tag of the iPhone, when jfanning said not everyone can afford a 700USD phone.
I was tempted to respond "huh" to jfanning's remark too, but not because I questioned the price of the phone. My reaction was based on jfanning's rather severe interpretation of the previous poster's words.
Thompson
I was tempted to respond "huh" to jfanning's remark too, but not because I questioned the price of the phone. My reaction was based on jfanning's rather severe interpretation of the previous poster's words.
Good point. For the original: Sorry in advance if I misinterpreted the huh?-response. I guess we all see text with our own preconceptions. And naturally all of this has everything to do with the CDMA iPhone
Regs, Jarkko
I hope they don't charge more for this useless feature.
Assuming you're serious (and you might not be), I will say that it's unlikely that a CDMA/GSM iPhone will be sold to GSM-based carriers. It's unlikely that any economies of scale will offset the CDMA royalty fees in every dual-band iPhone. Also, any extra costs would probably be paid mostly by the carriers, not Apple.
Hopefully this dispels the iPhone-Verizon rumors for January 2011. The timing of the Qualcomm hire and just the re-engineering required to make the chip fit and work points to a late Spring/Summer unveiling in either the iPhone or iPad.
There have been numerous reports on AI about a CDMA-based iPhone 4 coming in early 2011. Any Qualcomm hires may be to develop a small enough LTE-CDMA-UMTS "world" baseband, that it can fit in an iPhone.
Qualcomm has to produce dual capable chip sets or they will become obsolete. Without 3GPP carriers that use UMTS/HSPA+ technology like AT&T and T-Mobile Qualcomm will slowly disappear and force Sprint and even Verizon to switch over to UMTS/HSPA+ as their solution.
Not true, on three counts:
1. Verizon and Sprint aren't going to HSPA, but so-called "4G" technology. The CDMA carriers who went HSPA have sailed earlier; later adopters are doing 4G now.
2. Qualcomm has long made HSPA basebands, as noted earlier.
3. I can't think of a single country that has CDMA, but no GSM or UMTS. A CDMA/GSM iPhone is unnecessary with every single GSM carrier. The GSM capability makes it a "world" phone, in of itself.
China Telecom's 75 million subscribers use a variant of CDMA. And I hear it's used in Korea and other Asian nations too. And I'm sure they're less blatantly lock-in oriented than Verizon.
Those countries also have GSM/UMTS networks, so adding CDMAone support wouldn't gain you any roaming advantage.
Roaming advantage? Maybe not. But a CDMA iPhone would create competitive advantage between carriers. That matters some; it can result in lower prices for iPhones, especially in countries like Japan, China, and the US, which currently are single-carrier.
As for roaming: Sure, there are some people who could travel to multiple countries worldwide, but most people in the Americas and Asia will usually travel within their own continent. Most countries in each of those continents have CDMA, especially in North America. So those who buy a CDMA iPhone, and know what they're doing, won't regret their purchase when it's time to travel.
I was tempted to respond "huh" to jfanning's remark too, but not because I questioned the price of the phone. My reaction was based on jfanning's rather severe interpretation of the previous poster's words.
Thompson
What severe interpretation?
They said
o me it shows, Apple is in the driver's seat! And that's good for all of us!
AOL, Yahoo, Google, Dell, Gateway, Compaq, HP, MS, Palm, Nokia, Verizon and Sony had their chance and they chose to sell 'cheap' plastic, creaky, crap with crappy OS's.
Thanks, Apple and thanks to Stevo for making the nerdy engineer produce something usable and worthwhile...
This will be his greatest accomplishment. He is the ultimate liaison bwtn, albeit, gifted programmers/engineers and the end users!
Best
My interpretation is still correct. The majority of the worlds population cannot afford an iPhone, or Galaxy, or N8, or what every other US$700 priced phone you want to list. If it wasn't for these cheaper phones then these users wouldn't have any cellphones. So why should these people thank "Stevo" for making something worthwhile when it (and the others in the same price range) are useless to them?
Roaming advantage? Maybe not. But a CDMA iPhone would create competitive advantage between carriers. That matters some; it can result in lower prices for iPhones, especially in countries like Japan, China, and the US, which currently are single-carrier.
In a couple of countries, sure, but Apple doesn't seem to be having any issues selling a GSM/UMTS based unit in those countries now.
The Samsung Galaxy S is also £499 from carphone warehouse and it has less memory than the £499 iPhone 4 16GB, the Nokia N8 was preordering in Germany for 499?.
Apple's pricing is quite competitive.
As usual you are off on the wrong track. But why do strange comparisions like that, you start quoting pounds, then move to another country for euro. Different countries, different pricing.
I heard from one person that the iPhone 4 in Finland is priced at US$936, and the N8 at US$650. That doesn't sound competitive to me.
I heard from one person that the iPhone 4 in Finland is priced at US$936, and the N8 at US$650. That doesn't sound competitive to me.
Since today, the 16GB iPhone 4 is 589? (800USD) unlocked wihtout contract. 32GB is 689? (the 936USD). Competitiveness depends on the individual's criterias for what fueature's and functionalities they value and by how muchI guess.
Regs, Jarkko
I heard from one person that the iPhone 4 in Finland is priced at US$936, and the N8 at US$650. That doesn't sound competitive to me.
And one phone has extremely limited quantities around the world; the other one? I don't live in Europe, so I don't know how hard it is to get an N8, but I'd be very surprised if there's a serious shortage of them.
The more restricted the supply, the higher the price. It's simple supply and demand. I'm not surprised at such a high iPhone 4 price, at this time. In time, if iPhone 4 availability eases, its Finnish price should go down. We shall see.
[EDIT: I read the post that noted lower phone prices than the levels noted in the quote, or may have always been lower. Nevertheless, what I have written about supply and demand still applies.]