If Verizon and Target want to offer a $25 discount to entice someone to sign a contract... I understand that. They'll both eat a little bit of their profit to get people in the door.
But I can't imagine Apple providing a discount to Verizon and Target.
The only thing Apple makes money on is the hardware sale... why would they reduce their price?
Precisely, so the price of the phone to consumer isn't dictated by manufacture necessarily, but by wholesaler (see confusion in previous posts). The point of this is that you can't determine the profitability of the iPhone based on the costs of the phones from the carriers.
I think I own the market share in quotes, I love stiring up the fanboys with facts and watch them stir and cry with defense. Drop the bomb and run. Thanks for the fun, on to my next post.
PS: I just easily accessed every song in my library on my mp3 player, smart phone, tablet and computer seamlessly all by logging into Google Music without purchasing or downloading a single song or program and have been doing so for quite a few months.
I've been doing that with iDisk since before the first Android phone was released.
It could be argued that the iPhone started with the Newton back in 1992, certainly some of the patents Apple is using against Android vendors have their roots in the nineties, especially one of the one's that HTC looks almost certain to lose against on the 19th, dealing with contextual use of a line of text to determine other actions a device can take using software, such as making a call based on a phone number or composing an email based on an email address.
Apple was first with that long before Android was even thought of.
Anyone else see the visual slight of hand here? Lets correct part of it shall, we:
a picture
So are iPads and iPod touch's in the "Other" are they?
They run iOS, which is important from a developer standpoint, which seems to be one of the main arguments relating to the importance of "marketshare" as a metric.
So are iPads and iPod touch's in the "Other" are they?
They run iOS, which is important from a developer standpoint, which seems to be one of the main arguments relating to the importance of "marketshare" as a metric.
The charts, both the original and modified, only referenced smartphones. "Other" would be the niche players.
FWIW, all the talk of marketshare ignores whether all those devices sold at some point in history are still in use. Obviously not all of them are. Maybe 90%? 75%? With Android's sales surge being relatively new, are there more Android than iOS products being used now? Who knows?
In a nutshell none of us have any solid idea how many iOS/Android/Blackberry electronics are active.
"While Android is consistently being positioned as a threat to Apple in comparison to Microsoft's Windows from the 1990s..."
I disagree with these comparisons. While Microsoft may have participated in some dubious practices their business model wasn't blatantly illegal, immoral or unethical.
I think you're completely wrong. Perhaps not overtly illegal, but to not see Microsoft as immoral and unethical requires living in a cave for the last twenty to thirty years.
I think you're completely wrong. Perhaps not overtly illegal, but to not see Microsoft as immoral and unethical requires living in a cave for the last twenty to thirty years.
Many of the regulars here have indicated that morals don't belong in business decisions. There's no good or evil involved, there's simply business which is driven by the search for profits. We had a discussion about that just a few days ago here and I don't recall anyone other than myself seeing a sense of good and evil being relevant in business dealings.
All is fair apparently as long as it's not egregiously illegal, or at least you don't get caught.
Precisely, so the price of the phone to consumer isn't dictated by manufacture necessarily, but by wholesaler (see confusion in previous posts). The point of this is that you can't determine the profitability of the iPhone based on the costs of the phones from the carriers.
I'm not trying to determine how much profit Apple gets from each iPhone. We know Apple makes plenty of profit on iPhones... it's a high-margin device.
I'm trying to find out if the carriers buy iPhones from Apple at full price.
*The reason I brought all of this up is because earlier someone said "Apple negotiated a very good deal" with Verizon. I don't think Verizon, or any other carrier, gets a "deal" from Apple.
Here's what I found:
Apple Q4 2011:
Revenue from iPhone........ $10.99 Billion
Number of iPhones sold...... 17.07 Million
That means the average price of the iPhone is $644
And who do most iPhones get sold to? The carriers.
So... it looks like the carriers buy iPhones at their full retail price... and the carriers sell them cheaper (subsidize them) because the customer signed a 2-year contract.
My point is... Apple gets the full price for each iPhone. I don't think Apple makes any special "deals" with carriers.
The subsidy happens between the carrier and the customer... not with Apple.
Apple sets the price... the carrier buys them at that price... and then the carrier discounts them (subsidizes them) because they will make up the difference over the life of the contract.
At least that's how I understand the manufacturer/carrier/customer relationship...
The charts, both the original and modified, only referenced smartphones. "Other" would be the niche players.
FWIW, all the talk of marketshare ignores whether all those devices sold at some point in history are still in use. Obviously not all of them are. Maybe 90%? 75%? With Android's sales surge being relatively new, are there more Android than iOS products being used now? Who knows?
In a nutshell none of us have any solid idea how many iOS/Android/Blackberry electronics are active.
The chart also ignores Prepaid subscribers and those outside the United States.
Apple knows exactly how many iOS devices are connecting to iTunes.
The chart also ignores Prepaid subscribers and those outside the United States.
Apple knows exactly how many iOS devices are connecting to iTunes.
How many is that? Is it the determining factor in whether the device is still being used? If so, rather than announcing how many iOS devices have been sold, wouldn't it be good to announce how many are active? Neither Google nor Apple are clear on what the real current use figures are. Do they both truly know and would just rather not get into specifics?
The difference though is that Nokia really did not have much compitition when it used this strategy. Android has massive compition and yet still sells phones at crazy prices. They must be doing something right.
They are - they're producing lowest-common-denominator junk. See: Microsoft. I've yet to see any innovation in Android that hasn't been copied from Apple. If you have, feel free to list these features and enlighten us.
And the other advantage Android has is that it caters to the anti-Apple-tards such as yourself who get into a foaming frenzy about buying anything other than Apple, then come onto an Apple forum and make fools of themselves.
They are - they're producing lowest-common-denominator junk. See: Microsoft. I've yet to see any innovation in Android that hasn't been copied from Apple. If you have, feel free to list these features and enlighten us.
This is a new twist: Android is more expensive. But wasn't the party line that Android buyers were cheap? So are we to now assume that Verizon iPhone users are the folks from the poor house who can't afford high-end Android devices?
This whole article is moronic. The total cost of ownership includes not just the cost of the device, but the cost of service as well.
I don't know about elsewhere, but here in Canada, the carriers rape anybody desirous of an iPhone compared to other device users. $100 off the phone doesn't compare to the extra $10-$20 per month that most iPhone users will pay over the life of their 3-year contract.
This is also a huge reason that Blackberries are still popular in Canada. Blackberries aren't just cheap to acquire. The plans are usually significantly cheaper than iPhones or Androids.
Sadly, there's evidence everyday that average folks just suck at basic budgeting. Looking at the shiny object and ignoring the multi-year contract behind it, is a huge part of the reason why consumers all over have such massive debts today.
This is a new twist: Android is more expensive. But wasn't the party line that Android buyers were cheap? So are we to now assume that Verizon iPhone users are the folks from the poor house who can't afford high-end Android devices?
This whole article is moronic. The total cost of ownership includes not just the cost of the device, but the cost of service as well.
I don't know about elsewhere, but here in Canada, the carriers rape anybody desirous of an iPhone compared to other device users. $100 off the phone doesn't compare to the extra $10-$20 per month that most iPhone users will pay over the life of their 3-year contract.
This is also a huge reason that Blackberries are still popular in Canada. Blackberries aren't just cheap to acquire. The plans are usually significantly cheaper than iPhones or Androids.
Sadly, there's evidence everyday that average folks just suck at basic budgeting. Looking at the shiny object and ignoring the multi-year contract behind it, is a huge part of the reason why consumers all over have such massive debts today.
I think people ignore the contract because the contract would be the same no matter what. Perhaps things are different in Canada where monthly rates differ by OEM, but in my market the contract price for all phones is equally high.
What puzzles me are the folks who pay the same data plan prices but dodge the higher upfront cost by going with a lower spec but "free" phone.
Actually, it is, when you compared the retail price of the device to the iPhone. You're paying $299 for a device that retails for $649 which means you are only getting a $350 subsidized from Verizon when sign that two year contract. On top of that, if you want to sell that phone in a year or two for the next model you're going to be getting a lot less for it than other phones on the market because it won't retain its value for various reasons. That makes the TCO quite high. Compare that to an iPhone where you're only paying $299 up front for a device retailing for $749 and with a high resale value that can easily mean you can get a brand new iPhone YoY without having to pay a single penny out of pocket YoY. TCO is an important factor to consider when talking about price.
Pretty much nobody buys a phone thinking of how much it will be worth in two years for resale. Instead, they buy the phone to use for two years, and so the unsubsidized price is totally irrelevant.
I think I own the market share in quotes, I love stiring up the fanboys with facts and watch them stir and cry with defense. Drop the bomb and run. Thanks for the fun, on to my next post.
Hellacool - you certainly did own the market. Nice work, congratulations.
So how exactly did this guy get everyone so mad just making random predictions? He only had one message - his opinion that Apple will become niche in the smartphone market in 5 years. Everyone's entitled to an opinion. Nothing to back that up, except some rather odd views on what matters in a phone and mostly misdirected historical references to the early PC years.
Comments
If Verizon and Target want to offer a $25 discount to entice someone to sign a contract... I understand that. They'll both eat a little bit of their profit to get people in the door.
But I can't imagine Apple providing a discount to Verizon and Target.
The only thing Apple makes money on is the hardware sale... why would they reduce their price?
Precisely, so the price of the phone to consumer isn't dictated by manufacture necessarily, but by wholesaler (see confusion in previous posts). The point of this is that you can't determine the profitability of the iPhone based on the costs of the phones from the carriers.
PS: I just easily accessed every song in my library on my mp3 player, smart phone, tablet and computer seamlessly all by logging into Google Music without purchasing or downloading a single song or program and have been doing so for quite a few months.
I've been doing that with iDisk since before the first Android phone was released.
It could be argued that the iPhone started with the Newton back in 1992, certainly some of the patents Apple is using against Android vendors have their roots in the nineties, especially one of the one's that HTC looks almost certain to lose against on the 19th, dealing with contextual use of a line of text to determine other actions a device can take using software, such as making a call based on a phone number or composing an email based on an email address.
Apple was first with that long before Android was even thought of.
You need to reevaluate your definition of niche.
Anyone else see the visual slight of hand here? Lets correct part of it shall, we:
Anyone else see the visual slight of hand here? Lets correct part of it shall, we:
a picture
So are iPads and iPod touch's in the "Other" are they?
They run iOS, which is important from a developer standpoint, which seems to be one of the main arguments relating to the importance of "marketshare" as a metric.
So are iPads and iPod touch's in the "Other" are they?
They run iOS, which is important from a developer standpoint, which seems to be one of the main arguments relating to the importance of "marketshare" as a metric.
The charts, both the original and modified, only referenced smartphones. "Other" would be the niche players.
FWIW, all the talk of marketshare ignores whether all those devices sold at some point in history are still in use. Obviously not all of them are. Maybe 90%? 75%? With Android's sales surge being relatively new, are there more Android than iOS products being used now? Who knows?
In a nutshell none of us have any solid idea how many iOS/Android/Blackberry electronics are active.
"While Android is consistently being positioned as a threat to Apple in comparison to Microsoft's Windows from the 1990s..."
I disagree with these comparisons. While Microsoft may have participated in some dubious practices their business model wasn't blatantly illegal, immoral or unethical.
I think you're completely wrong. Perhaps not overtly illegal, but to not see Microsoft as immoral and unethical requires living in a cave for the last twenty to thirty years.
I think you're completely wrong. Perhaps not overtly illegal, but to not see Microsoft as immoral and unethical requires living in a cave for the last twenty to thirty years.
Many of the regulars here have indicated that morals don't belong in business decisions. There's no good or evil involved, there's simply business which is driven by the search for profits. We had a discussion about that just a few days ago here and I don't recall anyone other than myself seeing a sense of good and evil being relevant in business dealings.
All is fair apparently as long as it's not egregiously illegal, or at least you don't get caught.
Precisely, so the price of the phone to consumer isn't dictated by manufacture necessarily, but by wholesaler (see confusion in previous posts). The point of this is that you can't determine the profitability of the iPhone based on the costs of the phones from the carriers.
I'm not trying to determine how much profit Apple gets from each iPhone. We know Apple makes plenty of profit on iPhones... it's a high-margin device.
I'm trying to find out if the carriers buy iPhones from Apple at full price.
*The reason I brought all of this up is because earlier someone said "Apple negotiated a very good deal" with Verizon. I don't think Verizon, or any other carrier, gets a "deal" from Apple.
Here's what I found:
Apple Q4 2011:
Revenue from iPhone........ $10.99 Billion
Number of iPhones sold...... 17.07 Million
That means the average price of the iPhone is $644
And who do most iPhones get sold to? The carriers.
So... it looks like the carriers buy iPhones at their full retail price... and the carriers sell them cheaper (subsidize them) because the customer signed a 2-year contract.
My point is... Apple gets the full price for each iPhone. I don't think Apple makes any special "deals" with carriers.
The subsidy happens between the carrier and the customer... not with Apple.
Apple sets the price... the carrier buys them at that price... and then the carrier discounts them (subsidizes them) because they will make up the difference over the life of the contract.
At least that's how I understand the manufacturer/carrier/customer relationship...
The charts, both the original and modified, only referenced smartphones. "Other" would be the niche players.
FWIW, all the talk of marketshare ignores whether all those devices sold at some point in history are still in use. Obviously not all of them are. Maybe 90%? 75%? With Android's sales surge being relatively new, are there more Android than iOS products being used now? Who knows?
In a nutshell none of us have any solid idea how many iOS/Android/Blackberry electronics are active.
The chart also ignores Prepaid subscribers and those outside the United States.
Apple knows exactly how many iOS devices are connecting to iTunes.
The chart also ignores Prepaid subscribers and those outside the United States.
Apple knows exactly how many iOS devices are connecting to iTunes.
How many is that? Is it the determining factor in whether the device is still being used? If so, rather than announcing how many iOS devices have been sold, wouldn't it be good to announce how many are active? Neither Google nor Apple are clear on what the real current use figures are. Do they both truly know and would just rather not get into specifics?
Just more questions. . .
The difference though is that Nokia really did not have much compitition when it used this strategy. Android has massive compition and yet still sells phones at crazy prices. They must be doing something right.
They are - they're producing lowest-common-denominator junk. See: Microsoft. I've yet to see any innovation in Android that hasn't been copied from Apple. If you have, feel free to list these features and enlighten us.
And the other advantage Android has is that it caters to the anti-Apple-tards such as yourself who get into a foaming frenzy about buying anything other than Apple, then come onto an Apple forum and make fools of themselves.
Anyone else see the visual slight of hand here? Lets correct part of it shall, we:
There's no light of hand - the chart showed breakdown by manufacturer. You've produced a chart showing different data. That's the slight of hand.
They are - they're producing lowest-common-denominator junk. See: Microsoft. I've yet to see any innovation in Android that hasn't been copied from Apple. If you have, feel free to list these features and enlighten us.
A short list without further comment
http://www.wikiappletv.com/page/Five...es+Android+has
This whole article is moronic. The total cost of ownership includes not just the cost of the device, but the cost of service as well.
I don't know about elsewhere, but here in Canada, the carriers rape anybody desirous of an iPhone compared to other device users. $100 off the phone doesn't compare to the extra $10-$20 per month that most iPhone users will pay over the life of their 3-year contract.
This is also a huge reason that Blackberries are still popular in Canada. Blackberries aren't just cheap to acquire. The plans are usually significantly cheaper than iPhones or Androids.
Sadly, there's evidence everyday that average folks just suck at basic budgeting. Looking at the shiny object and ignoring the multi-year contract behind it, is a huge part of the reason why consumers all over have such massive debts today.
This is a new twist: Android is more expensive. But wasn't the party line that Android buyers were cheap? So are we to now assume that Verizon iPhone users are the folks from the poor house who can't afford high-end Android devices?
This whole article is moronic. The total cost of ownership includes not just the cost of the device, but the cost of service as well.
I don't know about elsewhere, but here in Canada, the carriers rape anybody desirous of an iPhone compared to other device users. $100 off the phone doesn't compare to the extra $10-$20 per month that most iPhone users will pay over the life of their 3-year contract.
This is also a huge reason that Blackberries are still popular in Canada. Blackberries aren't just cheap to acquire. The plans are usually significantly cheaper than iPhones or Androids.
Sadly, there's evidence everyday that average folks just suck at basic budgeting. Looking at the shiny object and ignoring the multi-year contract behind it, is a huge part of the reason why consumers all over have such massive debts today.
I think people ignore the contract because the contract would be the same no matter what. Perhaps things are different in Canada where monthly rates differ by OEM, but in my market the contract price for all phones is equally high.
What puzzles me are the folks who pay the same data plan prices but dodge the higher upfront cost by going with a lower spec but "free" phone.
J.
Actually, it is, when you compared the retail price of the device to the iPhone. You're paying $299 for a device that retails for $649 which means you are only getting a $350 subsidized from Verizon when sign that two year contract. On top of that, if you want to sell that phone in a year or two for the next model you're going to be getting a lot less for it than other phones on the market because it won't retain its value for various reasons. That makes the TCO quite high. Compare that to an iPhone where you're only paying $299 up front for a device retailing for $749 and with a high resale value that can easily mean you can get a brand new iPhone YoY without having to pay a single penny out of pocket YoY. TCO is an important factor to consider when talking about price.
Pretty much nobody buys a phone thinking of how much it will be worth in two years for resale. Instead, they buy the phone to use for two years, and so the unsubsidized price is totally irrelevant.
Not knowing any actual figures but if the life of the contract is an average 3 months longer,
Stop right there. You don't know any actual figures.
I think I own the market share in quotes, I love stiring up the fanboys with facts and watch them stir and cry with defense. Drop the bomb and run. Thanks for the fun, on to my next post.
Hellacool - you certainly did own the market. Nice work, congratulations.
So how exactly did this guy get everyone so mad just making random predictions? He only had one message - his opinion that Apple will become niche in the smartphone market in 5 years. Everyone's entitled to an opinion. Nothing to back that up, except some rather odd views on what matters in a phone and mostly misdirected historical references to the early PC years.