I would argue that Android for Google is strictly a defensive advertising play that has some opportunity dominance rather than just a plurality of smart phones. Of course it will come at the expense of their OEMs.
I have argued this for a long time too. I don't believe Android was aimed at iOS. I think it was aimed at Microsoft and Windows Mobile. Apple users may still use Google services. But Microsoft goes out of its way to ensure that there's nothing Google on its devices. They aren't doing anything wrong. That's the essence of ecosystem competition. But for Google to not have launched Android would have been suicide. Imagine the relevance of Google in world where Windows Phone had 50% market share (instead of Android) and where they only had to rely on Apple for mobile users.
And let's not forget the RIM-MS tie up too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me
It is also exceptionally vulnerable to leveraging (embrace and extend) as Amazon has demonstrated by sucking up low-margin content profits in the small tablet space.
The risk that comes with any open OS. Google had to take that chance. FOSS is the only way the OEMs would have adopted Android.
Quite true. Maximizing profits is the name of the game. Bose is another company that would rather concentrate on the high end of their market, perhaps build less product but make a higher profit percentage on those sales.
I'd debate that. The name of the game for public corporations should be maximizing value for shareholders. For some companies (like Apple), a high value strategy might work. For others, volume will make more sense. Whatever puts more moolah in the pockets of their shareholders.
I'd debate that. The name of the game for public corporations should be maximizing value for shareholders. For some companies (like Apple), a high value strategy might work. For others, volume will make more sense. Whatever puts more moolah in the pockets of their shareholders.
umm. . .
Doesn't that result from profits?
EDIT: I'll modify that statement just a bit: You have to consider profit potential too, even tho none have yet been realized. Just look around at some high profile tech companies that have yet to turn a profit, but still considered a valuable company.
I know this is a fashionable idea. But how do you explain the fact that computers have continued to advance despite Wintel commoditizing the PC?
Simple: PCs have not advanced really in years.
Profit has gone to MS and Intel. The only real advancement has come in new OSes and faster processors. Look at most Dells from 15 years ago and it looks like most any Dell from today.
Why should Apple care? The goal at iPhone launch was 1% of the global phone market. Apple has dramatically surpassed that.
Go ahead and work up your ego, but dollars be dollars, and Apple is only collecting them way faster than anyone else. The mentality of marketshare wins all was proven to fail in the bursting of the internet bubble. None of those arguments work despite being trotted out over and over. But I'm sure you'll use your astroturfing abilities to come up with a suitably weak and pithy response.
At your expense. I read over and over about Apple's profits, what does that have to do with you the end user? That you over pay for something? Apple's profits are so high because they are able to sell a $199 product for $699, they are marketing gods. Simply making statements about Apple's profits to defend your position only weakens your argument and simply puts the light on you personally that you willingly and knowingly over pay for a product.
As I read through all the "defenses" people come up with, not one time did someone come out and simply say "I like the iPhone therefore I bought it". As soon as someone's purchase decision is called into question out comes the facts or opinions spouted off like facts or the links to websites showing that phone A is .000001 gigamegapixl faster than phone B ect.... ect......
Show of hands, who in this thread is a woman? I ask because both my wife and daughter own iPhones. Their reasoning is simple honesty. It is all they have known and they have no desire to try something new. What they have works and they will continue to buy iPhone. But come here and everyone gets their feelings hurt, sad actually. Then the "facts" start to flow.
My favorite though, "I like the small screen because I want to be able to swipe across the entire screen with my thumb", therefore the iPhone is better. Really, your hands are that small?
Profit has gone to MS and Intel. The only real advancement has come in new OSes and faster processors. Look at most Dells from 15 years ago and it looks like most any Dell from today.
But when someone mentions (like I did, with photo) that all iPhones look fundementally the same, the defense is all about whats on the inside. OS, Processor, graphics, storage ect.....
But when someone mentions (like I did, with photo) that all iPhones look fundementally the same, the defense is all about whats on the inside. OS, Processor, graphics, storage ect.....
And where are the advancements in the PC? The areas that are showing profits. OS. Processor. GPUs (NVidia/ATI). In the race to the bottom, actual hardware design has remained remarkably static. Who started the "ultra-book" craze? HP? Nope. Dell? Nope. Acer? Nope. ASUS? Nope. I think it was a company making really good profit.
The fact that you are visually challenged and unable to see any difference between an iPhone 2G (what ever the heck that is) and the other non-existent iPhone 4G models is not our fault. For Future reference, the iPhone models are:
iPhone
iPhone 3G
iPhone 3GS
iPhone 4
iPhone 4S
I find it funny that Android has had to continuously re-invent itself over the past several version even at a hardware level. From cursor control buttons to 100% virtual buttons with no physical buttons. That Google missed the mark on design in so many areas is not something to point at being proud of. Don't even get me started at how conceptually poor the "back" button is in Android. Google: The company that sees the world and every single application as a web browser.
Oh yeah. No way to note it was for smartphone marketshare or to write iPhone above or below iOS in it's 28.6% space. Completely impossible with AppleWorks. Gotcha!
Sorry, I didn't expect A turkey would be deliberately misinterpreting my intent. I could have spent a lot more time labelling it to the nth degree but as I said, I couldn't be arsed. I didn't say or imply it was impossible to do so. You are just trying to deflect attention from the deliberately misleading chart you originally posted. It is a tactic governments are very adept at - attacking the credibility or motives of the messenger to discredit or divert attention from the message when the message is uncomfortable.
Are you sure you aren't a professional agent provocateur? 693 posts in 23 days is hard to credit as being someone with just a casual interest. That's about 58 posts a day. Assuming you sleep sometimes, take a shower, eat, sh.. , that's at least 4 posts an hour, every single day.
It's taken me 4 years to get to that sort of number.
Sorry, I didn't expect A turkey would be deliberately misinterpreting my intent. I could have spent a lot more time labelling it to the nth degree but as I said, I couldn't be arsed. I didn't say or imply it was impossible to do so. You are just trying to deflect attention from the deliberately misleading chart you originally posted. It is a tactic governments are very adept at - attacking the credibility or motives of the messenger to discredit or divert attention from the message when the message is uncomfortable.
Are you sure you aren't a professional agent provocateur? 693 posts in 23 days is hard to credit as being someone with just a casual interest. That's about 58 posts a day. Assuming you sleep sometimes, take a shower, eat, sh.. , that's at least 4 posts an hour, every single day.
It's taken me 4 years to get to that sort of number.
You clearly don't read, think or type as fast as I can, and you are clearly are less capable at doing multiple tasks at once if you think a couple minutes of posts per day would somehow take up 24 hours thus excluding one's ability to sleep.
PS: You might want to keep your personal attacks, as pathetic as they are, to a minimum.
Sorry, I didn't expect A turkey would be deliberately misinterpreting my intent. I could have spent a lot more time labelling it to the nth degree but as I said, I couldn't be arsed. I didn't say or imply it was impossible to do so. You are just trying to deflect attention from the deliberately misleading chart you originally posted.
The issue is, your graph is equally mis-leading. You labeled the "iPhone" section as "iOS". likewise, you lost lots of information by dropping of manufacture shares and created a totally different plot.
At your expense. I read over and over about Apple's profits, what does that have to do with you the end user? That you over pay for something? Apple's profits are so high because they are able to sell a $199 product for $699, they are marketing gods. Simply making statements about Apple's profits to defend your position only weakens your argument and simply puts the light on you personally that you willingly and knowingly over pay for a product.
Well pithy included the goalpost change! You were talking business, you apparently concede those points and now shift to user experience as a fallback tactic. Then you resifted and made my point for me. Do you really think before you key?
Quote:
As I read through all the "defenses" people come up with, not one time did someone come out and simply say "I like the iPhone therefore I bought it". As soon as someone's purchase decision is called into question out comes the facts or opinions spouted off like facts or the links to websites showing that phone A is .000001 gigamegapixl faster than phone B ect.... ect......
Show of hands, who in this thread is a woman? I ask because both my wife and daughter own iPhones. Their reasoning is simple honesty. It is all they have known and they have no desire to try something new. What they have works and they will continue to buy iPhone. But come here and everyone gets their feelings hurt, sad actually. Then the "facts" start to flow.
My favorite though, "I like the small screen because I want to be able to swipe across the entire screen with my thumb", therefore the iPhone is better. Really, your hands are that small?
So? You tried to slam the iPhone on end-user failings, but now criticize your wife and daughter because they recognize a product that just works?
Wow. You really are a mess debate-wise. Not a single point made that doesn't self contradict what it seems you are trying to play as your world-view. It must really suck to be that bad at communication.
So? You tried to slam the iPhone on end-user failings, but now criticize your wife and daughter because they recognize a product that just works?
Wow. You really are a mess debate-wise. Not a single point made that doesn't self contradict what it seems you are trying to play as your world-view. It must really suck to be that bad at communication.
Criticize? Your lack of comprehension is astounding. Any point you attempt to make from this point forward is forever moot.
PS, since comprehension is a foreign concept for you, my view point never wavered nor shifted (prove it), it is just that your inability to read, process and then comprehend is clouded severly and then is spewed out into your posts.
You clearly don't read, think or type as fast as I can, and you are clearly are less capable at doing multiple tasks at once if you think a couple minutes of posts per day would somehow take up 24 hours thus excluding one's ability to sleep.
PS: You might want to keep your personal attacks, as pathetic as they are, to a minimum.
But yet in your first line you personally attack him? Hypocracy anyone?
And where are the advancements in the PC? The areas that are showing profits. OS. Processor. GPUs (NVidia/ATI). In the race to the bottom, actual hardware design has remained remarkably static. Who started the "ultra-book" craze? HP? Nope. Dell? Nope. Acer? Nope. ASUS? Nope. I think it was a company making really good profit.
The fact that you are visually challenged and unable to see any difference between an iPhone 2G (what ever the heck that is) and the other non-existent iPhone 4G models is not our fault. For Future reference, the iPhone models are:
iPhone
iPhone 3G
iPhone 3GS
iPhone 4
iPhone 4S
I find it funny that Android has had to continuously re-invent itself over the past several version even at a hardware level. From cursor control buttons to 100% virtual buttons with no physical buttons. That Google missed the mark on design in so many areas is not something to point at being proud of. Don't even get me started at how conceptually poor the "back" button is in Android. Google: The company that sees the world and every single application as a web browser.
is all I can do. News flash your opinion and lack of computer knowledge does not constitute fact. I know many people feel 10X smarter once they buy an Apple product but it really is not true. If you honestly believe that NO innovations in computers have happened in the past few years I feel sorry for you in your little world.
Profit has gone to MS and Intel. The only real advancement has come in new OSes and faster processors. Look at most Dells from 15 years ago and it looks like most any Dell from today.
I don't dispute that MS and Intel took most of the profits. I would dispute that there's been no advancements. Are you seriously suggesting that from the time of floppies to today's cloud computing, there's been no advances in personal computing?
Suggesting that Dells look the same for the last 15 years isn't saying much. It's not like the Mac Pro has changed all that much over time either.
I feel like this article is just trying to push the "Android sucks, iPhone rules" view. But all I see from this is Verizon is greedy... screwing everyone it can, in any way it can.
In other words, what's new?
What you see is a business decision: to go with what makes that business a profit. Apple has proven itself.
Criticize? Your lack of comprehension is astounding. Any point you attempt to make from this point forward is forever moot.
PS, since comprehension is a foreign concept for you, my view point never wavered nor shifted (prove it), it is just that your inability to read, process and then comprehend is clouded severly and then is spewed out into your posts.
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 $644
And who do most iPhones get sold to? The carriers.
So... it looks like the carriers buy iPhones at their full retail price... and the carriers sell them cheaper (subsidize them) because the customer signed a 2-year contract.
My point is... Apple gets the full price for each iPhone. I don't think Apple makes any special "deals" with carriers.
The subsidy happens between the carrier and the customer... not with Apple.
Apple sets the price... the carrier buys them at that price... and then the carrier discounts them (subsidizes them) because they will make up the difference over the life of the contract.
At least that's how I understand the manufacturer/carrier/customer relationship...
Where did you pull that revenue from? That dollar amount could very well be before manufacturing costs, or not including any discounts etc. IE: If i sell a device for 1000$ and it cost 998$ to make and ship to the customer, i could easily say my revenue was still 1000$.
Revenue itself doesn't measure profits. All this is doing is creating an artificial number to label as 'profits' for Apple products.
You also presume to understand the relationship through Apple and carriers. If Carriers are the primary purchaser of the actual iPhone product, why does Apple sell phones from their direct stores at a discount to customers on individual carriers? They probably get a paycheck for selling the contract, but i doubt that apple profits 450$ from the entire sale in that scenario.
Comments
I would argue that Android for Google is strictly a defensive advertising play that has some opportunity dominance rather than just a plurality of smart phones. Of course it will come at the expense of their OEMs.
I have argued this for a long time too. I don't believe Android was aimed at iOS. I think it was aimed at Microsoft and Windows Mobile. Apple users may still use Google services. But Microsoft goes out of its way to ensure that there's nothing Google on its devices. They aren't doing anything wrong. That's the essence of ecosystem competition. But for Google to not have launched Android would have been suicide. Imagine the relevance of Google in world where Windows Phone had 50% market share (instead of Android) and where they only had to rely on Apple for mobile users.
And let's not forget the RIM-MS tie up too.
It is also exceptionally vulnerable to leveraging (embrace and extend) as Amazon has demonstrated by sucking up low-margin content profits in the small tablet space.
The risk that comes with any open OS. Google had to take that chance. FOSS is the only way the OEMs would have adopted Android.
Quite true. Maximizing profits is the name of the game. Bose is another company that would rather concentrate on the high end of their market, perhaps build less product but make a higher profit percentage on those sales.
I'd debate that. The name of the game for public corporations should be maximizing value for shareholders. For some companies (like Apple), a high value strategy might work. For others, volume will make more sense. Whatever puts more moolah in the pockets of their shareholders.
I'd debate that. The name of the game for public corporations should be maximizing value for shareholders. For some companies (like Apple), a high value strategy might work. For others, volume will make more sense. Whatever puts more moolah in the pockets of their shareholders.
umm. . .
Doesn't that result from profits?
EDIT: I'll modify that statement just a bit: You have to consider profit potential too, even tho none have yet been realized. Just look around at some high profile tech companies that have yet to turn a profit, but still considered a valuable company.
I know this is a fashionable idea. But how do you explain the fact that computers have continued to advance despite Wintel commoditizing the PC?
Simple: PCs have not advanced really in years.
Profit has gone to MS and Intel. The only real advancement has come in new OSes and faster processors. Look at most Dells from 15 years ago and it looks like most any Dell from today.
Why should Apple care? The goal at iPhone launch was 1% of the global phone market. Apple has dramatically surpassed that.
Go ahead and work up your ego, but dollars be dollars, and Apple is only collecting them way faster than anyone else. The mentality of marketshare wins all was proven to fail in the bursting of the internet bubble. None of those arguments work despite being trotted out over and over. But I'm sure you'll use your astroturfing abilities to come up with a suitably weak and pithy response.
At your expense. I read over and over about Apple's profits, what does that have to do with you the end user? That you over pay for something? Apple's profits are so high because they are able to sell a $199 product for $699, they are marketing gods. Simply making statements about Apple's profits to defend your position only weakens your argument and simply puts the light on you personally that you willingly and knowingly over pay for a product.
As I read through all the "defenses" people come up with, not one time did someone come out and simply say "I like the iPhone therefore I bought it". As soon as someone's purchase decision is called into question out comes the facts or opinions spouted off like facts or the links to websites showing that phone A is .000001 gigamegapixl faster than phone B ect.... ect......
Show of hands, who in this thread is a woman? I ask because both my wife and daughter own iPhones. Their reasoning is simple honesty. It is all they have known and they have no desire to try something new. What they have works and they will continue to buy iPhone. But come here and everyone gets their feelings hurt, sad actually. Then the "facts" start to flow.
My favorite though, "I like the small screen because I want to be able to swipe across the entire screen with my thumb", therefore the iPhone is better. Really, your hands are that small?
Simple: PCs have not advanced really in years.
Profit has gone to MS and Intel. The only real advancement has come in new OSes and faster processors. Look at most Dells from 15 years ago and it looks like most any Dell from today.
But when someone mentions (like I did, with photo) that all iPhones look fundementally the same, the defense is all about whats on the inside. OS, Processor, graphics, storage ect.....
But when someone mentions (like I did, with photo) that all iPhones look fundementally the same, the defense is all about whats on the inside. OS, Processor, graphics, storage ect.....
And where are the advancements in the PC? The areas that are showing profits. OS. Processor. GPUs (NVidia/ATI). In the race to the bottom, actual hardware design has remained remarkably static. Who started the "ultra-book" craze? HP? Nope. Dell? Nope. Acer? Nope. ASUS? Nope. I think it was a company making really good profit.
The fact that you are visually challenged and unable to see any difference between an iPhone 2G (what ever the heck that is) and the other non-existent iPhone 4G models is not our fault. For Future reference, the iPhone models are:
iPhone
iPhone 3G
iPhone 3GS
iPhone 4
iPhone 4S
I find it funny that Android has had to continuously re-invent itself over the past several version even at a hardware level. From cursor control buttons to 100% virtual buttons with no physical buttons. That Google missed the mark on design in so many areas is not something to point at being proud of. Don't even get me started at how conceptually poor the "back" button is in Android. Google: The company that sees the world and every single application as a web browser.
…iPhone 2G (what ever the heck that is)…
"iPhone 2G" is a legitimate name for the first-gen iPhone. People have been using it since the day the 3G was announced.
…iPhone 4G…
That, however, is just funny.
Oh yeah. No way to note it was for smartphone marketshare or to write iPhone above or below iOS in it's 28.6% space. Completely impossible with AppleWorks. Gotcha!
Sorry, I didn't expect A turkey would be deliberately misinterpreting my intent. I could have spent a lot more time labelling it to the nth degree but as I said, I couldn't be arsed. I didn't say or imply it was impossible to do so. You are just trying to deflect attention from the deliberately misleading chart you originally posted. It is a tactic governments are very adept at - attacking the credibility or motives of the messenger to discredit or divert attention from the message when the message is uncomfortable.
Are you sure you aren't a professional agent provocateur? 693 posts in 23 days is hard to credit as being someone with just a casual interest. That's about 58 posts a day. Assuming you sleep sometimes, take a shower, eat, sh.. , that's at least 4 posts an hour, every single day.
It's taken me 4 years to get to that sort of number.
Sorry, I didn't expect A turkey would be deliberately misinterpreting my intent. I could have spent a lot more time labelling it to the nth degree but as I said, I couldn't be arsed. I didn't say or imply it was impossible to do so. You are just trying to deflect attention from the deliberately misleading chart you originally posted. It is a tactic governments are very adept at - attacking the credibility or motives of the messenger to discredit or divert attention from the message when the message is uncomfortable.
Are you sure you aren't a professional agent provocateur? 693 posts in 23 days is hard to credit as being someone with just a casual interest. That's about 58 posts a day. Assuming you sleep sometimes, take a shower, eat, sh.. , that's at least 4 posts an hour, every single day.
It's taken me 4 years to get to that sort of number.
You clearly don't read, think or type as fast as I can, and you are clearly are less capable at doing multiple tasks at once if you think a couple minutes of posts per day would somehow take up 24 hours thus excluding one's ability to sleep.
PS: You might want to keep your personal attacks, as pathetic as they are, to a minimum.
You clearly don't read, think or type as fast as I can
There is an alternative explanation - perhaps I am not on here that much.
Sorry, I didn't expect A turkey would be deliberately misinterpreting my intent. I could have spent a lot more time labelling it to the nth degree but as I said, I couldn't be arsed. I didn't say or imply it was impossible to do so. You are just trying to deflect attention from the deliberately misleading chart you originally posted.
The issue is, your graph is equally mis-leading. You labeled the "iPhone" section as "iOS". likewise, you lost lots of information by dropping of manufacture shares and created a totally different plot.
At your expense. I read over and over about Apple's profits, what does that have to do with you the end user? That you over pay for something? Apple's profits are so high because they are able to sell a $199 product for $699, they are marketing gods. Simply making statements about Apple's profits to defend your position only weakens your argument and simply puts the light on you personally that you willingly and knowingly over pay for a product.
Well pithy included the goalpost change! You were talking business, you apparently concede those points and now shift to user experience as a fallback tactic. Then you resifted and made my point for me. Do you really think before you key?
As I read through all the "defenses" people come up with, not one time did someone come out and simply say "I like the iPhone therefore I bought it". As soon as someone's purchase decision is called into question out comes the facts or opinions spouted off like facts or the links to websites showing that phone A is .000001 gigamegapixl faster than phone B ect.... ect......
Show of hands, who in this thread is a woman? I ask because both my wife and daughter own iPhones. Their reasoning is simple honesty. It is all they have known and they have no desire to try something new. What they have works and they will continue to buy iPhone. But come here and everyone gets their feelings hurt, sad actually. Then the "facts" start to flow.
My favorite though, "I like the small screen because I want to be able to swipe across the entire screen with my thumb", therefore the iPhone is better. Really, your hands are that small?
So? You tried to slam the iPhone on end-user failings, but now criticize your wife and daughter because they recognize a product that just works?
Wow. You really are a mess debate-wise. Not a single point made that doesn't self contradict what it seems you are trying to play as your world-view. It must really suck to be that bad at communication.
So? You tried to slam the iPhone on end-user failings, but now criticize your wife and daughter because they recognize a product that just works?
Wow. You really are a mess debate-wise. Not a single point made that doesn't self contradict what it seems you are trying to play as your world-view. It must really suck to be that bad at communication.
Criticize? Your lack of comprehension is astounding. Any point you attempt to make from this point forward is forever moot.
PS, since comprehension is a foreign concept for you, my view point never wavered nor shifted (prove it), it is just that your inability to read, process and then comprehend is clouded severly and then is spewed out into your posts.
You clearly don't read, think or type as fast as I can, and you are clearly are less capable at doing multiple tasks at once if you think a couple minutes of posts per day would somehow take up 24 hours thus excluding one's ability to sleep.
PS: You might want to keep your personal attacks, as pathetic as they are, to a minimum.
But yet in your first line you personally attack him? Hypocracy anyone?
And where are the advancements in the PC? The areas that are showing profits. OS. Processor. GPUs (NVidia/ATI). In the race to the bottom, actual hardware design has remained remarkably static. Who started the "ultra-book" craze? HP? Nope. Dell? Nope. Acer? Nope. ASUS? Nope. I think it was a company making really good profit.
The fact that you are visually challenged and unable to see any difference between an iPhone 2G (what ever the heck that is) and the other non-existent iPhone 4G models is not our fault. For Future reference, the iPhone models are:
iPhone
iPhone 3G
iPhone 3GS
iPhone 4
iPhone 4S
I find it funny that Android has had to continuously re-invent itself over the past several version even at a hardware level. From cursor control buttons to 100% virtual buttons with no physical buttons. That Google missed the mark on design in so many areas is not something to point at being proud of. Don't even get me started at how conceptually poor the "back" button is in Android. Google: The company that sees the world and every single application as a web browser.
Simple: PCs have not advanced really in years.
Profit has gone to MS and Intel. The only real advancement has come in new OSes and faster processors. Look at most Dells from 15 years ago and it looks like most any Dell from today.
I don't dispute that MS and Intel took most of the profits. I would dispute that there's been no advancements. Are you seriously suggesting that from the time of floppies to today's cloud computing, there's been no advances in personal computing?
Suggesting that Dells look the same for the last 15 years isn't saying much. It's not like the Mac Pro has changed all that much over time either.
I feel like this article is just trying to push the "Android sucks, iPhone rules" view. But all I see from this is Verizon is greedy... screwing everyone it can, in any way it can.
In other words, what's new?
What you see is a business decision: to go with what makes that business a profit. Apple has proven itself.
Criticize? Your lack of comprehension is astounding. Any point you attempt to make from this point forward is forever moot.
PS, since comprehension is a foreign concept for you, my view point never wavered nor shifted (prove it), it is just that your inability to read, process and then comprehend is clouded severly and then is spewed out into your posts.
what was it then?
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 $644
And who do most iPhones get sold to? The carriers.
So... it looks like the carriers buy iPhones at their full retail price... and the carriers sell them cheaper (subsidize them) because the customer signed a 2-year contract.
My point is... Apple gets the full price for each iPhone. I don't think Apple makes any special "deals" with carriers.
The subsidy happens between the carrier and the customer... not with Apple.
Apple sets the price... the carrier buys them at that price... and then the carrier discounts them (subsidizes them) because they will make up the difference over the life of the contract.
At least that's how I understand the manufacturer/carrier/customer relationship...
Where did you pull that revenue from? That dollar amount could very well be before manufacturing costs, or not including any discounts etc. IE: If i sell a device for 1000$ and it cost 998$ to make and ship to the customer, i could easily say my revenue was still 1000$.
Revenue itself doesn't measure profits. All this is doing is creating an artificial number to label as 'profits' for Apple products.
You also presume to understand the relationship through Apple and carriers. If Carriers are the primary purchaser of the actual iPhone product, why does Apple sell phones from their direct stores at a discount to customers on individual carriers? They probably get a paycheck for selling the contract, but i doubt that apple profits 450$ from the entire sale in that scenario.