There are many more Android users on cheap $50.00 handsets than there are high end iPhone users of course the percieved value by the owners is going to run this way.
They keep comparing Apples to oranges and don`t seem to account for the inherent differences.
The survey was about how many people want to buy iPhone according to Forbes (Report 65% Of Phone Owners Plan To Buy iPhone Next). It's a pity that AI didn't include that part of the report.
could that not just mean that iPhone users are more stupid..?
perceived value given smartphones do effectively the same thing...?
bizarre question...questionable sanity.
And what kind of car do you drive? When a motor vehicle gets you essentially from point A to point B, they're effectively doing the same thing.
People make judgments on a daily basis about perceived value, whether it's the clothes you wear, the food & drink you consume, what toilet paper or pen you buy, etc.
If you don't recognize and accept this, your sanity is in question.
Of course, quite a few AI commenters have a very tenuous grasp on reality.
Getting back to the topic, these findings are pretty expected. After all the iPhone trounces the competition in customer satisfaction surveys as well as studies conducted on brand loyalty (and the customer's desire to upgrade rather than switch platforms).
Well it is because of the subsidy model that they sell so many in the places that follow the subsidy model. I hate subsidies because they distort market outcomes and hide the true price.
In places where the people on average are not as wealthy or where subsidies are not a typical way of enticing people to buy a phone, Apple has shown much less growth and Android has been much stronger. I've mentioned it in these forums and people just scoff. We are talking about iPhone growth in Asia, Eastern Europe and India versus growth in the U.S. and Western Europe.
Even now with the iPhone going to prepaid in the United States, it typically is being sold for $500-$650 while the same companies are offering or promoting $200-300 Android phones.
What this study says to me is that Apple will have trouble meeting growth targets or sustaining their current sales if the subsidy model, which helps obscure the true price of their phones, changes substantially.
I believe changes are coming to that model. I think Apple's many fans on here, myself included, should do more than bleat like sheep about how they have done well in the past. Subsidies always distort outcomes. People talking about how well Apple is doing are like folks noting how well a luxury house builder is doing when everyone is buying homes with zero down, negative amortization, balloon payment loans. The second they can't get those loans, the company that can only survive building McMansions is toast.
People talk about how Samsung sells an array of cheaper smartphones. That is a strength if market conditions change. It is like saying they can sell and build smaller houses, condos, commercial buildings, instead of just McMansions.
Changes to that model will not happen until smartphone saturation is much higher.
They have LTE networks to buildout right now, they cannot afford to bring smartphone adoption to a screeching halt right now, which is exactly what would happen if they significantly cut subsidies. And they would probably keep 1/2 the money being paid in subsidies now if that happens. Guarantee that when subsidies are cut it ends up a crappier deal for the consumer. The aren't going to cut subsidies for LESS profit, thats for sure.
If you pay full price for an iPhone, it's $600 and up.
If you get a subsidized iPhone, it's 'free' up to $399, IIRC (with most people paying $199 and up - since the 4S is the top selling phone). However, with the amount you're paying the carrier, your 2 year cost is more like $800-1000.
If it's only worth $313, how do they sell so many?
The number is only an opinion. If they asked me i would probably mathematically say my iPhone was worth £200 ($312) at the moment as i have 10 more months * £20 left to pay (I will be paying a total of £480 ($750) for it over 2 years). So if you exclude all the purchased content and value of documents on it, its not that far off actually... I guess android phones got a lower value just as their phones have a lower average price point...
The survey was about how many people want to buy iPhone according to Forbes (Report 65% Of Phone Owners Plan To Buy iPhone Next). It's a pity that AI didn't include that part of the report.
"Munster notes that there was 52% iPhone ownership in the survey group, which makes it clear that for whatever reason, Munster conducted his survey among, well, iConsumers. Maybe he was standing inside an Apple store at the time.
Munster notes the fact that his survey group skews towards the iPhone, but adds that nonetheless he thinks the iPhone can actually boost Apple’s share of the smartphone market from the low 20% range now to the low 30% range by 2015."
Probably wasn't mentioned by AI since even Munster admitted a bias with the polling. Of course that hasn't usually stopped AI.
Changes to that model will not happen until smartphone saturation is much higher.
They have LTE networks to buildout right now, they cannot afford to bring smartphone adoption to a screeching halt right now, which is exactly what would happen if they significantly cut subsidies. And they would probably keep 1/2 the money being paid in subsidies now if that happens. Guarantee that when subsidies are cut it ends up a crappier deal for the consumer. The aren't going to cut subsidies for LESS profit, thats for sure.
I'd say they are using LTE as a lever to raise prices and that is a form of ending subsidy. Verizon specifically requires you to give up your unlimited data to take a subsidy on your next phone with them. AT&T stopped allowing early upgrades. Verizon ended one year subsidized plans. Both require upgrade "fees" to take on a new subsidy.
LTE networks area huge savings for network carriers which is why everyone is pushing them. It costs them less than a tenth of what it used to cost them to transmit and carry the same amount of traffic. Also let us remember that anyone who ISN'T Apple has been selling LTE phones for almost a year now. The Droid Razr for example came out last Thanksgiving. All the new Android phones this year wanted to push quad-core but carriers made them go back to dual-core since there was no radio option available that included LTE.
The AVERAGE is $313. This means the carriers shouldn't subsidize less, because they may still lose customers (on the iPhone). Some people may have said it is worth $500, does that mean that you are going to raise the price to 500, no. Some people probably said the $200 they bought it for, if AT&T, Verizon and Sprint raised the price, Apple may lose those customers. And it they were to make the price higher, would we still have to sign a two year contract? Or one? It should be one or one-and-a-half. The whole subsidization thing is ridiculous.
I don't understand the value of these results since there is no comparison actual devices used by the [I]surveyees[/I] weighted by MSRP and current value after use. Without a baseline of an actual real world value I don't get how these results are relevant to anything.
Well it is because of the subsidy model that they sell so many in the places that follow the subsidy model. I hate subsidies because they distort market outcomes and hide the true price.
In places where the people on average are not as wealthy or where subsidies are not a typical way of enticing people to buy a phone, Apple has shown much less growth and Android has been much stronger. I've mentioned it in these forums and people just scoff. We are talking about iPhone growth in Asia, Eastern Europe and India versus growth in the U.S. and Western Europe.
Even now with the iPhone going to prepaid in the United States, it typically is being sold for $500-$650 while the same companies are offering or promoting $200-300 Android phones.
What this study says to me is that Apple will have trouble meeting growth targets or sustaining their current sales if the subsidy model, which helps obscure the true price of their phones, changes substantially.
I believe changes are coming to that model. I think Apple's many fans on here, myself included, should do more than bleat like sheep about how they have done well in the past. Subsidies always distort outcomes. People talking about how well Apple is doing are like folks noting how well a luxury house builder is doing when everyone is buying homes with zero down, negative amortization, balloon payment loans. The second they can't get those loans, the company that can only survive building McMansions is toast.
People talk about how Samsung sells an array of cheaper smartphones. That is a strength if market conditions change. It is like saying they can sell and build smaller houses, condos, commercial buildings, instead of just McMansions.
I paid USD 1600 for my iPhone 4S 32GB (lost the 1st one). For me 800 for an iPhone is a better value than 600 for a Galaxy S3 (when 1st released, unlike Apple the prices of other phones tend go down over time so the S3 is closer to 450 now), mainly because I'm invested in the eco system and all my devices are playing with each other nicely. There's no point for me to get a subsidized phone because the company is paying for my plan, I just supply my own phone.
This is a dumb article. While iPhones are typically $199 (taking out the 3GS/4 for argument sake), there are dozens of Android phones from Free-$199. So, if you bought an iPhone for $199, it's worth $313- $114 "gain". For a free android its a $220 gain. For a $199 android is a $21 gain.
Does none of that make sense? Good... thats the point. The study and article is ridiculous. Compare phones... not one phone and one operating system. Dumb dumb dumb.
It is really a stupid question. And without knowing how much these people initially paid for their phones, it's kind of useless. I mean if these people all got their Android phones for free, then saying it is worth $200 shows a lot more perceived value then if all the iPhone users had 64GB 4S models ($400 subsidized in the US I believe) and were saying it was only worth $300.
Exactly. The average iPhone is probably the 32GB model so that is $299 plus they bought a case for $20 so it is worth about what they paid for it. The real question is how much can they actually sell it for at the end of their contract. I know what the answer is for Android.
Gazelle says my 32GB 4S ($300 in February) is worth $280. Works for me. My Mac Mini ($800 last August) is worth $300 to recycle thru Apple heh. Hmm Gazelle will give me $360 for my Mini (I boosted RAM to 8GB and still have the original box). Not too shabby. I'm gonna pass this machine on to my kids whenever I upgrade next year tho.
I paid USD 1600 for my iPhone 4S 32GB (lost the 1st one). For me 800 for an iPhone is a better value than 600 for a Galaxy S3 (when 1st released, unlike Apple the prices of other phones tend go down over time so the S3 is closer to 450 now), mainly because I'm invested in the eco system and all my devices are playing with each other nicely. There's no point for me to get a subsidized phone because the company is paying for my plan, I just supply my own phone.
You mean you bought two for 800 each. Ok. Fully agree on paying for your phone without subsidy; in most countries it's cheaper to buy them that way.
The only surprise is that the iPhone is worth not more than ~$100 compared to an Android phone.
To me the big surprise is that the 'other' category is just a buck below Android. Can only mean BB or WP7, and that surprises me, finding it to be high.
"Munster notes that there was 52% iPhone ownership in the survey group, which makes it clear that for whatever reason, Munster conducted his survey among, well, iConsumers. Maybe he was standing inside an Apple store at the time.
Munster notes the fact that his survey group skews towards the iPhone, but adds that nonetheless he thinks the iPhone can actually boost Apple’s share of the smartphone market from the low 20% range now to the low 30% range by 2015."
Probably wasn't mentioned by AI since even Munster admitted a bias with the polling. Of course that hasn't usually stopped AI.
Well, if we assume Google is lying about it's Android activation numbers, and all the available corroborating evidence points to that being the case, along with the fact that it's a safe bet to assume Google is lying, the poll isn't biased at all, it's just that there aren't that many people out there with Android phones as Google would like us to believe.
If I had an Android phone, I'd pay someone $220 to take it off my hands, maybe that's what the survey actually showed.
Exactly. The average iPhone is probably the 32GB model so that is $299 plus they bought a case for $20 so it is worth about what they paid for it. The real question is how much can they actually sell it for at the end of their contract. I know what the answer is for Android.
Except that's NOT what they paid for it. They paid $299 PLUS a 2 year contract. The contract includes subsidies for the phone. For example, I was paying AT&T well over $100 per month for my phone. When I switched to Straight Talk (prepaid), I got better service and it only costs $45 per month. A wise consumer adds in that $1320 difference in the cost of his phone.
As for the end of the contract, I just sold a 2 year old iPhone 4 for $300 when my contract expired.
I don't understand the value of these results since there is no comparison actual devices used by the surveyees weighted by MSRP and current value after use. Without a baseline of an actual real world value I don't get how these results are relevant to anything.
Agreed. This survey is meaningless. I bet he just polled 400 of his mates from around the world and published it because he has a target of so many articles per week to get out.
The inherent value of an iPhone or any other product is simply what enough people are willing to pay for it. My iPhone cost £700 so it's worth £700 to me. Someone else might have a different view.
Comments
These "surveys" are beyond skewed.
There are many more Android users on cheap $50.00 handsets than there are high end iPhone users of course the percieved value by the owners is going to run this way.
They keep comparing Apples to oranges and don`t seem to account for the inherent differences.
This stuff is worthless.
The survey was about how many people want to buy iPhone according to Forbes (Report 65% Of Phone Owners Plan To Buy iPhone Next). It's a pity that AI didn't include that part of the report.
People make judgments on a daily basis about perceived value, whether it's the clothes you wear, the food & drink you consume, what toilet paper or pen you buy, etc.
If you don't recognize and accept this, your sanity is in question.
Of course, quite a few AI commenters have a very tenuous grasp on reality.
Getting back to the topic, these findings are pretty expected. After all the iPhone trounces the competition in customer satisfaction surveys as well as studies conducted on brand loyalty (and the customer's desire to upgrade rather than switch platforms).
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
Well it is because of the subsidy model that they sell so many in the places that follow the subsidy model. I hate subsidies because they distort market outcomes and hide the true price.
In places where the people on average are not as wealthy or where subsidies are not a typical way of enticing people to buy a phone, Apple has shown much less growth and Android has been much stronger. I've mentioned it in these forums and people just scoff. We are talking about iPhone growth in Asia, Eastern Europe and India versus growth in the U.S. and Western Europe.
Even now with the iPhone going to prepaid in the United States, it typically is being sold for $500-$650 while the same companies are offering or promoting $200-300 Android phones.
What this study says to me is that Apple will have trouble meeting growth targets or sustaining their current sales if the subsidy model, which helps obscure the true price of their phones, changes substantially.
I believe changes are coming to that model. I think Apple's many fans on here, myself included, should do more than bleat like sheep about how they have done well in the past. Subsidies always distort outcomes. People talking about how well Apple is doing are like folks noting how well a luxury house builder is doing when everyone is buying homes with zero down, negative amortization, balloon payment loans. The second they can't get those loans, the company that can only survive building McMansions is toast.
People talk about how Samsung sells an array of cheaper smartphones. That is a strength if market conditions change. It is like saying they can sell and build smaller houses, condos, commercial buildings, instead of just McMansions.
Changes to that model will not happen until smartphone saturation is much higher.
They have LTE networks to buildout right now, they cannot afford to bring smartphone adoption to a screeching halt right now, which is exactly what would happen if they significantly cut subsidies. And they would probably keep 1/2 the money being paid in subsidies now if that happens. Guarantee that when subsidies are cut it ends up a crappier deal for the consumer. The aren't going to cut subsidies for LESS profit, thats for sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That's what I'm wondering.
If you pay full price for an iPhone, it's $600 and up.
If you get a subsidized iPhone, it's 'free' up to $399, IIRC (with most people paying $199 and up - since the 4S is the top selling phone). However, with the amount you're paying the carrier, your 2 year cost is more like $800-1000.
If it's only worth $313, how do they sell so many?
The number is only an opinion. If they asked me i would probably mathematically say my iPhone was worth £200 ($312) at the moment as i have 10 more months * £20 left to pay (I will be paying a total of £480 ($750) for it over 2 years). So if you exclude all the purchased content and value of documents on it, its not that far off actually... I guess android phones got a lower value just as their phones have a lower average price point...
What I'm taking from the poll is,
The iPhone owners feel that they have a very well built & solid OS & you get what you pay for.
Other phone makers have alot of variance in build quality & OS, so they think they have cheaper devices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj.yuan
The survey was about how many people want to buy iPhone according to Forbes (Report 65% Of Phone Owners Plan To Buy iPhone Next). It's a pity that AI didn't include that part of the report.
"Munster notes that there was 52% iPhone ownership in the survey group, which makes it clear that for whatever reason, Munster conducted his survey among, well, iConsumers. Maybe he was standing inside an Apple store at the time.
Munster notes the fact that his survey group skews towards the iPhone, but adds that nonetheless he thinks the iPhone can actually boost Apple’s share of the smartphone market from the low 20% range now to the low 30% range by 2015."
Probably wasn't mentioned by AI since even Munster admitted a bias with the polling. Of course that hasn't usually stopped AI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcoz
Changes to that model will not happen until smartphone saturation is much higher.
They have LTE networks to buildout right now, they cannot afford to bring smartphone adoption to a screeching halt right now, which is exactly what would happen if they significantly cut subsidies. And they would probably keep 1/2 the money being paid in subsidies now if that happens. Guarantee that when subsidies are cut it ends up a crappier deal for the consumer. The aren't going to cut subsidies for LESS profit, thats for sure.
I'd say they are using LTE as a lever to raise prices and that is a form of ending subsidy. Verizon specifically requires you to give up your unlimited data to take a subsidy on your next phone with them. AT&T stopped allowing early upgrades. Verizon ended one year subsidized plans. Both require upgrade "fees" to take on a new subsidy.
LTE networks area huge savings for network carriers which is why everyone is pushing them. It costs them less than a tenth of what it used to cost them to transmit and carry the same amount of traffic. Also let us remember that anyone who ISN'T Apple has been selling LTE phones for almost a year now. The Droid Razr for example came out last Thanksgiving. All the new Android phones this year wanted to push quad-core but carriers made them go back to dual-core since there was no radio option available that included LTE.
The AVERAGE is $313. This means the carriers shouldn't subsidize less, because they may still lose customers (on the iPhone). Some people may have said it is worth $500, does that mean that you are going to raise the price to 500, no. Some people probably said the $200 they bought it for, if AT&T, Verizon and Sprint raised the price, Apple may lose those customers. And it they were to make the price higher, would we still have to sign a two year contract? Or one? It should be one or one-and-a-half. The whole subsidization thing is ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
Well it is because of the subsidy model that they sell so many in the places that follow the subsidy model. I hate subsidies because they distort market outcomes and hide the true price.
In places where the people on average are not as wealthy or where subsidies are not a typical way of enticing people to buy a phone, Apple has shown much less growth and Android has been much stronger. I've mentioned it in these forums and people just scoff. We are talking about iPhone growth in Asia, Eastern Europe and India versus growth in the U.S. and Western Europe.
Even now with the iPhone going to prepaid in the United States, it typically is being sold for $500-$650 while the same companies are offering or promoting $200-300 Android phones.
What this study says to me is that Apple will have trouble meeting growth targets or sustaining their current sales if the subsidy model, which helps obscure the true price of their phones, changes substantially.
I believe changes are coming to that model. I think Apple's many fans on here, myself included, should do more than bleat like sheep about how they have done well in the past. Subsidies always distort outcomes. People talking about how well Apple is doing are like folks noting how well a luxury house builder is doing when everyone is buying homes with zero down, negative amortization, balloon payment loans. The second they can't get those loans, the company that can only survive building McMansions is toast.
People talk about how Samsung sells an array of cheaper smartphones. That is a strength if market conditions change. It is like saying they can sell and build smaller houses, condos, commercial buildings, instead of just McMansions.
I paid USD 1600 for my iPhone 4S 32GB (lost the 1st one). For me 800 for an iPhone is a better value than 600 for a Galaxy S3 (when 1st released, unlike Apple the prices of other phones tend go down over time so the S3 is closer to 450 now), mainly because I'm invested in the eco system and all my devices are playing with each other nicely. There's no point for me to get a subsidized phone because the company is paying for my plan, I just supply my own phone.
This is a dumb article. While iPhones are typically $199 (taking out the 3GS/4 for argument sake), there are dozens of Android phones from Free-$199. So, if you bought an iPhone for $199, it's worth $313- $114 "gain". For a free android its a $220 gain. For a $199 android is a $21 gain.
Does none of that make sense? Good... thats the point. The study and article is ridiculous. Compare phones... not one phone and one operating system. Dumb dumb dumb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
It is really a stupid question. And without knowing how much these people initially paid for their phones, it's kind of useless. I mean if these people all got their Android phones for free, then saying it is worth $200 shows a lot more perceived value then if all the iPhone users had 64GB 4S models ($400 subsidized in the US I believe) and were saying it was only worth $300.
Exactly. The average iPhone is probably the 32GB model so that is $299 plus they bought a case for $20 so it is worth about what they paid for it. The real question is how much can they actually sell it for at the end of their contract. I know what the answer is for Android.
Gazelle says my 32GB 4S ($300 in February) is worth $280. Works for me. My Mac Mini ($800 last August) is worth $300 to recycle thru Apple heh. Hmm Gazelle will give me $360 for my Mini (I boosted RAM to 8GB and still have the original box). Not too shabby. I'm gonna pass this machine on to my kids whenever I upgrade next year tho.
It's all easy nonsense money on this thing called the web.
You mean you bought two for 800 each. Ok. Fully agree on paying for your phone without subsidy; in most countries it's cheaper to buy them that way.
To me the big surprise is that the 'other' category is just a buck below Android. Can only mean BB or WP7, and that surprises me, finding it to be high.
Exactly! Which is why I buy my iPhones contract-free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archipellago
could that not just mean that iPhone users are more stupid..?
perceived value given smartphones do effectively the same thing...?
bizarre question...questionable sanity.
The entire Survey is of for stupid people - it is Data Gibberish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
"Munster notes that there was 52% iPhone ownership in the survey group, which makes it clear that for whatever reason, Munster conducted his survey among, well, iConsumers. Maybe he was standing inside an Apple store at the time.
Munster notes the fact that his survey group skews towards the iPhone, but adds that nonetheless he thinks the iPhone can actually boost Apple’s share of the smartphone market from the low 20% range now to the low 30% range by 2015."
Probably wasn't mentioned by AI since even Munster admitted a bias with the polling. Of course that hasn't usually stopped AI.
Well, if we assume Google is lying about it's Android activation numbers, and all the available corroborating evidence points to that being the case, along with the fact that it's a safe bet to assume Google is lying, the poll isn't biased at all, it's just that there aren't that many people out there with Android phones as Google would like us to believe.
If I had an Android phone, I'd pay someone $220 to take it off my hands, maybe that's what the survey actually showed.
Except that's NOT what they paid for it. They paid $299 PLUS a 2 year contract. The contract includes subsidies for the phone. For example, I was paying AT&T well over $100 per month for my phone. When I switched to Straight Talk (prepaid), I got better service and it only costs $45 per month. A wise consumer adds in that $1320 difference in the cost of his phone.
As for the end of the contract, I just sold a 2 year old iPhone 4 for $300 when my contract expired.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I don't understand the value of these results since there is no comparison actual devices used by the surveyees weighted by MSRP and current value after use. Without a baseline of an actual real world value I don't get how these results are relevant to anything.
Agreed. This survey is meaningless. I bet he just polled 400 of his mates from around the world and published it because he has a target of so many articles per week to get out.
The inherent value of an iPhone or any other product is simply what enough people are willing to pay for it. My iPhone cost £700 so it's worth £700 to me. Someone else might have a different view.