NEWS: Apple sued over hot iPad shutdowns
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security of wireless networks
Next: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security ofwireless networks
From: Jeff Liebermann on 10 Aug 2010 00:44 On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 00:16:25 -0400, ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: >> I'm not so sure that AT&T really wants to keep the current contract. >> That's because they're apparently paying Apple full retail $600 price >> for the phones, while selling them to customers for about $200. The >> current guess by iSuppli is $178 to produce a 3GS. A two year >> contract term, with mandatory options (i.e. data plan), will make up >> the difference, but I'm sure they're not thrilled. > >The unsubsidized price for the iPhone 4 is not unusually high for a >high-end smartphone, so I don't see how AT&T could expect a much better >deal from someone else. Ummm.... quantity discounts? Actually, now that I think of it, $600 is a bit low and may already include a discount. >The iSuppli numbers are solely for components; they don't reflect the >real cost to Apple. I'd guess Apple runs something like its usual >25-30% margins, putting the real cost of an iPhone, before profits, at >something like $420-450. Odds are nobody is going to be willing to go >much below $500 with costs like that. Oops. Y'er right. I totally forgot that the iSuppli numbers are only for the components. Including debt retirement (as if Apple had any dept), just doubling the parts cost is a fair guess at cost to sales. That would put Apple's 3GS cost at about $350. A 30% markup on that is $455. $500 would be a better list price than $600, but I'm doing quite a bit of guesswork and could easily be off by quite a wide margin. >> If I were Apple, I would offer AT&T a continued exclusive at an even >> higher price for the iPhone 4, or a major price break if Apple were >> allowed to sell it to the other vendors. Either way, Apple wins, and >> AT&T just sits there. > >My guess is Apple wanted to have a Verizon version of the iPhone 4 at >launch, but offered AT&T exclusivity until January in exchange for >low-cost iPad data plans. There were rumors of a CDMA version (which I thought might be for real). I made that suggestion about 6 months ago. Someone who apparently had inside knowledge at Apple contradicted my suggestion while demonstrating enough expertise to convince even me. There may have been some talk about a CDMA version, but I don't think there was any hardware built. >I suspect Apple is done making any deals that would allow exclusivity to >continue longer. They couldn't possibly get enough money out of AT&T to >offset both the lost sales and the long-term consequences of allowing >their competitors to gain considerable market share solely because their >devices are on more carriers. Plus, Apple appears to have been following >a very deliberate strategy of moving away from exclusive deals in >various markets -- I think the US and Germany are the only markets left >where the iPhone is only one one carrier. Agreed. I don't really understand why Apple would trade low cost data service for an exclusive. There's plenty of revenue loss to Apple by not being able to sell to other providers, but there's no revenue in low cost data service for Apple. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl(a)cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
From: ZnU on 10 Aug 2010 00:44 In article <bp9u561d4hlhc7sldote8j8s8qnp49hepc(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 16:22:20 -0400, in > <4c5f11ff$0$9263$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei > <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote: > > >John Navas wrote: > >> > >> You're still misreading what he wrote, which is that brand recognition > >> in this particular context is more a matter of carrier ("Can you hear me > >> now?") than of device. > > > >I am not sure that this is to the manufacturer's advantage because in > >the end, the manufacturer gets much less exposure and brand recognition > >for its products. > > > >At one point in time, the largers fizzy drink bottler in north america > >was a small canadian company called "Cott". > > > >Nobody knew of them. But if you purchased any fizzy drink that was a > >store's brand, no name etc (aka: not a Coke or Pepsi brand), chances > >were high that it had been bottled by Cott. > > > >If Verizon gets all the hype for some HTC phone, HTC doesn't get the > >brand recognition that will help it market its phones to other networks. > > That would only be true if HTC cared about selling direct. It doesn't > It sells to carriers, for whom such branding is irrelevant. That doesn't really follow. Presumably HTC phones would be worth more to carriers if they were worth more to consumers, which they would be if HTC had a more recognition consumer brand. [snip] -- "The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
From: nospam on 10 Aug 2010 00:57 In article <znu-DFD935.23011009082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: > In article <5pe16619c9osglb5urm3gk8fi7kn1r3jev(a)4ax.com>, > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 22:20:47 -0400, in > > <znu-7077B6.22204709082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU > > <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: > > > > >In article <v9bu5618p0gou9kevekfsef4hrm3jtomad(a)4ax.com>, > > > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > > > > >> If that were true, then the principal engineer would still have a job, > > >> yet he was fired. Oops! > > > > > >The WSJ disagrees with you about why. > > > > Nope. > > You appear to be one of those posters who switches to content-free > one-line replies when he's losing. or he pastes one of his usual quotes, or as he did with you, put you in his killfile. he knows when he's cornered.
From: nospam on 10 Aug 2010 00:58 In article <knd166lb4vm2ids999f1vgob2beo4ej5f0(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> >So why is anyone buying the latter for 4x the price (8x if > >> >you want two)? > >> > >> Why would anyone buying water pay dollars per small bottle when > >> essentially free tap water is as good or better (as it is here in San > >> Francisco)? > > > >So you're saying people _shouldn't_ buy the Droid X, they should buy the > >Ally, and it's irrational for them to buy the Droid X? > > Didn't say that. Didn't imply that. What I wrote speaks for itself. what you write does speak for itself, and it shows you to be a lying hypocrite (and that's being kind). > >> That's a straw man argument. > > > >No, it's not. ... > > Yes, it is, and I'm done with this pointless "discussion". of course you are. you're losing.
From: ZnU on 10 Aug 2010 01:00
In article <d3l166pv78e06dtkos55ep7itgp821dem2(a)4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote: > On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 00:16:25 -0400, ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: [snip] > >I suspect Apple is done making any deals that would allow exclusivity to > >continue longer. They couldn't possibly get enough money out of AT&T to > >offset both the lost sales and the long-term consequences of allowing > >their competitors to gain considerable market share solely because their > >devices are on more carriers. Plus, Apple appears to have been following > >a very deliberate strategy of moving away from exclusive deals in > >various markets -- I think the US and Germany are the only markets left > >where the iPhone is only one one carrier. > > Agreed. I don't really understand why Apple would trade low cost data > service for an exclusive. There's plenty of revenue loss to Apple by > not being able to sell to other providers, but there's no revenue in > low cost data service for Apple. The iPad is a device on which cellular data is a very compelling feature, but it's primarily targeted at consumers and there's no way most consumers were going to pay $60/month for a data plan (which seems to be the going rate). So the availability of data plans that regular consumers might actually be willing to pay for makes the iPad itself more attractive and presumably helps sell more of them. -- "The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes |