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: Todd Allcock on 10 Aug 2010 08:37 At 09 Aug 2010 22:29:53 -0400 ZnU wrote: > In article <164u561i94um3buf9ptjp2ooa2ekmj6e3i(a)4ax.com>, > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > > [snip] > > > >This is a battle for the future of mobile computing. ... > > > > It's a battle for the mobile phone market. > > The iPad market is a different market and battle. > > If you disagree, try making a phone call with an iPad, > > and let me know how well it's "working for you". ;) > > The iPad is arguably a different market. I would say it was definitely a > different market, except that it's possible to 'universal' apps. > > The iPod Touch is absolutely _not_ a different market in any meaningful > sense, despite the number of people who'd like to frame it that way to > make Android look better. I think you're looking at "market" from the manufacturer's or developer's perspective rather than consumer's- The iPad, Touch, and iPhone are from completely different consumer markets: the iPhone is a phone with an iPod/game machine/mobile computurish-thing built in, and the Touch is an iPod. The iPhone user experience is predicated on ubiquitous connectivity, whereas the iPod is based on casual part-time connectivity. And despite the statements by Jobs or anyone here, the iPad is in the netbook market- a small,lightweight computer with a subset of "real' laptop features. The irony, of course, is that most netbooks are no longer in the netbook market- they're in the "crappy low-end laptop" market. From the perspective of the coding tools, there may be no real difference, but consider the perspective of the app writer or user: if the app requires accurate location info and continuous access to online databases/servers, it's an "iPhone" or "iPad 3G" app rather than a Touch/iPad WiFi app. The devices might not be very different from a hardware perspective, but user scenarios, use cases and their markets are completely different, much like the "PDA" vs. "Smartphone" market- the former no longer exists for all intents and purposes, despite most smartphones being a PDA with one "extra" radio. It's sort of like desktops/laptops/netbooks- they're all compatible will the same apps, use the same OSes, etc., but you'll likely find different apps used on laptops* and netbooks* than desktops, at least outside of the "core" apps like browsers and email clients. [*assuming the laptop is actually used as a mobile computer, and not living on a kitchen counter or bedroom desk 100% of the time!]
From: Todd Allcock on 10 Aug 2010 09:40 At 09 Aug 2010 21:44:05 -0700 Jeff Liebermann wrote: > >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. Empire building. ;) Low cost data sells more units, and increases customer satisfaction. Particularly in the pre-"App For That" days, how happy would most people have been with iPhones without anywhere access to email, maps or the web? It wasn't a particularly good PDA or even a phone, for that matter- without data it was just a physically large, low capacity iPod with a clumsy phone attached. Personally, I think the original iPhone would've met with a lot more resistance if it had launched with a required $30/month data add-on rather than $20. (Keep in mind pre-iPhone, no one in the US had tied mandatory data plans to phone sales. Even Blackberries- essentially worthless without ubiquitous data- didn't require data plans yet!)
From: Todd Allcock on 10 Aug 2010 10:10 At 10 Aug 2010 00:44:09 -0400 ZnU wrote: > > >If Verizon gets all the hype for some HTC phone, HTC doesn't get the > > >brand recognition that will help it market its phones to other > > > networks. > > > > That would only be true if HTC cared about selling direct. It doesn't > > It sells to carriers, for whom such branding is irrelevant. > > That doesn't really follow. Presumably HTC phones would be worth more to > carriers if they were worth more to consumers, which they would be if > HTC had a more recognition consumer brand. They have a different "worth" to carriers- HTC will cripple and customize to the carrier's desires, and allow carrier branding. When, the iPhone, for example, is available on all carriers, it loses any marketing advantage to any one carrier- it's a commodity like the RAZR was. However, only Verizon has a "Droid" or only Sprint has an "Evo" even if the same handset is sold by other carriers. It's the classical Radio Shack/Sears "house-branding" strategy. Convince your customer your house brand has any value, and you can fob off any decent commodity product at a higher margin. It'll guarantee you Verizon pays less for any HTC phone than AT&T pays Apple for iPhones! In it's all carriers' best interests to devalue a "name brand" product compared to carrier- branded products. OEMing is HTC's specialty- they've build iPaq PDAs, Sony-Ericsson phones, and virtually every carrier-branded Windows Mobile or Android phone ever sold.
From: nospam on 10 Aug 2010 10:12 In article <g5d8o.4362$EF1.2031(a)newsfe14.iad>, Todd Allcock <elecconnec(a)AnoOspamL.com> wrote: > (Keep in > mind pre-iPhone, no one in the US had tied mandatory data plans to phone > sales. Even Blackberries- essentially worthless without ubiquitous data- > didn't require data plans yet!) sprint did on some models, and any winmo phone had a *higher* data plan rate because they assumed you'd use more data.
From: John Navas on 10 Aug 2010 11:04
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:10:01 -0400, in <i5d8o.4363$EF1.18(a)newsfe14.iad>, Todd Allcock <elecconnec(a)AnoOspamL.com> wrote: >At 10 Aug 2010 00:44:09 -0400 ZnU wrote: >> > 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. > >They have a different "worth" to carriers- HTC will cripple and customize >to the carrier's desires, and allow carrier branding. > >When, the iPhone, for example, is available on all carriers, it loses any >marketing advantage to any one carrier- it's a commodity like the RAZR was. Undoubtedly a factor in Apple granting an exclusive to a single carrier. >However, only Verizon has a "Droid" or only Sprint has an "Evo" even if >the same handset is sold by other carriers. It's the classical Radio >Shack/Sears "house-branding" strategy. Convince your customer your >house brand has any value, and you can fob off any decent commodity >product at a higher margin. It'll guarantee you Verizon pays less for >any HTC phone than AT&T pays Apple for iPhones! In it's all carriers' >best interests to devalue a "name brand" product compared to carrier- >branded products. It's more than just higher margin -- it establishes carrier loyalty, which tends to generate much more margin than just the higher margin on the handset. >OEMing is HTC's specialty- they've build iPaq PDAs, Sony-Ericsson phones, >and virtually every carrier-branded Windows Mobile or Android phone ever >sold. It's quite a successful model. HTC avoids the huge costs and issues of playing in the consumer space. -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement] |