Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 171
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    Ten days ago: free.

    Twelve days ago: free.

    Both phones can still be had from $0.01 - $49.99.

    BTW, the Droid is free. So is the Sprint Pre and Pixi- from HP's website. There are free, and nearly free superphones everywhere you turn. The traditional free phone makers are getting squeezed out of the market, thanks to Android.

    Interestingly, none of these superphones, at any price, are outselling the $200 - $300 iPhone, not even close. Some comparison.

    In case it has gotten lost in the shuffle, my conclusion was about Palm's future strategy. Should they even try to sell in the premium priced market against the iPhone, or should they start out at cheap or free to better compete with Android offerings. Is it better to start high and be forced to a lower price, or start low and corner the market? That is the bit worth discussing.
    To get it free, you had to do more than sign a 2 year contract. You also had to sign up for the at least $60 service plan with 900 minutes. Many people don't need or want 900 minutes per month. Many people still only need or want 400 or less minutes since nights and weekends are free. I wouldn't call a requirement of paying for 900 minutes free. Especially when you consider that AT&T allows roll over minutes.
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by SoFly View Post
    I don't consider $268 million considerable profits. Especially when Apple made over 12 times that amount in profit. But, only 8.7 times more sales than HTC. Apple has to sell a lot more low margin stuff than HTC which only had to sell high margin mobile devices.
    Apple has way more income streams, way more brand recognition, and a bigger installed base of people to upgrade to their products. They're making more money, you say?

    Yeah, expanding market share in a market that is no where near being saturated. Any company can enter the smart phone market and get some easy sales. Oh, except Palm, apparently.

    Overall, a weak argument on your part and you still generalize with no detail.
    Nothing weak about it. They are making profit selling popular devices and expanding marketshare, thus they are successful. You don't think that's success for a business? Then, there's no point in us conversing.

    They are not the ones making the comments about how many premium phones they are selling. YOU and others in this post are making these ASSUMPTIONS. I just try to use my brain and be logical about it.
    I'm not assuming anything. They are selling almost every unit they make. You're the one quibbling about how many that is or if it's enough or whatever silly excuse you are making.

    But, you seem to care that because they are always sold out that must mean they are selling a lot of them. But, you don't care that you could be wrong and they are just not making a lot of them which means they would always be out of stock.
    I seriously doubt that Verizon is adding more phone customers than ATT on the strength of the Droid brand provided by Motorola and HTC due to them "not making a lot of them".

    You missed the most important thing I originally said which is that Android doing so well is not that significant when the iPhone is not on Verizon to compete with Android. Instead you post some dribble about restaurants.
    Drivel, you mean? I'm pretty sure "dribble" cannot be posted here or anywhere else. You haven't really said anything important, actually, which is why so many people are mocking you in this thread.

    Anyway, I think we're just spinning wheels at this point. See you elsewhere and have a good night.
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    No. I consider a penny the same as free. Even free phones have POS contact as papers have to be signed. It is a contract, after all. Don't be silly to try to prove a point. Free and nearly free get about the same mileage for the purposes of this conversation.
    Why would a contract be involved for something that is "free"?

    I think you need to look up the definition of "free" in the marketplace.
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by SoFly View Post
    Not true. I criticize or point out the incorrect info that people post.

    If someone said Windows is the best platform for business, I would not dispute that.

    If someone said Windows is the best computer platform for gaming, I would not dispute that.

    If someone said that Android or Pre is the best phone if you want to tinker or customize your phone the way you want and that was very important to you over anything else, I would not dispute that.

    If someone said Blackberry is the best when it comes to business use email, I would not dispute that.

    BUT, people don't say things like that. They are saying things like mikah912 has been saying in his posts and I comment on them.

    Pay attention to the details that I provide in the posts that I make. So many people post inaccuracies and it's usually about Apple and I just try to provide the facts and in a lot of my posts I even provide web links so that you know I am not making it up.
    Here's your factual post about your love of apple. from the forums

    1And who besides old people consults Consumer Reports before buying a cell phone?

    2Do you really think that the 25 - 34 yo target audience that is the largest market that buys cell phones looks to Consumer Reports for advice?

    Consumer Reports jumped all over the iPhone 4 story to further their agenda. To make themselves relevant in a world where every tech blog, media, user forums, etc can review products. Thus, making Consumer Reports not that important anymore. ( consumer reports the bad guy here)

    3That couldn't survive on their own and got sold for pennies to HP (Post about palm buyout factual accurate again)

    4That's the way Apple rolls and it's what the majority consumers (not the small minority of geeks) want. Apple caters to the majority of consumers when it comes to the iPhone. So, can someone please tell me how Palm being bought by HP is going to help Palm compete with the iPhone in the consumer space? The above quote does not apply to how HP rolls. I think untidyGuy said it best in another post when he said that WebOS will be used in specialty devices for applications like healthcare, law enforcement, industry, and retail. Which is what HP is decent at, not the consumer world competing against Apple and the iPhone or iPad. 3(defend apple preach on)

    5A no name company in China brings out a whole new computer line called "Crappy PC from China" They sell the cheapest netbook to the top of the line desktop computer all running Windows. They manage to sell their stuff significantly cheaper than HP at Best Buy.

    So, lemme ask you, "Can I say to you that you are wasting your money on HP just because it says HP on the label?"

    Cheap chinese knock off --> HP crap --> Apple stuff...

    Some people just want the best, and ignore the rest. (Here some more facts)

    So when I said t that sofly loves apple and rips any other product the proofs in the post. The majority of the post defend apple or criticize other brands. This is why i feel you lack perspective.(that's my opinion for clarification)
    Last edited by yaggermr; 08/31/2010 at 11:48 PM. Reason: quote
  5. #65  
    The bottom line in all of this is that it doesn't matter. Consumers will get the product that they want at any price they're willing to pay. That's competition. Which product is best depends of the needs, perception, and wants of the consumer. None of the facts of who sales the most matter. Competition doesn't mean you have to be top dog. That helps, but it isn't a requirement. The product has to make a profit and produce income for the company. For the consumer, it just have to do what it's intended to do.

    When I buy a TV, that gives me definition and great sound, I don't care whether or not it's the best selling TV. I feel the same about my smartphone. It should just work and deliver what it promises.
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by bdhu2001 View Post
    The bottom line in all of this is that it doesn't matter. Consumers will get the product that they want at any price they're willing to pay. That's competition. Which product is best depends of the needs, perception, and wants of the consumer. None of the facts of who sales the most matter. Competition doesn't mean you have to be top dog. That helps, but it isn't a requirement. The product has to make a profit and produce income for the company. For the consumer, it just have to do what it's intended to do.

    When I buy a TV, that gives me definition and great sound, I don't care whether or not it's the best selling TV. I feel the same about my smartphone. It should just work and deliver what it promises.
    Great point totally agree. Products are about consumer choices and what fits individuals. I own a palm pre ,an ipod classic , hp laptop, an apple tv and an hp desktop(also a mac book pro but wife never lets me use it). These products work well for things I enjoy. Some of these products top the sales chart others not so much but they all make money for there respective company's.
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by SoFly View Post
    Since, I know some of you are going to say they didn't sell that many phones every month. Here is the average selling price of their phones if their sales were:

    4.5 million in April, which the article already stated.
    3 million in May
    2 million in June.

    With those sales and revenue of 1.88 billion. The average price of the HTC phone that was sold to the carriers is still $198 per phone.

    I'll say it again...Now, do you really think that HTC was selling that many premium phones to the carriers for $198 while the consumer is expected to to pay $199 on contract for a premium phone? Or, were they selling a ton of cheap phones and a lot less premium phones which is why they are constantly out of stock.

    Let's see the responses of the people that will try to dispute this info.
    You have a pretty simplistic understanding of business and your ignorance is showing, if you are (seriously?) trying to make your case in this manner.

    I'm giving you an out here... you should probably take it...

    You can't simply take a companies overall (reported) revenue and divide it by the (estimated) number of units sold and come up with the price they are charging the carrier for each device...

    Most estimates of high-end smartphones put the cost around $160-$200 just for the components.

    For example, it is estimated that the cost just for the components of the Droid 2 is ~$170 and the iPhone4 is ~$187.

    Those estimates don't include R&D, software, marketing and other "soft" costs.

    Certainly HTC, Motorola, Apple, etc. need more than a ~10% markup from hard component costs to make up for all those other costs AND still be profitable.
    Last edited by gmanvbva; 09/01/2010 at 10:46 AM. Reason: typo
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by SoFly View Post
    I don't consider $268 million considerable profits. Especially when Apple made over 12 times that amount in profit. But, only 8.7 times more sales than HTC. Apple has to sell a lot more low margin stuff than HTC which only had to sell high margin mobile devices.
    Are you seriously stating that Apple sells their products at very low margins and makes up for it by volume (when compared to other competing products)???

    You also just stated that they make more profit per sale when compared to HTC but then in the next sentence state they sell "stuff" at a lower margin?

    Edit: This is fairly standard knowledge for most but just something to enlighten people a bit.

    Quote Originally Posted by ComputerWorld
    High profit margins are standard for Apple, which earlier in the week boasted that its corporate margin for 2009's final quarter was 40.1%. Some products, in fact, have estimated margins even higher than Marshall's iPad numbers: The consensus for the iPhone 3GS is above 60%, for example.
    Apple makes $208 on each $499 iPad

    How Apple is squeezing out more profit than ever

    Apple Maintains Huge Profit Margin With iPhone 4
    Last edited by gmanvbva; 09/01/2010 at 10:59 AM.
  9. #69  
    Apple knows marketing (which price is part of). They charge a premium for their brand but they also know that price is important and that often it denotes quality. Letting amazon sell iphones for free would hurt their brand.

    Other companies don't care (or can't do much about it..think Palm before HP came along). They're not trying to brand like Apple is doing. HTC Evo? That brand won't be around long enough for HTC to care about building on it. They'll come out with another phone with a different name.

    Here's a question. Should HP be more controlling over who sells their future webOS products? Should they be firm on price and try to take more control of marketing and build a brand? IMO, if HP wants to out-apple Apple, then it's important for HP to understand what makes Apple successful.
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardfan View Post
    Here's a question. Should HP be more controlling over who sells their future webOS products? Should they be firm on price and try to take more control of marketing and build a brand? IMO, if HP wants to out-apple Apple, then it's important for HP to understand what makes Apple successful.
    But in HP's case, it's already broadly known that they are a high-volume, low margin, often loss-leader company. Trying to stake a claim in the high margin/high profit world on only a single product line (whose previous versions, the Pre/Pixi, were low margin, marginally accepted products) would be an aggressive approach for sure.

    Are there examples of companies that completely rebrand themselves from what is essentially a commodity pusher to a high-margin, luxury device manufacturer? Would HTC fit that mold?
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardfan View Post
    Apple knows marketing (which price is part of). They charge a premium for their brand but they also know that price is important and that often it denotes quality. Letting amazon sell iphones for free would hurt their brand.
    ...
    Along those lines, historically (and to be fair, it's been a long time since I owned my computer store) Apple strictly controlled how low authorized retailers could sell the products. It was, in part, because of this very reason - they did not want a lowball price to reflect on the brand.
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kupe View Post
    But in HP's case, it's already broadly known that they are a high-volume, low margin, often loss-leader company. Trying to stake a claim in the high margin/high profit world on only a single product line (whose previous versions, the Pre/Pixi, were low margin, marginally accepted products) would be an aggressive approach for sure.
    While arguably the Pre and Pixi could fit that category (low margin, marginally accepted), historically, Palm in general did not (at least, not until the Centro arrived on the scene).

    Maybe keeping the Palm brand is part of a plan by HP to keep that product line away from "high volume, low margin, loss leader" category.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kupe View Post
    Are there examples of companies that completely rebrand themselves from what is essentially a commodity pusher to a high-margin, luxury device manufacturer? Would HTC fit that mold?
    GoldStar comes to mind, which years ago was crap in electronics, they are now LG. I suspect the name change was a deliberate part of that transition.
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    While arguably the Pre and Pixi could fit that category (low margin, marginally accepted), historically, Palm in general did not (at least, not until the Centro arrived on the scene).

    Maybe keeping the Palm brand is part of a plan by HP to keep that product line away from "high volume, low margin, loss leader" category.


    GoldStar comes to mind, which years ago was crap in electronics, they are now LG. I suspect the name change was a deliberate part of that transition.
    Thanks. Agreed about Palm's cachet back in the day - will be interesting if folks will still believe in it after the Pre/Pixi era in a device coming from HP.

    LG - excellent example. Exactly fits what I was asking proving it can be done. The complete name change is reminiscent of Witness Protection and a chance to start over. I was lean toward ASUS for my example with their cheaper mother boards giving way to higher end laptops, but I think they actually may have gone in the opposite direction by embroiling themselves in Netbook price wars.
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by gmanvbva View Post
    You have a pretty simplistic understanding of business and your ignorance is showing, if you are (seriously?) trying to make your case in this manner.

    I'm giving you an out here... you should probably take it...

    You can't simply take a companies overall (reported) revenue and divide it by the (estimated) number of units sold and come up with the price they are charging the carrier for each device...

    Most estimates of high-end smartphones put the cost around $160-$200 just for the components.

    For example, it is estimated that the cost just for the components of the Droid 2 is ~$170 and the iPhone4 is ~$187.

    Those estimates don't include R&D, software, marketing and other "soft" costs.

    Certainly HTC, Motorola, Apple, etc. need more than a ~10% markup from hard component costs to make up for all those other costs AND still be profitable.
    Dude, you are totally clueless. I wasn't trying to say that they are charging the carriers that small amount of money that I quoted. I was pointing out to you that HTC, based upon their reported $1.88 billion in revenue and about 9 million devices sold, are not selling as many premium phones as you think they are because you see that certain premium phones are always sold out.

    If they were selling their premium phones to the carriers for an average of $300 each then they would have brought in a lot more than $1.88 billion revenue. Which tells you that they are not selling as many premium phones as you think. It doesn't take a financial analyst to figure than out.

    Then you totally ignore this that I posted...

    Now, do you really think that HTC was selling that many premium phones to the carriers for $139 while the consumer is expected to to pay $199 on contract? Or, were they selling a ton of cheap phones and a lot less premium phones which is why they are constantly out of stock.
    Great going there, GENIUS, on ignoring an important part of my post in your response. I have to give you an A+ on that one. Maybe you should give yourself and easy out and stop responding to only a part of someone's post.

    You're the one that keeps screaming, that they are always sold out because they can't make them fast enough.

    Let me give you an example:

    Verizon on average gets in 50 HTC premium phones per week and they sell out immediately at the beginning of each week and say we are out of stock.

    Apple on average gets in 500 iPhones per week and they sell 450 per week not running out. They never say they are out of stock.

    Who sold more phones in that month?

    Do you now see that just because a phone is always out of stock does not mean that they are selling a lot of them?
  15. #75  
    yaggermr, to sum this up in the least amount of words. Apple is a premium manufacturer of consumer products. But, people want to compare them to lesser products or say they are over priced.

    It's no different than ignorant people that say a Lexus is nothing more than a glorified Toyota with leather.
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by gmanvbva View Post
    Are you seriously stating that Apple sells their products at very low margins and makes up for it by volume (when compared to other competing products)???

    You also just stated that they make more profit per sale when compared to HTC but then in the next sentence state they sell "stuff" at a lower margin?

    Edit: This is fairly standard knowledge for most but just something to enlighten people a bit.



    Apple makes $208 on each $499 iPad

    How Apple is squeezing out more profit than ever

    Apple Maintains Huge Profit Margin With iPhone 4
    Ever heard of something called the iTunes store? Last quarter Apple brought in about $1 billion in revenue from the iTunes store. They have always said that they basically break even on running that store because most the money goes back to the labels and the rest is used for the cost of running the store. So, they made very little profit from that $1 billion.

    That's one MAJOR example of a major product service from Apple that is low margin for them.
  17. #77  
    First you say they are selling them for $198... then state that wasn't what you really said... Then state that HTC would have made more revenue if they charged $300 to the carriers...

    It's generally believed that carriers pay $450+ for these high end devices.

    And lmao at Apple earning 1Billion in revenue in the iTunes store but most of that goes back to the labels and the cost of "running the iTunes store"....

    You also realize that they are leveraging the iTunes store in order to sell their devices at high margins?

    Nevermind.... You are absolutely all over the place...
    Last edited by gmanvbva; 09/01/2010 at 10:38 PM.
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by SoFly View Post
    Ever heard of something called the iTunes store? Last quarter Apple brought in about $1 billion in revenue from the iTunes store. They have always said that they basically break even on running that store because most the money goes back to the labels and the rest is used for the cost of running the store. So, they made very little profit from that $1 billion.

    That's one MAJOR example of a major product service from Apple that is low margin for them.
    iTunes is more of a service than it is a product. Apple gives away the iTunes software and doesn't own the products within iTunes. It's simply a foundation for their ecosystem designed to link up all their own products to desirable, related products made by others - making their own products all the more valuable.
  19. #79  
    In regards to the subject. A phone need not sell as much as the iPhone to be successful. That's silly and ridiculous to expect. It just has to make the manufactuer a, ya know, profit. It's just stupid to base if a device is successful off of what Apple's numbers are. There is more then enough space in the mobile market for a bunch of successful devices.
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by SoFly View Post
    yaggermr, to sum this up in the least amount of words. Apple is a premium manufacturer of consumer products. But, people want to compare them to lesser products or say they are over priced.

    It's no different than ignorant people that say a Lexus is nothing more than a glorified Toyota with leather.
    What you fail to realize is that for some people, Apple is the product that is the Toyota, and they're happy owning what they perceive to be the Lexus.

    But I know...we're an ignorant bunch content with lesser goods. Good to see some people living in defiance of the stereotype of Apple fans as snobby jerks who get off goading people who own other devices.....


    ........

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions