Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 171
  1. #141  
    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    Back on topic:

    Some took umbrage to my calling the Galaxy S a free phone. They argued that Android phones start at the same premium pricepoint as the iPhone. They ignore the fact that those pricepoints drop in a matter of days.

    Now, the forth leg of the Galaxy S has been installed at Verizon. Guess what? It's a BOGOF! Right off the bat, half the units sold are FREE! Every one of those free phones pads the number of Android activations. This is what you call competition?
    None of those phones are free. You keep trying to make a point but it's based on an invalid arguement.

    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    This is the reality of the market. The iPhone has no competition.
    Sheep think there's no competition for grass, but some other animals like to eat meat.

    It's very early in the smartphone game.
  2. #142  
    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    Dude, you are just arguing semantics. The "F" in BOGOF stands for "free".
    And you are leaving out one of the other important parts of the acronym, as well as the unstated fine print.

    B = Buy. If you have to buy something, what you are getting ain't free, it's subsidized. That word "free" is a marketing ploy. You seem to have fallen for it. You apparently are part of the "masses" at which it's aimed.
    Fine Print - you only get the "free" phone if you sign another contract (over and above the one you are currently signing).

    So, not only must you buy the first phone, you must sign a contract as well. That is not free.
  3. #143  
    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    Let's pretend that the mythical Verizon iPhone existed. We know it would never be free by any definition. Let's further speculate that the contract for service is the same as any other Verizon phone, minus the crapware...
    You "know" that?? How do you "know" that?? You're 100% sure that the iPhone, when it comes to Verizon, will never be part of a BOGO promotion?
  4. #144  
    Quote Originally Posted by finngirl View Post
    The point is:


    Marketing discounts (free, discounted, half off, BOGOF, family and friends) vs. premium pricing.


    Apple/ATT doesn't do the former. Or at least hasn't.

    Apple iPhone (which by extension, means ATT) is premium priced and not discounted until nearing EOL.

    Most other phones do the former, in some fashion, to generate phone contracts.

    Two different models. Which should PRE compete in, is the question.
    You've hit a lot of pertinent points, but missed one very big one that is staring right at you. If it'd been a snake, it would have bitten you.

    You're right, AT&T doesn't do marketing discounts on the iPhone. But, that's not because of the iPhone is some magical mystical device that will never be given discounts. As already has been mentioned - you can get discounts on the iPhone in other countries.

    The iPhone has not been a discount phone because only one carrier has carried it in the US, and thus has not had to compete with anyone.

    That's not true of other phones. Nor will it be true much longer.
  5.    #145  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    And you are leaving out one of the other important parts of the acronym, as well as the unstated fine print.

    B = Buy. If you have to buy something, what you are getting ain't free, it's subsidized. That word "free" is a marketing ploy. You seem to have fallen for it. You apparently are part of the "masses" at which it's aimed.
    Fine Print - you only get the "free" phone if you sign another contract (over and above the one you are currently signing).
    That reasoning is faulty. I just pointed out the difference between amortizing the cost of something over time, and discounting it. Your argument only makes sense if Verizon charged a higher contract price for the free phone, which is what happens elsewhere in the world. Instead, Verizon charges the same contract price for the free phone and the paid phone. They are only charging for the contract. The phone is free. Apple does not allow this.

    Some, here, seem offended by the notion that Apple uses a premium model and is successful with it. You want to believe that everyone is in the same race to the bottom. That is quite insane. Just try to get a truly discounted iPhone from an authorized seller. You can't.

    The question still stands. Which would be best for the upcoming Palm offering? Despite your protests to the contrary, not all sales models are the same. I have suggested that Palm do what is being done with the Fascinate: sell it free or bogof. Since one sales model is the same as another for most of you, why not eliminate all up-front costs and make it a contract play.

    Another part of the question is who will Palm choose to compete against? Does it make sense to go directly after Apple with a premium pricing model. Or should they go after Android with the freemium model? Perhaps they could even go after the RIM/WM segment by offering a corporate discount to large companies.
  6.    #146  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    As already has been mentioned - you can get discounts on the iPhone in other countries.
    Where? The O2 example is NOT a discount. You are just trying to confuse the issue by using the word. What O2 is doing is more like credit. You buy something with a credit card, you don't pay an up-front fee. What you bought is not discounted; it's amortized. You pay every penny, and more.

    Android phones, Fascinate, RIM, Palm, and every other phone I can think of gets discounted very soon after release. The cost is not amortized as the contract price does not go up. You are either confused or being dishonest. Or, I am mistaken. In which case, where is your evidence that the iPhone is being discounted by carriers.?
  7. #147  
    I believe you meant to say Apple is succeeding with a freemium model subsidized by ATT and free with other carriers or are YOU now the one arguing semantics?

    You have to let me know when your arbitrary rules apply, Dandbj13...
  8. #148  
    Hey, everybody....remember when the price of the iPhone on ATT was cut by 66 percent just one year after launch?

    Shhhhh....don't tell.
  9.    #149  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    Hey, everybody....remember when the price of the iPhone on ATT was cut by 66 percent just one year after launch?

    Shhhhh....don't tell.
    Now, you're just being silly. I'm pretty sure you are aware that the iPhone started out completely unsubsidized. I don't think I ever suggested that the iPhone was not subsidized. But you know that already.

    You also know the difference between discounting and amortizing. You know that even overseas, there is still a premium pricing model even among phones that have no up-front cost. You know the contract pricing varies on those carriers as widely as up-front pricing varies in America. Again, you are just trying to confuse the issue because your arguments are bankrupt.

    Every time I get things back on topic, Palm's competitive strategy, you continue to shout it down. Why? What are you so afraid of?

    Stay on topic if you please.
  10. #150  
    Hi kids. We have received reports about thread bullies in these here parts. If your "that guy" cut it out! Whole posts may start vanishing if they are found to be violating forum doctrine as I don't have the patience to edit today (plus that inevitably make some people cranky).

    Edit ---> Looks like your all giving as good as your getting. Just remember to keep it civil and try and stay somewhere close to on topic......

    If your looking for guidance as to what "keep it civil" might mean:

    Random dude from the Internet posts on a public forum. You write something in response to that. Some other random dude from the Internet posts in response to your post and references the OP and calls you all morons. At this point you could reply and explain how much of daft ****** you think this guy is or perhaps passively aggressively ask the guy if he is being obtuse or just missing your argument.

    OR....you could hit the report button and let the mods know that the Internet has been infiltrated by an ignoramus (again) and move on.

    Hint - the report option is the P|C Forum preferred choice.
    Last edited by ryleyinstl; 09/08/2010 at 04:40 PM.
    Sprint|Samsung Epic
  11. #151  
    Let's say that you are a typical smartphone owner and want Unlimited Data and Unlimited Text. The one thing you never do on your phone is talk so you want as few minutes as possible.

    The total cost of ownership over 24 months:
    $3,517.76 - Verizon Droid (Unlimited Everything)
    $2,868.76 - Sprint EVO (Unlimited Everything)
    $2,578.76 - Sprint Hero (Unlimited Everything)
    $2,548.76 - T-Mobile My Touch (Unlimited Everything)
    $2,238.76 - iPhone 4
    $2,138.76 - iPhone 3GS
    $2,118.76 - EVO
    $2,068.76 - T-Mobile My Touch
    $1,998.52 - Verizon Droid
    $1,828.76 - Sprint Hero
    $1,540.00 - Cricket Zio

    So yes, ATT does discount iPhones. And secretly there really is no such thing as a free anything. You really are paying for it. You just might not realize the slight of hand that occurred.

    But if you are going to spend that much a month they should include A/C and an automatic transmission like the Kia Forte ($149/month).

    Want to see where all the numbers came from? Read on.

    ----------------------------------------

    If you buy a 16GB iPhone 4 from ATT (Cell Phones and Cell Phone Plans - Wireless from AT&T) on a two year unlimited voice and texting contract, you pay $199 today and then each month:

    $39.99 Nation 450 w/Rollover® Minutes
    $25.00 DataPro 2 GB (not Unlimited Data but as good as Apple gets.)
    $20.00 Messaging Unlimited
    -------
    $84.99 x 24 = $2039.76 + $199 initial = $2,238.76 Total cost for iPhone 4

    Say with Sprint you go with a $199 EVO and the 400 Minute Everything Data. That costs per month:
    $69.99 Everything Data 400 minutes (but no charge to any mobile)
    $10.00 4G
    $ 0.00 Unlimited data
    $ 0.00 Unlimited messaging
    ------
    $79.99 x 24 = $1919,76 + $199 initial = $2,118.76 Total cost for EVO

    If you buy a discounted 8GB iPhone 3GS from ATT on a two year unlimited voice and texting contract, you pay $99 today and then each month:

    $39.99 Nation 450 w/Rollover® Minutes
    $25.00 DataPro 2 GB (not Unlimited Data but as good as Apple gets.)
    $20.00 Messaging Unlimited
    -------
    $84.99 x 24 = $2039.76 + $99 initial = $2,138.76 Total cost for iPhone 3GS

    The Sprint Hero with 400 Minute Everything Data is $99 up front plus each month:
    $69.99 Everything Data 400 minutes (but no charge to any mobile)
    $ 0.00 Unlimited data
    $ 0.00 Unlimited messaging
    ------
    $69.99 x 24 = $1679.76 + $149 initial = $1,828.76 Total cost for Hero

    The Sprint Samsung Intercept is only $99, bringing you down to $1778. If Sprint gave it away for free, it's still $1,679.

    Similarly, the Verizon Droid is $1998.52 and T-Mobile My Touch is $2068.76. Linkto these and Unlimited Plan Comparisons.

    As to Prepaid Androids, The Cricket Zio at 3.5", 480 x 800, is $229 + $55 a month. For 24 months, that's $1,540.

    So add it up any way you like but don't ever think that you got anything for "free."

    And the shelf-life is now designed to be 9 months. The phones are coming too fast to keep them any longer than that.

    - Craig bookmark
    Last edited by milominderbinder; 10/05/2010 at 04:18 PM.
  12. #152  
    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    Now, you're just being silly. I'm pretty sure you are aware that the iPhone started out completely unsubsidized. I don't think I ever suggested that the iPhone was not subsidized. But you know that already.
    Subsidy = discount. That's what allows BOGO and third party discounts for new subscribers as was repeatedly explained to you in the last thread you started about this rather silly argument. You mock Android for having it, then try to explain away every iPhone price break.

    BTW, the first price and most significant iPhone price drop had nothing to do with subsidies. Apple lowered the price due to customer dissastisfaction. They even sent out apology credits for the early adopters.

    You also know the difference between discounting and amortizing. You know that even overseas, there is still a premium pricing model even among phones that have no up-front cost. You know the contract pricing varies on those carriers as widely as up-front pricing varies in America. Again, you are just trying to confuse the issue because your arguments are bankrupt.
    Please. There's no confusion. You're the one that thinks that BOGO devices are "free". If they are, then amortized iPhones are as well. You can't slam one and forgive the other.

    Every time I get things back on topic, Palm's competitive strategy, you continue to shout it down. Why? What are you so afraid of?

    Stay on topic if you please.
    I'm not shouting anything down. You spent the vast majority of your original post and subsequent posts boasting about iPhone and mocking Android, not talking about Palm. I'm following your precedent and your priorities. Don't be upset that your fallacious rambling has been exposed yet again.

    But at least I know how to properly refer to an iPhone now...."freemium".
  13. #153  
    Quote Originally Posted by milominderbinder View Post

    So yes, ATT does discount iPhones. And secretly there really is no such thing as a free anything. You really are paying for it. You just might not realize the slight of hand that occurred.

    ...

    So add it up any way you like but don't ever think that you got anything for "free."

    - Craig
    For those having a hard time with this, it's like those "We Pay the Sales Tax" promotions. Not only are they NOT paying the sales tax, but they get suckers to think they are getting a bargain when the discount is only 7 or 8 percent. Most people would even bother reading through an ad 'bragging' about a 7% off sale. It all marketing, folks.
  14. #154  
    I just wanted to note that dandbj13's arguments are so ridiculous that he got Mikah912 and Hparsons to agree. That's impressive. Carry on.
  15.    #155  
    I have yet to see an example of a carrier lowering the price of the iPhone after the subsidized price has been set. If I am not mistaken, Apple negotiates those prices and contracts with the carrier up front. The carrier is not free to adjust the prices at will. That is the difference between a pre-arranged subsidy and a carrier discount to spur sales. Pre-negotiated carrier subsidies are not the same as after-the-fact carrier discounts. Stop trying to conflate the two.

    The long exposition of contract prices of various phones does more to prove my point. The contract pricing from the carrier for different phones in the same class is the same. The only difference is the price of the phone. When a carrier offers a free or discounted phone, they are not making up the regular price of the phone somewhere else. The phone is actually free or discounted. It is just that the profits from the contract are deemed worthy compensation.

    Personally, I like the non-American sales model. It seems a bit more honest. Instead of up-front cost, the consumer has to consider the monthly cost of ownership. There is still a premium model in that system, which the iPhone has. Why are you so insistent that there is no such thing as a premium sales model? You don't have to like it. But it hardly makes sense to deny it.

    The question, as it has been from the beginning is what sales model would be best for the upcoming Palm phone, and who are they competing against.
  16.    #156  
    Let's be clear. Carriers do not sell phones, they sell phone contracts. Their investment is in cell towers and infrastructure. They could care less about phones as end users. They only care about what will sell the most contracts.

    They participate in subsidizing the cost of the handset because they know that consumers will not pay full price for modern handsets. No handsets, no big contract. Naturally, they would prefer to pay as little subsidy as possible.

    At some point, their investment of inventory has to move so that new contracts can be signed. If a phone is not moving, or expected to move at a certain price, the carrier lowers the price until it moves. They will lower the price until the hardware is less than free to the end user if that is what it takes to get him to sign a contract for service.

    Now, from a competitive standpoint, iPhones do not go through that discounting process until Apple decides to do so. That seldom happens. iPhones live out their sales lives with the same premium pricetag they started with. Further, carriers do not have to discount them to move them. iPhones continue to sell well long after other superphones have been heavily discounted. These are the simple facts of the market.

    Frankly, I have no problem with the phone-as-loss leader approach. But let's not try to compare sales numbers of phones when sold with wildly different business models.

    The next Palm phone might well be as good as any iPhone. That is not the question. The question is what sales model would best suit Palm. I do not believe the Apple model will work for them, as it has not worked for anyone in the US so far. The problem with the freemium model is that Google is sucking all of the oxygen out of that particular room. Who Palm chooses to measure themselves against will decide how successful their next device will be IMO
  17. #157  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    LOL. You've come unraveled, my son.

    Here. Aaaaaaaand Here. Have a nice weekend.
    You pulled up two articles, one from over TWO years ago and the other from a year ago. I thought we were talking about the present and maybe the future.

    OK, let's look in the past:

    Palm Unveils Its iPhone Rival: The Pre. Don’t Expect to Buy One Cheap. | Peter Kafka | MediaMemo | AllThingsD

    My assumption is that Palm (PALM) would try to take market share by coming in significantly lower than the $200 or so Apple wants for its iPhone. But when I ran that theory by Palm CEO Ed Colligan, he looked at me liked I’d peed on his rug. “Why would we do that when we have a significantly better product,” he asked, then walked away.
    and who can forget this famous quote...

    MacDailyNews - Palm CEO laughs off Apple 'iPhone' threat

    'We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone,' he said. 'PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in.'"
    My, my how things have changed for Apple and Palm with the Palm Pre over the past few years. Let's see, Apple is still the top dog with the iPhone. The iPod line is still the leader. The Mac sales have increased all this time, growing faster than the overall PC market. The iPad just took off like a rocket and hasn't slowed down yet. Apple is now the world's most valuable tech company.

    Palm? Yeah, all that talk from a few years ago and now it's just another division of HP and the Pre is a joke in the smart phone market. Now, being given away by HP for free. Since you wanted to bring up what was said or happened in the past.

    But, to focus on Safari when no one (including me) has ever said it was going to be taking over any browser markets is just plain silly.
  18. #158  
    Quote Originally Posted by C-Note View Post
    You are making my point, You really can't have it both ways:

    *They make Safari for Windows, but don't really try to compete in the PC market. And why has Firefox and Chrome been able to pickup more market share that Safari. None of those come pre-installed either. And Mozilla has nowhere near the resources.

    *A "respectable share" means they don't dominate (not even close) in those markets (except maybe the Graphics professional market). But with the same type of upscale marketing, the dominate in the smartphone market (at least so far). I serious doubt that Steve Jobs and company is so driven in one phase of business (phones) but could care less about grabbing the lion's share of sales in another (PC's and Laptops).

    (Just curious, how does the mini mac compare against your typically priced PC? - prices are close enough for a valid comparison)

    * Apple doesn't go after the business market????
    see: Apple - Business
    They just have NOT had the same success there so far. It more like business hasn't gone after them.

    And I'm hardly a Micro$oft fan, and I certainly would not consider Apple to be a failure (don't think anyone has claimed that). But frequently when a company has success, they buy into their own hype... as do their fans.

    I can guarantee you that by this time next year, we will have seen a number of moves by Apple to shore up their position from primarily Android, but possibly also from RIM (and if HP start to show a measure of success, Palm as well).

    If the mythology is true, none of this would be necessary. Simply keep making the superior product and "they will come" - at any price. No marketing, no price discounts, no additional carriers, no increase the speed of new phone releases.
    Please go to this web page and I want you to study that chart very carefully...

    CHART OF THE DAY: Apple Is In The Middle Of The Pack On Revenue, But Crushing On Operating Profit

    Apple does go after the lion's share. The lion's share of the profits as the chart in the web link shows.

    Corporations exist to make a ton of money. Not to worry about if a lot of users are going to use a free web browser.

    Apple has traditionally not gone after enterprise businesses. I did not say that they ignore ALL businesses.

    And, yes, I'm sure Apple would love to sell 500 million computers a year if they could. But, they will only sell them if 500 million people are going to pay Apple's prices. Apple is not going to go strictly after market share and lower their prices to get that market share. As I have said numerous times before Apple doesn't compete in every computer market. Only the ones where there is a market for their Macs at their prices. And looking at that chart, seems they are doing a damn good job as far as profits are concerned. What else matters?
    Last edited by SoFly; 09/08/2010 at 07:05 PM.
  19. #159  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Mikah,

    He's projecting the policies of one department on to the entire federal government, and the projection is false.

    I work for the federal government as well. In the branch I work for (indirectly, I work for a contractor), IE is the standard, Firefox was only recently implemented, and its use is not forced.

    I doubt anyone is removing IE from any federal computers, it's a pretty complex proecedure with lots of ramifications.
    Wow, people love to take things out of context. No where did I say the entire federal government was using Firefox.

    Nor, did I say we removed IE. I said it was restricted to web sites that require the use of IE.
  20. #160  
    Quote Originally Posted by SoFly View Post
    Please go to this web page and I want you to study that chart very carefully...

    CHART OF THE DAY: Apple Is In The Middle Of The Pack On Revenue, But Crushing On Operating Profit

    Apple does go after the lion's share. The lion's share of the profits as the chart in the web link shows.

    Corporations exist to make a ton of money. Not to worry about if a lot of users are going to use a free web browser.

    Apple has traditionally not gone after enterprise businesses. I did not say that they ignore ALL businesses.

    And, yes, I'm sure Apple would love to sell 500 million computers a year if they could. But, they will only sell them if 500 million people are going to pay Apple's prices. Apple is not going to go strictly after market share and lower their prices to get that market share. As I have said numerous times before Apple doesn't compete in every computer market. Only the ones where there is a market for their Macs at their prices. And looking at that chart, seems they are doing a damn good job as far as profits are concerned. What else matters?
    One selective business chart deserves another:

    AppleInsider | Apple's share of U.S. PC market slips to 7.4% as sales decline

    So if I can sell "x" number of units at a 50% profit, but COULD sell "4x" units at a 25% profit, how as a corporation am I making tons of money for my shareholders by leaving that money on the table? The percentage of profit may be lower but the amount of profit will be higher.

    Once again, how are the Mini Mac's selling as compared to comparably priced PC's?

    Certainly in the phone market, the coming year will tell the tale. Let's see if Apple continues with business as usual. We shall see. If Apple doesn't change how they are doing business in the smartphone arena I'll eat crow. But don't count on it.
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions