5 ms·

Offering an stunning device like this for $199 and $55 per month will likely result in an extended period of short supplies. Most people are accustomed to payi

by marze 16y ago

Offering an stunning device like this for $199 and $55 per month will likely result in an extended period of short supplies. Most people are accustomed to paying this for much lesser phones. Apple is fighting with both hands tied behind their back by limiting availability to one carrier in the US, though.

jimbokun 16y ago
"Apple is fighting with both hands tied behind their back by limiting availability to one carrier in the US, though." And winning.
- enjo 16y ago
  Not winning in terms of trending. They've opened the door wide-open for Android, and it's making rapid inroads. The new iPhone is a great phone, but it's no longer leaps and bounds ahead the competition. With Froyo I'm not sure that it's even a clear-cut leader in software anymore. The cloud-level integration of Android is already putting some strain on Apples market lead. I'm not sure it's fair to say that Apple is 'winning' at this point. All of the current trends look like a dog-fight is coming. I continue to believe that Google wins this (by a wide margin) in the end.
- billmcneale 16y ago
  They're winning in terms of quality of the phones that they release, but they are already losing at the numbers. Nokia is #1, Android is #2 and while the iPhone is currently #3, it's likely that it will have to fight with RIM and Microsoft to maintain this spot. And in a few years, Android's market share will probably dwarf Apple's, considering the current trend. Apple just can't fight against dozens of manufacturers and carriers around the world.
  - rimantas 16y ago
    Wrong numbers. Apple is interested in money, not market share. Compare financial results of Nokia and Apple and tell me you still think Nokia is doing well being #1.
    - billmcneale 16y ago
      It doesn't matter what Apple is interested in, I was just quoting existing numbers. Apple is #3 and likely to become #4 in the next couple of years. Whether they enjoy that position or not is irrelevant to this discussion. We're discussing market share, not revenues. Besides, I'm pretty sure Apple would love to lead both in market share and in revenues.
      - jimbokun 16y ago
        I'm pretty sure Apple would pick profits over both.
        billmcneale 16y ago
        Haha, touché. I was talking about profits, of course. Nokia's revenues dwarf Apple's but they not making anywhere near as much money as Apple is. Back to the original point, it's funny how any observation that Apple is now #3 and about to become #4 in market share is automatically met with "Bah, Apple doesn't care about that, they only care about money". Try it, it never misses.
sorbus 16y ago
Ah ... I was wondering how much the contract was monthly, mostly so I could figure out how much it actually costs over two years. At $55, the total cost is $1520. Somehow, I don't think that quite as many people would pay that much for it if they had to up-front.
- ptomato 16y ago
  They might if that up-front price also included the service for those two years.
  - sorbus 16y ago
    True; that was what I was thinking, in fact. What I was trying to get at is that it's easier for the human mind to deal with lower costs which continue over a long time than a high cost up front, even if the same thing with all the same features is being purchased.

by marze 16y ago

jimbokun 16y ago

"Apple is fighting with both hands tied behind their back by limiting availability to one carrier in the US, though." And winning.

enjo 16y ago
Not winning in terms of trending. They've opened the door wide-open for Android, and it's making rapid inroads. The new iPhone is a great phone, but it's no longer leaps and bounds ahead the competition. With Froyo I'm not sure that it's even a clear-cut leader in software anymore. The cloud-level integration of Android is already putting some strain on Apples market lead. I'm not sure it's fair to say that Apple is 'winning' at this point. All of the current trends look like a dog-fight is coming. I continue to believe that Google wins this (by a wide margin) in the end.
billmcneale 16y ago
They're winning in terms of quality of the phones that they release, but they are already losing at the numbers. Nokia is #1, Android is #2 and while the iPhone is currently #3, it's likely that it will have to fight with RIM and Microsoft to maintain this spot. And in a few years, Android's market share will probably dwarf Apple's, considering the current trend. Apple just can't fight against dozens of manufacturers and carriers around the world.
- rimantas 16y ago
  Wrong numbers. Apple is interested in money, not market share. Compare financial results of Nokia and Apple and tell me you still think Nokia is doing well being #1.
  - billmcneale 16y ago
    It doesn't matter what Apple is interested in, I was just quoting existing numbers. Apple is #3 and likely to become #4 in the next couple of years. Whether they enjoy that position or not is irrelevant to this discussion. We're discussing market share, not revenues. Besides, I'm pretty sure Apple would love to lead both in market share and in revenues.
    - jimbokun 16y ago
      I'm pretty sure Apple would pick profits over both.
      - billmcneale 16y ago
        Haha, touché. I was talking about profits, of course. Nokia's revenues dwarf Apple's but they not making anywhere near as much money as Apple is. Back to the original point, it's funny how any observation that Apple is now #3 and about to become #4 in market share is automatically met with "Bah, Apple doesn't care about that, they only care about money". Try it, it never misses.

sorbus 16y ago

Ah ... I was wondering how much the contract was monthly, mostly so I could figure out how much it actually costs over two years. At $55, the total cost is $1520. Somehow, I don't think that quite as many people would pay that much for it if they had to up-front.

ptomato 16y ago
They might if that up-front price also included the service for those two years.
- sorbus 16y ago
  True; that was what I was thinking, in fact. What I was trying to get at is that it's easier for the human mind to deal with lower costs which continue over a long time than a high cost up front, even if the same thing with all the same features is being purchased.