More iPhone Details - $599 4GB and $649 8GB? [Updated]

[pizzacake]

I can't even figure out why anyone would want a phone from Apple?

Who knows if they will even make a good phone. It is a completely different product than either a computer or an mp3 player. It is also a highly competitive market that is completely saturated with already established strong players.

I love Apple computers and ipods but frankly I haven't much been impressed by their durability or quality control. I have owned 15 different Apple computers and 8 different ipods. All lof them are as dead as a doornail except for two ipods and 2 computers. Both of which are new (less than 2 years old.) I treated each Apple like gold and yet they all failed for different reasons. Primarily display problems, logic board failure, and flimsey hinges and latches.

On the other hand I have two early 90's toshiba laptops, 1 gateway late 90's laptop, 1 dell late 90's laptop, 1 commodore 64, and 1 amiga 2000. All of which run like new and have been used heavily under all conditions.

Apple is notorious for problems on generation 1 hardware. Personally I am not convinced that Apple could make a good, durable, well-designed, gen. 1 phone worth the $500+.

Sorry but I'll have to pass and let some other poor "sucker" er - um person buy a new iphone.

Wow, " I have owned 15 different Apple computers and 8 different ipods" :eek: . I'd have to be a real sucker for punishment to keep buying Mac's if I went through as many duds as you have :p . I started using Mac's in 1990 beginning with a Mac SE/30. In sixteen years I've only owned six Macs and never has one had a hardware failure. Did you buy your Mac's second hand? My current Mac is a gen. 1 Mac Mini G4, loaded it myself with 1GB ram and it's been absolutely rock solid :) My first and only iPod, an iPod Mini 2nd Gen. despite hitting concrete many times is still working perfectly even though it wouldn't win any beauty contests. My only grumble would be the battery which was only good for about 14 months but because I replaced the battery myself it was dirt cheap to do so and now my iPod's going like a trooper again :D

[Philsy]

You still didn't address my point about per user. If apple is looking to test the waters and doesn't want to screw itself royally if this bombs what's better than delving into the pockets of Americans who will buy a new phone every 2 years whether they need it or not?

Every two years? You're pushing the boat out. Most people in the UK upgrade every year.

[SeaFox]

Every two years? You're pushing the boat out. Most people in the UK upgrade every year.

Contracts in the U.S. are usually 2 year.

[nplima]

I can't even figure out why anyone would want a phone from Apple?

Different people will come up with their own reasons, but as far as I'm concernced the biggest deal is iSync. So far, for every mobile phone you want to sync or use as a modem for your computer you either need to:
a) pray that the manufacturer has decided to allow it to work with a known standard (vcard, non-crippled bluetooth, USB mass storage, a standard USB cable, even iSync...);
b) install yet another Windows-only application that resides in Windows notification area and tries to get just a little bit of attention whenever it feels like.

These two factors leave out just too many phone models. Samsung doesn't even bother to support Macs, Nokias are compatible but you need their PCSuite to get the most out of the phone, etc. Overall, the manufacturers treat their Sync software as another tool to lock you in. The difference between being locked in by a phone manufacturer or a computer manufacturer being that there are many known ways to interact with computer comm ports, ie: sooner or later the user gets back in charge.

At this moment I trust Apple to create a good solution for using the peripherals with the Mac while being able to extract *MY* information from *MY* computer and take it with me wherever I want. Phone manufacturers are not as willing and that's why I expect Apple and their customers to change a few things, such as turn iSync compatibility into a feature that other phones need to have.

[Evangelion]

Yup, but the cell phone...

Can't play DVDs, or CDs
Can't run Microsoft office
Can't do photo or video editing
Can't do video chat


And the iMac

- Doesn't fit in your pocket

And in addition:

- You can't use your iMac to drive to work
- iMac can't have your babies
- You can't mown your lawn with the iMac

In short: you are comparing apples and oranges. Saying something like "if I paid little more, I could get an iMac instead" is more or less the same as saying "Instead of buying a DSLR, I could pay a bit more and get a MacBook instead". Since when is MacBook an alternative to DSLR? Since when is iMac an alternative to a cell-phone? If you want a cell-phone, iMac is not an alternative.

The more I read this thread, the more I appreciate the way cell-phone market operates here (Finland). Cell-phones are subscriptions are separated (yes, there are bundles of phones and services, but still). You buy your phone (which is totally, 100%, unlocked. And ALL the features work, it's not crippled in any shape or form), and you then get a separate subscription. Want to change operators? Go right ahead, you can keep the phone and your phone-number.

Many people here have commented how you can get a phone "for free" if you get a subscription in the same time. Anyone who think that the phone is "free" is deluding themselves. You pay for the phone in the subscription, and you pay through your nose for it.

If Apple was releasing this phone in Finland, how would it work? They would announce and release the phone, people would buy it, and use it with the operator of their choice. Very simple. In USA it seems to be tied to a certain operator, and people complain because "I don't want to switch operators". If not that, you will get loads of people complaining how "expensive" the phone is, as opposed to getting the phone "for free" if you get a subscription as well. Well, it's not free, no matter how you obtain the phone.

How can the market be so damn dysfunctional? Just get a (unlocked & uncrippled) phone, and use it with the operator of your choice. Want to change operators, feel free to do so. That's how it should be. Is it really so that only handful of countries got this right?

[cupique]

Has anyone seen this: http://www.samsung.com/PressCenter/PressRelease/PressRelease.asp?seq=20061102_0000298223

Looks a little familiar.

[Evangelion]

Has anyone seen this: http://www.samsung.com/PressCenter/PressRelease/PressRelease.asp?seq=20061102_0000298223

Looks a little familiar.

Indeed. It looks like Nokia 7280.

[Erasmus]

...How can the market be so damn dysfunctional? Just get a (unlocked & uncrippled) phone, and use it with the operator of your choice. Want to change operators, feel free to do so. That's how it should be. Is it really so that only handful of countries got this right?

I agree. In my opinion, anyone, unless they use their phone an amount that is simply not imaginable to me, is an idiot if they are on a plan. People should shell out cash to buy what they use outright. If you are on a plan, say $30 a month, for two years, that's $720. And I believe $30 a month is a rather low cost plan? People seem to not realise this, and companies go out of their way to keep the consumer in the dark.

The only reason someone should not want to change phone carriers is to keep their phone number.

Again I will express my disbelief that an iPod with the ability to make phone calls and text will cost AU$850.

[DreederOcUK]

$649 is about UK £330, id definately have one at that price as it seems pretty damn cheap, I paid about twice that for my Nokia 8800Sirocco last year.

I hope we see these this side of the pond not long after you Americans get them.

[koobcamuk]

Contracts in the U.S. are usually 2 year.

...and this is why America is so far behind. Contracts here are a year and some are at 18 months tops. A 2 year contract is unheard of in the UK. Most people into gadgets and tech in the UK (or even just bored people) buy phones SIM free. CEX and many other franchises have entire shops dedicated to phones (used/new and unlocked).

There is no way on this planet people in the UK will go for a 2 year contract. Text messaging bundles keep popping up (you know text in the US ? SMS? I know you don't use it much but here it's probably more popular than email - include the 16-25 year olds in this camp) and minutes on the contract are ever-changing to keep up with competition. 2 year contracts? No way.

[koobcamuk]

$649 is about UK £330, id definately have one at that price as it seems pretty damn cheap, I paid about twice that for my Nokia 8800Sirocco last year.

I hope we see these this side of the pond not long after you Americans get them.

What are you doing with the Nokia when you get the iPhone? Drop me an email if you're selling!

[onlytobbe]

here people get brand new phones every 2 years - I wonder what the average is in Europe where you don't sign contracts - I'd bet it's considerably longer

I can't speak for middle(age)europe (though I’ve heard that some countries have laws against locked phones), but in Sweden not many phones are sold without a contract, often giving the phone for free or at least highly subsidized, so I think we change phones atleast as often as you guys, especially now when we have gone over to 3G and HSDPA.

A $599 - $649 price is definitely in the same league as other non locked, non contract phones, so that’s the price I would expect for the high end iPhone. But it sure is a bit too high for the low end one.

If the iPhone is US only I will be very disappointed...

Update: Apparently it works different in Finland, I feel I should have known about that. But I can't see that system being any better, in Sweden we still have the choice of buying that phone we want and then sign a contract or buy a (mobile phone) cash card from any company you please, but I can't see why you would want to do that if the company offer the phone and a contract much cheaper if you buy them as a bundle...

I'm paying ($10 of operator subscription that I can make calls for + $15 for the phone) * 18 months = $450
for my nokia 6280, I find that a good deal considering the phone itself would have cost me over $500 unlocked and without contract!

[AndyR]

$649 is about UK £330, id definately have one at that price as it seems pretty damn cheap, I paid about twice that for my Nokia 8800Sirocco last year.

Yes but don't forget this is the UK so if its $649 then chances are it will be around £649 as well. :eek:

[jameshopkins]

Yes but don't forget this is the UK so if its $649 then chances are it will be around £649 as well. :eek:

Exactly, unless you could go and buy it in the US.

Why are phones so expensive anyway, theres not that much in them. Mainly R&D costs, I think Apple could change the market, and theres no way they would sell them for that hgh, its crazy.

[AndyR]

Exactly, unless you could go and buy it in the US.

Why are phones so expensive anyway, theres not that much in them. Mainly R&D costs, I think Apple could change the market, and theres no way they would sell them for that hgh, its crazy.


Price for phones is stupid yes. I remember reading something on the BBC site the other day which says it takes 75kg of raw materials to make one mobile phone. It didn't go into any more detail but if that true its pretty shocking.

[Evangelion]

I agree. In my opinion, anyone, unless they use their phone an amount that is simply not imaginable to me, is an idiot if they are on a plan. People should shell out cash to buy what they use outright. If you are on a plan, say $30 a month, for two years, that's $720.

Exactly. And during that two years, the price/value of your phone is going to drop to a fraction of what it was when you got it, yet you are still paying full price for it. And during that two years, the price of service and calls is going to come down, yet you are tied to a higher price.

Back when I had personal cell-phone and subscription (both are provided by my employer these days), the monthly subscription-fees and call-fees kept on going down. And occasionally my operator contacted me and gave me further incentives, just so I wouldn't switch operators. If I had signed for a multi-year plan, prices would have stayed put, and I would have received no incentives, since I couldn't switch operators in the middle of the plan.

Why do you guys put up with inferior service?

[geerlingguy]

Every two years? You're pushing the boat out. Most people in the UK upgrade every year.

Yikes! I used a Nokia 6360 (it was quite a trooper) for 4-and-a-half years before it finally had a dead screen. All these new phones seem to be focused on giving the *worst* reception possible. Unless you pay a few hundred bucks (with a contract), the phone's ability to work as a *phone* is severely crippled. And even some of the $500+ (USD) phones have terrible reception.

Now I have a Motorola V323 - a nice phone, but too gimmicky. Give me a phone that syncs with Address Book and makes a nice, clear call, and I'll be happy. Anything more (like iPod functionality) is icing.

[wasimyaqoob]

I have a Nokia 8800 Scoricco, and it cost me $1,500.

So i'm willing to pay $600 for a iPhone!

[peharri]

My guess would be the $599 and $649 is the price with no contract or an unlocked version. It really isn't too bad for an unlocked phone. I am sure it will be cheaper on Cingular with contract.

That's my assumption too, though it's still high, even for an unlocked phone. This is about right for a very high-end Nokia 3G phone. Motorola's quad-band super-slim phones, with less flash but otherwise a comparable spec (inc a high quality camera, and we're not sure an "iPhone" would have that) cost no more than around half that amount. (As an example, the just released RIZR officially costs $400, but unofficially costs around $300 and I can't really find it for more than that. That's with a 2MP camera) Does adding 4M of flash really add $300 to the price?

I'm leaning towards the idea there is an iPhone, despite my misgivings, but I honestly don't think we've heard the final word on the price or spec yet.

[Nym]

Too expensive, I know, it's Apple and top quality and whatever, it's still very expensive, look at Apple sales in the last year? both iPods and Macs are selling much more due to the fact that Apple adapted it's prices to reality or close to it at least.
If they are indeed manufacturing an iPhone then they are spending millions on it, they can't put out the product with such high price and risk it not selling, especially in a market saturated by other brands. Apple must know that for the iPhone to succeed it will have to be better than everything else, but also appealing and measured in the price tag because people are all about habits, and if someone see's an iPhone for 650$ and a Nokia for the same price they will probably go with the "safer, used-to-software" choice. (The same thing with Zune VS iPod and Mac VS PC)

We are not the only target for the iPhone, Apple doesn't want iPhone to be used by Mac owners only, so, they should give PC users a strong motive to buy the thing, even if that motive is it's affordable price. my 2 cents...

Still, only time will tell, maybe it's not even going to be mentioned at MWSF ;)

[Rychiar]

the prices are insane, ya cant sell a phone for the same price as a mac mini. furthermore i liked the "all-carriers" part of the last rumor better. F Cingular, Verizon is just better and what i had from the start

[Dagless]

I don't know or care what Cingular is but bugger me with the price. I was looking at picking up the 'potential' iPhone after realising my ROKR wasn't really that nice. It corrupted my MicroSD card yesterday!

[LastZion]

The prices are definitely sad, but that is only because we were going off of the old amazing ones. They are high, yes, but not really out of this world for what you get.

Just hurry up and get it out already

[akadmon]

At that price, unless it can drive dual 30" monitors, I'm not buying it!

[Eraserhead]

I'm sure someone has already pointed this out (in the first 11 pages, which I'm not reading), but the price seems crazily high, a 4GB iPod Nano costs $199, I cannot see how bluetooth, a camera, a sim card reader, a microphone, a phone call chip (though probably not required), aerial, a larger battery, and a keypad can possibly cost $400, that is as much as a whole original iPod :eek:, and means the phone costs as much as 3 4GB iPod nano's.

I think $249 is a bit low, $299 for a 4GB one is probably a realistic price, and $399 for an 8GB one with WiFi, a better Camera, and VOIP. That also fits nicely into the iPod lineup!

[Evangelion]

the prices are insane, ya cant sell a phone for the same price as a mac mini.

you can sell a phone for more money than you pay for a Mac Pro. Click here (http://www.vertu.com/). I believe the prices start at around $2.000 and end at around $50.000.

[rubberduck007]

The Orange Network in the UK will be having this phone as an exclusive until April 2007 - they are trying to compete with the 3 network which is very sussessful with their MusicStore - having over 1 million downloads a month in the UK alone!

[bigmc6000]

...and this is why America is so far behind. Contracts here are a year and some are at 18 months tops. A 2 year contract is unheard of in the UK. Most people into gadgets and tech in the UK (or even just bored people) buy phones SIM free. CEX and many other franchises have entire shops dedicated to phones (used/new and unlocked).

There is no way on this planet people in the UK will go for a 2 year contract. Text messaging bundles keep popping up (you know text in the US ? SMS? I know you don't use it much but here it's probably more popular than email - include the 16-25 year olds in this camp) and minutes on the contract are ever-changing to keep up with competition. 2 year contracts? No way.

You think the US isn't a fierce addict of txt messaging??? That same 16-25 year old group you talk about are totally addicted to it. I'm at the top of that range and I hold entire conversations via TXT message. O - and my TXT Message bundle - unlimited txt messages for $5 a month

Great thing about Cingular is you don't really care about the mins because they just keep rolling over - my plan is for 400 a month (free night & weekends and free calling to other Cingular customers obviously) and I'm sitting on over 1200 roll over mins right now - I don't feel any need to change my plan at all. That and I get a 25% discount via my company...

[Diatribe]

Neither prices are realistic. The earlier ones were too cheap and the ones now are too high. It'll be somewhere in the middle. I wouldn't worry about it anyway until we hear about the features.

[joeshell383]

Go right ahead, you can keep the phone and your phone-number.


You can in the U.S. too, for about $200 (~4 months of service) if you have GSM.

[Evangelion]

You can in the U.S. too, for about $200 (~4 months of service) if you have GSM.

Those prices are absolutely outrageous. why not just pay as you go? Here you could get a service which has monthly subscription-fee of 0-3e/month, and calls (outgoing only, incoming calls are free) cost about 0.06e/minute. Of course those services have every option imaginable enabled by default (conference-calls, call-forwarding, datacalls, answering-machine, SMS, etc. etc. etc.)

I use my phone daily (including datacalls), and it seems that my monthly cell-phone bill is about 20-25e/month.

[Klian]

Those prizes are a madness.

I was saving for the iPhone, but I wont pay that money for a mobile phone.

[andiwm2003]

Those prices are absolutely outrageous. why not just pay as you go? Here you could get a service which has monthly subscription-fee of 0-3e/month, and calls (outgoing only, incoming calls are free) cost about 0.06e/minute. Of course those services have every option imaginable enabled by default (conference-calls, call-forwarding, datacalls, answering-machine, SMS, etc. etc. etc.)

I use my phone daily (including datacalls), and it seems that my monthly cell-phone bill is about 20-25e/month.


the us cell phone market is a mess. dropped calls, prices of 40-80 dollar a month for average or good service. different networks with puzzling contracts. mostly you can't keep your phone when you switch networks. your phone is usually locked so you are supposed to pay for ring tones.

the us cell phone market is made to keep the users uninformed and get as much money out of them as possible. a ripoff.

in germany i get good service with most features enabled for ~20 euro a month including the calls. here in the us i'd pay for the same ~$40-50 and i have to take one of their *****ty phones.

it annoyed me to the point where i switched to prepaid t-online (in usa). now i have only minimal service but at least i pay ~$10 a month and i can use my GSM phone from Germany both in the US and Europe. I just switch cards.

[emotion]

Those prizes are a madness.

I was saving for the iPhone, but I wont pay that money for a mobile phone.


Like I've said all along. Phones are heavily subsidised by the carriers. Those k800i phones aren't cheap on their own, for example.

Apple will find it hard to compete with carrier subsidised phones if they are just selling unlocked phones.

[amaclover]

The price will alienate buyers and result in low sales numbers. And why on earth should Apple elect to work first with a company (Cingular) that consistently has inferior services to others (Verizon). I love Apple products, but will not switch to a company that gives you poorer coverage and more dropped calls.

[nukiduz]

why don't you stop complaining about the price and repeat what many others have said in this post?
come on, use your brain. you want a wifi-bluetooth-highendcamera-amazingUI-ipod capable phone from apple at $300. read the rest of the posts and realise that a crappy phone as an unlocked RAZR costs $500.

[Stella]

Those prices aren't too high.

A lot of smartphones ( particular, Symbian - hey, you pay for superior quality ) are just a little below that price ( no contract ).

[freeny]

Id rather continue to use the two cans and string method, thanks.

This is the same thing that killed ESPN mobile. The prices scared away customers.

I refuse to pay $500+ for something so easy to lose.

[lifeseeker]

Linked to my server, and media files, I'd buy one of these babies for whatever price. This will become a carry-everywhere, link me to my data, and the world device.

An extra-somatic memory module.:D

[freeny]

And why on earth should Apple elect to work first with a company (Cingular) that consistently has inferior services to others (Verizon). I love Apple products, but will not switch to a company that gives you poorer coverage and more dropped calls.

All carriers suck. Doesnt matter who they team up with.

[mdntcallr]

my bet is the phones would be priced less. seems too high for market. but.... if they are smart pda phones. it would make more sense, but only if apple had deals with carriers.

a 1-2 year plan would take $200 off the price. and there you go.

but to be honest, it would still be over priced.

[princealfie]

Okay guys. Are we talking about the iPhone or about service plans? :mad:

[Nym]

This isn't a question of wether the prices are high relative to the "out of the box" features or not, it's about what consumers will think when they see the first Apple phone being sold for 650$, and they will think "that's expensive".
I mean, I don't own a PDA nor a SmartPhone and Apple would only make me think about buying the iPhone if the price was reasonable, not compared to the features, but compared to how much a phone costs. You're saying that it's the best cell phone in the world when you haven't even seen it, let's just wait, we don't even know the "features" it will bring...
I believe these prices are bogus and completely out of this world.

Remember, Apple may have a lot to win from entering the cell phone market but they also could have a lot to lose if they make this product so expensive that only firm and "money-having" Mac users will buy it.
To broaden the market target, the price has to be reasonable.

[ezekielrage_99]

Yay... More iPhone rumors, I wonder if they know anything about the elusive G5 PowerBook the rumors said next tuesday and I'm still waiting :confused:

[needthephone]

Iv'e never paid upfront for a phone in my life so don't see it as any differant. If its offered as part of a contract the price is irrelevant. Maybe Nokia et al are making a fortune out of their phones selling them to the carriers who then sell them onto us. If you look on the Nokia US site they are selling phones for $500 and $600


http://www.nokiausa.com/phones/comparephones/1,8392,fltr=1|ordr=3,00.html

Obviously lots of money being made out of phones as the price is hidden. Maybe this is the REAL reason Apples getting into this field...

[EagerDragon]

No friking way I buy at that price, contract or not. Besides I don't like contracts. That's why the phone companies are so bad, they got you locked in. $400 for the top of the line smart phone well integrated with my Mac, is about as much as I would consider.

[Kid Red]

Too expensive. Cingular only? That's two negative leaning towards flop. I hope the prices are wrong and it's not an exclusive because I won't leaqve T-Mobile to buy an Apple phone no matter how cool or how cheap they lower the price. Cingular is teh suX0rs! (did I type that right? :) )

[Bobthemonkey]

The Orange Network in the UK will be having this phone as an exclusive until April 2007 - they are trying to compete with the 3 network which is very sussessful with their MusicStore - having over 1 million downloads a month in the UK alone!


Orange may have the contract but competeing with 3 - not really as they are one and the same company (hutchison)

Must say these prices seem about right for a high end phone sold unlocked and with no contract, the service providers even on pay-as-you-go heavily subsidise the handsets, so you'll only pay these prices if you can get your hands on a totally 'unbranded' unit, which are hard to come across - and not worth the extra providing you get a carrier which doesn't turn the firmware into junk. even then, its just a reflash to fix. Over on the Limey side of the pond[sic] at least, you can buy contract phones from anywhere, not just the service providers outlets, so we could bee mac stores selling contract iphones.

[arn]

Clarification from the research note.

Clarification (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2305)

Runkle actually claimed: "full screen LCD; 3.5 inch (28x21)" and approximately 4/10ths of an inch thick. Also incorporates a Virtual Click wheel.

This would make it sound more like a full-screen button-less design that people are expected for the video iPod.

arn

[CEAbiscuit]

1 of 2 things is going to happen with thiPhoen:

1. Apple will come up with something so revolutionary it will blow everyone;'s mind
2. It'll be an MVNO that will burn bright for 3 months and fizzle.

I'm hoping for number 1, but hesitant to put money on it.

Either way, I hope the thing is not so geekified that the average phone user can't understand it. even if the phone is unlocked, tri band... blah blah blah, most users want a phone that:

Makes receives and KEEPS calls
Easy to use
Long Battery life
looks cool

$649 for a phone... uh oh.

[direzz]

I have a Nokia 8800 Scoricco, and it cost me $1,500.

So i'm willing to pay $600 for a iPhone!

WHY
would you ever pay that much for a PHONE?!

[Bobthemonkey]

people are forgetting about service providers subsidies, have a look at these - OK add a little for shipping from the UK but not much (~$50) the iPhone really isn't any different to comparable phones (first link) and look at the price of the K800i, a decent highish end phone.

http://www.mobileplanet.com/p.aspx?i=131375

http://www.mobileplanet.com/p.aspx?i=132711

[freddiecable]

with this information it becomes somewhat clearer...why releasing a video ipod or ipod phone when one can release a video ipod phone. As you say - that will blow people's minds. Apple knows that they have to push the envelope in order to enter the market and to stay there...

1 of 2 things is going to happen with thiPhoen:

1. Apple will come up with something so revolutionary it will blow everyone;'s mind
2. It'll be an MVNO that will burn bright for 3 months and fizzle.

I'm hoping for number 1, but hesitant to put money on it.

$649 for a phone... uh oh.

[MacVault]

Will the iPhone support WiFi or WiMax? The rumored prices are way too high. Mac them a 3rd-1/2 of the rumored price and make them support WiFi and WiMax and Skype or iChat etc, then yea I'd buy. I'm sick of cell phone providers, contracts, monthly fees, etc.

[Seasought]

$599 for 4GB...$649 for 8GB?

I'd rather use a flare gun. :mad:

[valve83]

I give the analyst credit for her name alone.

Hahahaha. I'm right with you...except I spell mine Runkel. =)

[koobcamuk]

Like I've said all along. Phones are heavily subsidised by the carriers. Those k800i phones aren't cheap on their own, for example.

Apple will find it hard to compete with carrier subsidised phones if they are just selling unlocked phones.

You at Uni in Manchester?

This price doesn't shock me in the slightest.

Also, my 3rd Gen iPod 20GB which is still alive cost me £320 or $640 when I bought it. I wouldn't pay that for an ipod now. No chance. I just happened to then. Love it.

[theBB]

...and this is why America is so far behind. Contracts here are a year and some are at 18 months tops. A 2 year contract is unheard of in the UK.
Or, UK is so far behind. Years ago one yar contract was the norm, now almost no company offers a single year contract.

[Much Ado]

How about $649 with FREE calls from that point on, to all who have a .Mac account?

Crazy suggestion, i know, but that would be very cool indeed.

MA.

(So Apple pays Cingular or whoever with a flat fee for every phone sold.)

[1984]

Clarification from the research note.

Clarification (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2305)

Runkle actually claimed: "full screen LCD; 3.5 inch (28x21)" and approximately 4/10ths of an inch thick. Also incorporates a Virtual Click wheel.

This would make it sound more like a full-screen button-less design that people are expected for the video iPod.

arn

Lets not forget there are supposed to be two completely different phones from Apple next year. The first is a basic candybar model resembling an elongated nano due 1Q and the second a much more advanced multifunction device that has a large touchscreen screen and virtual interface due 2Q or 3Q. There can easily be two different configurations of each phone as well. I think specs and pricing has gotten mixed up between the two at this point as only one model is mentioned.

[lmalave]

Iv'e never paid upfront for a phone in my life so don't see it as any differant. If its offered as part of a contract the price is irrelevant. Maybe Nokia et al are making a fortune out of their phones selling them to the carriers who then sell them onto us. If you look on the Nokia US site they are selling phones for $500 and $600


http://www.nokiausa.com/phones/comparephones/1,8392,fltr=1|ordr=3,00.html

Obviously lots of money being made out of phones as the price is hidden. Maybe this is the REAL reason Apples getting into this field...

Umm...this bears repeating so I'll quote it. These prices are NOT out of line for unlocked phones at full retail price, people!!! Nokia's top two "N-Series" phones cost $599 (for the N80), and $649 (for the N93).

These prices have NOTHING to do with the final price that the customer pays with contract. Everyone shocked by the price knows nothing about the economics of the cell phone industry.

As a few more data point, here are prices from the SonyEricsson site:

http://shopwireless.sonyericsson.com/buy/products/cat/66

Note that the one "smartphone" on the list, the P990, is $749. The much more basic, mass-market W810i is still $474.

On the Treo site, the 700p sells for "$619-$649" retail:

http://web.palm.com/products/communicators/config/zip_entry.jhtml?categoryId=270003

The Samsung Blackjack and Motorola Q both also sell for about $500.


So Apple's prices are completely in line with what other companies are offering. But take heart - with a contract the prices to the consumer should be much lower. For example, the same W810i phone that SE is selling for $474 on its website is fairly readily available for FREE with a 2-year contract if you shop around. From $474 on the SE website to FREE with a 2-year contract. Think about that. That means that it's not inconceivable that the $649 iPhone might be available to the customer for about $200 with a new 2-year contract.

[sfwalter]

I personally think this discussion may be a mute point. We need info from a reliable source. Historically when analysts put out rumors they tend to wrong.

[AL83]

Hey Guys

Don't forget that most phone companies charge much less for phones when you take a contract. So even if the prices are true I don,t see how a phone companie could charge 500$ to 1000$ for a phone. For Instance here in Canada we have a 4GB phone for 100$ with a contract of a certian amount years usualy 3 years. So lets wait and see.

[hvfsl]

Or, UK is so far behind. Years ago one yar contract was the norm, now almost no company offers a single year contract.
From a consumers point of view, the US has regressed. From the Telecom providers point of view, things in the US are better.

[rdrr]

HAAAA! For that price it better make love to me, have my children, and control gravity, space and time!

Control gravity hmmmm.... :cool:

iControlGravityPhone (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3168733759916419298)

[Choppaface]

I know the rumors say Cingular, but are there any other rumors that this might be one of the first popularized VOIP cell phones? There was that rumor a while back saying Apple was not going with a carrier, and it would be quite revolutionary for apple to turn the most successful MP3 player into the most successful VOIP cell phone..... don't the markets for MP3 players and consumer VOIP products tend to intersect too? and this would explain the ichat thing...

[EagerDragon]

people are forgetting about service providers subsidies, have a look at these - OK add a little for shipping from the UK but not much (~$50) the iPhone really isn't any different to comparable phones (first link) and look at the price of the K800i, a decent highish end phone.

http://www.mobileplanet.com/p.aspx?i=131375

http://www.mobileplanet.com/p.aspx?i=132711

Look, the phone companies are making a killing, and the phone makers are making a killing. Some of these $600 phones cost like $30 to make.

The subsidies are a bunch of bull, they are selling you a phone with a contract at a price that is closer to what you should be paying with no contract and they are still making a killing.

The cell phone industry is a big rip off in my opinion and we continue to buy millions of these phones.

Keep an eye on the cars being driven by the better salesmen at some of the stores, consumers are getting rip-off big time. Any product you make thens of millions of and sell every years is not likely to cost much to manufacture, and if you sell it for 10 to 20 times the cost and then telling them that they are getting a deal with a contract that locks you in to their network, it's outregious. Sorry for the rant.

[pyramid6]

Anyone that thinks these prices are high has no idea how much smart phones cost. If you add WiFi, Bluetooth, a camera, storage, keyboard and all the parts, it can realisticly cost that much.

Look at the prices of smartphones.

[JMax1]

Everyone is so acclimated to paying $0-50 for a new phone. Remember that most of those phones are just the basics now, and with a contract.

Will we get apple care with the phones too? Or would we pay the provider for their insurance? How about upgrade possibilities? I'm sure the iPhone, like the iPods, will get upgrades every once in a while (usually right after I buy something) after the initial release.


It's also funny how many replys this post got in such a short time! 300 in a few hours! Yikes! Everyone (including me) has an thought. Mostly shock.

[electronboy]

I might be mistaken, but I thought inches were measured in 1/16ths? 5/8, 1/2, 1/8, 1/4, etc...

[CiBoys]

Too expensive. Cingular only? That's two negative leaning towards flop. I hope the prices are wrong and it's not an exclusive because I won't leaqve T-Mobile to buy an Apple phone no matter how cool or how cheap they lower the price. Cingular is teh suX0rs! (did I type that right? :) )

I agree...

[JMax1]

I might be mistaken, but I thought inches were measured in 1/16ths? 5/8, 1/2, 1/8, 1/4, etc...

I have a ruler that measures tenths of an inch as well as the usually half of half of half of a half.

It's still weird, though

[izzle22]

Too expensive. Cingular only? That's two negative leaning towards flop. I hope the prices are wrong and it's not an exclusive because I won't leaqve T-Mobile to buy an Apple phone no matter how cool or how cheap they lower the price. Cingular is teh suX0rs! (did I type that right? :) )


If you remember the Razor was waaaaaay too expensive at first ($550 os so) and "Cingular only" for the first year, and they couldn't keep them in stock, but how easily we all forget these things. I'm no Cingular fan but been with them for 3 years and not had even 1 problem.

[mattalici]

One of your ambitious assistants is trying to pass off the "True Video iPod™" rumors as iPhone rumors. That's right, the full-screen-virtual-click-wheel-$649-gadget is actually the 6th generation iPod (BO-ring), not the iPhone.

Not that EITHER OF THESE THINGS ACTUALLY EXIST. But, whatevs, the tech press seems hellbent on reporting truthy things these days... did you hear the one about the iTunes Store's sales crashing through the basement?

[ppnkg]

They must be joking, who will buy this. 4GB iPod nano+phone functionality (sim-free)+apple rip-off factor should add to no more than £180 in this case, and that's what I would consider reasonable (remember it's apple).

But can this report be trusted? Or could this be part of a negative preemptive campaign?

[JMax1]

will the phones have an apple logo AND the carrier logo? Will apple let that happen? Do any other apple products have 3rd party logos (logoes? ha)?

Oh, well i suppose that's not too bad, my moto phone has a motorola and TMobile logo.

And will the apple logo light up like on the laptops? And how about the nice white strobe light, which maybe could act as a flast for the camera, and a flashlight for power-outs (I work in a classroom with no windows and when we the power goes out all the little kiddies whip out their cell phones and it's bright as day. It's very amusiing). Maybe at a dance party the light can flash really quickly and can be a real strobe light. Put a fog machine in the phone then we have the ultimate party-phone! Give a new meaning for the Party Shuffle in iTunes! Hook your iPhone up to a receiver, turn on the strobe light and iFog machine and you're on your way! I'm sure you can download software on the phone that can tell you how to mix drinks too, good pick-up lines, and horoscopes (What's your sign, baby?)! And if the phones can really do what the Nano(e)s do in the new commercials, holy moly!

I don't really like to dance, though. So I won't buy one.

[dernhelm]

This _has_ to be wrong.

For that kind of money, you should be looking at an 80GB and 120GB fullscreen video iPod. No one in their right mind would spend that kind of money on a phone that is attached to a particular carrier, and has less than 1/10 of the disk space you would require for a device that expensive.

[shelterpaw]

A lot of people here are complaining about the price, which I understand.

On the other hand if rumors are correct this phone will be much more than just a phone.

Seems like it'll be a iPod and a SmartPhone (pda and phone). Apple isn't going to release something that's a rehash of what's on the market. From all these rumors it sounds like they'll release something with bunch of great features, some which will be revolutionary.

The advantage Apple has had with the iPod is the ease of use and a complete solution from iTMS to iTunes to your iPod. The iPod is so easy to use and MS couldn't improve upon usability with the zune, which came out well after the iPod. Most mobile phones, in my opinion, aren't very user friendly. It takes a bit of time to figure things out and a lot of time to get down all the functionality. If Apple can deliver on the culmination of all those factors, they'll be able to charge a lot for the product. It's a sizable goal and one where if executed well, Apple will receive all sorts of accolades and possibly a chair from Steve Ballmer.

[xenotaku]

It is hilarious how uninformed everyone here is, save a few people. Before making some insane comment like "I may as well buy a mac" or "who the hell will pay 600 for a phone" do some research and look at how much phones actually cost! This is not just a normal phone, it's going to be a 'smart phone' and these smart phones without coverage contracts run from 400 to 2000 dollars!! Apple is setting a great price point if these phones deliver on a lot of what is speculated.

[SeaFox]

will the phones have an apple logo AND the carrier logo? Will apple let that happen? Do any other apple products have 3rd party logos (logoes? ha)?

If the iPhone has a carrier logo, and it's someplace where I can't remove it easily (like under a clear plastic body panel), I'm not buying it. I don't care if it even is MY carrier.

It should be noted that any carrier subsidizing a phone is going to require they get their logo on it somewhere.

[geerlingguy]

will the phones have an apple logo AND the carrier logo? Will apple let that happen? Do any other apple products have 3rd party logos (logoes? ha)?

Logos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos).

It's all Greek to me.

[CEAbiscuit]

It is hilarious how uninformed everyone here is, save a few people. Before making some insane comment like "I may as well buy a mac" or "who the hell will pay 600 for a phone" do some research and look at how much phones actually cost! This is not just a normal phone, it's going to be a 'smart phone' and these smart phones without coverage contracts run from 400 to 2000 dollars!! Apple is setting a great price point if these phones deliver on a lot of what is speculated.

Gotta disagree, keeper of information. What is the market for phones between 400-2000? Very limited... mostly business apps and true tech geeks (tiny little market when it comes to the phone world. Sorry!). I do not see Apple going after the biz market with this thing for the simple reason there is stigma with apple and business, and it's not Apples core audience. Unfortunatley, a new fangled "smart phone" from Apple would have a lot of trouble gaining traction for orgs who use those type of devices.

[aristobrat]

What is the market for phones between 400-2000?
Unless I read the post wrong, he was talking about the unsubsidized price of the phone.

I'd be surprised if the unsub'ed price of a Moto RAZR on Verizon wasn't $400+.

Where I work, we regularly get subsidized BlackBerry's for under $200 when we sign a new contract (or renew a contract). If a user breaks that phone (and doesn't have insurance), it's over $500 to replace (the unsub'ed cost).

I don't see any reason the unsub'ed cost for an iPhone wouldn't be $400+. That's NOT the price you'll pay for it if you renew your contract or sign up for a new contract.

[geerlingguy]

If Apple can deliver on the culmination of all those factors, they'll be able to charge a lot for the product. It's a sizable goal and one where if executed well, Apple will receive all sorts of accolades and possibly a chair from Steve Ballmer.

That's my thinking on the issue. Apple had better have something revolutionary planned, or they might as well not try. The iPod cost a lot (and still does), but is simple enough for my <insert stereotypical techno-neophyte here whose VCR is still blinking 12:00> to quickly figure it out and jam to his/her favorite tunes.

My Mom has had the same cell phone for 3 years, but still can't enter phone numbers into it herself, even after I've showed her how three times. If Apple can make the phone work as well as an iPod in terms of user-friendliness, that's all that needs to be done.

[izzle22]

Gotta disagree, keeper of information. What is the market for phones between 400-2000? Very limited... mostly business apps and true tech geeks (tiny little market when it comes to the phone world. Sorry!). I do not see Apple going after the biz market with this thing for the simple reason there is stigma with apple and business, and it's not Apples core audience. Unfortunatley, a new fangled "smart phone" from Apple would have a lot of trouble gaining traction for orgs who use those type of devices.

Gotta disagree with you. Most new non-smart phones that are on the cutting edge are at least $600 without contract discount. I have purchased 10 phones in the last 15 years and not one of them was a smart phone and not one has been under $300.

[CEAbiscuit]

Unless I read the post wrong, he was talking about the unsubsidized price of the phone.

I'd be surprised if the unsub'ed price of a Moto RAZR on Verizon wasn't $400+.

Where I work, we regularly get subsidized BlackBerry's for under $200 when we sign a new contract (or renew a contract). If a user breaks that phone (and doesn't have insurance), it's over $500 to replace (the unsub'ed cost).

I don't see any reason the unsub'ed cost for an iPhone wouldn't be $400+. That's NOT the price you'll pay for it if you renew your contract or sign up for a new contract.

You said it yourself "where I work." And as I said, no analysts or anybody has speculated on Apple going after the corporate market. It's not their strength. There are very few individuals who will shell out that kind of cash for a personal phone. Remember, it's called an iPhone...

The unlocked, locked argument is also completly absurd. Most people who have an iPod these days don't know how to replace the battery in their phone without help from a tech, let alone figure out how to "unlock" and "lock" their phones. If Apple is to be successful in a mass market, the iPhone has to leverage the appeal of the iPod - simple to use, easy to purchase, and something that won't bust the bank based on a few cool features.

[mikeben]

I agree...
I know the cellular business from the inside. There will come a time, quite soon, where you will carry one device with you at all times. It will be a phone, a PDA, a camera, a music and video player, a game machine, a text and e-mail transceiver, and a link to your "main" computers. The important thing is it MUST be small, light, and available to use EVERYWHERE. Eventually, most people will NOT carry a camera, or an MP3 player, or a PDA, or a Blackberry...or a phone. They will carry all that and more in a single device. The Apple phone may be the logical first step in that direction. Who better to do it? The cell service providers care only that the celluar devices carry data, as the voice side of things is NOT where the money is. In fact, pretty soon, your minutes will be free, but you will absolutely HAVE TO HAVE a data plan. "Beam me up, Scotty"...it's almost here.

[xenotaku]

You said it yourself "where I work." And as I said, no analysts or anybody has speculated on Apple going after the corporate market. It's not their strength. There are very few individuals who will shell out that kind of cash for a personal phone. Remember, it's called an iPhone...

The unlocked, locked argument is also completly absurd. Most people who have an iPod these days don't know how to replace the battery in their phone without help from a tech, let alone figure out how to "unlock" and "lock" their phones. If Apple is to be successful in a mass market, the iPhone has to leverage the appeal of the iPod - simple to use, easy to purchase, and something that won't bust the bank based on a few cool features.

Smartphones are not only for the white collars anymore. More and more casual people want the keyboard, blue tooth functions, wireless connectivity, chatting functions, full functioning internet, email service....these are all characteristics of the 'smartphone'. I obviously don't know, but I think Apple is trying to package all of this 'professional' options into a spiffy package aimed towards white collars, and trendy people all together. 600 is a fair price for that. And again, once you sign up for a contract, it could be as cheap as 200, who knows.

[CEAbiscuit]

"White collars" get their smartphones from their businesses who purchase it for them. Business aren't buyApple smartphones whenthey are so lockedinto Blackberry servers, Treos and the like. That market is out.

'trendy people" are a very limited market... a market that could not support a full fledge entre into the phone race by Apple.

I think my point is, as you mention, this rumor's assertion that the phone could be over $600 bucks is bogus. Your assertion of a $200 phone is much more in line (look at the price of the LG Chocolate line. Its sucks but it's kind of successfull). However, I cannot see the price being subsidized by a contract. It would tie apple to close to a single provider a la MVNO, and what you have at the end of the day is another ROKR- the lead ballon of cell musical cell phones.

[peharri]

Orange may have the contract but competeing with 3 - not really as they are one and the same company (hutchison)


Orange was founded by Hutchison, but was sold to France Telecom many years ago. It and 3 are unrelated, except by heritage. So, yes, they do compete.

3 wouldn't have gotten the 3G license had it been owned by the same group as Orange, as the fifth UK 3G license was only available to companies that didn't already have a UK network.

[xenotaku]

"White collars" get their smartphones from their businesses who purchase it for them. Business aren't buyApple smartphones whenthey are so lockedinto Blackberry servers, Treos and the like. That market is out.

'trendy people" are a very limited market... a market that could not support a full fledge entre into the phone race by Apple.

I think my point is, as you mention, this rumor's assertion that the phone could be over $600 bucks is bogus. Your assertion of a $200 phone is much more in line (look at the price of the LG Chocolate line. Its sucks but it's kind of successfull). However, I cannot see the price being subsidized by a contract. It would tie apple to close to a single provider a la MVNO, and what you have at the end of the day is another ROKR- the lead ballon of cell musical cell phones.

I agree with most of your points. I just think the 'white collar' market is more than the corporate market, I sorta explained my view wrong. Walk around New York city, or any major city and many many people have blackberries and smart phones, and very little of them had their office pay for them. It's an emerging technology that more and more 'normal' people want.

that being said...i still think 600 is a fair price point for a 'no contract phone'. Throw in a 2 year contract and it could be as low as 200 or so.

[killr_b]

LMAO@ this thread.

I can see why some people think $300 is a lot for a phone, but mostly those peeps are being rediculous. And the free phone crowd, get real. Did your land-line come with a $200 cupon for a phone? No? I thought so.

$650 is an awesome price for a smart phone. So low in fact that I think it won't be anything more than and iPod nano+cell phone with some mobile version of Mail and possibly IM. Not a smart phone at all.

I want the $2,500 blows my frickin' mind phone.

For $650 you'll get an 8GB or 16GB iPod nano combined with a decent phone in an Apple way. Not a smart phone.

[gugy]

If Apple is to be successful in a mass market, the iPhone has to leverage the appeal of the iPod - simple to use, easy to purchase, and something that won't bust the bank based on a few cool features.

You said everything here my friend.
That's why I am very skeptical of the prices mentioned in this thread.
Unless carriers will subsidized the iPhone, there is no way I'll pay $600 plus for a phone. And i have to buy two, one for me and one for my wife. Come on, over $1200 for couple of phones? now way dude!:eek:

[princealfie]

Come on, guys. $599 is cheap for a phone. Consider yourself lucky:

http://reviews.cnet.com/Bang_Olufsen_Serene/4505-6454_7-32161243.html

$1275 is more expensive.

End of story. BZZZZZZZZzz.

[aristobrat]

You said it yourself "where I work." And as I said, no analysts or anybody has speculated on Apple going after the corporate market. It's not their strength. There are very few individuals who will shell out that kind of cash for a personal phone. Remember, it's called an iPhone...
The point is this (and has been said by many people):

The unsubsidized price of phones is way more expensive than what the customer usually ends up paying.

When you sign (or renew) a contract with a carrier, the carrier pays a subsidy that makes a phone that initially cost $500 end up only costing the customer $199 (that was a general example). Carriers loose tens of millions of dollars quarterly doing this (paying manufactures hundreds of dollars more for phones than they end up selling them to their customers for).

Does this not make sense?

The unlocked, locked argument is also completly absurd. Most people who have an iPod these days don't know how to replace the battery in their phone without help from a tech, let alone figure out how to "unlock" and "lock" their phones. If Apple is to be successful in a mass market, the iPhone has to leverage the appeal of the iPod - simple to use, easy to purchase, and something that won't bust the bank based on a few cool features.
Are you confusing the term unlocked for unsubsidized? :confused:

[peharri]

Pretty much anyone who buys high-end phones out of contract.

Which, ultimately, is a very small market. And that's my concern: Apple supposedly is entering the MP3-playing-phone market because it knows the non-phone MP3 players are soon to be obsolete. But it appears, unless (in 180 degree opposition to the rumours) Apple has a line of low end phones lined up after these are released, that it's content to take a very small slice of the market.

Which it can't do, for the reasons I've expressed ad-nausium.

People don't really get it with mobile phones. Yes, the hardware has always been expensive and subsidized. But it means people have expectations of how much they should cost. My wife still thinks my V635 (imported from Europe, new, factory unlocked and unbranded) was expensive because despite the fact it essentially replaced my digital camera as well as my phone, it was $250 as opposed to the "free to $100" pricing that people are used to for phones.

This seems to be a common viewpoint. I'm just aware of how low people expect prices to be because I'm one of the few who really will spend more on a phone I like that I can justify the price of, and people needle me for it and think I'm insane.

So yes, an iPhone that replaces an iPod, has PDA functionality, and is a good, quad-band, GSM phone may be worth that amount of money on a technical level, but it's exceptionally high to end users. Even the RAZR, touted in these forums a lot as an "expensive" phone, is actually normally bought for under $100, albeit carrier locked and branded: Motorola selling it for an initial high price was marketing. The price point right now, which is barely $300 if unlocked and unbranded (about average), is what Motorola always intended it to be in the first place.


Now, here's a question to wrap up. Ok, we know that if Apple plans to sell this thing for ~$600, the practical reality is that operators will sell the subsidized version for $250 or so.

...but given you know what operators do to phones that they subsidize (and mark my words, they will not sell the phone if they can't), do you think Apple's going to be happy about what the $250 version of the iPhone would be?

Just to give you some ideas:
- Cingular normally leaves most of the phone alone, but expect "MediaNET", Cingular imagery, and other BS plastered all over the UI.
- T-Mobile generally locks all the web features to T-Mobile's services, the thing starts up with T-Mobile logos and noises with substantial amounts of the phone's maker's media gutted. Lately they've been adding "My Faves" to everything too, a custom UI to make it easier to call one of five people.
- Verizon doesn't leave anything alone. They have a "standard UI" that they impose on all sold phones. (To be fair, their motives are decent, it helps with support, but choosing between a Motorola and a Samsung on Verizon isn't far off chosing between a Dell and an HP.)

Those are just the ones I know about. I have no idea what Sprint, Alltel, or MetroPCS does.

Imagine buying your Mac from CompUSA and finding "CompUSA" plastered all over the casing, then turning it on and finding the Finder has been replaced by "CompUSA Computer Manager". Do you think Apple would sell Macs to CompUSA, even if CompUSA actually subsidized the machines?

[Evangelion]

From a consumers point of view, the US has regressed. From the Telecom providers point of view, things in the US are better.

Nokia hasn't been doing that well in the USA recently. In a recent even, their CEO commented that "the reason for that is that we want to sell phones that consumers want. We haven't sold phones that the operators want". I think he was 100% correct.

[Evangelion]

WHY
would you ever pay that much for a PHONE?!

Some people pay $40.000 for a phone. The Scirocco is a luxury-phone, and there are people who are willing to pay for luxury items. Why would someone pay $100.000+ for a car?

[mikeben]

The point is this (and has been said by many people):

The unsubsidized price of phones is way more expensive than what the customer usually ends up paying.

When you sign (or renew) a contract with a carrier, the carrier pays a subsidy that makes a phone that initially cost $500 end up only costing the customer $199 (that was a general example). Carriers loose tens of millions of dollars quarterly doing this (paying manufactures hundreds of dollars more for phones than they end up selling them to their customers for).

Does this not make sense?


Are you confusing the term unlocked for unsubsidized? :confused:

Phones are "locked" by manufacturers to a certain service provider, as in
this phone is a Cingular phone". Most are locked, and most customers don't knpw or care how to unlock them.

[lalcan]

Some people pay $40.000 for a phone. The Scirocco is a luxury-phone, and there are people who are willing to pay for luxury items. Why would someone pay $100.000+ for a car?

I think the most important thing about the iPhone is not the price, the design and UI will be decisive for it's success, and those two areas are where Apple sets the rules, so it's not a matter of success or not, it's a matter of when will they release the &#$% iPhone!

Hopefully soon, this has already got more rumors, fake leakings and mockups than the Powerbook G5!

[CEAbiscuit]

The point is this (and has been said by many people):

The unsubsidized price of phones is way more expensive than what the customer usually ends up paying.

When you sign (or renew) a contract with a carrier, the carrier pays a subsidy that makes a phone that initially cost $500 end up only costing the customer $199 (that was a general example). Carriers loose tens of millions of dollars quarterly doing this (paying manufactures hundreds of dollars more for phones than they end up selling them to their customers for).

Does this not make sense?


Are you confusing the term unlocked for unsubsidized? :confused:

Nope not confusing them. The subnsized issue is a whole different thing. I think you (and the rumor) trying to justify a price based on what carriers will do via distribution. I believe Apple will want to hold onto distribution... it's the only way to offer the iPhone with an "apple experience." Otherwise, you have iPhones already.. one is called ROKR and it's available on closeouts.com with 99&#37; off the retail price of $699.

Don't expect subsidizing. It put's too much in the carriers hands. I would expect a fixed price. I hope this is not just another MVNO.

[cherrypop]

This better be one hell of a phone if they expect it to sell for $600.

That's exactly the sort of stuff people were saying about the iPod when it was introduced. A lot of people predicted its failure due to the price alone.

Well, Apple just might ship the first iPhone out at $600. We'll have to wait and see, but in the meantime, double-check the prices Sony Ericsson is getting for their MP3 phones. The W950i is selling for $550, and the iPhone promises to have a richer feature set.

When SE ships a new phone they price it within their pattern for that feature set. As time passes the phone's price drops incrementally. Apple's going to have to address this pricing model. And if they do, expect to grab a dated iPhone for a great price if you can wait. Early adopters will pay full boat, and be happy to do so.

[emotion]

Don't expect subsidizing. It put's too much in the carriers hands. I would expect a fixed price. I hope this is not just another MVNO.

But then how are they going to compete with Sony Ericcson etc etc?? People see the free one and the 300 quid one and make the obvious decision. Unless Apple doesn't care and wants a tiny niche, but that then doesn't tally with the rumors of huge numbers being knocked out by factories in China.

How many times do we need to go through this?

[gugy]

We need 2 kind of phones;

One smart phone with all the bells and whistles for the corporate dudes and geeks. Price it then at $600

One simple phone with iPod, simple contact features to sync to your mac and 4gig. That one should be no more than $300 for the soccer moms and people who just want simplicity.

On top of that if Apple wants to have the carriers to subsidized it, even better then.

It's very important that there is a iPhone with a great price for the folks that don't need all that stuff. Simple phone, well designed and quality. That would be a tremendous success. also more than one carrier. Hopefully Cingular is not the sole carrier.

[shunpike]

what is with the update - sounds like she has mixed up a full screen video ipod with an iPhone - Sorry if this has been discussed already.

[aristobrat]

I believe Apple will want to hold onto distribution... it's the only way to offer the iPhone with an "apple experience."
More power to them, if they can pull that off.

FWIW, when you buy a RIM BlackBerry, you still get a BlackBerry experience, regardless of the carrier. If RIM can figure that out (and let the carriers sell their handsets to customers at a subsidized price), I don't see why Apple can't.

[jmbear]

I am using the BlackJack for comparison because I think it will be the closest thing to the iPhone.

In Cingular, an unlocked BlackJack from Samsung is $450 USD, with a 2 year contract, $300 USD and with the Mail-In Rebate $200 USD. So basically Cingular is subsidizing $250 dollars. With a 450 minutes/month plan, its $40 USD per month. But lets be serious, you won&#180;t get a BlackJack without Internet access, so you will go for the Data Connect 5MB (I would go for the unlimited, but I am choosing the cheapest internet plan to make my point) which is $20 USD per month. So thats $60 USD per month, multiplied by 24 for the 2 year contract, its $1,440 USD plus the $200 for the phone, its $1,640.

Now, lets say you instead go for the $600 USD iPhone unlocked (assuming thats the price) and get a SIM Card (You buy a $40 USD GoPhone minus the Mail-In rebate, its $20 USD, I don&#180;t know if you can just get the SIM card without buying the phone though). So thats basically $640 USD for a phone. You get your minutes on demand (depending on the plan, it can go from free mobile to mobile, $0.1 USD, to $0.25 USD per minute).

Short Version: Samsung BlackJack, 10,800 minutes, 120MB Data Transfer, $1,440 USD in a 2-year contract.

Apple iPhone, minutes on demand, data transfer on demand, $640 USD. And Apple controls the whole iPhone experience.

[CEAbiscuit]

More power to them, if they can pull that off.

FWIW, when you buy a RIM BlackBerry, you still get a BlackBerry experience, regardless of the carrier. If RIM can figure that out (and let the carriers sell their handsets to customers at a subsidized price), I don't see why Apple can't.

ever try as verizon blackberry? Slow, bad battery life. Generally miserable. Verizon themselves will tell you it's because they have to run verizon software on them. COmpar them with T-Mo, they run night and day, at least on the east coast.

[lmalave]

Now, here's a question to wrap up. Ok, we know that if Apple plans to sell this thing for ~$600, the practical reality is that operators will sell the subsidized version for $250 or so.

...but given you know what operators do to phones that they subsidize (and mark my words, they will not sell the phone if they can't), do you think Apple's going to be happy about what the $250 version of the iPhone would be?

Just to give you some ideas:
- Cingular normally leaves most of the phone alone, but expect "MediaNET", Cingular imagery, and other BS plastered all over the UI.
- T-Mobile generally locks all the web features to T-Mobile's services, the thing starts up with T-Mobile logos and noises with substantial amounts of the phone's maker's media gutted. Lately they've been adding "My Faves" to everything too, a custom UI to make it easier to call one of five people.
- Verizon doesn't leave anything alone. They have a "standard UI" that they impose on all sold phones. (To be fair, their motives are decent, it helps with support, but choosing between a Motorola and a Samsung on Verizon isn't far off chosing between a Dell and an HP.)

Those are just the ones I know about. I have no idea what Sprint, Alltel, or MetroPCS does.

Imagine buying your Mac from CompUSA and finding "CompUSA" plastered all over the casing, then turning it on and finding the Finder has been replaced by "CompUSA Computer Manager". Do you think Apple would sell Macs to CompUSA, even if CompUSA actually subsidized the machines?

Actually, I've been thinking about this. This might be a strong argument for why Apple is going with the MVNO model. Apple probably doesn't want *any* logos on it's hardware other than the Apple logo. Apple wants complete control over the hardware, software, and user experience, and that can only come from an MVNO model.

[obsoletepower]

WHAT??? Is Apple ****** stupid??? Who the hell is going to pay $600 or $700 for an Apple phone??? Good God!!!

[mowogg]

Gizmodo says that the iPhone will be released on Monday, guaranteed:

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/cellphones/gizmodo-knows-iphone-will-be-released-on-monday-221991.php

Don't know what to make of this, probably some sort of "wha-waaaa" not-really-the-iphone will be released on Monday.

That being said, I have a theory regarding the supposed iPhone. I don't think it is going to be a stand-alone item. I think it will be some kind of plug in the bottom of your existing iPod and enable cell phone function, like the FM Radio Remote. That way it would work with iPods, nanos, etc... Maybe I'm imagining something that would never work, but that seems more reasonable than a whole new piece of hardware, but then again, that's what Apple has been doing with iPods so far.

[swingerofbirch]

Well, he did guarantee it.

It's not quite as good as a guaran-damn-tee, but fairly self-assured all the same.

[aiongiant]

yea i saw the gizmodo one
crazy! i hope it does!
but i doubt it! doesn't Apple do the Tuesday thing all the time not a Monday

[Peace]

Gizmodo is yanking your crank again..

Monday is also January 15th..Monday

[Flowbee]

It's a pretty bold statement... especially from a site the size of Gizmodo. It'll sure make the weekend interesting around here. :D

[Cybergypsy]

http://static.flickr.com/103/252796495_d52ecf5808_b.jpg

Maybe a little like my nokia

http://static.flickr.com/95/280193364_b5a3c9ecc5.jpg

Or my NEC

[chelseasian]

My Nokia 7370 just had a cracked screen and thankfully it is still working so i am kind of willing to wait for a few more weeks for the iPhone. Here's my main concern though, will Apple sell an unlocked version since I am with T-Mobile (US)?

i love your NEC BTW Cybergypsy. What model is it?

I am torn between the Nokia 73733, Sony Ericsson K790 or something really cool. .

[aristobrat]

ever try as verizon blackberry? Slow, bad battery life. Generally miserable. Verizon themselves will tell you it's because they have to run verizon software on them. COmpar them with T-Mo, they run night and day, at least on the east coast.
Funny you should ask that. I support around ~180 BlackBerrys at work. 80% of them are with Verizon, and the rest are with T-Mobile (for our international travelers).

CDMA devices don't get the same battery life as GSM devices. The iPhone will be no different. Unless Apple ships a bigger battery with the CDMA one, Verizon and Sprint users aren't going to see the same life as T-Mobile and Cingular users (GSM).

On the same note, there's no "Verizon software" on the Verizon BlackBerrys, unless they're talking about their red theme. If you load another CDMA carrier's BB handheld software on your VZW BB, it functions just the same.

The point is, regardless of the carrier, 99% of the BlackBerry experience is the same regardless of the carrier. Our corp dev department doesn't have to give separate classes for VZW and T-Mobile BB training because they both work the same. The exception is when you get down to areas that are dependent on the network technology (CDMA or GSM) and that can't be helped.

I see no reason that Apple couldn't pull this off.

[Evangelion]

When you sign (or renew) a contract with a carrier, the carrier pays a subsidy that makes a phone that initially cost $500 end up only costing the customer $199 (that was a general example). Carriers loose tens of millions of dollars quarterly doing this (paying manufactures hundreds of dollars more for phones than they end up selling them to their customers for).

They don't lose one dime. They take the money they "lose" on the phone from their customers, with interest.

If phone costs $599 to consumers, the operator could get it (for exmaple) $400. Then they tell consumers that "just sign up to our uber-expensive plan for several years, and we will give you this phone "for free"!". Sad thing is that the consumers don't understand that they are getting shafted, instead they think "Woohoo, free stuff!".

[emotion]

They don't lose one dime. They take the money they "lose" on the phone from their customers, with interest.

If phone costs $599 to consumers, the operator could get it (for exmaple) $400. Then they tell consumers that "just sign up to our uber-expensive plan for several years, and we will give you this phone "for free"!". Sad thing is that the consumers don't understand that they are getting shafted, instead they think "Woohoo, free stuff!".

Yes indeed, it's a kind of hire purchase in effect. Most people don't like to stump up cash in advance so it suits the majority.

[Cybergypsy]

My Nokia 7370 just had a cracked screen and thankfully it is still working so i am kind of willing to wait for a few more weeks for the iPhone. Here's my main concern though, will Apple sell an unlocked version since I am with T-Mobile (US)?

i love your NEC BTW Cybergypsy. What model is it?

I am torn between the Nokia 73733, Sony Ericsson K790 or something really cool. .


NEC N908.... thanks

I have only bought unlocked phones anything else is plan crazy!!!

[aristobrat]

They don't lose one dime. They take the money they "lose" on the phone from their customers, with interest.
In the end, obviously. My point was that customers don't up-front pay anywhere near the cost for phones that the operators initially paid to buy them from the phone manufacturers.

I was speaking to the point of "OMG the iPhone prices this analyst predicts are soooo high, nobody will buy one at that price". Specifically, if you look at any US carriers fiscal report, you'll see where it costs them 10s of millions of dollars more to buy the equipment from the phone manufacturers than they make back from the up-front amount they charge the customers.

If Apple charges the carriers $599 and $649 a phone, that's *not* what the end-user is going to pay.

[aristobrat]

If ThinkSecret's latest report is correct, I guess we don't have to worry about subsidizing.

Sources say the iPhone's price tag has been a particular point of discussion for Apple with providers, as the company would like to see the same price offered for the device across all carriers. In addition, Apple does not want to see carriers subsidize the cost of the iPhone to customers, bucking an industry trend.

[lmalave]

If ThinkSecret's latest report is correct, I guess we don't have to worry about subsidizing.

Heh. If that's the case, then it will be a Samsung Blackjack for me, thanks. Maybe in 2 years by the time my new Cingular contract expires, the iPhones will actually be affordable. For now, it appears that the first iPhone customers will strictly be early adopters that are willing to pay a huge premium to have the lastest gadget.

[Dr_Maybe]

4/10th of an inch thick. How many feet or hands do you have to divide that with to get it in mm?

Luckily google can help (http://www.google.com/search?q=.4in+in+cm) translate rural units to standardized units: 1cm

[pistolero]

Short Version: Samsung BlackJack, 10,800 minutes, 120MB Data Transfer, $1,440 USD in a 2-year contract.

Apple iPhone, minutes on demand, data transfer on demand, $640 USD. And Apple controls the whole iPhone experience.

And that iPhone experience can cost a lot more than 1400 in two years depending on usage patterns. go phone prepaid gets way too expensive if you're going to use the phone more than occasionally. Data on demand is even worst, at $10 per megabyte. If you use the phone to connect your laptop to the Net, expect a huge bill.

[Cougarcat]

We need 2 kind of phones;

One smart phone with all the bells and whistles for the corporate dudes and geeks. Price it then at $600

One simple phone with iPod, simple contact features to sync to your mac and 4gig. That one should be no more than $300 for the soccer moms and people who just want simplicity.


There should be a third. A phone no more than $150 that has 1 GB or less of space. I don't care about the iPod features b/c my 20 GB iPod already has all of my music. I just want a slick, apple-designed phone with apple-designed software that connects to my mac as easily as an iPod. (The software is the important part. I like the design of my Razr, but the software just sucks.)

And I don't think Apple will ever let any company put their logos on their Phone. We didn't see it with Intel macs, and I don't think we'll see it here.