Apple Having Trouble Signing New Carriers Because of iPhone Subsidy and Minimum Purchase Requirements

apolloa said:

Actually, if you make a claim like you did, YOU should be the one providing the proof, and speaking of that it all seems to relate to HTC only, so again no proof of Samsung paid students coming onto here and posting negative things.

Let me know when you can provide the proof though won't you? Until then it's just opinion and conjecture.

Click to expand...

I'm so glad for you that you're in denial. Just because Samsung hasn't admitted to anything doesn't mean their employees haven't been paid to bash Apple on MR. It's so hilarious how you are very defensive on a subject like this. People are telling you that paid bashing is happening here and you're so adamant in believing it...Wonder Why????
You're so obvious, let it go. You've been insulting people about this and you've spent quite a few posts talking down to people and being defensive about this situation. I wouldn't expect an ordinary poster to be so against people's feelings about this subject.

ElTorro said:

Any product that is selling 10 million units a month is not a luxury item.

Luxury, by the dictionary, means expensive or hard to obtain. If it was substantially more expensive than the competition, or it had a very limited production number, then it could be considered as a luxury. But since you can buy it literally everywhere and at really low price points, it just simple does not constitutes as a luxury brand.

Click to expand...

That is only one definition. Another definition of the word is:
"Something inessential but conducive to pleasure and comfort."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/luxury

And that by definition describes Apple perfectly.

the8thark said:

And that by definition describes Apple perfectly.

Click to expand...

Describes a Playstation 3 pretty well, too.

HenryDJP said:

Just because Samsung hasn't admitted to anything doesn't mean their employees haven't been paid to bash Apple on MR.

Click to expand...

That's the logic argument you want to go with here?

Samsung hasn't admitted that they are putting tiny space people to power their phones instead of batteries - but of course - that doesn't mean they aren't!

HenryDJP said:

LMAO, this a funny post. If Apple can make money on higher margins (which they do) then why would they lessen margins? If you will, please don't come back with the usual "They'll make it up in Volume" argument because that would require more sales to make the same money they do now. With over $150 billion in the bank the only people that are concerned about Apple's raking in more customers is you or whomever agrees with you.

Do I agree that Apple is greedy? Very much so, but your logic flawed. If they were a company that had trouble with customer retention, had trouble getting customers interested in their products, can't seem to make a profit in any which way but lowering customer-level costs then you would have a point.
Just be honest about it, ask yourself, would you drop margins if your company was raking in the type of cash Apple does and you had the the amount of customers as they do standing in hordes of lines waiting to buy your product? I think not.

Click to expand...

There's nothing you can do about it. There are people who think that a business should one day say, "You know what, we're making too much money so we're going to cut our prices." For some time, the claim used to be that the reason others aren't making as much profit as Apple is because they're choosing not to in order to "pass on savings to the consumer" rather than be the big bag greedy corporation like Apple.

the8thark said:

That is only one definition. Another definition of the word is:
"Something inessential but conducive to pleasure and comfort."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/luxury

And that by definition describes Apple perfectly.

Click to expand...

that definition describes my $10 pillow I purchased at Costco perfectly as well.

LagunaSol said:

Where there's smoke, there's fire. And the Apple haters on this forum blow plenty of smoke. Day after day after day.

So what's their motivation?

Click to expand...

Yap, and the worst Apple haters are the one paid to try to make Apple users look as blind fanatics posting as ridiculous worshippers

lazard said:

that definition describes my $10 pillow I purchased at Costco perfectly as well.

Click to expand...

If you consider having a good night sleep as inessential then sure. But for me I consider a good night sleep very essential.

Oletros said:

Yap, and the worst Apple haters are the one paid to try to make Apple users look as blind fanatics posting as ridiculous worshippers

Click to expand...

They're doing a horrible job all they're doing is..what's that saying? Protesting too much?

Stella said:

Apple computers inners are made of standard components. Its laptops are based around the same price as gaming laptops ( but without the graphics - and less hard disc space ).

In 2013 Apple is a consumer brand. Not a luxury brand.

Click to expand...

Your statement demonstrates that Apple IS a luxury brand. Eventually you mention that you think apple is "high end" as opposed to "luxury", but the difference between these is often merely semantical.

But, if Apple really was "high end", would they merely have standard internal components? Or would they have "high end" components?

Apple charges you a premium for primarily 2 things (3 if you count customer service), and those things are 1) the user experience from their OS and software, and 2) the user experience from the physical design of the product (aluminum bodies, attractive and often thin designs, the nice material of the trackpad, etc.).

Some of these things are entirely unnecessary (e.g. making the computer case out of a unibody block of aluminium), and everyone knows that Apple's prices are far higher than any other computer manufacturer. That makes them a luxury brand. Pretty simple. The phones seem less "luxurious" because most people buy them at a subsidy.

And by the way, you complained of waiting 2 weeks for a logic board and battery replacement... while that's slower than usual for Apple, that's still WAY faster than the service you would get from any other computer manufacturer.

Wether they are "high end" or "luxury" is largely a matter of semantics, which is quite subjective, but if you apply general definitions of these terms, everyone knows that Apple qualifies the most out of any consumer electronics company as high end or luxury. Yes there are a few niche computer makers that make fancy computers that cost $10000 but they are niche products.

A couple of definitions of luxury, from the first google search result:
1. Something inessential but conducive to pleasure and comfort.
2. Something expensive or hard to obtain.

That's Apple.
The second point can vary in it's relevance based on the income of the consumer, but if you look at the median or mode of incomes in say America, it readily explains the small marketshare of Apple computers.

Renzatic said:

Describes a Playstation 3 pretty well, too.

Click to expand...

yes by definition a playstation is a luxury item...anything non essential can be defined as a luxury item....don't confuse luxury with exclusive, or expensive...at one time an air conditioning unit was considered a luxury as was a television set

Sackvillenb said:

A couple of definitions of luxury, from the first google search result:
1. Something inessential but conducive to pleasure and comfort.
2. Something expensive or hard to obtain.

That's Apple.
The second point can vary in it's relevance based on the income of the consumer, but if you look at the median or mode of incomes in say America, it readily explains the small marketshare of Apple computers.

Click to expand...

A lot of phones fit that definition. And the thing about definitions and language in general is that it's not JUST about what is listed in the dictionary or on wikipedia. It's what is "decided" upon by a majority (real or vocal).

Context means a lot as well. It would be very expensive and hard to obtain a phone that is only available in India here in the US. That doesn't make it a luxury phone.

jessica. said:

Requiring a minimum purchase seems silly to me. Having the iPhone set up with an exclusive carrier made since until the 2nd iPhone was released. After that, it is just a douche move by a major corporation. Apple should really drop the minimum purchase requirement and allow the iPhone on all carriers as long as the current hardware supports said carrier. What would the harm be in doing that?

Click to expand...

Their Greed and Control that they currently have, and if you just think that all carriers would just say no to Apple, what is the point, they all stand to make a lot of money off the phone.

That being said, All the carriers should band together and say no more to Apple, I am sure all of them would do fine without the iPhone and then they can gain some control of Apple over pricing. This will never happen though, just look at the fact AT&T sold their soul to be exclusive from 2007-2011 before VZ got the iPhone 4.

samcraig said:

But the result is - one is an incentive to make money. The other is a penalty. That's my only point.

Click to expand...

Again, no. This is what you said:

"Well - two sides of the same coin. Except Apple's "incentive" is nothing of the sort. It's a punishment vs Android's model which is reward based."

Your point was to compare an Apple strategy against a Google strategy and show Androids superiority in regards to the strategy. You failed.

Second, you are still looking at this as though it's two models and one is an "incentive" and one is a "penalty." You need to understand that there aren't two options here that correlate with operating systems. This isn't an either/or proposition and it's not connected to iOS or Android. There is literally a hierarchy of phones that all offer differing amounts of GP for the salesperson. If anything is appropriate it would be a comparison between every hardware manufacturer; LG, Motorola, Samsung, Apple, HTC, Nokia, Blackberry, etc, and their margins on each individual device.

Gary03mw said:

Again, no. This is what you said:

"Well - two sides of the same coin. Except Apple's "incentive" is nothing of the sort. It's a punishment vs Android's model which is reward based."

Your point was to compare an Apple strategy against a Google strategy and show Androids superiority in regards to the strategy. You failed.

Second, you are still looking at this as though it's two models and one is an "incentive" and one is a "penalty." You need to understand that there aren't two options here that correlate with operating systems. This isn't an either/or proposition and it's not connected to iOS or Android. There is literally a hierarchy of phones that all offer differing amounts of GP for the salesperson. If anything is appropriate it would be a comparison between every hardware manufacturer; LG, Motorola, Samsung, Apple, HTC, Nokia, Blackberry, etc, and their margins on each individual device.

Click to expand...

Not really trying to prove superiority vs showcasing both scenarios.

Do you think that Apple contracts on carriers that "force" minimum sales is positive reinforcement or negative. I put force in quotes since no carrier HAS to sell the iPhone?

Do you think that Android manufactures (I shorthanded - let's not split hairs. I didn't mean it was Google's plan - but those that offer Android phones) offering sales incentives and/or higher profits on sales is positive or negative reinforcement?


p.s. I am comparing Apple to Android headset makers because that's the discussion people are making in the thread. I know there are other OSs/phones. Irrelevant to the main discussion.

samcraig said:

Not really trying to prove superiority vs showcasing both scenarios.

Do you think that Apple contracts on carriers that "force" minimum sales is positive reinforcement or negative. I put force in quotes since no carrier HAS to sell the iPhone?

Click to expand...

Gah... I typed up a whole response to this and somehow it didn't post. Anyway, I'm wiling to admit that I did nitpick your words a bit. I do think I was trying to make an important distinction though.

To answer your question, it's clearly negative reinforcement; which I know was your point. That being said, from Apples perspective, do they really have another choice? The only way for them to provide "incentive" would be for them to lower their margins which would kill their earnings. Obviously this is something that any company would want to avoid.

I also believe that to lower prices and conform to the carriers would be just flat out wrong. This is an issue common in basically all sales industries (which is why Steve was so intent on building out retail) but I don't think it's right that all products should have to cost the same in order to get fair and honest promotion. Prison is a negative reinforcement, but I think that few would argue that it isn't worthwhile. Basically I think that if Apple can correctly realign the moral compass of distributors and salespeople then that's what they should do.

Do you think that Android manufactures (I shorthanded - let's not split hairs. I didn't mean it was Google's plan - but those that offer Android phones) offering sales incentives and/or higher profits on sales is positive or negative reinforcement?

Click to expand...

This is the distinction I was trying to make. Android manufactures don't offer "incentives." If they could get Apples margins they would take them in a heartbeat. I suppose that relative to Apple it could be seen as "a better alternative."


On a separate note, I really hope that in the next few years we start to see the subsidy model collapse. It would really get rid of so many of the problems we are discussing. I hope that we see TMobiles uncarrier model do well and I hope that Apple, Google, and Microsoft retail all make major splashes.

andrew78 said:

A cheaper iPhone will win more customers. But plastic? how many hundreds of dollars does that aluminum cost?

Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing, if the iPhone 5 costs around $200 to build and they sell them for $650-$850, building a cheaper phone should get priced around $450 for plastic, even then, I would think they should come in around $399-$450 but who knows with Apple

Gary03mw said:

Gah... I typed up a whole response to this and somehow it didn't post. Anyway, I'm wiling to admit that I did nitpick your words a bit. I do think I was trying to make an important distinction though.

To answer your question, it's clearly negative reinforcement; which I know was your point. That being said, from Apples perspective, do they really have another choice? The only way for them to provide "incentive" would be for them to lower their margins which would kill their earnings. Obviously this is something that any company would want to avoid.

I also believe that to lower prices and conform to the carriers would be just flat out wrong. This is an issue common in basically all sales industries (which is why Steve was so intent on building out retail) but I don't think it's right that all products should have to cost the same in order to get fair and honest promotion. Prison is a negative reinforcement, but I think that few would argue that it isn't worthwhile. Basically I think that if Apple can correctly realign the moral compass of distributors and salespeople then that's what they should do.



This is the distinction I was trying to make. Android manufactures don't offer "incentives." If they could get Apples margins they would take them in a heartbeat. I suppose that relative to Apple it could be seen as "a better alternative."


On a separate note, I really hope that in the next few years we start to see the subsidy model collapse. It would really get rid of so many of the problems we are discussing. I hope that we see TMobiles uncarrier model do well and I hope that Apple, Google, and Microsoft retail all make major splashes.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you. I also wasn't implying that there was a choice and that Apple or other manufactures were good/bad or right/wrong in how they approach their business. They have different models. Both seem to be working. At least on the Android side - Samsung and HTC (lately) are.

Sackvillenb said:

Your statement demonstrates that Apple IS a luxury brand. Eventually you mention that you think apple is "high end" as opposed to "luxury", but the difference between these is often merely semantical.

But, if Apple really was "high end", would they merely have standard internal components? Or would they have "high end" components?
.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Apple computers contain a mixture high end and mid range components. For example - the graphic cards are mid range, its SSDs are not the best quality around etc. Its displays are aren't the best - consistent issues with Yellow displays etc.

Apple are a mass market consumer company. You cannot buy luxury goods in Walmart, Best Buy, Futureshop etc.

Apple products are on the whole priced competitively. If Apple was luxury then its prices would be far higher than the competition.


I know there's a large segment of Apple users who think they are the 'elite' etc, but really, this isn't the case in 2013.

Sackvillenb said:

A couple of definitions of luxury, from the first google search result:
1. Something inessential but conducive to pleasure and comfort.
2. Something expensive or hard to obtain.

Click to expand...

1. A lot of consumer goods are inessential. People do not need tablets, regardless of manufacturer, for example

2. Apple products are not hard to obtain. The vast majority of its products are priced competitively, as I mentioned.

So what have I learned after reading this thread?

All cellphones and computers and any device that we do not absolutely need to live a daily life are luxury items. This means that luxury items can be purchased at any store, even Walmart.

hexonxonx said:

So what have I learned after reading this thread?

All cellphones and computers and any device that we do not absolutely need to live a daily life are luxury items. This means that luxury items can be purchased at any store, even Walmart.

Click to expand...

Well that's settled then, Walmart = luxury retailer.

lazard said:

Well that's settled then, Walmart = luxury retailer.

Click to expand...

It's settled enough for me after reading this thread.

Renzatic said:

Seems to be the opposite to me. It's peoples obsession with believing their choice in products projects some form of class and taste on their part that's leading to this whole pointless "what's luxury and what's not debate". Your choice in using an iPhone doesn't necessarily make you somehow more informed, somehow separate, from someone who uses Android.

I'll tell you the one single reason why Apple isn't a luxury product. You see all the people who have posted in this thread? All the people who post on this forum? There are tens of thousands of us around here, and every single one of us can easily afford an Apple product.

Yes. It's quite as simple as that. True luxury products use only the most expensive components available, and are classed well beyond what the average person can afford. Apple might be more expensive than the competition, but only relatively so. The difference between paying $80 for one thing, and $100 for another.

Saying Apple makes luxury computers is like saying Tide makes luxury detergents because it sells for $3 more than Bounce at the local supermarket.

Click to expand...

I don't know why you are assuming that I have apple products or that I believe it makes me classy. You didn't address my point at all - it had NOTHING to do with the social perception of the product. You are disingenuous in suggesting that only ferrari is a luxury vehicle when Cadillac has been considered a luxury product it's entire existence.

but seeing as you keep going on about what are really the classist issues inherent in calling something a 'luxury' product. I mean - look at your post in response to mine.

ALange said:

So google/microsoft/ubuntu bla bla are also luxury? they for sure put gigantic effort in their products/ecosystems and care about them no less (sometimes even much more) than apple

LOL

Click to expand...

you are joking, right? google does put a lot of effort into their products, however they don't market them as luxury items. microsoft? ubuntu? surely you are joking...

samcraig said:

...but but but Google. But But But....

Click to expand...

Pithy

samcraig said:

How has Google abused patents and/or stifled competition with them? I'm curious how you think they have.

Click to expand...

I am curious how you think Google hasn't abused patents. Or is it the case that you are trying to say that because Motorola is the one absuing FRAND it has nothing to do with Google?