1. Welcome to the new MacRumors forums. See our announcement and read our FAQ

The iPhone’s Funny Price

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, May 2, 2007.

  1. macrumors bot

  2. macrumors G5


    Also found at Daring Fireball:

    1. The inch-thick, heavy (and buggy) Palm Treo 700p on Amazon is just $39 less than an iPhone--AFTER being subsidized by Verizon. $710 not subsidized.
    (And it has many specs less than iPhone--only 128 Mb storage, smaller/lower-res screen, smaller camera, no WiFi, shorter talk time... and obviously no multi-touch UI.)

    2. The Motorola RAZR started at $499 subsidized--or $799 not subsidized.

    Ballmer's pretended shock at the iPhone's $499 price seems a little misplaced :eek:

    I'll be glad to pay full price for an iPhone instead of paying an inflated subsidy every single month. Either way, you pay.
  3. macrumors 6502a

    Articles like this help renew my enthusiasm about this phone, and best of all, although it arrives late in the UK we can look forward to a 6 month beta testing period to iron out the bugs. My contract expires around christmas and if the iPhone's everything it seems to be then I'll certainly be buying one.
  4. macrumors 68030

    Analog Kid

    I think the assumptions that the iPhone sales should be modeled on iPod sales is a little off base. In some ways, the iPhone is the anti-iPod.

    iPod flew in the face of all the common wisdom about convergence. We wanted a music player. Not a PDA, or a phone, or a camera or any of the other things that companies were trying to integrate music into.

    Why? One reason was sound quality. Another was capacity. A third was interface. The downside of convergence is that you get average functionality on all components because they're all of equal priority. iPod allowed us to carry our entire music library with us, it sounded great, and access to the music wasn't secondary to some other function.

    That said, I think the iPhone is necessary for Apple. I don't think this is an offensive move, but a defensive one. Two of the convergence penalties are fast disappearing. The great bulk of iPod sales are the flash based models-- most people's libraries fit in 4GB. (Mine doesn't, but I'm not most people.) Good quality, inexpensive, headphone amps are available now-- in large part because of the success of the iPod. Oh, and every company out there is acting like a hungry wolf at the watering hole looking for a piece of the iPod market so they're paying the pennies to use these components.

    Now's the time Apple needs to make their move-- if people can reduce the number of devices they buy and carry without losing capacity and sound quality, they very well might. Apple has two core competencies that will allow them to compete in this new market successfully-- industrial design that's second to none and killer UI design.

    And iTunes certainly gives them an edge.

    The success of the Nano shows that people aren't married to the hard drive and I think the iPod+video was the first indication that people were ready to take more functionality into their music player. Now we'll see how much more. And we'll see if the music and sex appeal outweigh other considerations such as carrier, price, and (because I know Stella's out there somewhere) the ability to run any ol' third party app you can pull off the interweb.
  5. macrumors member

    From previews, I would argue that the interface of the iPhone is hundreds of times superior to that of the iPod - i think it would be hard to find enough reasons to suggest that we lose any functionality or take any steps backwards through the convergence.
  6. macrumors 6502a


    Sure, the iPhone is no sure thing (although it's a heck of a good bet), but Ballmer is one of the best contrary indicators out there. His condemnation alone should be enough to warrant issuing a strong buy rating on Apple's stock.
  7. macrumors G5



    There are four main reasons not to have a device that combines too many roles and tries to do too much:

    1. Cost. But the iPhone is starting at $499 when the most expensive iPod ever was $599... and was the predecessor to today's much-cheaper and much-better iPods with video. Cheaper iPhones will follow, but there IS a market for $499-$599 models right now.

    2. Battery use. But the iPhone doesn't need to power hardware (like camera, WiFi, and earbuds) when not in use, and battery technology has reached the point where the powerful processor required by the iPhone still permits 5 hours talk time--better than some other phones.

    3. Bulk. But technology marches on, and Apple is the master of miniaturization. This thing is less than half an inch thick--more pocketable than a Blackberry or Treo... or most iPods that have ever been made!

    4. Confusing controls--jack of all trades, master of none, crowded with options. The complete opposite of the iPod's one-control simplicity.

    The multitouch interface (not the first small touchscreen, merely the best) really erases this last objection. The interface can devote itself totally and simply to whatever the task it at hand. Not so with competing devices that rely more on physical controls.

    So the iPod's super-simple 5-buttons-and-wheel-in-one has been replaced by a touchscreen and ONE button--even simpler, yet with even more capable scrolling and selection. This is the best iPod ever, by far--and surely is a sign of iPods to come.
  8. macrumors 68020


    I don't even own an iPhone yet but I've already scratched it. :p

  9. macrumors G5


    The sad thing about beautiful design: Apple products don't scratch (or smudge) any more easily than other products. You just care more when it happens :)
  10. macrumors 68020


    I don't know why they don't use something like Lexan instead of soft plastics. My iPod scratched taking it out of the poly bag!
  11. macrumors G5


    Weird! Mine's been in my pocket for a year with no scratches beyond microscopic ones you can hunt for in bright light. Before that it was in a sleeve for two years, taken in and out periodically. I certainly wouldn't call my iPod soft plastic--that WOULD be a bad idea.

    Makes you wonder if yours wasn't damaged at the factory.

    EDIT: Wikipedia seems to think iPod ARE made of Lexan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexan

    (I think we've just given this thread new life--good for at least 3 more pages :p )
  12. macrumors 68020


    Wow. That's strange. Is your's fairly new? Maybe they changed the plastic. I have the Nano (the last one prior to the redesign) and it has a few very small scratches but my iPod 60GB (video) is scratched all to hell. I TRIED to baby it but it was no use. :eek:

    Good. I need an avatar! :rolleyes:
  13. macrumors G5


    Mine is a 60 Photo, 3 years old or so. Boy, an iPhone will feel small in comparison! (And the original battery still plays for 6 hours+ even while driving an iTrip transmitter and doing frequent track-skipping, BTW. I basically never give any thought to charging at all--it just charges when I synch once a week or so.)

    Popular wisdom is that the nanos like yours were the iPods that were most scratchable of all iPods ever. (Despite Apple's insistence that all iPods have used the same plastic.) And yet your nano was the tough one of the two! It does make you wonder :)
  14. macrumors 68020


    I put the damn thing in my pocket with my keys and it looks better than the video iPod! :eek:

    I guess one never knows where lightning will strike.
  15. macrumors 68030

    Analog Kid

    I guess I wasn't clear enough in my post-- that was my point. The penalties of convergence have mostly been mitigated since the original iPod and now may be the time to converge.

    There are still penalties though in cost, size, and ease of use as nagromme mentions:
    Yes Apple has had iPod products at these price points, but they were different products at a different time. The iPhone isn't an iPod-- if it were you would choose the cheaper Nano with the same capacity, or the higher capacity at the same price. Convergence makes the assumption that you're willing to trade capacity for phone calls at the same price.
    However long the iPhone can run, a simpler phone or a simpler iPod could run longer...
    Again, they could have made it smaller with less Flash or without the radio. The key is that it's smaller than an iPod and a phone-- that's a win that convergence almost always makes.
    I don't disagree with any of your points above, nagromme, but I think most of your comparisons here were comparing the upcoming iPhone with previous tech.

    The compromise with convergence is that you never get the best of everything... The iPhone won't replace any devices for me-- it will be one more thing to own. It doesn't have the storage to replace my iPod. It doesn't have the quality to replace my camera. It doesn't have the versatility to replace my Powerbook. I don't have a cell phone.

    Convergence has its advantages though-- this is a beautiful piece of tech.
    This is the best explanation I've seen yet for all the outrage...
  16. macrumors G5


    It certainly does have trade-offs that make it not for everyone.

    In my case, it could replace my camera (sometimes) my iPod and my landline. It could replace my PowerBook for some things--and would give me email and Web in places and situations where I wouldn't HAVE my PowerBook.

    I will however have to do some soul-searching to decide between an iPhone and an ultraportable MacBook if one shows up :)
  17. macrumors 6502a

    I need an avatar too. :D

    Off-topic: I am going to get the iPhone as soon as it arrives in the UK. :eek:

Share This Page