$99 Wal-Mart iPhone Seems Unlikely

[lucasmonger]

complete guess... iphone nano?

Remember when the first iPhone came out and people begged for an iPhone nano? I'd venture to guess that Walmart is just selling the 8GB iPhone for now, but in Jan, Apple might just announce a smaller, simpler phone at the lower $99 price that has most of the features of the original iPhone, but with a smaller screen and no ability to run downloadable Apps. Maybe another cost-cutting measure is Edge and no Wifi? If we're lucky it will have 3G and negate the need for Wifi. This should be available to everyone selling iPhones, not just Walmart. Maybe no GPS or camera either, but more like a phone a wireless internet device.

That would differentiate from a high-end smartphone and raise the bar on "regular" phones.

Just a guess...

 

[zombitronic]

Bloomberg, however, is still reporting the possibility of the $99 phone.

According to Street Insider, the NY Post also thinks the $99 phone is likely.

 

[dizzy13]

Finally...

First time I read this I posted the following on my little blog "rumor of iPhone headed to walmart for $99…I don’t think so".

Glad to see some big names calling BGR out on this. I gave it a 50/50 chance of the iPhone showing up in walmart (which now seems more), but a 4GB version and/or an exclusive version/price for just walmart never made any sense. I mean if you know apple you know they wouldn't ever do that.

 

[shaunymac]

So when is walmart going to start selling macs?
It seems as if apple keeps trying to "reach more and more people" but at what effort will they finally stop?

Maybe three to five years from now we will see the mac mini, if still around, and the macbook sitting beside an acer at wally world.

For all of you doubting it, I definately never thought our phone would be sold at walmart after being introduced at $500. How many more hands do they want to reach? The market share they have right now is fine. They have the loyalists/diehard mac fans and then all of the people that have jumped on the bandwagon. Must we become microsoft? Keep it clean and simple, afterall, that is why we like apple in the first place.

 

[franzmueller]

Apple needs a 99.- iphone if they want to keep sales up
My guess : end of January the 8 Gb will go down to 99.- when the 32 Gb is announced

Saludos

 

[alexbates]

Bloomberg, however, is still reporting the possibility of the $99 phone.

According to Street Insider, the NY Post also thinks the $99 phone is likely.

I think that there still is a chance, but only if Apple gets a larger share of money from the service from AT&T.

 

[iWizzard]

In response to shaunymac:

LOL

"Ok every one now we have 9%,that is enought everyone. No new cosumers. That it."

 

[Michael73]

Does offering the iPhone at Wallyworld cheapen the Apple brand experience?

I think so.

Here's my issue...

One of the key differentiators for Apple is it's customer support. Now here in Indiana we have 1 Apple store. Even since buying my MP in Sept of '06, the store has gotten progressively busier and busier to the point that if I want to go there I now cringe. The store always has wall-to-wall people and you'll be lucky to get a Genius Bar appointment with under a week wait time.

I'm all for expending the Apple brand experience but I don't think this is done at WalMart. Furthermore, opening the spigot like this will only make the store here in Indiana a more chaotic place as people come in for service, accessories, etc. which not only hurts loyal existing customers like myself but also the new ones.

 

[Luke1robb]

This is exactly what I thought would happen. Apple would never start selling the 4GB iPhone again.

I personally thought this would have been a great direction for the company. It would get rid of the "price umbrella" steve jobs talked about. I now predict Apple releasing a 32GB iPhone in January at $299 and dropping the others down $100 or simply just dropping the prices $100. They need to get rid of the price umbrella and simply dominate the market. They are already closing in on domination, but this would shut the market down. I think the 32GB phone is more likely, because otherwise it would be setting them up for a lower price point if they just dropped the prices.

 

[Luke1robb]

Does offering the iPhone at Wallyworld cheapen the Apple brand experience?

I think so.

Here's my issue...

One of the key differentiators for Apple is it's customer support. Now here in Indiana we have 1 Apple store. Even since buying my MP in Sept of '06, the store has gotten progressively busier and busier to the point that if I want to go there I now cringe. The store always has wall-to-wall people and you'll be lucky to get a Genius Bar appointment with under a week wait time.

I'm all for expending the Apple brand experience but I don't think this is done at WalMart. Furthermore, opening the spigot like this will only make the store here in Indiana a more chaotic place as people come in for service, accessories, etc. which not only hurts loyal existing customers like myself but also the new ones.

I would agree with you in some ways, but I think the solution is either:

1) Create more Apple stores, which IS going on.

but more importantly,

2) Provide support for iPhones at AT&T solely, potentially exporting all traffic out of store.

 

[Shasterball]

So when is walmart going to start selling macs?

I'm not sure the Walmart audience is the right Mac audience. Jobs insists that Macs are a high end item and will not budge. Current Macs certainly tailor to that thinking.... No one goes to Walmart to buy such items...

 

[Chiefthinker]

CNBC's Jim Goldman just confirmed the wallmart deal and also claims there will be NO $99 price point.

 

[Luke1robb]

Actually now that I think about it, it makes complete sense that the 4GB will not come out. Not once, has Apple released any new iPhone (capacity, firmware, or hardware) without an announcement. This launch would not involve one obviously. Also, Apple said the holiday line was set, releasing a new iphone would go against what they said. I know, some of you might say, this would be after Christmas, hence holidays, but my first point would conflict with this.

 

[alexbates]

Remember when the first iPhone came out and people begged for an iPhone nano? I'd venture to guess that Walmart is just selling the 8GB iPhone for now, but in Jan, Apple might just announce a smaller, simpler phone at the lower $99 price that has most of the features of the original iPhone, but with a smaller screen and no ability to run downloadable Apps. Maybe another cost-cutting measure is Edge and no Wifi? If we're lucky it will have 3G and negate the need for Wifi. This should be available to everyone selling iPhones, not just Walmart. Maybe no GPS or camera either, but more like a phone a wireless internet device.

That would differentiate from a high-end smartphone and raise the bar on "regular" phones.

Just a guess...

This is exactly what I've been hoping for since the iPhone came out.

If Apple does decide to release a cheaper phone (which they should and could make a lot of money) it would definitely not have WiFi. I think it would have to have 3G though (and knowing Apple and their idea of "innovation", it would have a touch screen) I have had my old phone for a long time, and it even has 3G. What Apple should do is offer a cheaper of service that does not have an internet plan included. Some people do not want to pay for it, and others just don't use the internet that much to need it on a mobile phone.

If Apple came out with a cheaper phone with an AT&T plan thats only $40 or $50 with texting, I would be the first one to get it. I'm sure that others would say the same thing.

 

[alexbates]

I personally thought this would have been a great direction for the company. It would get rid of the "price umbrella" steve jobs talked about. I now predict Apple releasing a 32GB iPhone in January at $299 and dropping the others down $100 or simply just dropping the prices $100. They need to get rid of the price umbrella and simply dominate the market. They are already closing in on domination, but this would shut the market down. I think the 32GB phone is more likely, because otherwise it would be setting them up for a lower price point if they just dropped the prices.

I entirely agree with removing the "price umbrella". They would dominate the market if they would sell products at a lower price. Everyone that I have talked to that does not have an iPhone would much rather have one than any other phone, but does not want to pay the price.

It is the same way with Macs. If Apple does come out with the netbooks that are rumored in the first part of 2009, they would dominate the laptop market.

 

[Saladinos]

It's a little ironic that one of the main sticking points that prevented Verizon from selling the iPhone, was Apple's refusal to let them sell it through Best Buy and other Verizon outlets.

It is a little funny. Still, a Verizon iPhone wouldn't have worked. CDMA is on its own. Apple would have had to create two models.

The other reason, supposedly, was that Apple wanted to deal with handset problems, and Verizon wanted to do all the customer care. That's just stupid IMO. I don't want my carrier dealing with handset issues. I couldn't care less about them. I use their network, but not because I'm loyal to their brand or any rubbish like that.

It's always bugged me how far involved US carriers are. The attitude in the UK is that they're like your water or gas company - you don't really care who provides it, so long as the price is good.

 

[Michael73]

I haven't heard anything about new stores here in Indiana, but of course the world is a lot bigger than my backyard

To your second point, my first thought ways *brilliant* but with a moment of reflection, it occurred to me that splitting out the iPhone traffic robs Apple of a huge chance to cross-sell other products and services. After all, the iPod has been a great entree for many people to buy a MB or iMac and I see the iPhone as no different.

My thought is that Apple explore creating mini-Apple Department Stores where everyone is exposed to the brand and experience but people with iPhone questions/issues etc. would go to the iPhone dept, Macs to the Mac dept and so on.

I would agree with you in some ways, but I think the solution is either:

1) Create more Apple stores, which IS going on.

but more importantly,

2) Provide support for iPhones at AT&T solely, potentially exporting all traffic out of store.

 

[Kwill]

At $197 Walmart averts another stampede!

There is a market (for a $99 model) for those who are not tech savvy, have no music and never download apps. A 4GB iPhone, even at $99, is such a bad deal. For 2 years, purchaser could not upgrade their phone. In 2009 we expect both a speed bump and, very likely, a new model before the end of the year. As apps mature with more features and larger footprints, most users with only 4GB will soon get GB envy.

I seriously doubt there will be a rush to Walmart and save $2 on an 8GB phone unless Apple and AT&T stop selling the 8GB and introduce speed bumped models for $50 more (i.e.: 16GB @ $249; 32GB @ $299).

 

[bdkennedy1]

Jesus stop already!

There's not going to be a $99 iPhone at Walmart for the simple and most obvious fact that Apple isn't going to cannibalize their own sales at their stores.

 

[iOrlando]

According to CNBC, they have talked to apple and apple says:


Walmart Yes, $99 no.

 

[DSG]

Price fixing is when different companies COLLUDE to fix a price for a similar or the same product. For example, if Microsoft, Apple, and the Linux folks sat down and said, we should all ell our operating systems for $500, that's price fixing.

However, a manufacturer does have control of how, and at what price, their products are sold at. So I think Apple can dictate prices to their partners, or simply not sell to them. Free market.

Suggest you buy an economics or competition law textbook. Don't know about the specifics of US Anti-Trust law but under EU Competition Law there is certainly no requirement for there to be a cartel. Under Article 82 EC a company enjoying a 'dominant position' must not abuse that position. Such abuse includes the imposition of unfair purchase or selling prices.

Not saying anything in particular about Apple but competition law seems to be mentioned fairly frequently on here and most people commenting seem undeterred by the fact that they know f all about it.

 

[slu]

That is called price fixing, and is against the law in almost all civilised countries.

You need to look up price fixing.

EDIT: I see several others have beat me to it.

 

[matticus008]

Price fixing is when different companies COLLUDE to fix a price for a similar or the same product.

That is one example. It is not representative of the class.

However, a manufacturer does have control of how, and at what price, their products are sold at.

Only as far as they are the ones doing the selling. Once they have handed over the inventory, the retailers and distributors can do whatever they want with that physical inventory. You could give them away if you wanted. No dictating of prices is permitted.

At best, Apple can set a suggested retail price (which they do), and supplement it with a voluntary contractual relationship setting minimum advertised prices (which they do) in exchange for subsidies or supplier preference (which they do), and then resupply retailers based on their volume and profit performance (which they do). Apple cannot, however, dictate second-degree prices themselves under any circumstances.

Suggest you buy an economics or competition law textbook. Don't know about the specifics of US Anti-Trust law but under EU Competition Law there is certainly no requirement for there to be a cartel.

This is correct. There must, however, be a mandate--the retailer must be threatened or otherwise directly coerced to set a particular price. Incentivizing cooperation, no matter how sweet the incentives, is not price fixing.

Not saying anything in particular about Apple but competition law seems to be mentioned fairly frequently on here and most people commenting seem undeterred by the fact that they know f all about it.

Welcome to my world.

 

[DSG]

You need to look up price fixing.

EDIT: I see several others have beat me to it.

Do you even know where to "look up price fixing"? As I've said above, I'm talking from some experience of EU competition law rather than US Anti-Trust law but I can promise you that you are talking out of your arse, at least in relation to the EU. I am not saying anything about the current issue, but it is possible both for there to be a breach of competition law where a company enjoying a monopoly (not as easy to define as you might think) abuses that monopoly and also where there is a 'vertical price-fixing agreement' between a company and its distributors, retailers, suppliers etc.

 

[DSG]

This is correct. There must, however, be a mandate--the retailer must be threatened or otherwise directly coerced to set a particular price. Incentivizing cooperation, no matter how sweet the incentives, is not price fixing.

Interesting - it sounds like EU law casts its net slightly wider than in the US.