Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Reportedly Negotiating with Carriers for $100 Price Increase on iPhone 6

Abazigal said:
People who want an iPhone will still get one, given that Apple's the only company producing it.

What I don't understand is why carriers are opposed to increasing the price by $100? Maybe my reading comprehension is poor - but does this mean the iPhone is going to cost $100 more overall, Apple is actually asking carriers to subsidise it less (good for carriers, right?), or they are demanding $100 more from carriers, who are then forced to absorb the difference? :confused:
Click to expand...

I want another iPhone, but if it's $100 more and 4.7" then I'll be leaving the ecosystem.
 
dampfnudel said:
THIS. I can't wait until the first iPhone introduction where I only see unsubsidized prices on the screen. They won't look as good as the subsidized prices Tim & Phil presented in the in the past.
Click to expand...

That can be said about the Samsung and other flagship lines. When/if subsidies by the carriers go away in the States all those phones I think will take a hit. I don't see a lot of parents dropping $650+ out of pocket all at once for the family to all have the latest iPhone,Galaxy,Motorola, etc definitely not yearly

People will hold on to their phone a little bit longer as long as it continues to function.
 
tjl3 said:
I doubt it. Apple could easily just sell these in their store as an unlocked device and it would still sell tens of millions from that alone. Also, I doubt either AT&T or Verizon would opt out, it would hurt customer retention. How else are they going to lock the majority of their smartphone users in a contract?
Click to expand...

except, without subsidies, the iPhone sales aren't as good as with.

I think it was Kdarling in another thread recently had a very interesting post with some statistics, showing in nations with low to no subsidies, the iPhone sales were dramatically lower in order of Magnitudes compared to those with full subsidies like the US.

the question is, Would Apple be willing to gamble that they can maintain their sales and profit levels if they removed their major partners who have subsidies..

Edit: Found it. Nobody gets a cookie!
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/18973235/
 
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl said:
Did you click the link I supplied or maybe I'm not understanding the "can't get any special deals on an iPhone" message in your post. The link I supplied pointed to an iPhone 5s for free* on contract. Maybe you're referring to an unlocked (no contract) price? I recall very soon after the 5s was out, there were already some deals on contract. I don't know when free* arrived but I recall it wasn't that long after the launch (while supplies were still apparently tight).
Click to expand...

But what model iPhone is it in the link you posted? Is it the 16GB one?
 
Doesn't Misek suck when it comes to predictions?

I betcha this "$100 increase" has to do with the 5.5" version. It'll start at $299 for a 16GB (or whatever the base storage is - I always keep my fingers crossed).

Just like the rMini and Air are virtually the same across the board yet $100 apart pricing wise. The 5.5" will get a higher clock speed on the A8, maybe a slightly better display and HOPEFULLY some specific feature or two that takes advantage of the larger display.

Though since the iPad doesn't have anything like that (except tablet specific apps - which are great), I dunno if a larger iPhone will.
 
$100 more?

Maybe we'll all have to pick up our chins if the base model rolls out with 64GB of storage and 2GB RAM. Maybe this price jump is to rationalize the cost of moving beyond the 128GB high end.
 
lewisd25 said:
I would accept a price increase if they double the flash memory. 32gb should be the base model...
Click to expand...

Excellent point. The $100 Apple charges for an extra 16 GB of storage is absurd, but building that in as standard (which it really needs to be nowadays) would make it sting a lot less without hurting their bottom line much. They could bury some other increased cost in with it as I can't imagine they pay more than a few dollars for that 16 GB. Then offer a cheaper version wihh 16 GB if you must.

But knowing Apple, they will continue with their ridiculous underspecced and overpriced flash storage game.
 
apolloa said:
But what model iPhone is it in the link you posted? Is it the 16GB one?
Click to expand...

Probably but I don't know. I was just responding to a blanket comment implying no contract deals on iPhones. Obviously "free*" is one. If it's got to be 32GB "deal", here's apparently one from Sprint: http://shop.sprint.com/mysprint/shop/phone_details.jsp?deviceSKUId=77600083&isDeeplinked=true

The bigger point is that there are plenty of on contract deals to be found if someone is willing to pay (too much) on contract for an iPhone. Apple is not excluded from "special deals" for latest phones. One just needs to look around.
 
Abazigal said:
People who want an iPhone will still get one, given that Apple's the only company producing it...
Click to expand...

Sure those who still want it and can afford it will do just that. The real question is how many will still want it?
 
jrswizzle said:
Doesn't Misek suck when it comes to predictions?

I betcha this "$100 increase" has to do with the 5.5" version. It'll start at $299 for a 16GB (or whatever the base storage is - I always keep my fingers crossed).

Just like the rMini and Air are virtually the same across the board yet $100 apart pricing wise. The 5.5" will get a higher clock speed on the A8, maybe a slightly better display and HOPEFULLY some specific feature or two that takes advantage of the larger display.

Though since the iPad doesn't have anything like that (except tablet specific apps - which are great), I dunno if a larger iPhone will.
Click to expand...

Thank you! It wouldn't be outrageous also since the Galaxy Note 3 is $100 higher than the S5
 
And with AT&T pushing NEXT, the actual difference for most customers ends up just being a few bucks a month.

(of course the bigger difference with NEXT is the lower cost of unsubsidized smart phone fees is going to make people think twice before updating...)
 
HobeSoundDarryl said:
Did you click the link I supplied or maybe I'm not understanding the "can't get any special deals on an iPhone" message in your post. The link I supplied pointed to an iPhone 5s for free* on contract. Maybe you're referring to an unlocked (no contract) price? I recall very soon after the 5s was out, there were already some deals on contract. I don't know when free* arrived but I recall it wasn't that long after the launch (while supplies were still apparently tight).
Click to expand...


Are you referring to this link you posted?
http://www.att.com/wireless/iphone/...pObpQ-Snv9mOtuyPDFZuoToVusig#fbid=zgXxuVfZXtv
Seriously? That's your example. You choose between the standard $199 w/ 2 year contract OR a new offer by AT&T with nothing down. Bottom line: the basic $199 down deal has not been discounted. AT&T has just come up with a new angle to attract people who are bad at math.
 
It's funny how people in this thread are posting..."If it's true..i'ma...(insert)."
If it's true...what are you people going to do about it? Well...it's more likely that people will still buy it.......quit with your disparity.

Buy or buy samsung....like Jigsaw from the movie SAW, "the choice is yours."
 
HobeSoundDarryl said:
Probably but I don't know. I was just responding to a blanket comment implying no contract deals on iPhones. Obviously "free*" is one. If it's got to be 32GB "deal", here's apparently one from Sprint: http://shop.sprint.com/mysprint/shop/phone_details.jsp?deviceSKUId=77600083&isDeeplinked=true

The bigger point is that there are plenty of on contract deals to be found if someone is willing to pay (too much) on contract for an iPhone. Apple is not excluded from "special deals" for latest phones. One just needs to look around.
Click to expand...


That's not really a deal. It's just marketing by a Sprint--0% financing for a full price purchase contract.
 
lilo777 said:
I think what you said is absurd. You are saying that high profits allow Apple to keep lower prices. Really? Then I guess when Apple increases its profits on iPhone 6 by $100 it will translate into lower iPhone 6 price for consumers, right?
Click to expand...
Counter-intuitive isn't it.

You are the absurd responder to my posts BTW.

By having profit thus capital they are in a positon to buy exclusive components, to prepay suppliers, to get preferential pricing on transport, and many other things. That improves the supply-chain in terms of access and cost. Tim Cook thing.

That results in actual observation in Macs and thus all products costing less at retail.

There is even discussion of a lower cost iMac.

This translates to iPhone and iPad.

Counter-intuitive but true. Price points are lower. That's what the non-fanbois have been begging for. Not sure why since they buy Android units anyway. Why not? The price is lower, the feel is cheaper, no jailbreaking needed, and the fingerprint scanner is shi%%.

Rocketman
 
koban4max said:
Buy or buy samsung....like Jigsaw from the movie SAW, "the choice is yours."
Click to expand...

Eh. Windows Phones are looking pretty good these days. I'd either go there, or continually stay one iPhone generation behind in order to save some cash. Assuming, of course, that they're not providing something nice to justify that extra $100 I'll be paying.

Hell, I'm already 3 generations behind with my iPhone 4, and I don't feel any pressing need to upgrade.
 
Rocketman said:
Counter-intuitive isn't it.

You are the absurd responder to my posts BTW.

By having profit thus capital they are in a positon to buy exclusive components, to prepay suppliers, to get preferential pricing on transport, and many other things. That improves the supply-chain in terms of access and cost. Tim Cook thing.

That results in actual observation in Macs and thus all products costing less at retail.

There is even discussion of a lower cost iMac.

This translates to iPhone and iPad.

Counter-intuitive but true. Price points are lower. That's what the non-fanbois have been begging for. Not sure why since they buy Android units anyway. Why not? The price is lower, the feel is cheaper, no jailbreaking needed, and the fingerprint scanner is shi%%.

Rocketman
Click to expand...

It's a good theory but it's just that - a theory. The reality is that iPhone is the most mass produced phone in the World and yet Apple never dropped a price on it. Also, it is a well known fact that iPhone's BOM (Bill Of Materials) is lower than that of its high end siblings and yet it is priced higher. So, I do not buy your theory.
 
mccldwll said:
That's not really a deal. It's just marketing by a Sprint--0% financing for a full price purchase contract.
Click to expand...

Perhaps someone should describe a "deal" then. I thought someone was looking for a "deal" on contract where the phone wouldn't be $199 or $299. But apparently, we're going to evolve the definition of a deal to make it cost less than Apple wants for phones (via subsidy)? If that's the definition of "deal", then yes, Apple has a tight lock on dealing because they are the only source of their phones. Samsung and others could play the very same game if they wanted but they appear to want to sell in volume at lower profit margins.
 
lilo777 said:
It's a good theory but it's just that - a theory. The reality is that iPhone is the most mass produced phone in the World
Click to expand...
False. Samsung sells more units. Apple is only the highest profit and margin and quality and usability brand, not the highest units.

BTW I find it interesting how quickly you respond to each of my posts. I think you do this as a living (fee) or as a past time full-time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back