Probably the same place that all the current jail broken iphones are activated?
3G phones would still work on EDGE (as all current 3G capable phones do). It's not all about 3G - it's about new applications, GPS, and higher capacity.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AT&T to subsidize cost of new iphone
- Thread starter liquidh2o
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Probably the same place that all the current jail broken iphones are activated?
3G phones would still work on EDGE (as all current 3G capable phones do). It's not all about 3G - it's about new applications, GPS, and higher capacity.
This could be exactly like how the French carrier is doing.
Apple wants AT&T to do handset subsidy.
AT&T doesn't really care one way or another because they are actually bringing in a bunch of $99 unlimited voice plan without the iphone.
AT&T telling Apple that if they want us to subsidize the iphone then kill the revenue share all together.
Apple wants AT&T to do handset subsidy.
AT&T doesn't really care one way or another because they are actually bringing in a bunch of $99 unlimited voice plan without the iphone.
AT&T telling Apple that if they want us to subsidize the iphone then kill the revenue share all together.
why cant apple make a cdma iphone? my question is, why wouldnt they want to make a cdma iphone. people keep bringing up the 5 year contract as if its set in stone. im sure apple is smart enough to have an out clause in the contract as most good contracts do. nobody here has seen the contract. just a hypothetical example, they could have stipulated something saying the contract is void if the contract or at&t is limiting their sales growth. my point is people need to stop talking in definites as if they are in the apple board room.
Okay, you're wrong
Or at least, no one has any real knowledge of their contract. But ATT said last year to expect them to get more iPhone models, so it would seem they covered the obvious.
Just saying I'm wrong without saying how I'm wrong doesn't make you any more informed. From what I've read of Apple's contract with AT&T, it states specifically that Apple can't develop a CDMA version for the duration of the 5 years of the contract (which rules out Sprint and Verizon). But things could change if Congress has their way. What I haven't read anywhere is that the contract gives AT&T exclusive rights for all future versions of the iPhone. The contract was made for model A1203. If you can show me where its stated otherwise, then I'll concede.
There is more money in a worldwide format. GSM is used in more than 74% of the markets across the globe, CDMA is the minority with less of a market share (less profits).
Its all about money and they can make more marketing to GSM providers. The cost would be far less to produce a GSM only phone than GSM and CDMA.
I doubt AT&T will subsidize, it would undercut Apple retail store sales. Which would affect Steve's numbers and we all know Steve gets all the money or he throws ranting fits and kicks the dog.
Where's Microsoft?
The article I read did not mention 3G support. It did mention the GPS and the slightly reduced width.
If the next iPhone comes with 3G and GPS support and is discounted down to $195 the iPhone sales are going to be huge.
I'm amazed that Microsoft has not released even a Beta version of Windows Mobile with the web features of the iPhone. It is now close to 18 months from the initial iPhone news conference and still no word from Microsoft. What are they doing in Redmond? To me it is unbelievable that Microsoft have left themselves get so far behind.
The article I read did not mention 3G support. It did mention the GPS and the slightly reduced width.
If the next iPhone comes with 3G and GPS support and is discounted down to $195 the iPhone sales are going to be huge.
I'm amazed that Microsoft has not released even a Beta version of Windows Mobile with the web features of the iPhone. It is now close to 18 months from the initial iPhone news conference and still no word from Microsoft. What are they doing in Redmond? To me it is unbelievable that Microsoft have left themselves get so far behind.
it's all rumors, baby
Hmm.... reading the article made me come to several conclusions
a) Mark's tech writing is horrible. 8 Gigabit? Sorry, that's a reduction fro 8 Gigabytes. I don't think Apple will reduce capacity.
b) The source is probably going to loose his/her job within a week. Because most of this information seems like crap. Why would you reduce the NEW iPhone $200? I can see a price reduction in the older versions to clear out stock (They did it with the 4GB version and dang it i should have jumped on that bandwagon!)but the brand new ones, that's a long stretch.
c) The entire rumor will probably never come to pass in its current form. A more educated guess would be a iPhone that has higher capacities (16 and 32), longer battery, and maybe smaller (that part is possibly true). I'm not holding my breath for GPS. The 16GB new iphone will be 499, the 32GB at 599. if there is a rebate, it is for AT&T to sell more iPhones in their stores. Maybe the revenue sharing agreement is that if the phone is sold at a AT&T store, Apple gets less- if Apple sells the iphone in a Apple store, then Apple gets a higher cut. Of course, no one really knows.
Hmm.... reading the article made me come to several conclusions
a) Mark's tech writing is horrible. 8 Gigabit? Sorry, that's a reduction fro 8 Gigabytes. I don't think Apple will reduce capacity.
b) The source is probably going to loose his/her job within a week. Because most of this information seems like crap. Why would you reduce the NEW iPhone $200? I can see a price reduction in the older versions to clear out stock (They did it with the 4GB version and dang it i should have jumped on that bandwagon!)but the brand new ones, that's a long stretch.
c) The entire rumor will probably never come to pass in its current form. A more educated guess would be a iPhone that has higher capacities (16 and 32), longer battery, and maybe smaller (that part is possibly true). I'm not holding my breath for GPS. The 16GB new iphone will be 499, the 32GB at 599. if there is a rebate, it is for AT&T to sell more iPhones in their stores. Maybe the revenue sharing agreement is that if the phone is sold at a AT&T store, Apple gets less- if Apple sells the iphone in a Apple store, then Apple gets a higher cut. Of course, no one really knows.
wait a min..
i thought the iphone was supposed to change the mobile industry, how it works. this was what was said by all, even uncle walt. but now i see them going backwards, like the way the industry used to function.
maybe this is true, and a lot of people would like it, but wouldn't it be like a step down?
so sales rule all i guess.
also an iphone for $200... would be diluting it's market value i guess..!!
i thought the iphone was supposed to change the mobile industry, how it works. this was what was said by all, even uncle walt. but now i see them going backwards, like the way the industry used to function.
maybe this is true, and a lot of people would like it, but wouldn't it be like a step down?
so sales rule all i guess.
also an iphone for $200... would be diluting it's market value i guess..!!
I hope Apple does let them, since in the long run it will put more iPhones in the pockets of consumers.
Given that I'm not privy to the AT&T-Apple contract for the iPhone, I cannot say that Apple's revenue stream from the carrier's revenue stream is key for Apple. I also don't know how important this loss of revenue is to AT&T.
It has seemed to me that, as part of the negotiations between Cingular and Apple, Apple had no choice but to give Cingular an exclusive deal because they were the only carrier with GSM and the only carrier willing to deal with them. But if, as has been speculated, the exclusivity contract is 5 years, Apple may have wanted to potentially renegotiate the contract before the 5 years was up, and needed some bargaining position (benefit) to relinquish for Cingular to give up some important benefit in the contract. (In a contract, each side must get both a benefit and a detriment out of the contract). So perhaps Cingular would give up exclusivity for Apple relinquishing the additional revenue stream.
Anyway, that has always been my view -- that Apple's negotiations have been quite sophisticated and they have been able to see and plan much further out than other companies who think quarter-to-quarter.
Of course, I could be completely off the wall.
Don't worry they are busy at work to completely rip off the iPhone OS by 2009 with a pathetically late and of course buggy crap Windows Mobile 7 OS LOL!
http://microsoft.blognewschannel.co...bile-7-to-focus-on-touch-and-motion-gestures/
I think they're going to have to offer the subsidy to existing customers, too. A discount a new iPhone in return for extending the contract another two years.
And/or maybe a trade in program, too?
And/or maybe a trade in program, too?
This is sounding better and better news all the time. I'm glad I've held out on getting an iPhone until now. Hopefully my patience will be rewarded!
I'm getting no less than a 16GB model. But I'm praying that there will be a 32GB, as this will be the minimum required for all my music (like my original iPod) and enough space left over for apps, photos and videos.
I'm getting no less than a 16GB model. But I'm praying that there will be a 32GB, as this will be the minimum required for all my music (like my original iPod) and enough space left over for apps, photos and videos.
I said it earlier in the thread and I'll say it again- never gonna happen! People lined up for hours to pay $600. The initial price drop is all we're gonna see. All apple has to do is look at any given forum to see that people are chomping at the bit for 3G at the current or higher price point.
Even if AT&T is allowed to reduce the price I really doubt they will. They just don't need to.
Even if AT&T is allowed to reduce the price I really doubt they will. They just don't need to.
This forum is not representative of the general public (in terms of the amount people are willing to spend on a phone, music player, etc.) It is true that Apple could price skim, and capture higher revenues from the early adopters, before capturing the other segments--- but Apple already tried this with 1.0 and got burned.
The bottom line is that Apple must offer lower priced and/or subsidized models to make inroads in the 1 billion unit phone sector.
Look at the iPod. It didn't really take off until the lower priced Mini was introduced. The Mini/Nano is the best selling model.
The first iPod was $399 ($476.08 in 2007 dollars). Now the iPod range starts at $49 ($41.07 in 2001 dollars). At one time Apple sold a $600 iPod model. Now the iPod range tops out at $500.
As big as they are, they're still less than 25% of the market. If cheaper iPhones means stealing customers from Verizion and Sprint, they'll do it.
It wasn't a goof at the time... they had a product and they didn't know whether it would sell. They'd spent millions on development and it would have been stupid to risk taking a loss on it. The exclusive deal did two things - 1. provided ATT with an incentive to stock this new device, 2. maximised the return that apple got so they could recover the development cost.
Of course this forum isn't representative of the general population. That's my point. Have you ever looked at the price of other smart phones? Pretty much the same as the iPHone. I know they do offer subsidies on Treo's Blackberrys etc. but I feel that model isn't different enough from the iPhone that you have to consider it with a grain of salt. The feature set of the iPhone is much different than other smart phones. Young can't get a new smartphone, with subsidy for less than $200-$250. I just don't think Apple wanting to be at that price point. All of their products are priced aggressively.
I just think its too much wishful thinking to believe this RUMOR. And the guy that wrote the article is a chump.
Some random thoughts:
Contracts: The whole rushed late June 2007 launch has always smelled fishy to me. Apple and ATT negotiated their contract one year earlier in mid 2006. It makes me think that, by launching within that time frame, Apple got the right to do (something) sooner. No idea what that something is.
GSM: Enough of "Apple chose GSM because it's a world standard". Apple went to Verizon, and if the latter had said yes, we'd be using a CDMA iPhone as well.
Subsidies: Thought about it overnight, and the best reason I can think of for allowing them (besides if sales are down), is if the 3G data plans cost more.
Contracts: The whole rushed late June 2007 launch has always smelled fishy to me. Apple and ATT negotiated their contract one year earlier in mid 2006. It makes me think that, by launching within that time frame, Apple got the right to do (something) sooner. No idea what that something is.
GSM: Enough of "Apple chose GSM because it's a world standard". Apple went to Verizon, and if the latter had said yes, we'd be using a CDMA iPhone as well.
Subsidies: Thought about it overnight, and the best reason I can think of for allowing them (besides if sales are down), is if the 3G data plans cost more.
I believe WM 6.1, which is just hitting phones, has an IE with full page view and zoom. WM 6.2 (?) will have a version of IE 6, which Windows CE has had for years. WM 7 has the whole touch friendly thing.
The big difference with WM, of course, is that you're not dependent on Microsoft as much. Plenty of third parties are making browsers, ROM updates and touch friendly add-ons. Here's a late one:
Nice WM launcher etc