In the eastern U.S. have never, ever, not once seen a Zune "in the wild" (outside of a store). Also, I have never seen a Zune being sold in a store. I would be willing to bet and give odds that almost every msft employee owns at least one Zune "bought" with "bonus" money.
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.
iPhone without Contract in Germany? - 999 UPDATE: Confirmed + 600 for an unlock!
- Thread starter DaveTheGrey
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You got to be kidding right?
Vodafone is suing in Germany precisely because they fear that Nokia is going to copy Apple's revenue share model.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/20/vodafone-germany-obtains-restraining-order-against-t-mobile-ipho/
Why mess with a successful business model?
Rumors have said that AT&T paid a 10% revenue share to Apple. iPhone's launch in the US was a success --- so Apple asked for more money in Europe (rumors of 30% revenue share). If iphone's launch in Europe is a success --- then Apple is going to ask for a 50% revenue share in Asia.
The iPhone will have a one year life span (maybe one and a half if we're lucky). And the "free" firmware for the iPhone will be because you have to use iTunes and pay Apple for the right to use your own songs as ringtones. They also, of course, make money from the songs you buy on iTunes.
They don't need money from a monthly contract to validate the addition of software updates. And these updates haven't added much functionality yet, so they're not exactly giving you something for nothing. Unless you call the ability to buy songs from iTunes (and thus give Apple MORE money) something for nothing.
I live in Vancouver Canada and I have only seen three iPhones "in the flesh" sort of speak. I have only seen a single Zune being used in public.
I think Apple fans are being a bit harsh on the Zune though and Apple the company is perhaps ignoring it at their peril. The Zune 80 (the one that they haven't any stock of anywhere yet), is actually not that bad spec wise if you ignore the iPod-like price, and the majority of Zune sales are at reduced or after market sale prices anyway.
In our area, there is a huge market for non-Apple products because of our close connections with China and other Asian markets. By far the majority of the Asian tech sector market is Windows oriented and budget oriented. The Zune is a perfect product for that market except on the one issue of price point.
The kind of folks that don't want an iPod, usually don't want it because of the price issue, so to make a Windows based alternative aimed at the same luxury end of the market is probably the Zune's biggest mistake.
When I am on the train going to work, roughly a third of all the commuters on my train are listening to a music player. Roughly 60% of those players are iPods, but the remaining 40% are cheap, 20 dollar, no-name MP3 players. If MS made a 40, 50 or even 100 dolllar Zune to compete against the 200 dollar iPod nano, they might have a hit on their hands.
The listing is based on a simple web survey by a small American based company. The main reason for the European cities being more expensive (to whom they never say), is the falling of the US dollar.
Clearly this survey has absolutely nothing to do with analysing the intrinsic cost of doing business in one city or another or one country or another. It's just a list of how expensive each place might seem relative to the US traveller, *because* of the falling US dollar.
At minimum, for any study of this kind to be taken seriously, it should remove currency fluctuations from the data. Otherwise it remains what this list really is. A simple list of how much you are going to be out of pocket as a US citizen if you do want to go on vacation in Russia or France.
The costs for the iPhone are based on the manufacturing and retail costs for producing it for the market and "the market" here, means the American market first. If the only factor that is different when the iPhone moves into other markets is the currency devaluation, then by all rights the iPhone should be cheaper in countries that have a stronger currency. Either that or one could argue that the entire matrix of costs is equally applicable in the alternate market and the cost should be identical, but in the currency of the new market. That would result in an iPhone that is the same price in Euros as it is in US Dollars, i.e. - slightly more expensive based on the exchange rate.
To be vastly more expensive (as it currently is), Apple has to be able to point to real, concrete extra costs such as the VAT and so forth to explain the price hike. However while things like the VAT do contribute, it's still not enough to explain the price. The only rational conclusion is that either there are large contributing factors to the European price we don't know about (and if so Apple, please just tell us what they are), or Apple must be essentially gouging the consumers in Europe.
I am not sure which is the case, but a little information from Apple would go a long way towards satisfying their customers over this issue and it's far from a "loony" position to think that European customers *are* being gouged. All the evidence we have so far points towards the iPhone being overpriced in European markets (and Canadian once it arrives), until Apple produces some counter argument. So dissing people for being upset about it is kind of irrational IMO.
I think Apple fans are being a bit harsh on the Zune though and Apple the company is perhaps ignoring it at their peril. The Zune 80 (the one that they haven't any stock of anywhere yet), is actually not that bad spec wise if you ignore the iPod-like price, and the majority of Zune sales are at reduced or after market sale prices anyway.
In our area, there is a huge market for non-Apple products because of our close connections with China and other Asian markets. By far the majority of the Asian tech sector market is Windows oriented and budget oriented. The Zune is a perfect product for that market except on the one issue of price point.
The kind of folks that don't want an iPod, usually don't want it because of the price issue, so to make a Windows based alternative aimed at the same luxury end of the market is probably the Zune's biggest mistake.
When I am on the train going to work, roughly a third of all the commuters on my train are listening to a music player. Roughly 60% of those players are iPods, but the remaining 40% are cheap, 20 dollar, no-name MP3 players. If MS made a 40, 50 or even 100 dolllar Zune to compete against the 200 dollar iPod nano, they might have a hit on their hands.
This seems like a ridiculous argument to me.
The listing is based on a simple web survey by a small American based company. The main reason for the European cities being more expensive (to whom they never say), is the falling of the US dollar.
Clearly this survey has absolutely nothing to do with analysing the intrinsic cost of doing business in one city or another or one country or another. It's just a list of how expensive each place might seem relative to the US traveller, *because* of the falling US dollar.
At minimum, for any study of this kind to be taken seriously, it should remove currency fluctuations from the data. Otherwise it remains what this list really is. A simple list of how much you are going to be out of pocket as a US citizen if you do want to go on vacation in Russia or France.
The costs for the iPhone are based on the manufacturing and retail costs for producing it for the market and "the market" here, means the American market first. If the only factor that is different when the iPhone moves into other markets is the currency devaluation, then by all rights the iPhone should be cheaper in countries that have a stronger currency. Either that or one could argue that the entire matrix of costs is equally applicable in the alternate market and the cost should be identical, but in the currency of the new market. That would result in an iPhone that is the same price in Euros as it is in US Dollars, i.e. - slightly more expensive based on the exchange rate.
To be vastly more expensive (as it currently is), Apple has to be able to point to real, concrete extra costs such as the VAT and so forth to explain the price hike. However while things like the VAT do contribute, it's still not enough to explain the price. The only rational conclusion is that either there are large contributing factors to the European price we don't know about (and if so Apple, please just tell us what they are), or Apple must be essentially gouging the consumers in Europe.
I am not sure which is the case, but a little information from Apple would go a long way towards satisfying their customers over this issue and it's far from a "loony" position to think that European customers *are* being gouged. All the evidence we have so far points towards the iPhone being overpriced in European markets (and Canadian once it arrives), until Apple produces some counter argument. So dissing people for being upset about it is kind of irrational IMO.
I don't think they will release a completely new version, especially with 3G, in 2008. There are 2 reasons for this.
#1: Ticked off people in Europe and US. Europe is only getting their iPhones in November 2007, so I think they will be quite upset when they hear a new version was announced 2 months after they bought the darn thing with a 18 month contract. I don't think Apple is that stupid not to realize that. AND in the US, people would not have completed their 2 year contract with AT&T either. Best move for Apple would be to have Gen 2 of the iPhone announcement in January 2009 and shipped by June/July 2009.
#2: FCC approval takes time. If Apple releases a new version of the iPhone in January 2008, especially with 3G, they will not get FCC approval for another 4-5 months of so. This means everyone who has not bought an iPhone already will say, "Version 2 would have the kinks worked out... I'll wait for the new one for another 4-5 months." Given Steve's goal of reaching 10 million units sold by end of 2008, this move would hurt Apple than help them (at least in the short term). Why would Apple cannibalize their sales of iPhones worldwide for 4-5 months?
My first prediction again... next generation iPhone at Macworld 2009, but maybe a larger capacity storage version in 2008, i.e. 16GB. (no need for FCC approval for this) AND an official unlocked version for $599.
My second prediction for Macworld 2009... iPhone Mini or iPhone Nano, for $249. Official Unlocked version for $449.
My third prediction for Macworld 2009... 1 year contracts instead of 2 years.
#1: Ticked off people in Europe and US. Europe is only getting their iPhones in November 2007, so I think they will be quite upset when they hear a new version was announced 2 months after they bought the darn thing with a 18 month contract. I don't think Apple is that stupid not to realize that. AND in the US, people would not have completed their 2 year contract with AT&T either. Best move for Apple would be to have Gen 2 of the iPhone announcement in January 2009 and shipped by June/July 2009.
#2: FCC approval takes time. If Apple releases a new version of the iPhone in January 2008, especially with 3G, they will not get FCC approval for another 4-5 months of so. This means everyone who has not bought an iPhone already will say, "Version 2 would have the kinks worked out... I'll wait for the new one for another 4-5 months." Given Steve's goal of reaching 10 million units sold by end of 2008, this move would hurt Apple than help them (at least in the short term). Why would Apple cannibalize their sales of iPhones worldwide for 4-5 months?
My first prediction again... next generation iPhone at Macworld 2009, but maybe a larger capacity storage version in 2008, i.e. 16GB. (no need for FCC approval for this) AND an official unlocked version for $599.
My second prediction for Macworld 2009... iPhone Mini or iPhone Nano, for $249. Official Unlocked version for $449.
My third prediction for Macworld 2009... 1 year contracts instead of 2 years.
Apple more or less breaks even on selling music. That's a lot different than the very high margin on console games.
Good point. iTunes store is just a fringe benefit for iPod or iPhone ownership.
Virtually no profit, if not a loss when you figure in original start up costs. Just like the early days of color TV when shows like "Bonanza" were produced to benefit the new buyer instead of direct profits from the show. In those days RCA (NBC) introduced color TV in the store and on TV. Hmmm sounds a little like Apple?
You've got to be kidding, right? You provide a link to engadget (the same guys who tanked aapl stock billions and cost a bunch of small investors a pantload of money, and transferred the same $$$ to the pockets of the crooks who paid Ryan Block $$$ to run the fake rumor without checking it in the first place, IMHO) and then your authority in that laughable link is the following:
"According to a manager, they're trying to keep mobile phone manufacturers from copying this distribution model (I guess so that this practice of having to give part of the income created by a phone customer to the manufacturer does not become a standard)."
"According to a manager." Again, you've got to be kidding! That's about as credible as the formerly referenced Engaget rumor. Then for you to post that crap about 10%, 30%, 50%. I guess 70% in Canada. Do you actually believe anything you post, or is belief irrelevant? You're sounding truly Dvorakian.
That's at least 1 more person agreeing with me than you just posing your own little theories.
Your theory is that if Apple is going to make a lot of money with the locked iphone with a 10-20-30% revenue share, they are going to suddenly decide to work with a 0% revenue share with a unlocked iphone.
Unlocked apple iphones cheap!
Hey I just skipped this whole process and bought my iphone at www.chronochrono.com.
They sell brand new unlocked iphones in Europe and the US for under $600 per phone. I bought mine there and could not be more pleased.
Hey I just skipped this whole process and bought my iphone at www.chronochrono.com.
They sell brand new unlocked iphones in Europe and the US for under $600 per phone. I bought mine there and could not be more pleased.
Have you read this:
"Upgrading the 1.1.1 software to 1.1.2 or any other software will re-lock the phone. We are not responsible if this happens and will not offer a refund. Simply disable auto-update in iTunes and there will not be a problem."
No. My theory is not little. Stop projecting.
And I wouldn't suggest anything as simplistic as your summary. Apple is/has priced the iPhone (phone and plan) at what must have been calculated to be the right point to interest buyers, attract carriers to make network improvements, gain market share, produce income, and give it a certain degree of control in the short term. It's a delicate balancing act. Apple needs the carriers, and now that the iPhone has established itself, the carriers need the iPhone. I can't think of too many instances where a company has partnered with "an enemy" to establish a successful product/gain market share--real symbiotic relationship. It's definitely a situation where "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." And it has worked. In the U.S. Apple "partnered" with T which had steadily been losing market share, was able to get the necessary network upgrades and concessions to make the model work, and establish the iPhone. In return, T now is the only U.S. carrier gaining market share, and the other carriers are scared (and are paying clowns such as Enderle, Dvorak and other spinmeisters to throw mud). And again, I am certain that without an exclusive carrier relationship, the iPhone would not have succeeded as it has. And while Apple is receiving a share of revenue, it has continuing support and maintenance obligations.
Try this "theory": Step back and examine the entire arrangement from a different perspective. Apple created a portable computer/communication device disguised as a music player/phone, and contracted with "exclusive carriers" to make the necessary system upgrades for it to work properly. In return, Apple is paying them an exorbitant 70%, 80% or 90% of gross monthly revenue for distribution assistance, billing, network usage and line maintenance. The carrier has no device support obligation. Sounds like a pretty good deal for the carriers to me. Once the networks are in place (which granted, was a huge expenditure) the ongoing expenses for the telecoms are small. That's why telecoms traditionally have been willing to pay such a high "bounty" to attract new customers, or give such large concessions to retain them. The initial network fixed costs were high, but the ongoing variable costs (other than customer attraction/retention) are relatively small. That's why so many stores and kiosks exist--huge expenses to sign up customers. Apple has simply turned the model on its head, and in the process taken away a lot of the telecom power. That's the huge Apple threat.
Back to your query about whether Apple will suddenly decide to accept zero revenue share, the answer probably is no. But costs will come down, other handset manufacturers, whose devices previously were crippled by the telecoms, will be allowed to introduce better and better devices (it's happening already), and more importantly, the carriers will charge less and less, especially as wifi networks are built out. Eventually, I see all handsets being usable on all networks without switching sims or paying ridiculously high roaming charges (just like land phones). In the U.S. now, AT&T and T-Mobile have been contracting with each other for tower sharing to increase their respective coverage areas. On a T-Mobile phone, AT&T will come up on the screen in some areas. No roaming. Apple is shaking things up and the consumer definitely is going to benefit in the long run.
Your perception is completely skewed by being in the phone backwater called the USA. In the rest of the world there is a competitive market for both phones and carriers, resulting in rapid advancement in phone technology and carrier technology.
The iPhone is single handedly responsible for having AT&T go from pushing HSDPA to spending their money on upgrading EDGE. Is this an advance? For you I am sure it is.
The iPhone is single handedly responsible for taking a fee that would go to network service and giving it to Apple to add a WIFI music store, which you cant even use over the air. Is this an advance for a cellphone user? No.
The iPhone is introducing a sick business model where you pay full price for the hardware AND is locked into a lengthy contract, but you still cant use your device on any network you want. This is an advance how?
The cellphone business has been ticking along just fine without Apple, and is going backward because of them. Only the blind could think the reverse.
Ticking along fine? Maybe for the carriers and handset manufacturers.... Meanwhile the customers have been paying extortionate rates for data, international roaming etc.
If the only benefit that comes from the iPhone launch is that all the carriers start offering reasonably-priced unlimited data plans it'll be worth it IMHO.
Sprint and T-Mobile USA has always had cheaper data than AT&T. T-Mobile UK has a better unlimited data plan for cheaper than O2, and has had it for the last 18 months. Dont mistake a general movement in the industry with something created by the iPhone.
The U.S. has been in the backwater, though that's changing thanks to Apple. As to the rest, it's obvious you really have no idea what you're babbling about!
The iphone data plans don't allow tethering, so it's not that cheap. It's the same $20 data plan from AT&T whether it's the iphone or not.
And with more and more websites specifically directing the iphone to the WAP version of their websites (not the full HMTL website), it's not much different than the old WAP plans.
If the phone is not crippled by the carriers, then the phone will be crippled by the handset manufacturers. Nokia just spent $8 billion buying a GPS mapmaker --- would they want you to use Google map for free. Nokia spent $60 million buying Loudeye last year --- that's their own online music store.
So the future is that your phone is going to be crippled either by (1) the carriers or (2) Apple or (3) Nokia.
There is no need for phones to be crippled in any way. Computers are not crippled, are they?
All that is needed is an open operating system. Windows Mobile has that, Symbian mostly has that, and Apple will get there eventually. With Android running a Java variant for 3rd parties I am not sure they are going to be as open as they claim to be.
It's allready possible to use Google maps on Nokia phones and even sync those maps with GPS on Nokia's GPS-phones. Nokia isn't doing anything to stop it. Why on earth would they cripple their phones. Nokia has allways been very much against phone crippling. Thats why their market share is low in North America. Nokia's big chiefs allways bitch about american networks and how those networks want to cripple their phones. They have kept Symbian open to other manufacturers when they could have made Symbian their own pet (altough all the zillions they poured into Symbian was mostly done just to keep MS off mobile-phones).
Nokia basicly plans to equip almost every phone with GPS in few years time. They will get most of that 8 billion back from just what they save from not having to pay Navteq few euros per phone (remember they make hunreds of millions of phones per year). Navteq is very profitable anyway, and those profits flow to Nokia now. That investment really doensn't mean that they will have to start acting like Apple.
Computers also have a much lower profit margin. How many PC makers have gone bust in the past 10 years?
Just like computers, phones also have a variety of margins, from your Dell to your Mac, and from your Siemens to your iPhone. I dont see the relevance really.
Nokia has never been open to the open model at all --- they have been trying for years to copy the Qualcomm BREW and imode model with the Preminent/Nokia Content Discoverer.
Nokia has been unsuccessful so far --- doesn't mean that they haven't tried repeatedly to do it.
Nokia cares because their 3rd world dominance is making their whole empire's profit margin to fall. They don't work their first world profit margin to fall as well.
So your thesis is that, as Nokia tries to raise their margins, they will become more closed and emulate the iPhone model?
If thats your argument, that is reasonable. However at the high end they face competition from Windows Mobile, which has been open from the start, and will always be. Competition will keep them in check.
Also there is such a thing as regional mores, and locking people in isn't very Finnish.
How do you figure that? S60 is an open platform - they allow 3rd party developers and allow users to freely install any Java / Symbian applications. Once again, Nokia full well know that 3rd party developers is key to S60 / Symbian success.
You've mentioned the iMode model with Nokia before but I still think your speculating - unless you can post some URLs.
Umm.. no. They have over 20% margin on phone sales. High profit margin has been the reason why Nokias market value is so high compared to competion. Nokia corp's total profit margin has gone down lately, but thats because the merger between Nokias network unit and Siemens networks into Nokia-Siemens Networks has been so costly.
From:http://www.nokia.com/A4226070
"NOKIA IN THE THIRD QUARTER 2007
Nokia reports Q3 2007 net sales of EUR 12.9 billion and EPS of EUR 0.40
Nokia market share grows to an estimated 39%; total device operating margin up sequentially
...
Operating margin (%)
Mobile Phones 22.6"