More iPhone Details - $599 4GB and $649 8GB? [Updated]

[JMax1]

Lego my Logo et al

will the phones have an apple logo AND the carrier logo? Will apple let that happen? Do any other apple products have 3rd party logos (logoes? ha)?

Oh, well i suppose that's not too bad, my moto phone has a motorola and TMobile logo.

And will the apple logo light up like on the laptops? And how about the nice white strobe light, which maybe could act as a flast for the camera, and a flashlight for power-outs (I work in a classroom with no windows and when we the power goes out all the little kiddies whip out their cell phones and it's bright as day. It's very amusiing). Maybe at a dance party the light can flash really quickly and can be a real strobe light. Put a fog machine in the phone then we have the ultimate party-phone! Give a new meaning for the Party Shuffle in iTunes! Hook your iPhone up to a receiver, turn on the strobe light and iFog machine and you're on your way! I'm sure you can download software on the phone that can tell you how to mix drinks too, good pick-up lines, and horoscopes (What's your sign, baby?)! And if the phones can really do what the Nano(e)s do in the new commercials, holy moly!

I don't really like to dance, though. So I won't buy one.

 

[dernhelm]

This _has_ to be wrong.

For that kind of money, you should be looking at an 80GB and 120GB fullscreen video iPod. No one in their right mind would spend that kind of money on a phone that is attached to a particular carrier, and has less than 1/10 of the disk space you would require for a device that expensive.

 

[shelterpaw]

Too Expensive?

A lot of people here are complaining about the price, which I understand.

On the other hand if rumors are correct this phone will be much more than just a phone.

Seems like it'll be a iPod and a SmartPhone (pda and phone). Apple isn't going to release something that's a rehash of what's on the market. From all these rumors it sounds like they'll release something with bunch of great features, some which will be revolutionary.

The advantage Apple has had with the iPod is the ease of use and a complete solution from iTMS to iTunes to your iPod. The iPod is so easy to use and MS couldn't improve upon usability with the zune, which came out well after the iPod. Most mobile phones, in my opinion, aren't very user friendly. It takes a bit of time to figure things out and a lot of time to get down all the functionality. If Apple can deliver on the culmination of all those factors, they'll be able to charge a lot for the product. It's a sizable goal and one where if executed well, Apple will receive all sorts of accolades and possibly a chair from Steve Ballmer.

 

[xenotaku]

so uninformed

It is hilarious how uninformed everyone here is, save a few people. Before making some insane comment like "I may as well buy a mac" or "who the hell will pay 600 for a phone" do some research and look at how much phones actually cost! This is not just a normal phone, it's going to be a 'smart phone' and these smart phones without coverage contracts run from 400 to 2000 dollars!! Apple is setting a great price point if these phones deliver on a lot of what is speculated.

 

[SeaFox]

will the phones have an apple logo AND the carrier logo? Will apple let that happen? Do any other apple products have 3rd party logos (logoes? ha)?

If the iPhone has a carrier logo, and it's someplace where I can't remove it easily (like under a clear plastic body panel), I'm not buying it. I don't care if it even is MY carrier.

It should be noted that any carrier subsidizing a phone is going to require they get their logo on it somewhere.

 

[geerlingguy]

will the phones have an apple logo AND the carrier logo? Will apple let that happen? Do any other apple products have 3rd party logos (logoes? ha)?

Logos.

It's all Greek to me.

 

[CEAbiscuit]

It is hilarious how uninformed everyone here is, save a few people. Before making some insane comment like "I may as well buy a mac" or "who the hell will pay 600 for a phone" do some research and look at how much phones actually cost! This is not just a normal phone, it's going to be a 'smart phone' and these smart phones without coverage contracts run from 400 to 2000 dollars!! Apple is setting a great price point if these phones deliver on a lot of what is speculated.

Gotta disagree, keeper of information. What is the market for phones between 400-2000? Very limited... mostly business apps and true tech geeks (tiny little market when it comes to the phone world. Sorry!). I do not see Apple going after the biz market with this thing for the simple reason there is stigma with apple and business, and it's not Apples core audience. Unfortunatley, a new fangled "smart phone" from Apple would have a lot of trouble gaining traction for orgs who use those type of devices.

 

[aristobrat]

What is the market for phones between 400-2000?

Unless I read the post wrong, he was talking about the unsubsidized price of the phone.

I'd be surprised if the unsub'ed price of a Moto RAZR on Verizon wasn't $400+.

Where I work, we regularly get subsidized BlackBerry's for under $200 when we sign a new contract (or renew a contract). If a user breaks that phone (and doesn't have insurance), it's over $500 to replace (the unsub'ed cost).

I don't see any reason the unsub'ed cost for an iPhone wouldn't be $400+. That's NOT the price you'll pay for it if you renew your contract or sign up for a new contract.

 

[geerlingguy]

If Apple can deliver on the culmination of all those factors, they'll be able to charge a lot for the product. It's a sizable goal and one where if executed well, Apple will receive all sorts of accolades and possibly a chair from Steve Ballmer.

That's my thinking on the issue. Apple had better have something revolutionary planned, or they might as well not try. The iPod cost a lot (and still does), but is simple enough for my <insert stereotypical techno-neophyte here whose VCR is still blinking 12:00> to quickly figure it out and jam to his/her favorite tunes.

My Mom has had the same cell phone for 3 years, but still can't enter phone numbers into it herself, even after I've showed her how three times. If Apple can make the phone work as well as an iPod in terms of user-friendliness, that's all that needs to be done.

 

[izzle22]

Gotta disagree, keeper of information. What is the market for phones between 400-2000? Very limited... mostly business apps and true tech geeks (tiny little market when it comes to the phone world. Sorry!). I do not see Apple going after the biz market with this thing for the simple reason there is stigma with apple and business, and it's not Apples core audience. Unfortunatley, a new fangled "smart phone" from Apple would have a lot of trouble gaining traction for orgs who use those type of devices.

Gotta disagree with you. Most new non-smart phones that are on the cutting edge are at least $600 without contract discount. I have purchased 10 phones in the last 15 years and not one of them was a smart phone and not one has been under $300.

 

[CEAbiscuit]

Unless I read the post wrong, he was talking about the unsubsidized price of the phone.

I'd be surprised if the unsub'ed price of a Moto RAZR on Verizon wasn't $400+.

Where I work, we regularly get subsidized BlackBerry's for under $200 when we sign a new contract (or renew a contract). If a user breaks that phone (and doesn't have insurance), it's over $500 to replace (the unsub'ed cost).

I don't see any reason the unsub'ed cost for an iPhone wouldn't be $400+. That's NOT the price you'll pay for it if you renew your contract or sign up for a new contract.

You said it yourself "where I work." And as I said, no analysts or anybody has speculated on Apple going after the corporate market. It's not their strength. There are very few individuals who will shell out that kind of cash for a personal phone. Remember, it's called an iPhone...

The unlocked, locked argument is also completly absurd. Most people who have an iPod these days don't know how to replace the battery in their phone without help from a tech, let alone figure out how to "unlock" and "lock" their phones. If Apple is to be successful in a mass market, the iPhone has to leverage the appeal of the iPod - simple to use, easy to purchase, and something that won't bust the bank based on a few cool features.

 

[mikeben]

Big Picture

I agree...

I know the cellular business from the inside. There will come a time, quite soon, where you will carry one device with you at all times. It will be a phone, a PDA, a camera, a music and video player, a game machine, a text and e-mail transceiver, and a link to your "main" computers. The important thing is it MUST be small, light, and available to use EVERYWHERE. Eventually, most people will NOT carry a camera, or an MP3 player, or a PDA, or a Blackberry...or a phone. They will carry all that and more in a single device. The Apple phone may be the logical first step in that direction. Who better to do it? The cell service providers care only that the celluar devices carry data, as the voice side of things is NOT where the money is. In fact, pretty soon, your minutes will be free, but you will absolutely HAVE TO HAVE a data plan. "Beam me up, Scotty"...it's almost here.

 

[xenotaku]

You said it yourself "where I work." And as I said, no analysts or anybody has speculated on Apple going after the corporate market. It's not their strength. There are very few individuals who will shell out that kind of cash for a personal phone. Remember, it's called an iPhone...

The unlocked, locked argument is also completly absurd. Most people who have an iPod these days don't know how to replace the battery in their phone without help from a tech, let alone figure out how to "unlock" and "lock" their phones. If Apple is to be successful in a mass market, the iPhone has to leverage the appeal of the iPod - simple to use, easy to purchase, and something that won't bust the bank based on a few cool features.

Smartphones are not only for the white collars anymore. More and more casual people want the keyboard, blue tooth functions, wireless connectivity, chatting functions, full functioning internet, email service....these are all characteristics of the 'smartphone'. I obviously don't know, but I think Apple is trying to package all of this 'professional' options into a spiffy package aimed towards white collars, and trendy people all together. 600 is a fair price for that. And again, once you sign up for a contract, it could be as cheap as 200, who knows.

 

[CEAbiscuit]

"White collars" get their smartphones from their businesses who purchase it for them. Business aren't buyApple smartphones whenthey are so lockedinto Blackberry servers, Treos and the like. That market is out.

'trendy people" are a very limited market... a market that could not support a full fledge entre into the phone race by Apple.

I think my point is, as you mention, this rumor's assertion that the phone could be over $600 bucks is bogus. Your assertion of a $200 phone is much more in line (look at the price of the LG Chocolate line. Its sucks but it's kind of successfull). However, I cannot see the price being subsidized by a contract. It would tie apple to close to a single provider a la MVNO, and what you have at the end of the day is another ROKR- the lead ballon of cell musical cell phones.

 

[peharri]

Orange may have the contract but competeing with 3 - not really as they are one and the same company (hutchison)

Orange was founded by Hutchison, but was sold to France Telecom many years ago. It and 3 are unrelated, except by heritage. So, yes, they do compete.

3 wouldn't have gotten the 3G license had it been owned by the same group as Orange, as the fifth UK 3G license was only available to companies that didn't already have a UK network.

 

[xenotaku]

"White collars" get their smartphones from their businesses who purchase it for them. Business aren't buyApple smartphones whenthey are so lockedinto Blackberry servers, Treos and the like. That market is out.

'trendy people" are a very limited market... a market that could not support a full fledge entre into the phone race by Apple.

I think my point is, as you mention, this rumor's assertion that the phone could be over $600 bucks is bogus. Your assertion of a $200 phone is much more in line (look at the price of the LG Chocolate line. Its sucks but it's kind of successfull). However, I cannot see the price being subsidized by a contract. It would tie apple to close to a single provider a la MVNO, and what you have at the end of the day is another ROKR- the lead ballon of cell musical cell phones.

I agree with most of your points. I just think the 'white collar' market is more than the corporate market, I sorta explained my view wrong. Walk around New York city, or any major city and many many people have blackberries and smart phones, and very little of them had their office pay for them. It's an emerging technology that more and more 'normal' people want.

that being said...i still think 600 is a fair price point for a 'no contract phone'. Throw in a 2 year contract and it could be as low as 200 or so.

 

[killr_b]

LMAO@ this thread.

I can see why some people think $300 is a lot for a phone, but mostly those peeps are being rediculous. And the free phone crowd, get real. Did your land-line come with a $200 cupon for a phone? No? I thought so.

$650 is an awesome price for a smart phone. So low in fact that I think it won't be anything more than and iPod nano+cell phone with some mobile version of Mail and possibly IM. Not a smart phone at all.

I want the $2,500 blows my frickin' mind phone.

For $650 you'll get an 8GB or 16GB iPod nano combined with a decent phone in an Apple way. Not a smart phone.

 

[gugy]

If Apple is to be successful in a mass market, the iPhone has to leverage the appeal of the iPod - simple to use, easy to purchase, and something that won't bust the bank based on a few cool features.

You said everything here my friend.
That's why I am very skeptical of the prices mentioned in this thread.
Unless carriers will subsidized the iPhone, there is no way I'll pay $600 plus for a phone. And i have to buy two, one for me and one for my wife. Come on, over $1200 for couple of phones? now way dude!

 

[princealfie]

Come on, guys. $599 is cheap for a phone. Consider yourself lucky:

http://reviews.cnet.com/Bang_Olufsen_Serene/4505-6454_7-32161243.html

$1275 is more expensive.

End of story. BZZZZZZZZzz.

 

[aristobrat]

You said it yourself "where I work." And as I said, no analysts or anybody has speculated on Apple going after the corporate market. It's not their strength. There are very few individuals who will shell out that kind of cash for a personal phone. Remember, it's called an iPhone...

The point is this (and has been said by many people):

The unsubsidized price of phones is way more expensive than what the customer usually ends up paying.

When you sign (or renew) a contract with a carrier, the carrier pays a subsidy that makes a phone that initially cost $500 end up only costing the customer $199 (that was a general example). Carriers loose tens of millions of dollars quarterly doing this (paying manufactures hundreds of dollars more for phones than they end up selling them to their customers for).

Does this not make sense?

The unlocked, locked argument is also completly absurd. Most people who have an iPod these days don't know how to replace the battery in their phone without help from a tech, let alone figure out how to "unlock" and "lock" their phones. If Apple is to be successful in a mass market, the iPhone has to leverage the appeal of the iPod - simple to use, easy to purchase, and something that won't bust the bank based on a few cool features.

Are you confusing the term unlocked for unsubsidized?

 

[peharri]

Pretty much anyone who buys high-end phones out of contract.

Which, ultimately, is a very small market. And that's my concern: Apple supposedly is entering the MP3-playing-phone market because it knows the non-phone MP3 players are soon to be obsolete. But it appears, unless (in 180 degree opposition to the rumours) Apple has a line of low end phones lined up after these are released, that it's content to take a very small slice of the market.

Which it can't do, for the reasons I've expressed ad-nausium.

People don't really get it with mobile phones. Yes, the hardware has always been expensive and subsidized. But it means people have expectations of how much they should cost. My wife still thinks my V635 (imported from Europe, new, factory unlocked and unbranded) was expensive because despite the fact it essentially replaced my digital camera as well as my phone, it was $250 as opposed to the "free to $100" pricing that people are used to for phones.

This seems to be a common viewpoint. I'm just aware of how low people expect prices to be because I'm one of the few who really will spend more on a phone I like that I can justify the price of, and people needle me for it and think I'm insane.

So yes, an iPhone that replaces an iPod, has PDA functionality, and is a good, quad-band, GSM phone may be worth that amount of money on a technical level, but it's exceptionally high to end users. Even the RAZR, touted in these forums a lot as an "expensive" phone, is actually normally bought for under $100, albeit carrier locked and branded: Motorola selling it for an initial high price was marketing. The price point right now, which is barely $300 if unlocked and unbranded (about average), is what Motorola always intended it to be in the first place.


Now, here's a question to wrap up. Ok, we know that if Apple plans to sell this thing for ~$600, the practical reality is that operators will sell the subsidized version for $250 or so.

...but given you know what operators do to phones that they subsidize (and mark my words, they will not sell the phone if they can't), do you think Apple's going to be happy about what the $250 version of the iPhone would be?

Just to give you some ideas:
- Cingular normally leaves most of the phone alone, but expect "MediaNET", Cingular imagery, and other BS plastered all over the UI.
- T-Mobile generally locks all the web features to T-Mobile's services, the thing starts up with T-Mobile logos and noises with substantial amounts of the phone's maker's media gutted. Lately they've been adding "My Faves" to everything too, a custom UI to make it easier to call one of five people.
- Verizon doesn't leave anything alone. They have a "standard UI" that they impose on all sold phones. (To be fair, their motives are decent, it helps with support, but choosing between a Motorola and a Samsung on Verizon isn't far off chosing between a Dell and an HP.)

Those are just the ones I know about. I have no idea what Sprint, Alltel, or MetroPCS does.

Imagine buying your Mac from CompUSA and finding "CompUSA" plastered all over the casing, then turning it on and finding the Finder has been replaced by "CompUSA Computer Manager". Do you think Apple would sell Macs to CompUSA, even if CompUSA actually subsidized the machines?

 

[Evangelion]

From a consumers point of view, the US has regressed. From the Telecom providers point of view, things in the US are better.

Nokia hasn't been doing that well in the USA recently. In a recent even, their CEO commented that "the reason for that is that we want to sell phones that consumers want. We haven't sold phones that the operators want". I think he was 100% correct.

 

[Evangelion]

WHY
would you ever pay that much for a PHONE?!

Some people pay $40.000 for a phone. The Scirocco is a luxury-phone, and there are people who are willing to pay for luxury items. Why would someone pay $100.000+ for a car?

 

[mikeben]

unlocked

The point is this (and has been said by many people):

The unsubsidized price of phones is way more expensive than what the customer usually ends up paying.

When you sign (or renew) a contract with a carrier, the carrier pays a subsidy that makes a phone that initially cost $500 end up only costing the customer $199 (that was a general example). Carriers loose tens of millions of dollars quarterly doing this (paying manufactures hundreds of dollars more for phones than they end up selling them to their customers for).

Does this not make sense?


Are you confusing the term unlocked for unsubsidized?

Phones are "locked" by manufacturers to a certain service provider, as in
this phone is a Cingular phone". Most are locked, and most customers don't knpw or care how to unlock them.

 

[lalcan]

Some people pay $40.000 for a phone. The Scirocco is a luxury-phone, and there are people who are willing to pay for luxury items. Why would someone pay $100.000+ for a car?

I think the most important thing about the iPhone is not the price, the design and UI will be decisive for it's success, and those two areas are where Apple sets the rules, so it's not a matter of success or not, it's a matter of when will they release the &#$% iPhone!

Hopefully soon, this has already got more rumors, fake leakings and mockups than the Powerbook G5!