Now there will be authorized unlocked iPhones floating around its only a matter of time until someone finds out how its done ( or its leaked ). This method can then be applied to all who want to unlock their iPhones, as per every other phone on the market.
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.
Vodafone Gets Restraining Order On T-Mobile's iPhone Sales
- Thread starter ogee
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Your point seems to be that Apple may miss its target if it does not get all the money its getting at present.
Guess what - Apple's target is not holy - if they are forced to miss it its not like the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy has been violated.
I know you are a share holder, and it matters very much to you whether Apple gets a smaller cut of the possible revenue from selling an iPhone, but everyone else would much rather pay less.
His point is that the iphone may be sold at a loss, with a business model akin to that of the PS3. However the evidence at hand does not seem to support this.
Why is it anyone who questions ANYTHING that Apple does suddenly "hates Apple" ? Apple is more than the sum of its parts. No, I hate greed mongering in general, corporate attitudes in general and the way the world is turning into two classes, haves and have nots. So, yes it's possible to like a company's products without liking the company's business practices.
And the idea that an OS can't survive without exclusive hardware is pretty amusing. I wonder how Microsoft managed to survive without selling computer system hardware. You obviously don't believe Apple is capable of selling products unless they have no inherent competition (i.e. their software without their hardware, which today is just clone parts in a pretty case at a premium price).
I think his point is Apple will make less than they thought, and will be forced to increase the cost of the phone to meet the target.
emotion is obviously not measuring affordability versus the break-even point of the phone, but versus meeting some heavily inflated target which assumes Apple makes $900 on each phone sold.
The market has already spoken and forced Apple to drop the presumed revenue by $200. This move my cause a further drop of $200-300 (despite the apparent 999 euro unlocked phone)
But with a hugely inflated stock price, missing an important financial target may actually cost Apple billions in market cap, so I can see why a share holder would be very concerned if Apple is not able to maximize revenue and profits as much as Apple predicted.
Of course I don't. That is not what I'm saying at all. Please re-read.
btw. I am not an Apple shareholder and I don't care what they do. My comments are observations based on the facts of the matter by someone who has a grip of economics and also works in the IT industry. Apple want to make maximum profit here and will push that angle as far as they can. I make no comment on the rights and wrongs of that.
Compare the Touch and the iPhone. £70 difference in price. The iPhone is clearly a much more expensive package not just in the hardware but in the charger and dock that you get.
All that said. My opinion is just that, you can take it or leave it - I've explained clearly what I think.
Wow, someone should sue Sony for not allowing XBox games to be played on the PS3. How come nobody is suing Porsche for not allowing their keys to start Ferraris? That is SO anti-consumer.
You know, if you're going to make comparisons, at least try to make ones that make sense. XBox games CAN'T possibly play on PS3s because they are using VASTLY different hardware. Porsche keys to start Ferraris? That doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense. You're now talking about private ownership of individual cars. Did I say my password should work on your computer?
No, I'm talking about STANDARDIZED 'clone' style hardware that is now used on Macs. The only thing exclusive about a Mac's hardware now is that Apple artificially blocks you from installing MacOSX on hardware other than their own (as proven by the Hackintosh systems out there). They sell the OS by itself, but limit what computers you can install it on in a completely artificial manner. I'm saying that if Microsoft engaged in such practices, they'd find themselves back in court faster than I can say the words Department of Justice. People seem to think it's OK with Apple because they're the little guy. But their size is relative to their particular market. They're huge in the music market, for example. Regardless, what does size of a corporation have to do with whether their business practices are kosher or not?
People are up in arms about locked iPhones, but what about a locked operating system? The two are related because Apple telling you what you can put on your iPhone is no different than Apple telling you where you can put their operating system. In both cases they are artificially limiting how you can use their software in order to STIFLE COMPETITION. That is EXACTLY the kind of behavior that landed Microsoft in court. And just because the U.S. system clearly got bought off at some point, the Europeans clearly had more sense in that regard. So yes, I'm saying I hope the Germans keep on sueing Apple if it means Apple is forced to allow unlocked iPhones and maybe some day an unlocked MacOSX that I can install on any compatible hardware I choose. There's nothing special about Apple hardware other than it costs more than everyone else selling the exact same parts. It'd make more sense to charge more for the OS itself as it least they're not ripping you off on something unique, but selling clone parts for way over their margins and forcing you to do so because a software check in the OS says you HAVE to is clearly anti-competition and IF Microsoft were doing that they'd get busted is what I'm saying.
Unlike fanboys, I separate my feelings for the products from the company. I can appreciate MacOSX for what it is but still despise Apple's business practices. If their product is as good as their most ardent fans claim, they shouldn't need to artificially force people to buy their hardware. If their OS can't sell on its own, then it's underpriced. Given their huge margins on hardware, I think they could jack up the OS to Microsoft levels of cost and you'd STILL come out ahead with a clone. More importantly, you could get the hardware you actually WANT instead of the hardware Apple offers.
I keep putting off my new computer purchase because no Apple offering has a really good GPU in it. Apple doesn't seem to care about graphics cards. Is this MacOSX's fault? Can it not handle a modern card? No, it's Apple's fault. They don't care about offering one. Why do I want non-Apple hardware? Because Apple won't sell me the hardware I want. Does that mean I should have to use an inferior OS because they won't sell me a decent GPU? Give me a break. It's the same reason iPhone owners are upset about being forced to use a specific carrier. If a lawsuit is what is required to get Apple to offer what they should have offered from the start, then so be it, IMO.
*Applauds*
I'd expect to be able to play a video game on a top of the line, cutting edge tech, Macbook Pro. But no, no dice. Lets wait until the quality control catches up with the units moving out of the factories. That is the kind of greed and arrogance which is really starting to annoy the hell out of me.
So you believe that at 199, the 8gig touch manages to make a profit. Now, even if the phone only breaks even at 269 and the touch manages to make even one pound in profit, that'll leave a difference of 70 pounds. Do you really believe that a speaker, mic charger, bluetooth module and radio cost that?
Besides as I mentioned before, the teardown cost of the phone was 220 dollars, and that was before the touch was announced. Coupled with economies of scale from joint components, this should now be further reduced.
Have you owned either of these two devices? One is a lot more substantial than the other. Anyway the real point here is below.
You are completely ignoring software development, marketing, FCC approval costs etc etc.
Forget hypothetical teardown costs - they don't tell the whole story.
I don't see how what you said makes any sense at all. The mistake being made here is thinking of the iPhone as a separate market. The iPhone itself is competition, in the handset market. Apple is not a network provider and they should be under no obligation to create, improve or otherwise alter the competitive environment in the network provider market.
This comes under the heading of "beware of what you wish for." If Apple can't partner with the providers to develop the upgraded networks required for the iPhone to be fully functional as Apple designed it, then it will be Apple and the iPhone which will suffer, and in the end, so will consumers who won't get the improved products.
The iPhone is just a handset, it should be open to all carriers to offer the best packages for that handset. Simple.
Nothing about the iPhone is that special as far as operators are concerned. It's a voice and data device. Nothing more. If anything Apple have made o2 go backwards from their 3G network to EDGE, wow, that's progress
Other than the visual voice mail crap they don't stop harping on about nothing needs to be done for the iPhone to "just work". Apple aren't developing anything other than their own hardware and OS, just the same as everyone else.Yes, I own a touch and i've used the iphone. Let's say for arguements sake that the phone cost 250 dollars. And still maintaining a breakeven point, ignoring contribution etc., that would leave 150p.u. dollars for all of the above costs. Does that not seem excessive to you, why wouldn't they load this percentage amount onto other products? Remember Apple intends to sell 10 million devices, this is ignoring the touch which has sprung from the same research.
Why should they? This is not a human right, it's just a phone.
There's got to be more to it or AT&T and O2 (two huge companies not known for giving away money) wouldn't have decided that they'd concede to Apple's very strong terms.
Anyway, I think we've discussed this to death now.
Because it should be a free and open market.Why should they? This is not a human right, it's just a phone.
No, nothing more to it other than AT&T and o2 wanting new subscribers leaving competitors. That in their minds obviously was worth taking a hit on their normal profits from contracts.
Indeed but that is not the way of the world.
Yes, but they are able to do this because this is not just a phone, it's an Apple phone. Apple have the power to state the terms right now.
It's very interesting all this. At this rate they'll be at Microsoft levels of success in a few years. Apart from their ease of use etc are they that much different?
For the vast majority of other handsets, it is.
Then Stevo-o had better start giving billions to charity, before I really think him and Apple have turned to complete twunts.
This is an Apple handset though...
I know, I know. They should do as Nokia. Apple don't seem to want to.
Yep. They look vulgar in their chase of money from this angle at the moment to me too.
Thanks
This is Apple, and true to form of late they're doing exactly as they please and to hell with what anyone might actually want and expect. They are so arrogant it's just beyond belief.
Indeed.
Why? This isn't an argument, it's just a statement.
Nothing about the iPhone is that special as far as operators are concerned. It's a voice and data device. Nothing more. If anything Apple have made o2 go backwards from their 3G network to EDGE, wow, that's progress
So you don't like visual voicemail. Okay. But that does not alter the fact that Apple promotes this feature of the iPhone, which is unique to it, and the providers need to upgrade their networks to support it.
And I'm sure given the oppurtinuty to sell the iPhone they would all make the change. The point is that at the moment because of Apple's greed (by demanding share of contract fee) they have made themselves exclusive and anti-competitive.
Why are you so sure? Are you familiar with the technical requirements?
Making an accusation of "greed" is pointless, because all corporations are in the greed business. They are attempting to maximize their profits. Those that don't, go out of business. Everybody who is shocked by this, please raise their hands. I thought so.
Anti-competitive has a definition, which doesn't apply here. Apple isn't thwarting competition in any market you can mention.
Because the iPhone is clearly something that will sell, and they would be foolish not to. Of course I don't know the technical requirements
I'm not an idiot, of course everyone is in business to make money. There is a point however when making money does turn to pure greed, and in my mind with the way they have gone about launching the iPhone they have stepped over the line. My opinion.
Apple are special, the iPhone is special. The iPhone is it's own small market to a certain extent, a market which is entirely closed because they lock in with one provider to get extra money from contracts, something which no other manufacturer in this sector does.