Wal-Mart to Sell $99 4GB iPhone?

[mike12806]

The manual says the standard $30 data plan is required. The only other option is a $45/month Enterprise Plan. No cheapy discounts.

Text messages are still $5, $15, and $20 for 200, 1500 and unlimited respective. (I think those prices are right.)

Early upgrades for original iPhone and AT&T customers apply too. AT&T is allowing one early upgrade per account per year. Just have to be forceful about it because at first they'll say 'No.' Be persistent and you'll get it.

I call BS, sorry 3 out of your only 4 posts to macrumors have been in this thread only!! And, no walmart "store" employees like yourself are covered by Apple's NDA, so I find it HIGHLY unlikely that you have access to information that has not been publicly announced by Apple....

On a different note, Apple may be adapting to the "new" economy of sorts....Wal-Mart looks to be one of the only retailers who will increase sales this holiday season....and it makes sense for Apple to want to take advantage of this. Yes, Apple computers will ALWAYS be a higher-end, premium, and more expensive product....but this doesn't mean Apple can't compete in the lower end with iPods and iPhones. Look at the iPod shuffle people!

 

[macfearless]

An iPhone at Wal-Mart degrades the overall appeal of it. To me at least.

oh yeah, i totally agree. man, this thread is really getting some posts out of me...

 

[askthedust]

true but,

You're serious, right? Who has only 4gb of music? I don't know many college students who fall in that range. Maybe High School students? Plenty of us shop at Walmart too. (As much as we hate it.)

Now add a movie or two and 3.5gb is nowhere near enough storage. I had a hard enough time going from a 32 gb iPod to a 16gb touch. When I bought the iPod, I didn't think I'd ever touch 15gb, let alone 32. I now have over 60 gb of movies...

There will never be enough storage. There were plenty of people who bought the 4gb nano and I predict if this is true, plenty of people would flock to buy a $99 iphone. nanos start at 149? Maybe this ties in to Jobs' Statement about the no netbook because the iphone is their netbook? The drawback is the monthly plan. 70 bucks for 3g is the minimum with voice and data?

 

[Prof.]

I have a higher than average income and own my own business - and you know what? I shop at Walmart...as do many of my fellow small business owners as well as Sam's Club - both for personal ad business related items. That is a the most arrogant post I have seen in a LONG TIME. Apple users really are elitist, huh? Doesn't that sound almost as ignorant as your statement? I would argue it does.

Remove you foot from your mouth and try again - this time - THINK FIRST.

D

Well you obviously don't see the vast majority of the ppl that shop at my local wal-mart.

Actually: you're not telling the truth, you're making an assumption based on a hipster stereotype.

I'm basing it on what I see at MY local wal-mart. Not all of them.

 

[shaneglass]

good to hear. i realize that 30% is out there, and applaud them, but that 70% puts me through the front doors of target to pay a little more $ for a little less BS

I would love a Target. Unfortunately in my town of ~10,000 Walmart is the only big supermarket we've got. Walgreens came to town last year but isn't doing the best and we've got a couple of local grocery stores. I would kill for a Krogers, too.

Oh well...

 

[SkippyThorson]

Agreed(ish). I'm sick and tired of Apple using RAM as a delineating factor in the massive price differences between models. iPod Touchs (or Touches?) and iPhones are both very different in price just because of a few Gbs of RAM.

Really? You mean the camera and communications components don't lend a hand in price difference? That's news to me.

The $600 iPhone is subsidized by AT&T to the prices we actually pay now - $199 and $299. The iPod Touches are the prices they are because they are less of a device, end of story. Capacity in flash is no comparison to what it costs to build a communications device inside of a form factor generally the same size.

 

[Tomorrow]

Too many people think that 4GB is inadequate or anything. For a lot of people spending $100-$200 less is a big thing. Personally my 300GB iTunes doesn't fit in any iPod, no one sees me complaining! Seriously who listens to 10,000 tunes all day long? Life is about planning ahead, so likewise, plan what music you want and load only a few of your playlists. This is suppose to be a phone in the first place, not a music player.

4GB is enough to load a few videos, tunes for the day and a load of apps to use.

It's also great for people who already own, say an iPod classic?

+1 for this post.

I'm still not sold on using my phone to listen to music anyway - I prefer to have my battery life allocated to phone functions, not for listening to music or watching movies.

Since I'm still iPhone-less, can anyone shed any light on whether 4 Gb is sufficient to store/run a decent handful of apps?

 

[theLastBeatle]

think we need to remember the macrumor effect. (we tend to have more music/movies/media than the "normal" walmart shopper who proly hasnt even set up itunes yet or has no idea what blu-ray is) There is a market out there for cheaper iphones without the need for enough space for 60 movies..but again...the $100 just isnt a huge deal when you look at the 2-year period.

*shakes head and bites tongue*

 

[fleshman03]

+1 for this post.

I'm still not sold on using my phone to listen to music anyway - I prefer to have my battery life allocated to phone functions, not for listening to music or watching movies.

Since I'm still iPhone-less, can anyone shed any light on whether 4 Gb is sufficient to store/run a decent handful of apps?

You're not going to run into any problems with loading it with Apps. If an app is over 100mb, that is unusual. There might by a medial atlas or two that weighs over 1/2gb.

 

[mike12806]

Well you obviously don't see the vast majority of the ppl that shop at my local wal-mart.

Regardless of your feelings about Wal-Mart as a corporate entity, the demographic of people that they attract at their stores is undoubtedly of a lower income bracket then Apple traditionally markets to. Does this mean Apple doesn't want to tap into this market? I'm not so sure...however, Apple has shown that the iPhone is really the ONLY product in which they will be price-competitive on. Apple really wants to put the iPhone into the hands of everyone, with the Mac they feel comfortable targeting solely a higher-end market.

Hopefully, Apple does not make the mistake of other companies and run their brand into the ground by making it "too accessible"....

 

[firewood]

You're serious, right? Who has only 4gb of music?

There are tons of people buying 1GB and 2GB iPod Nanos, enough to cause some models to be sold out. A 4GB iPhone would have 4X as much memory for only twice the price of the 1GB Nano, plus have a phone and an app+gaming engine thrown in.

.

 

[rowr]

The only thing keeping people from signing up with AT&T to get a new iPhone is AT&T itself, or one of the limitations of the phone. Bringing back the 4GB model won't increase sales much at all IMHO.

I had AT&T/Cingular and despised the service - even up here in jolly old Beantown the service is pretty tough once you get 5-10 miles outside of the main metro area.

CDMA sounds better anyway...

 

[dicklacara]

Uh....how about St. Jobs' recent assertion that he doesn't give a wet fart about potential buyers below a certain threshold?

On on hand, Apple chooses not to cater to people who want to spend less than $800 on a computer, on the other hand, a $99 Walmart phone?

I have difficulties believing that.

I think Apple's strategy for the iPhone LE is this: If we have a competitor for a lower-priced iPhone... it might as well be us!

 

[TitoC]

But you should - they are no better, and in some cases - WORSE than Walmart. Did you hear the news story that Walmart is now imposing strick requirements on its Chinese vendors - in many cases, great than those placed on them by other countries and in some instances even greater than those here in the United States? That just came down the line - they are requiring a living wage, better working conditions for employees and a minimum age for work and a safety oversight. Not only that - they are requiring MINIMUM environmental damage and use of less toxic and potentially harmful chemicals. To my knowledge they are the ONLY major company to REQUIRE these concessions in order to maintain there relationship with Walmart.

Could it have happened earlier? Yes - but now Walmart is in a better position to make these demands. My hats off to Walmart. The Walmart locations in my area now have LED illumination in every case that is motion sensitive and remains OFF unless someone walks by opens the case. They also make use of abundant natural lighting. I am no fan of Walmart - but when a company gets it right they should be praised for that.

D

Let me get this straight. You're telling me that Walmart is BETTER than Starbucks? Why. Because they are getting off their fat, bloated, Chinese-making-everything ass and finally making some concessions on environmental impact with their stores? Many organizations have been trying to get them to do this for YEARS! Ok. They are starting to do some things right, but they have a loooong way to go. Besides that, remember the "Made in the USA" fiasco a few years back when they were caught pushing their "Made in the USA" items when they were actually all made in China? Don't get me started!

But as far as employee treatment goes, they are way down the totem pole compared to Starbucks. What's the percentage of employees that have REAL benefits at Walmart compared to Starbucks? Look it up. It's not such a pretty picture now, is it? Walmart still treats their employees with disdain and disgust and they always have.

I had 2 friends that worked at 2 different Walmarts and they both were treated like crap. No health benefits, no stock options, nothing. Every time they tried to work a real 40 hour shift, they mysteriously had their scheduled changed so that they were only scheduled for 35-38 hours a week so they would not get benefits. Shameful is what it is. Starbucks on the other hand at least has real benefits, stock options, etc. no matter how many hours you work. They were the first coffee corporation that started buying and selling free-trade coffee before it was fashionable. Now I am not saying that they are perfect, but saying that Walmart is BETTER than Starbucks is going a bit too far for me. If people would stop dissing Starbucks just because they are Starbucks and actually doing some research on the subject, we might have a real discussion here. Otherwise it's just rhetoric.

 

[GeekLawyer]

Well you obviously don't see the vast majority of the ppl that shop at my local wal-mart.

I'm basing it on what I see at MY local wal-mart. Not all of them.

Maybe that's your perception, but unless you've polled the shoppers, you're just making an assumption about their disposable income. I have no doubt that you're right about some of the folks at your local Walmart. But unless you camp out there, you don't know the habits or resources of everyone who shops there.

I think people see it as cool to bust on Walmart and the people who shop there. I, personally, shop in a lot of places. And I'll buy my Apple gear from the Apple store. But I see little difference in selling iPhones at Walmart or Best Buy or Costco. All three cater to the same bargain-hunting shoppers.

 

[Tomorrow]

Well you obviously don't see the vast majority of the ppl that shop at my local wal-mart.

I'm basing it on what I see at MY local wal-mart. Not all of them.

I can drive 10 miles west to one Wal-Mart or 7 miles east to a different (newer) one. They're night-and-day different, both in terms of store size, item selection, and clientele. I totally chalk it up to the neighborhoods - Wal-Mart east is adjacent to a very upscale suburb (with lots of new development in and near the neighborhood), Wal-Mart west is in the heart of a much older (speaking in terms of how long the population has been there) and established town.

In any event, if I buy an iPhone at either store and bring it home, the phone doesn't know or care where I bought it.

 

[dornoforpyros]

Is the upfront cost of the iPhone really the deciding factor? I would have thought it's the $60+ monthly phone bill more than the cost of the device itself. Or at least it is for me, if rogers (canada) came out with a $100 iPhone tomorrow it still wouldn't make the hefty bill and 3 year contract any easier to swallow.

 

[Kwill]

Although I personally do not feel 4GB is enough memory for all the iPhone does, in today's economy the $99 price point would be attractive. Walmart certainly has a vast distribution channel. Let's just hope they have enough security to keep people from breaking down the doors when the product is released.

 

[mike12806]

Maybe that's your perception, but unless you've polled the shoppers, you're just making an assumption about their disposable income. I have no doubt that you're right about some of the folks at your local Walmart. But unless you camp out there, you don't know the habits or resources of everyone who shops there.

I think people see it as cool to bust on Walmart and the people who shop there. I, personally, shop in a lot of places. And I'll buy my Apple gear from the Apple store. But I see little difference in selling iPhones at Walmart or Best Buy or Costco. All three cater to the same bargain-hunting shoppers.

Just to add....in rural America, a Wal-Mart is really like a mall to more urban America, it may be the only electronics retailer in a 50 mile radius. Don't forget, Walmart is also the LARGEST retailer in the world, so no matter what, you are going to get customers who may never set foot in an Apple store or otherwise purchase an iPhone. This wasn't such a big deal when you could purchase the iPhone online, but you obviously can't with the iPhone 3G.

And, you really can't compare Best Buy, Costco, and Wal-Mart as retailers...although you may shop at all three, they do target different market segments.

 

[dvkid]

They changed it about a month and a half ago. I've been printing/designing stuff using their new logo for awhile now.

This logo debuted in early July and was put into use immediately. In fact, it appeared in a TV ad within the first day or two of being the official logo.

The older blue-star logo is still in use in Canada and Mexico for the time being.

 

[rowr]

Yes they are. This will make me sound like a total pansy but I actually have a physical reaction to being in a wal-mart. I start feeling kinda queasy. It also makes me feel completely guilty for supporting a soul-less mega-corp that does things like build over ancient ruins (in mexico I believe).

That's a kooky statement.

The only physical reaction you'll probably experience will be a year from now when your taxes are so high that you're forced to buy stuff at Wal-Mart, and then realize that you can buy the SAME things there at 30% discount. Wal-Mart sells premium products, not just cheap low quality items.

I never have understood why elitists take pride in wasting their money. Times are going to get tougher over the next 4 years - start saving your money now.

 

[dvkid]

This strategy: genius on Apple's part, if it's true. 20M units moved by Q3 2009.

This strategy: steep devaluation of the product line following a massive movement of units.

Short term gain, long term FAIL.

 

[firewood]

Is the upfront cost of the iPhone really the deciding factor?

Department stores learned long ago that "buy now, pay later" gives a huge boost to sales, plus they make money on the interest (or the monthly plan, where the subsidy interest is built-in in the case of phones).

.

 

[fleshman03]

think we need to remember the macrumor effect. (we tend to have more music/movies/media than the "normal" walmart shopper who proly hasnt even set up itunes yet or has no idea what blu-ray is) There is a market out there for cheaper iphones without the need for enough space for 60 movies..but again...the $100 just isnt a huge deal when you look at the 2-year period.

Some data on Walmart Shoppers:

Nielsen Trends data on WalMart Shopers

Little more data:

Source


So given the data, you are more likely to find someone making 35k or more a year than not. That person is also likely to buy electronics at Walmart.

 

[MacDaddy08]

Uhhhhh... I don't see Wal-Mart customers being able to afford a (US)$90+ a month cell phone bill. I'm not being mean, I'm just telling the truth.

I have 2 3G iPhones that I just recently upgraded to from my 2 8GB EDGE iPhones. I pay for the monthly bill and guess what, I shop at Walmart.

There are way to many people out there that get this personification that if you shop at Walmart then you must be poor. It's an incredibly ignorant stereotype to throw out. Walmart has good deals on a lot of things and they don't just sell junk. A lot of the stuff they sell are the same brands and models everyone else sells. What's the big deal? Just because they sell things cheaper it must mean the people that shop there can't afford to shop at designer stores? No. It means the people that shop there are smart and aren't going to spend more money on something just because they don't want to be caught in the Walmart parking lot.

Get real.