iPhone - Page 10

brundles · 03-10-2007, 12:54

I'm not an Apple fan (don't have any iPods, iPhones or general Apple gubbins), but I'm not convinced they have done anything particularly evil in this instance. They offered a partial refund for the difference after the price drop which is more than most companies would have done. Admittedly I'm a but dubious about the speed with which the 4GB model was canned - why bother with it in the first place?

Everyone seems to be focussing on Apple as the culprits when, as highlighted in the contract (and I quoted above) the real sting is the 2 year contract with AT&T. To be fair, AT&T need to do this to cover the costs that Apple have imposed on them.

The overall cost of the package might be high, but very few new, high profile cutting edge products aren't. I don't see anyone accusing Sony of nasty behaviour for the high price of a PS3.

Stuart · 03-10-2007, 13:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by brundles

I'm not an Apple fan (don't have any iPods, iPhones or general Apple gubbins), but I'm not convinced they have done anything particularly evil in this instance. They offered a partial refund for the difference after the price drop which is more than most companies would have done. Admittedly I'm a but dubious about the speed with which the 4GB model was canned - why bother with it in the first place?

The main problem for me is that they virtually halved the price about 60 days after release. The speed suggests they could have made the phone cheaper in the first place. The other problem is they limited the refund to those who had bought the phone within the 14 days prior to the announced price drop.

Quote:

Everyone seems to be focussing on Apple as the culprits when, as highlighted in the contract (and I quoted above) the real sting is the 2 year contract with AT&T. To be fair, AT&T need to do this to cover the costs that Apple have imposed on them.

Apple weren't forced to go with AT&T, and bearing in mind the facilities of the iPhone (hardware wise), combined with the fact that AFAIK, US mobile carriers don't subsidise phones heavily, I doubt AT&T have actually subsidised the phone at all. So, I doubt AT&T have massive costs to cover.

Quote:

The overall cost of the package might be high, but very few new, high profile cutting edge products aren't. I don't see anyone accusing Sony of nasty behaviour for the high price of a PS3.

That's just it. Apart from the memory size and the screen, the iPhone isn't cutting edge. Even the much hyped OS is just a pretty interface running on a seven year old OS (Mac OSX). The PS3 has it's faults, but it is arguably cutting edge.

I am not complaining so much about the hardware/software side of Apple (I love Apple hardware and software), but the business side of Apple leaves a lot to be desired.

brundles · 03-10-2007, 13:34

The sharp price drop so soon after the release of the phone is fishy I agree - either they were after a large mark up for the first few weeks or somebody needs to be fired for getting the price wrong, but the point was more that Apple were at least offering some people something (despite the catches) when they made the change.

AT&T aren't paying the same high subsidy that O2 probably will, but they are still paying Apple purely for the privilege of using the phone. While it might not have all the latest technology, the lure of an iPhone to switch operators does seem to be working - there are people in the US ditching their old phones and networks in favour of AT&T. Not because AT&T might offer a better service but because they have the iPhone.

Maybe cutting edge was the wrong phrase - the iPhone doesn't even stretch as far as 3G (if memory serves) which means that operators have a higher operating cost to get the content to the phone that they want to make their money from. At the end of the day the whole thing is about working out what people are willing to pay and Apple proved that despite any limitations of the product people are willing to pay over the odds. They're not the only company to do this - our own government proves that point on a regular basis!

handyman · 03-10-2007, 13:57

I would imagine they stock piled Iphones which cost a larger amount to produce and with increased production and the reduced cost of components this will have some effect on the cost of making it. Plus I think they figured they would sell even more with the drop.

punky · 03-10-2007, 14:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by brundles

but I'm not convinced they have done anything particularly evil in this instance.

The price drop isn't the most heinous example, but they are plenty more, across all Apple products.

Picking one at random, the iPhone doesn't allow custom ringtones. Virtually every phone over at least the last 5 years have had the ability to either record them via the mic, import them, or compose them. If you want a ringtone for your iPhone, you have to buy it from iTunes, even if you have already bought the song for your iPod. So despite buying the song in full, you need to buy another 15 seconds of the same song. And its not about protecting artists, or the like. Its about squatting over the customer and fleecing them because they can.

SMHarman · 03-10-2007, 15:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Does anyone else find it rather odd that if Microsoft did something like this (or, indeed, half the stuff Apple do), they would be accused of anti competitive practices (see the recent case between Google and Microsoft over the Vista search for evidence) and possibly taken to court, yet Apple, because they seem to be percieved as a nice company, get away with it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gavin

Apple are like Virgin in many ways. They are the anti-company. They are multi-billion dollar corporations masquarding as small independent companies with charasmatic, young CEOs who are constantly fighting the evil, more conservative, perceived-larger companies. As such they do get away with blue murder.

Like with Virgin. They colluded with BA to fleece customers over fuel supplements. Although they did blow the whistle on it, they still still fleeced thousands of customers over it with no conscience/recompense. Yet BA still look evil and Virgin Atlantic look like heroes.

It constantly amazes me just how anti-consumer Apple can be yet they are still revered. Only since the iPhone have people within the Apple community really been starting to realise.

Didn't they say in the matrix

Perception is Reality

The Virgin fuel surcharge debacle is an interesting one. Had BA got to the competition commission first (probably hampered by a bigger burocracy) then VS would have been the bad guys and got the $$$$ fine!

This is why Branson and Jobs protect the market image, the apple logo etc so vigourously.

---------- Post added at 09:18 ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by brundles

Everyone seems to be focussing on Apple as the culprits when, as highlighted in the contract (and I quoted above) the real sting is the 2 year contract with AT&T. To be fair, AT&T need to do this to cover the costs that Apple have imposed on them.

18m-2y contracts are far more common over here. I don't think many here consider the length of contract to be unusual of excessive.

---------- Post added at 09:28 ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

The main problem for me is that they virtually halved the price about 60 days after release. The speed suggests they could have made the phone cheaper in the first place. The other problem is they limited the refund to those who had bought the phone within the 14 days prior to the announced price drop.

14 day prior purchases could return their phone and they buy it again at the lower price, those outside the 14 days got the refund voucher / credit or whatever it was. Everyone with an iPhone got some money back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Apple weren't forced to go with AT&T, and bearing in mind the facilities of the iPhone (hardware wise), combined with the fact that AFAIK, US mobile carriers don't subsidise phones heavily, I doubt AT&T have actually subsidised the phone at all. So, I doubt AT&T have massive costs to cover.

US Phone carriers don't subsidies as heavily which is why they can offer $20 unlimited data, they are not trying to recover $300 of handset subsidy over 12 months (at $25 a month) which is how the model works in the UK.
In the final analysis Apple really had little choice of carrier if they were to choose a sole carrier across the US.
Compare
http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/
to
http://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/
These are really the only two nationwide GSM networks. Then if you want to look further into this and the fact the iPhone is a data device as much as a phone EDGE covereage on ATT/Cingular is also far greater.
Verizon and Sprint/Nextel are not GSM TDMA but CDMA so incompatible with the iPhone handset / GSM infrastructure.
Apple wisely chose to build a GSM phone so it could be rolled out globally.
ATT IMHO had this in the bag (compared to say the UK when all 4 network operators have such similar coverage and network technology there was true competition). If they did not realise this and overpaid they are as dumb as the woman suing Apple over the price of her phone.

brundles · 03-10-2007, 15:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gavin

The price drop isn't the most heinous example, but they are plenty more, across all Apple products.

Picking one at random, the iPhone doesn't allow custom ringtones. Virtually every phone over at least the last 5 years have had the ability to either record them via the mic, import them, or compose them. If you want a ringtone for your iPhone, you have to buy it from iTunes, even if you have already bought the song for your iPod. So despite buying the song in full, you need to buy another 15 seconds of the same song. And its not about protecting artists, or the like. Its about squatting over the customer and fleecing them because they can.

Can't really argue that one! In business terms it's great as you get all of the revenue - how many companies wouldn't like to be able to charge for the same thing several times "legitimately"? In support terms it's also good as you know what's on the phone - particularly when dealing with firmware's and the like (OK, I know that's a whole different story of Apple evilness). In customer terms though it's just crap! I haven't looked but how do the prices compare? Why do I have a feeling that the price of the ringtone is actually more expensive than the price of the whole song?

Quote:

Originally Posted by smharman

18m-2y contracts are far more common over here. I don't think many here consider the length of contract to be unusual of excessive.

They're starting to become pretty pervasive but I wouldn't go so far as to say common. At least in the UK the operators have a (somewhat wobbly) leg to stand on when trying to justify it. In this instance the high rates that AT&T agreed to pay Apple provide the same wobbly leg. (And of course $11 a month over a 2 year contract is better than over a 1 year contract for Apple too - hence Apple's incentive to keep phones locked to the network.)

SMHarman · 03-10-2007, 15:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by brundles

Maybe cutting edge was the wrong phrase - the iPhone doesn't even stretch as far as 3G (if memory serves) which means that operators have a higher operating cost to get the content to the phone that they want to make their money from.

In the US the higher cost for content is not really there. 3G is still considered a business service and built out in areas where there are high numbers of business / blackberrys.
http://www.wireless.att.com/coverage.../popUp_3g.html
To compare to the UK it would be like having 3G in London, Bristol, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh and maybe on the rail and roads connecting but stray from there and you are back on 2G.
2.75G EDGE is the best nationwide network here.

---------- Post added at 09:41 ---------- Previous post was at 09:32 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by brundles

Can't really argue that one! In business terms it's great as you get all of the revenue - how many companies wouldn't like to be able to charge for the same thing several times "legitimately"?

This is basic economics or (Economics 101 as they would say here).
Charging the price a market will bear. Early adopters will pay more to be early adopters. The Everett Rogers Diffusion of Innovation theory (from 1962)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations

Innovators – venturesome, educated, multiple info sources;
Early adopters – social leaders, popular, educated;
Early majority – deliberate, many informal social contacts;
Late majority – skeptical, traditional, lower socio-economic status;
Laggards – neighbours and friends are main info sources, fear of debt.

Innovaters know they will be paying top $ for a product and will pay it so they can say they are first to own it. And will stay up all night outside a store to own it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brundles

They're starting to become pretty pervasive but I wouldn't go so far as to say common. At least in the UK the operators have a (somewhat wobbly) leg to stand on when trying to justify it. In this instance the high rates that AT&T agreed to pay Apple provide the same wobbly leg. (And of course $11 a month over a 2 year contract is better than over a 1 year contract for Apple too - hence Apple's incentive to keep phones locked to the network.)

Take a look at this page
http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-pho...era-phones.jsp
All prices for 2 year contracts!
I'm using my unlocked K800i so have no tie in at all!

punky · 03-10-2007, 17:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by brundles

Why do I have a feeling that the price of the ringtone is actually more expensive than the price of the whole song?

Because it does

iTunes will provide any 30 seconds of 1,000,000 songs for you for $0.99 each.

Now if you own the song in iTunes already, you pay $0.99 for Apple to ringtone-ify it. Something I presume happens instantly on the fly and doesn't really cost them anything.

Now, if you don't own the song, and just want a ringtone, you have to buy it in iTunes first for $0.99 and then pay the ringtone fee of another $0.99 for the grand sum of $1.98.

As I said, how Jobs has the balls to get away with it and sleep and night, I really don't know. He gets away with it legally because its stipulated in the EULA so he can charge what he wants, but it suprises me how many in the Mac community just keep supporting it.

Source

*turns to camera 2* In other news...

You can't keep a good hacker down

Quote:

Apple had warned those who had unlocked their iPhones that their handsets would be rendered unusable come its next update, and indeed it stayed true to its threat with the update, released last week, turning the phones into little more than expensive paperweights.

Now though, it has emerged that hackers have found a way to reverse some of the update and restore a limited number of functions to the phone. However, although they have managed to get the iPod and Wi-Fi features working again, some unlocked and updated iPhones' days as a mobile phone are still over - for the time being.

**Damien** · 03-10-2007, 17:23

Quote:

As I said, how Jobs has the balls to get away with it and sleep and night, I really don't know. He gets away with it legally because its stipulated in the EULA so he can charge what he wants, but it suprises me how many in the Mac community just keep supporting it.

They do not, if you look at most Apple Commentary sites and blogs you will find the ringtone issue is unpopular and applications have been developed that allows you to use your own ringtones from your songs without paying Apple. They are also angry AT the lack of a SDK for the iPhone.

I rarely see evidence of your popular stereotype of Mac users defending everything Apple does outside of forums populated by 13-year olds.

---------- Post added at 16:23 ---------- Previous post was at 16:19 ----------

Quote:

That's just it. Apart from the memory size and the screen, the iPhone isn't cutting edge. Even the much hyped OS is just a pretty interface running on a seven year old OS (Mac OSX). The PS3 has it's faults, but it is arguably cutting edge.

I think referring to OSX as a seven-year OS is unfair. OSX doesnt have a traditional software cycle and it's worth considering a 10.x upgrade as a full OS upgrade. So much has changed since 10.1. A whole bunch of new API's for developers as well as 64 bit and Mutli-Core support (and the continuing UNIX changes) and much much more and thats before we even mention end-user features such as Expose and Spotlight. The only reason they call them 10.x is for marketing...

**Chris** · 03-10-2007, 17:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

a seven year old OS (Mac OSX)

With your background and experience of Macs, I'm genuinely amazed to see you posting something quite as misleading as this!

handyman · 03-10-2007, 18:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gavin

Now if you own the song in iTunes already, you pay $0.99 for Apple to ringtone-ify it. Something I presume happens instantly on the fly and doesn't really cost them anything.

They have built a ringtone editor into the new version of itunes. You can use this to select the (up to 30 seconds) portion of the tune to use as a ringtone. You can try this as many times as you like to get the right bit and if you then want to purchase it you can and it will appear in the ringtones section of itunes and sync to your iphone. Almost all of the tunes can be used and have a marker on the letting you know. Tunes you already have purchased that are sat in itunes will also get this marker if they are ringtone compatible.

punky · 03-10-2007, 19:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

They do not, if you look at most Apple Commentary sites and blogs

I do actually and I resent the implication. I read amongst others, Mac Rumours, ThinkSecret, and cross platform sites such as El Reg and Ars. I have also owned a G4 aluminium powerbook for some years. You should have noticed I have posted links to blogs and sites in this thread and the other iPhone thread.

Just because you don't like what I say doesn't give you the right to call me uneducated and uninformed.

Quote:

I rarely see evidence of your popular stereotype of Mac users defending everything Apple does outside of forums populated by 13-year olds.

And now we down to insults. Sad really, especially when you haven't read post 135...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gavin

Only since the iPhone have people within the Apple community really been starting to realise.

SMHarman · 03-10-2007, 19:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by handyman

They have built a ringtone editor into the new version of itunes. You can use this to select the (up to 30 seconds) portion of the tune to use as a ringtone. You can try this as many times as you like to get the right bit and if you then want to purchase it you can and it will appear in the ringtones section of itunes and sync to your iphone. Almost all of the tunes can be used and have a marker on the letting you know. Tunes you already have purchased that are sat in itunes will also get this marker if they are ringtone compatible.

So how does that work with a song that you have ripped to iTunes from a CD, or say something like a Beatles song or any other song that may not currently be available on iTunes.

punky · 03-10-2007, 19:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMHarman

So how does that work with a song that you have ripped to iTunes from a CD, or say something like a Beatles song or any other song that may not currently be available on iTunes.

It doesn't. The ringtone has to be on a pre-approved list of songs.