The price of Fairy dust and unobtanium has gone through the roof
Also lawyers with expertise of rounded corners and off-shore tax experts don't work for pennies you know
Apple is reportedly talking with wireless carriers about pricing for its upcoming iPhone, but not about reinvigorating a stalling smartphone market by lowering prices, instead about raising the cost of its top-of-the-line handsets. "Our checks indicate Apple has started negotiating with carriers on a $100 iPhone 6 price …
Apple really screwed the pooch by suing Samsung. They now have to pay full price for their screens (Galaxy rejects, incidentally), full price for their memory and wildly inflated prices for their processors. Samsung really loved the terms of the Californian "settlement" - it gave them all the excuse they needed for a more aggressive pricing policy.....
"Apple really screwed the pooch by suing Samsung. They now have to pay full price for their screens (Galaxy rejects, incidentally), full price for their memory and wildly inflated prices for their processors. Samsung really loved the terms of the Californian "settlement" - it gave them all the excuse they needed for a more aggressive pricing policy....."
Nice fairy tale you've told yourself there.
If you're interested in reality, Apple doesn't use Samsung displays. They triple source from Sharp, LG, and Japan Display. The memory isn't from Samsung--it's from Hynix. The processors are currently from Samsung but reliable rumor is that they are in the process of second sourcing from TSMC. The idea that Samsung manufactures iPhones and Apple just slaps a shiny logo on them is a myth that poorly informed fandroids enjoy telling each other.
"If you're interested in reality, Apple doesn't use Samsung displays."
Which only happened after the $1BN jury award, moron. Because immediately after it was awarded, Samsung notified Apple of their price increase. Apple had to go source all their parts from other companies. Apple now uses inferior parts because of their poor corporate strategy.
"Apple really screwed the pooch by suing Samsung."
I did wonder why that never seemed to directly come up at the trial. I would have had my opening statement be: your honor, if Apple didn't want their phones to look like Samsung phones, perhaps they shouldn't buy and use our screens, processors, RAM, etc. *drops mic*
While Apple "won" $1BN, their annual per year costs went up $1BN as a result. Not really a smart move.
I can then wave my new iPhone 6 in the pub with even more self-satisfied smugness. Why not make it another £1000, then it would be even more 'exclusive'. In a recent visit to the small market town of Enniskillen, Co Femanagh, I found a shop in the high street where the cheapest watch was £4500. Now THAT is style!
Either people won't pay that much in which case Apple suffers, or they will, in which case Samsung has some headroom to expand into - it does like a phone at every price point and if there's a new price point there's a new opportunity; even if it is still the case that people won't pay as much for Samsung as they do for Apple, a new phone that is fifty dollars cheaper but still more profitable than the old top-of-the-range model is going to have them rubbing their hands in glee.
Oh no. Don't forget that phones are apparently free!
For example, in the UK market I think you get a 'free' latest iPhone or Galaxy S5 on about £40 per month. Over a 2 year contract I guess that would mean only an extra £5 per month. I'm sure we can just call that inflation, and no-one will notice...
So as you say it's probably not a big enough difference that it'll drive everyone to say "sod that! The top-of-the-range Androids are just as good, I'm going to save myself £120" I suspect many people will think that a fiver is worth it to keep their beloved iPhone. And in fact there won't be a difference, as Sammy can put up it's prices to match - or equally likely (as they've already set their prices) the phone companies can just put their prices up and pocket some extra profit.
I do find top-end smartphone prices amazing. You can get an iPad for £400, why should a phone with a quarter the expensive battery and screen cost more? The difference in Samsung's prices is even higher.
A few years back it made sense to pay top-dollar. The top-end phones were far superior to what you could get for even £250. But nowadays you can have a Nokia Lumia 620 for £130! It's not good enough if you need apps (which I don't), but it's an extremely good phone with calendar/diary/email and sat-nav. Or just over £200 for a Nexus or Moto G. Now the top-end phones are stupidly over-priced.
I'm not sure how the pricing in the UK works, but in the USA it has been pretty stable for a while.
The "willingness to pay" for smartphones was found to be around $200, so they were subsidized with increases in service to be around $200. You were eligible for a new phone every 1 year, then 1.5 years, then 2 years... as the carriers supposedly had trouble breaking even on iPhone users. Android users where not upgrading as often as they are usually sensible and utilitarian, whereas Apple users were image oriented and not concerned about function. Or maybe Android phones just didn't break so much or wear out so fast. Either way, carriers were losing money on Apple kit from a hardware perspective.
Additionally, the price differentiation factor kicked in. If the iPhone 4S cost $200 when you got in and the iPhone 5 costs $200, is it really an upgrade? Oh no good sir it costs $250 so you can tell it must be an upgrade! There was no resistance to this from carriers because they could use the relaxing of their subsidy, which they may never earn back. Carriers then implemented the same pricing plan for Android phones too.
Apple sees this and is not amused. They want to consume all of the profits in their value chain. The phone carrier (in Apple's opinion) does not deserve to turn a profit on Apple kit. After all, the carrier only warehouses the product, ships it, pays people to sell it and is on the hook for unsold inventory. They clearly add no value compared to Apple, who buys some parts from various companies and pays someone else to assemble them. Apple is raising prices to consume that extra $50 or $100 the carriers have tried to get out of the customer to remain profitable.
As Apple's share continues to fall, eventually this will reach a breaking point, and Apple phones will only be available at the Apple store, as carriers will back out. No one likes working with a bully if they don't have to.
"no one likes working with a bully if they don't have to."
ROTFLMAO ... said by someone truly, truly naive. The TELCOs invented the concept of corporate bullying and they are the masters of it. That they have to dance a bit with Apple does not change that fact. The TELCOs had no problems telling MS's reseller NOKIA to fuck off after Elop took over and that basically ended NOKIA's reign - the TELCOs hate WinPhone, Skype in particular and Elop specifically.
The TELCOs don't make handsets, they work with whomsoever they think will add the most value to their network business. Apple users are profitable, or the TELCOs would be shot of Apple in a heartbeat.
"with wearables/fitness tracking fad."
When you pass the half century, and start seeing friends and associates collapsing, or worse drop dead, you may understand why wearable health monitoring is going to be an absolutely monstrously profitable market.
The western world is getting older, and with age we wear out. Monitoring health is a natural (and dare I say welcome) enhancement to the smart device lineup.
And like it or not, for the most part we successful "senior citizens" have lots of disposable income to use on truly useful tech, and helping me live longer and in a healthier state is really high on my priority list!
Whether the iPhone 6 or some set of BT enabled set of sensors reporting to it are the game changers, I have no idea. But it will come, as surely as a wet summer in Kent (random county - in retrospect I should have written Aberdeen, but too late now)
I may be naive, but I wonder whether there is any point to monitoring blood sugar without taking blood, except in connection with a built-in insulin dispenser for diabetics; but it would seem the insulin dispenser might have to be in contact with the bloodstream. What am I missing?
Many diabetics control their condition with tablets, certainly in the initial stages of the disease. I know my father did. Effective control in the early stages can help to lessen the rate of progress and will also reduce bodily damage, or at least slow down the effects. Continuous non-invasive monitoring would be a fantastic tool for any diabetic because they could respond to any medication need more often than at present and without having to prick their finger and smear blood on a test-strip.
You don't have to be diabetic to suffer the effect of blood sugar levels dipping or spiking, it's a great indicator for athletes and sports people as well as affecting mood and performance in everyone.
I'd be interested in a blood free monitor to see how my levels change during exercise but I'd prefer it not to be on a 'phone.
"blood sugar levels dipping or spiking"?
Really? I don't think so. Your pancreas and liver work pretty damn well, assuming you don't poison them with excess calories. If you're getting significant swings in blood sugar, I'd suggest you see a doctor.
Icon full of calories :-)
It's perfectly possible to have blood sugar levels dip during sustained and intense exercise, it's a diet issue for athletes and bodybuilders, if the sugar isn't available then it can't be regulated.
Recovery from exercise can also involve the ingestion of large amounts of monosacharides and complex carbohydrates which can lead to a sugar/insulin spike if not done correctly but I digress, it's about making sure the nutrition is right so that I can exercise more effectively and recover more rapidly.
Your liver contains enough glycogen to provide glucose for ~18 hours at rest. You need to do plenty of exercise to use all this up... it is possible, just implausible. Then you have plenty of fat, and muscle... (unless you're a marathon runner or elite cyclist :-)
I don't know how much exercise you do, but for most people diet after/during exercise is an irrelevance compared to their habit of sitting on the sofa. I do (did, if I'm honest) a fair bit of running and cycling and what made me faster was more running and cycling, not changing my diet.
And whenever someone says bodybuilders, I worry that the problem is 'roids and/or testosterone, not carbs fats or protein.
Has anyone anywhere talked about the actual impact of having millions of relatively well off, middle aged people tracking their health constantly?
Wouldn't even a 0.01% rate of 'false positive' for something like 'imminent heart attack' be a huge impact on the healthcare system?
Because that is the age at which even healthy people develop the tell tale signs of age.
Plus, as you get older, you don't discount the future as much as when you are young, thus there is a higher interest in health amongst the older citizens than the younger. You may be you g enough to stillm believe in your own indestructibility, I know better.
make up for lost revenues with 5C.
Apple knows may of their fanbois and fangirls are more than willing to pay $100 more for the "privilege" of being the first one on their block with the newest generation of a one model phone. I'm surprised they aren't looking at a higher price. I guess they don't want to appear too greedy.
Apple FULLY understands the old adage:
"A fool and his money are quickly parted"
LOL!! I just got a new phone. I had the usual choices. I went with the MOTO-X... I could have gone with the iPhone5S for $10 more a month... so its not really hurting to pay a bit more for an iPhone.
iPhones are very nice looking, but I don't need one and they are more likely to be stolen. I have a custom Moto X (Yes, I'm in the USA - hopefully Europe will get it) that is easily MY phone.
I didn't go with LG (which are great phones) because I don't like the power & volume buttons on the back nor the glossy cheap plastic. I didn't go with the Samsung S4 because of its gloss and the HUGE bodies of both the S4 and S5. The MOTO-X has the cleanest Android OS... setting up the Alarms is AWESOME compared to anyone else - where you spend so much energy flipping numbers.
"make up for lost revenues with 5C."
That is the least logical statement I have read today.
Explain exactly how there are "lost revenues" when a gazillion of the item have been sold. I haven't read anywhere that there are large stockpiles of unsold devices, so I conclude the supply chain is functioning as it should.
Try growing a brain.
I'll bet this is for the larger of the two. If it is supposed to be released this fall, they have to get carrier agreements in place before that.
The slightly larger one (which will probably just have more screen less bezel but be the same size) will be the same price, the larger one will cost more.
Apple is "greedy" in terms of wanting to maximize their profit, but I highly doubt the profit maximizing prices are where you think. If they can arbitrarily increase the price of the iPhone 6 just because it is a bit larger than the 5s, why didn't they do it with the 5 when it was a bit larger than the 4s?
quote: "If they can arbitrarily increase the price of the iPhone 6 just because it is a bit larger than the 5s, why didn't they do it with the 5 when it was a bit larger than the 4s?"
Fear. They weren't sure if there would be the same product uptake with a change in form factor, especially when the size of Samsung's contemporary devices was being lambasted as "too big" by a lot of their target demographic.
However the 5 and 5s sold like the proverbial hot cakes, so a price increase is inevitable; it's difficult to convince someone your device is orders of magnitude "better" than the last one unless it is also significantly more expensive. Betcha that the increase is claimed to be down to the sapphire glass, even though they are apparently negotiating the price (rather than simply stating it).
Apple is a prestige brand. Apple gear are status symbols. You buy it for the same reason you buy designer jeans or a ferrari -- because you're rich enough and want to show it. That's why Apple phones can sell at twice the price of better-specced Androids, and why the gold bling-phone did so well.
Raising price by $100 is a good move. Making the phone bigger is also a good move -- after all, the whole point is that other people can see that you're using an iPhone. NOT producing cheap phones is an absolutely necessary move, as it damages the brand.
I'd also suggest making a point of using exotic materials (gold, titanium, magnesium, jade...).
"You buy it for the same reason you buy designer jeans or a ferrari -- because you're rich enough and want to show it."
Or, more likely, because you're on contract and pay nothing out of pocket.
Yep, latter one, otherwise how come I'm surrounded by so many rich people on the train to CBD ?
Actually I think people now buy either an android or an iPhone in a form of psychological lock-in. I was an early adopter of android and at the time the iPhone was more polished than my HTC Desire. Now I have an LG G2 and I find the iPhone dinky and a bit crap looking, particularly the lack of widgets and animations.
The biggest thing though is I find the iPhone cack to use. I miss the back button and the menu button massively. On screen widgets with my next appointments and shortcuts on my lock screen are also missing. So I find the usage of the iPhone unpleasant.
But the flipside is I have stopped trying to show iPhone users the different options when their contracts come up for renewal. Pretty much I say get another iPhone. They find android hard to navigate. Things are in the wrong place. I'm sure there are other things they miss that I don't even know it does.
Apple will continue to sell iPhones to existing iPhone users. The battle will be won or lost in the new users entering the market. Did you start iPhone or android. That is where you will be in the future.
I do think there's a fear of Android for many iPhone users. I've used Symbian (first), iOS (second) and Android (third) of various versions and iOS is the one I find least intuitive. It's like the difference between a planned new town and an old town that's grown naturally. The old town is like Android - it's easy to navigate because it's natural. There's more to learn, but somehow there's more fun in it and this engages the user on a deeper level than iOS. iOS is like a new town - it's simpler and more structured because it's been planned out for the user. For those who started on iOS, it must be clean and simple to use, but it lacks charm and allows no interesting diversions so the user can't develop their own ways of getting around.
From an Android user perspective, iOS is fairly easy to navigate once you accept that you have to think the way the planners want you to. Moving from iOS to Android must be quite hard, though, as all that controlled order is missing. Long-serving iPhone users are a little institutionalized, which means that Apple has a higher customer retention rate.
"Apple is a prestige brand. Apple gear are status symbols. You buy it for the same reason you buy designer jeans or a ferrari -- because you're a wanker""
Oh dear, the envious are out in force today.
Fuck you all, because I can (and have done so) and you cannot. Suck it up you poor wannabees who never will, and who feel compelled to abuse those more successful. A pox on you all.
I could deal with a slightly larger screen than my 5s, but wouldn't want a much larger phone, so if they can work some 'magic' with the bezel, good luck to 'em, otherwise, I'm out.
Just a shame that this seems to be the way things are going, with not many higher-end phones that aren't on the rather large size. We have a galaxy mega at work, the thing is a joke.
...now people can feel that their iPhone is ultra-premium instead of merely premium. Let's see their market share collapse when those that could only just afford that subsidized fee now decide that the extra $100 is just a little more than they really can afford.
I used to pay their premium. Switched to Google's Nexus 5 last november and it does everything the iPhone does except...
...it transfers pictures across to my Mac faster than Apple and 'iCloud' ever did. No 15 minute wait for 5 or 6 pictures to even start showing up and it doesn't go through that god awful photo app they have on the mac.
Not only that, the pictures are available on my PC at the same time and I don't have an iCloud app in the system bar on the PC that crashes the OS every few minutes.
Either way, they have to increase profit margins on their devices to offset the cost of the perpetual legal proceedings they spend their time in chasing every tom dick and harry over patents. Maybe they should just lease their patents to "Rockstar Consortium" their majority stake in it would be advantageous and they could use them to do all the donkey work in that area and get a nice income from people that previously didn't breach the patents over other little things.
Just think the slide to unlock could allow them to chase any maker of sliding locks used in garden gates....tee hee hee (shouldn't give them ideas)... as they shoehorn patents to every possible case.
Apple saw that people rather buy the 5s instead of the 5c, even though the differences in spec are marginal. So it is only logical to push the price for their top model up. It's just good product placement.
It might also have to do with the premium, the carriers enforced on their customers by pricing LTE deals significantly higher and at the same time outphasing 3G models. (At least in the country where I live - and no, they don't accept 3G only contracts for LTE capable phones). Apple naturally wants their slice of the loot.
If this works out, people with smaller budgets or people that want a compact phone will go for the 5c and the rest will probably swallow the 6.
The reason the 5C didn't sell wasn't because it was cheaper than the 5S. It was because it was cheaper AND looked it too. My daughter has a 5, my missus a 5S, they look identical. The 5 was free on a contract and is £10 pm cheaper than the 5S, the S also cost £159 up front :( My daughter is more than happy with the 5, I gave her the choice between the 5, the S and the C, she said the S wasn't worth the extra and the C looked cheap and nasty.At the time (when the S & C were first launched) the C was more expensive than the 5 it was replacing.
For the record I run a SGS II as I can't stand iPhones.
I got a Moto-G, which seems to do 95% of what the iPhone does, for £99 outright and £7/month for a 1GB contract. Over 24 months, compared to a similar £29/month iPhone contract, this seems to save me a shade under £430, money that I shall spend on beer. That's two years of FREE BEER for not using an iPhone!
quote: "Over 24 months, compared to a similar £29/month iPhone contract, this seems to save me a shade under £430, money that I shall spend on beer. That's two years of FREE BEER for not using an iPhone!"
That has to be one of the most compelling arguments I have yet seen for considering the "non-premium" mobile device market. Motorola would do well to add that to their marketing repertoire ^^;
I have previously used Samsung phones with their annoying touchwiz interface. When I upgraded to a Nexus 5 running Android Kitkat I was surprised how well thought out the true Android Kit Kat experience was. The camera, together with the camera software is fabulous. My Nexus 5 has a very long battery life. The Nexus 5 is so much better than an old style small iPhone and is also half the price.
Half the Nexus price will get you a Nokia Lumia 620 (or is it 625?). Which is a better phone address book and calendar, but much worse mobile computer. Or someone above says they paid £99 for a Moto G.
I've currently got a work iPhone 5. Free is obviously best - but when I pay for a smartphone myself, the limit is about £250. There's some really good stuff at about £100-£150, but it may well be worth springing for the latest Nexus. Except I want an SD card, so I can replace my ageing 120GB iPod.
The £99 Moto-G is great but the £99 model only has 8 Gb of on phone flash memory, which can not be expanded. Also the Moto-G camera does not get good reviews. From what I can see, you need to pay at least £180 for an Android phone with an 8 megapixel camera (Sony Xperia SP).
And why is a shedload of megapixels a requirement for a phone camera? My old Sony DSLR has 10MP, and due to the physical size of the sensor and the quality of the glass in front of it, It'll still take a far better photo than the 41MP Nokia, EVERY SINGLE TIME.
I have an S4, with a 13MP camera. It still takes shite photos. My Nokia N95 with a 5MP camera had a much better lens and took much better pictures. I miss that phone...
Buying a phone camera based on megapixels is a game only the uninformed play (and don't salesmen know it!) - there are far far far more important things to consider, and anything above 5MP is only really useful if you happen to be printing images the size of motorway advertising billboards, head over to photography forums and they'll tell you all about it.
The Nexus 5's camera is very good. I was recommended an SONY Xperia SP when looking for a cheaper Android phone with a good camera. I was told that like the Nexus 5, the Xperia SP includes a quality SONY camera mechanism. I do not know personally if the Xperia SP has a good camera. What I do like about the Nexus 5's camera is that you can take a photo at sunset and on phone processing makes it look like the photo was taken at midday.
> The Nexus 5's camera is very good.
And I guarantee you that a 5MPix dSLR will take better quality photos.
Once you're over about 4MPix, more pixels don't really matter much. Instead, what matters is lens quality, dynamic range, and size and quality of the sensor -- none of which any cellphone has.
This is referring to the US carriers, and their reluctance is understandable given that Apple will want to do not one, but two things with pricing:
1. Increase the price of iPhone 6 by $100
2. Hold carriers to the current with-contract pricing.
After all, bleeding the US network operators has been Apple's key to success. But don't start cheering yet - Verizon and AT&T aren't the victims: drawing blood from the network operators means forcing those operators to increase charges to their non-iPhone, and non-smartphone users.
There's a significant difference between (supposedly) forcing other people to keep their prices high everywhere if they want to use your e-commerce platform and setting your retail pricing for your own products. Apple can charge whatever they like for stuff they manufacture and sell themselves. You clearly don't seem to understand the difference though.
quote: "Apple can charge whatever they like for stuff they manufacture and sell themselves."
But what they are currently doing is talking to network operators regarding the price those operators will charge, are they not?
If all that is happening is that operators are bargaining Apple down on their volume pricing then all is fine. "Our MSRP is $X and we'll sell to you for $Y" is perfectly legitimate business.
If Apple are attempting to influence the end-price of their product via the operators, however, then that starts to sound an awful lot like price fixing. "Our MSRP is $X and you must sign this contract agreeing to never sell our product below $Y or we refuse to sell any to you" would usually be considered less than legitimate. Apple can choose what price they will sell to Vodafone at, but Vodafone should have free reign in deciding what price they will offer it to consumers at. Any attempt by Apple to influence that end price is an attempt at price fixing, IMO :)
Why do people think the 5C is somehow a failure?
All the market surveys I've read (and not sourced from Apple) suggest the 5C has been roundly outselling the Galaxy 4S. And considering that the 5C is essentially a repackaged plain old '5, that means it's 2012's tech and yet nobody seems to be interested in hearing about how much of a 'fail' the Galaxy 4S has been.
It's inconsistent with facts and illogical to call the 5C a 'failure'. It sells less than the 5S, yes... being essentially last year's model, and all, but if it sold more, than the 5S would be the 'failure' instead... How can Apple 'win' (or even draw!) if people and, more particularly, journalists who should have some sort of obligation towards truth, keep insisting that black is white?