Slashdot Mirror
Consumers Unlikely To Pay $500 for iPhone
narramissic writes "A survey by online market research firm Compete Inc. finds that of the 26% of those who said they're likely to buy an iPhone, only 1% said they'd pay $500 for it, while 42% said they'd likely buy the phone for $200 to $299. Sixty percent of likely iPhone buyers would be willing to make the switch to AT&T wireless to get it."
I'll pay $500 for the wireless internet device / OS X hand-held computer and you can keep the iTunes / Mobile phone functions..
I'm getting one. My Treo 650, while nice, is bulky, and never syncs my contacts and calendar correctly with my Mac. I even have the "MissingSync", and it still doesn't work right.
The iPhone is more than a media player, it's the ultimate PDA. That is what I'm looking for. Something ultra modern, but without the lame keypad at the bottom. Can't tell you how many times I've had to open up my Treo to fix the keyboard when a letter get's pushed the wrong way....
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
So only 1% would purchase it at $500, but a full 60% would switch to Cingular to get it. At what price would they switch? $299 or $499? Summary doesn't say, nor does TFA.
Sloppy.
Per Square Mile, a blog about density
The survey is backwards. It asks first if the person is interested in the iPhone _and then_ what price they'll pay. Apple has already said they aren't targeting every phone buyer. They're targeting phone buyers who are planning on/willing to spend $500+ on a phone. They don't (currently) care about the people who want an iPhone but are only willing to spend $200 (or whatever price).
I'd be more interested in what percentage of people who are willing to buy a $500+ phone are planning on getting an iPhone.
(And I'm going to skip the obvious commentary about wanting an iPhone but being "willing" to buy it for as cheap a price as the survey allows because many others are already making those (insightful) comments...)
For eighteen grand, I'd want a car with rather better gas mileage...
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Why is 500 for the iPhone too much, when its 450 for the Motorola Q and its a terrible phone that people still buy?
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Or, rather, my wife is getting one.
Her birthday is in June, and she needs a new iPod and a new cell phone, and we're already with Cingular and are happy with the service. She saw that you can show pictures to people on that wide screen and said "I want to be able to do that." And now that we've got a baby on the way, it will make it a helluva lot easier than having to lug photos around or view it on my iPod's comparatively small screen, or the tiny screen of an iPod Nano. And having her address book and calendar with her would be very convenient.
So it's not for everybody, but for her it can replace having to carry around two larger items that, were I to buy them separately, would cost about the same price.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
I think most people with enough familiarity with digital devices to be interested in the iPhone will probably expect it to settle out along similar lines as the iPod. An initial expensive model or two, which will gradually branch out to a range of options that vary in size, functionality, appearance, and of course...price.
There will likely always be a $600 model, it'll just steadily improve in capabilities while the abilities of the previous $600 model finds their way into the new cheaper versions.
Although I will say that one reason that this strategy has worked so well with the iPod is that all version tied in very well with iTunes, which is an excellent piece of software. I don't know what sort of computer software Apple might have that will augment the use of the iPhone, but I think that that could be a big piece of the puzzle.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
A hair less than those who said they wouldn't buy an MP3 player for $400 when the 1st generation iPod was released.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
One thing that could be very lame (and I don't know whether anyone has talked about this) is if it is just like the iPod in that it has a very hard to get into case with a non-user-changaeble battery (and a non-approved way of doing it, such as the iPod has, does not count). No way in hell am I going to pay $500 for something I'll have to replace in 2 years because the battery (which is already underpowered when you consider this is a phone, not just a music player) won't last longer than a couple of hours, and I have a feeling that such a thing could hurt the iPhone more than it did the iPod, as one expects a phone to always be one so one can always be reached, even in an emergency situation.
Furthermore, will the SIM card be user changeable? If not, they'll not be able to get a large portion of the European market, who use pre-paid plans overwhelmingly and expect to buy an unlocked phone. Apple's love of locking the user out could really hurt them here as people find they cannot do all the things they expect to be able to do with a phone.
If they drop the price that low, it'll put the iPhone into direct competition with the high-end iPod (currently $350). Since the iPhone has more features, a cheap iPhone has the potential to cannibalize iPod sales. That's no good for Apple because lowering the price means lowering the iPhone's profit margin at the expense of high profit iPods.
All signs indicate Apple's trying to position the iPhone a step-up from the iPod, not a replacement. I really doubt it will ever drop below the price of the most expensive iPod, even with a contract.
As soon as it's out, I'm buying it. Heck, I'm even getting the $600 one with more memory. I'm sick of crappy phones and I'm willing to pay to bet on apple. They haven't failed me yet.
well you're both wrong. The dollar has lost about a 1/3 of it's value compared to more stable currencies like the British pound. It's lost 25% of it's value compared to even the Euro which was 1:1 at one point. The problem is the world economy is based on the US dollar so we don't notice the change as much as other countries. Things haven't gotten much more expensive here but they are cheaper in some other countries. Economics are complex and hard to put in simple percentages. People in the US mostly notice the difference when they travel. You get a room in England for 75pounds a night but you wind up paying $150 a night US. I lived in NZ for awhile and all the locals found electronics expensive but they were roughly the same price to me once I made the currency adjustment.
The HP laptop ($2000 Can. plus tax) I bought has about the same configuration as the first generation Macbook Pro (compare -- $2100-2200 Can. eight months ago when I bought my laptop)... The x1600 isn't underclocked and didn't suffer overheating problems like the first gen of MBPros did, and the extra $300 Canadian I paid for the complete accidental damage warranty is in my mind a godsend.
I appreciate what Apple can do by compartmentalizing their entire line into a few models (they can be very price competitive and with good manufacturing turnover times), but I don't think that Macs always have the price - performance ratio over a PC. It's almost like they're competing for different markets, no?
That said, yes, I agree, the design is cool, backlit keys and anodized whatever it's made out of metal or what not. I almost bought one too. =)
Sometimes I wonder if I think too much.