Slashdot Mirror


Crazy Stevie's iPhone Prices are Insaaane!

theodp writes "Slate takes a look at the alarming lesson of the iPhone price cut and ponders the long-term effects of a Fire-Sale Nation mentality, especially when companies go all Crazy Eddie slashing prices on products like homes and cars that have active secondary markets. 'High-profile price-chopping tends to occur whenever companies freak out about the vicious combination of a slowing consumer economy and the prospect of getting stuck with big inventories of unsold goods. The tactic often works in the short term. The hype over insanely low prices functions as a form of free advertising, and the lower prices tend to attract buyers. Apple announced on Sept. 10 that it had sold its 1 millionth iPhone.'"

357 comments

  1. As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Informative

    It won't matter to me what his prices are. An incredibly short-sighted error, IMHO. I'm good for five of them (three kids and my SO.) But no connectivity, no buy.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by DurendalMac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From a business standpoint, it makes sense. AT&T and T-Mobile are the only GSM carriers in the US. Apple wants GSM because it's an international standard and they don't want multiple versions of the iPhone for different countries. AT&T has a larger customer base and more coverage than T-Mobile, so Apple went with them to maximize sales. AT&T does suck (as someone who's currently locked into their glitchy network), but looking at the numbers, it was the logical choice. to make.

    2. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Wouldn't selling it for use on any network generate more sales? If X is the number of users on AT&T and Y is the number of users on T-Mobile, then X + Y > X, unless of course, T-Mobile has less than 1 user. Would it be impossible for them to have a phone that works on all GSM networks. Oh, I forgot, they probably got really good kickbacks from AT&T for going exclusive.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by MBCook · · Score: 1

      It still wouldn't matter. If they went with T-Mobile, people would complain them. People complain about Sprint (I'm one) and Verizon is right up there. There are 4 big cell phone companies in the US, and I don't know of any of them having a decent reputation. My knowledge ranges from not great (T-Moblie, I haven't talked to many people about them) to annoying (Sprint: decent service, poor phones, poorer prices) to horrible (Verizon: poor phones, horrid software, and lock-downs that make Sprint look like a bastion of freedom).

      People would be here complaining about the iPhone carrier no matter who it was.

      I'm still just a tad surprised that Apple didn't go MVNO. They would have had the draw to pull it off (where as most, like Boost, didn't have any real draw compared to Sprint (who, IIRC, ran Boost)).

      But then people would probably complain about Apple directly in that case.

      Let's face it, there is next to no one on /. who thinks the cell system in the US is anything better than problematic. And there are very few who would be even that kind.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    4. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Mr2001 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By focusing solely on GSM, they're locking themselves out of most of the US cell phone market - over 120 million customers.

      Most cell phone manufacturers do make different versions for different countries. LG is perhaps best known around here for their Verizon phones (CDMA), but they also make GSM devices. Motorola makes both GSM and CDMA versions of the RAZR and many other models, as do Sanyo, Samsung, RIM, and Palm.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    5. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by wyldeone · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apple wants GSM because it's an international standard and they don't want multiple versions of the iPhone for different countries.
      That would appear to not really be true. According to USA Today (as well as the rumor mill around the time of the iPhone announcement) Apple approached Verizon (which uses CDMA) before AT&T, but was turned down.
      --
      In the beginning the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry and is widely considered as a bad move.
    6. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was actually going to make much the same post as yours. I just Googled it and Apple are indeed getting a substantial monthly payment from AT&T for iPhone users, so again from the standpoint of a business it does make sense to go exclusive (although this doesn't seem to benefit the consumer in any way I can imagine). As for a phone that works on all GSM networks (assuming you didn't mean that rhetorically), it is very much possible (needs to be quad-band if you want to use it anywhere in the world, due to different frequencies, but that's by no means unheard of) and the only network feature I know of that is entirely proprietary to the iPhone is visual voicemail.

    7. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by MBCook · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's say you sell it for use on any network. For the sake of argument, let's pretend that it would magically work on GSM or CDMA so you could use it on Sprint/Verizon too.

      Firs thing is first, that's 4 times the compatibility testing (minimum). That is 4 carries that you have to make Visual Voicemail work on. That would be tough. Or you could let some customers have it and some not. Or you could just cut the feature which is probably what would happen.

      With four carriers (we'll just assume the big ones for this discussion and leave out the little ones), that is also 4 sets of data plans you have to mess with. Don't forget that you have to support all this including answering questions about it at your Apple stores.

      Apple had bargaining power with AT&T. They could walk and go to someone else. When you let four carriers do that, you lose your power. They can all agree not to do feature X, because they other guys aren't. They can just assume the other guys won't, because they wouldn't.

      That means Apple would have to customize the software for each carrier. Each would have their own little issues with iTunes (after all, they all have their pathetic over-priced music stores). They would want their own crazy user interfaces or software changes. The whole thing would be a huge mess and very confusing for consumers. I would be amazed if Apple could get two carriers to agree to near-identicle stuff (terms, contracts, phone modifications, etc)... let alone 4.

      The grand-parent has it right. AT&T was the most logical choice.

      Apple had three choices. Go with one carrier (probably AT&T, which they did), go many carriers (see above), or go MVNO (be their own carrier... huge hassle).

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    8. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would lean towards a fourth choice - leave the carriers out of it. You seem to be working on the assumption that Apple needs to have any kind of relationship with the networks, which I guess means that's the state of affairs in the US? As I said in my post above, the cash that AT&T are paying them makes a perfectly good business rationale for going exclusive, but from a consumer point of view I would've thought that just selling the phone as a standalone device in the Apple stores and allowing the customer to choose their provider (perhaps sans visual voicemail, I guess, but AFAIK all the other features are standard, meaning no software customisation or compatibility issues) would be perfectly acceptable as well as neatly avoiding the problems you outline.

    9. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by hey! · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apple wants GSM because it's an international standard and they don't want multiple versions of the iPhone for different countries.


      I don't think that that true at all. Palm, after all, has come out various treo models in GSM and CDMA simultaneously, even tweaking features to suit the carrier. I don't know if it's just a matter of firmware, or plugging a different modules onto the system board, but carriers sell LOTS of phones.

      I think the key has to do with marketing, particularly positioning against the treos, which are highly capable PDAs, more capable than the locked iPhone in that category. Introducing them at a much higher price will milk the early adopters and position the iPhone above the Treo. However, in the long run pragmatists who want a smart phone will look at the price differential and go with a more "conventional" model if it sells at less than half the price, and pragmatists are where the bulk of the gross revenue is made. The iPhone costs about $250, so at the original price they were making a respectable 58% margin; At $399, they are making a 37% margin, and the future holds even lower prices.

      So what that means is that they'll take it out of the customer's hide in service fees, passed through by the carrier. In return, the carrier gets and exclusive, which works with the "exclusive" product positioning, and they probably get a lot of people switching services so in the long term everybody (in the deal) is happy.

      In the end, they position the iPhone above the competition (at a very health margin), get a nice cut of the phone revenues, then turn around and offer the iPod touch for all the customers who want an iPhone but aren't willing to switch services, so they haven't really lost their business.
      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    10. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      It won't matter to me what his prices are. An incredibly short-sighted error, IMHO. I'm good for five of them (three kids and my SO.) But no connectivity, no buy.

      I unlocked mine using anySIM so I can use it with a local SIM in .pl and .uk when I go there. They're relatively easy to unlock, both for installation of third-party applications and for foreign SIMs. The new unlocking software doesn't require disassembling the phone or any electronic modifications.

      I think Apple deliberately made the iPhone "easy" to make it as open as possible whilst still giving lip service to AT&T's locking and security requirements.

      As far as using it with Verizon/Sprint, those carriers use a totally different system, so it makes sense that Apple didn't make two different versions of the iPhone (GSM is the more popular system in the world).

      -b.

    11. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by dubbreak · · Score: 3, Informative

      By focusing solely on GSM, they're locking themselves out of most of the US cell phone market - over 120 million customers.

      Oh come on, you have to admit that is hyperbole. Yes, they may have somewhat limited themselves in the US market by being limited to a few carriers but I'm sure they did the research and the amount of lost sales because of that didn't out weigh the world market (the majority of the world uses GSM, the US is strangely skewed towards cdma).

      Most cell phone manufacturers do make different versions for different countries.. Motorola makes both GSM and CDMA versions of the RAZR and many other models, as do Sanyo, Samsung, RIM, and Palm.

      I was once told by someone in the industry never to buy a CDMA version of a phone that was originally designed as a GSM phone. The reasoning being that often the other version was an afterthought and not as thoroughly tested.

      Maybe at this point Apple is testing the market (worldwide) and will eventually approach the much smaller CDMA market if it seems financially viable. You can't really fault them for going for the bigger pot of fish first.
      --
      "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
    12. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      I think the key has to do with marketing, particularly positioning against the treos, which are highly capable PDAs, more capable than the locked iPhone in that category.

      But the application-unlocked iPhone is MORE capable. And I think that Apple deliberately made unlocking for 3rd party apps easy...

      -b.

    13. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by cthellis · · Score: 1

      "Most?" I thought GSM took the majority share in the U.S. last year, and that it was still growing at a faster pace.

      Regardless, it makes sense for Apple to hold to GSM only right now, as they're in the middle of a global rollout (where GSM is by far the dominant standard), and likely won't be able to produce enough to satisfy demand for this holiday season anyway. Why would they want to confuse the issue NOW by creating different internal hardware specifications and introducing other potentially delaying issues?

      We're three months after launch here... Why do people consistently act like everything is already set in stone for the next five years? Handset makers frequently remain exclusive to one carrier or one standard for many months before bringing the model (if it proves desirable enough) to everyone else.

    14. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by cthellis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not necessarily an overriding factor, but if Apple was edged out (Hah! Get it?) of Verizon in general, they may have simply solidified another gameplan. Who's to say that if they DID work out the deal with Verizon, they wouldn't have maintained CDMA exclusivity during their initial rollout and launch periods instead? It's not like CDMA doesnt EXIST elsewhere... It's just not as widespread.

      We certainly know they'll be spreading beyond GSM eventually... But I wouldn't expect anything before the "iPhone 2" launches.

    15. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by desenz · · Score: 1

      Not to mention AT&T has the most customers in the US. Over 50 million if memory serves.

    16. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by hey! · · Score: 1

      That only makes sense to early adopters. I don't think pragmatic or trailing adopters will factor that into a decision unless they are truly on the fence. Apple may plan to benefit from unauthorized unlocking, but not in terms of typical user perception of the phone.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    17. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by shmlco · · Score: 1

      Go MVNO and you still end up dealing with carriers, as you're going to pay a premium to run on their networks, potentially at non-competitive rates. Further, at least AT&T customers could upgrade prior to contract expiration. Go MVNO, and you can't sell a thing until people are ready to leave their existing carriers.

      Maybe if/when Apple and Google built their own IP6-based network...

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    18. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Mr2001 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Most?" I thought GSM took the majority share in the U.S. last year, and that it was still growing at a faster pace. Well, these are the numbers I've found:

      Verizon (62 million) + Sprint (55 million) + Alltel (12 million) = 129 million for CDMA

      AT&T (64 million) + T-Mobile (25 million) = 89 million for GSM

      Perhaps I'm missing a few smaller carriers, but these are the major ones.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    19. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      AT&T has about 64 million, which makes them the biggest, but not by much. Verizon has 62 million, and Sprint has 55 million.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    20. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Mr2001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh come on, you have to admit that is hyperbole. Yes, they may have somewhat limited themselves in the US market by being limited to a few carriers but I'm sure they did the research and the amount of lost sales because of that didn't out weigh the world market (the majority of the world uses GSM, the US is strangely skewed towards cdma). Well, no, it's not hyperbole. Like I said, there are over 120 million CDMA customers in the US, and if Apple doesn't release a CDMA iPhone, they probably aren't going to get many of those customers.

      But I agree that Apple probably took that into account. Perhaps they figured that developing the GSM version first would speed up their worldwide release, so they could sell enough units overseas to balance out the ones they aren't selling here.

      I was once told by someone in the industry never to buy a CDMA version of a phone that was originally designed as a GSM phone. The reasoning being that often the other version was an afterthought and not as thoroughly tested. I'm sure Apple would've put plenty of testing into the GSM version if they'd developed a CDMA version first. After all, it is a much bigger market (worldwide).

      Maybe at this point Apple is testing the market (worldwide) and will eventually approach the much smaller CDMA market if it seems financially viable. You can't really fault them for going for the bigger pot of fish first. Well, it remains to be seen how well they'll do outside the US. Failing to include HSDPA seems like a mistake in that regard, since EDGE is old news in Europe, and not a good way to showcase the mobile browser no matter where you are.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    21. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      but from a consumer point of view
      You seem to be seriously confused. Apple is a business. They don't care about the consumer point of view. They only care about the business point of view.
      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    22. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by GarfBond · · Score: 1
      The Palm Treo 600 came to Verizon at least a year after the first GSM version. Thus, the GSM Treo 600 was the only game in town for a year.

      If you're targeting a world wide market, it's just common sense to go for GSM first. CDMA can come later when you're established.

    23. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Mr2001 · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you're targeting a world wide market, it's just common sense to go for GSM first. Agreed... but it's also just common sense to include 3G, especially when your selling points include a full-featured browser and YouTube. Apple's initial strategy seems to be a compromise that isn't particularly tailored for the US or world markets.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    24. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think Apple deliberately made the iPhone "easy" to make it as open as possible whilst still giving lip service to AT&T's locking and security requirements.

      Perhaps so. However, I am not going to do that; I am not interested in a fairly expensive phone without a warranty or technical support, which appears to be the current policy. Nor am I interested in one that may break with an upgrade, or which is unable to upgrade while the rest of the field is. I am even less interested in handing out such hardware to my family. That wouldn't be a favor.

      I see the mods, high on their usual dose of incompetence crack, modded my post "troll"; as if my opinion, and the opinions of the other 250 million non-GSM, non-AT&T customers were completely irrelevant. Funny, but my current cellphone works fine on all the networks - I travel often, and I've yet to find anywhere I can't connect except in the deep boonies of Montana or similar, where there is no service.

      The iPhone is simply a non-starter for me. I can easily afford to buy them for my familiy, but it would be pointless, as the phone won't work here. That's a fact, regardless of what slashdot's core of oh-so-qualified moderators may think.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    25. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Isn't the next generation of GSM pretty much CDMA except the name?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    26. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I highly doubt that Apple only has the testing ability and technical know how to only make a single phone that works on a single carrier. Is that what you are implying? Making a different model would be too much for them to handle? Similar model Blackberries are available for every carrier and I'm sure the backend for interfacing with corporate email systems is no less complicated then visual voice mail. I assume the development of phone probably has something similar to the OSI model where a lot (I did not say all) of the functionality is seperate from the network itself. Motorola seems to have that in place.

      I do not understand your confusion for consumers comment either. How many people would have two different iPhones where one was from Sprint and the other from AT&T. This is the only way and the only people that would potentially be confused by a slight difference in operation between any differences between them and how they operated. I am not confused by my phones now and they are not like the model phones you have. Should I be confused because my phone and your phone operate differently? Were you confused and frustrated and have a big mess the first day you cracked open your iPhone because it was different then your previous non Apple phone? Did you figure it out with almost no problems? What makes you think others do not have this same ability.

      Another note..
      Quite a few of my older Sanyo phones on Sprint had the capability to act as an "answering machine" along with pre screening incoming calls as well. Not quite "visual voice mail" but the messages were on the phone, some software integration and passing along messages from a central point on the network and a pretty screen showing those calls and, well, you know.

    27. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by The+Mad+Debugger · · Score: 1

      but it's also just common sense to include 3G
      We've already heard the reasons from Steve himself. Apple is a form-factor driven company, and from day one they wanted the iPhone to be slimmer than the Q or the Blackjack, and the only way that was going to happen (for now, of course) and still have good battery life was to go with GSM instead of UMTS. Go read the Blackjack comments on the review forums, and there's tons of complaints about the battery life.

      I'm not paying $400 for a 2.5G phone, but guess what: over a million people already have, and I betcha a good number of them are going to do it again in a year or so when new UMTS chipsets with lower power usage come out, and Apple ships a 3G version.

      Apple ain't dumb. They just made a pile of money on the 2.5G phone, and they're going to do it again in a year with the 3G version. Waiting until they could hit their desired form factor with a 3G chipset would've thrown away all the money they just made on those 2.5G phones.
    28. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by blind+biker · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, I used to work at Nokia (I guess you've heard of them) and specifically in phone testing. In short, your post is BS from beginning to end; Nokia would make sure their phone worked with every damn operator. Whether it will be then locked in in the USA it didn't matter, because we knew it wouldn't be locked in in Europe and half of the rest of the world. And we were painfully aware of the fact that in every single country of the world we were competing, almost toe to toe, with the likes of Motorola, Samsung and Ericsson (later SonyEricsson).

      Yeah, testing takes time, but it's cost in time and money is nowhere so high that we'd simply NOT test and go exclusive with one (or $SMALLNUM) operator.

      Whether AT&T was the logical choice or not, I don't know, but it certainly wasn't for the reasons you cite!

      I can't believe the mods went for it, though?!

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    29. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by HartDev · · Score: 1

      I disliked AT&T's service so bad that I got my phoned hacked and now have t-mobile. I am saving so much money that I bought three geek shirts and a firefox cap to show support for things that are not trying to pry money out of my hands. I also got a 200 dollar rebate from the store even though I was two days too early...... My iPhone started out hellish and ended up great. Also of has taught me that I still need to implement and advertise open source software.

      --
      To see a few of my Android apps goto: www.hartwired.com
    30. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      What about being vendor neutral, and allowing customers to choose a carrier? Oh wait, it's Apple, vendor lock-in is their specialty.

    31. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by HartDev · · Score: 1

      sorry for the spelling errors, lying in bed trying to use the iPhone to write my opinions........ Can't be a good thing!

      --
      To see a few of my Android apps goto: www.hartwired.com
    32. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by dwater · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree, and the more amazing thing, is that they are doing the same thing in other countries. I mean, I can understand doing something like that in the US with the crazy service provider situation there, but why do it in european countries too?

      Just sell the thing in Apple stores; put the visual voicemail thing on the internet as a service and allow people to pick their own plans.

      --
      Max.
    33. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by soilheart · · Score: 1

      Well. They still need to make "different" phones as the GSM frequencies change from country to country sometimes too.
      To quote wikipedia:
      "Most GSM networks operate in the 900 MHz or 1800 MHz bands. Some countries in the Americas (including Canada and the United States) use the 850 MHz and 1900 MHz bands because the 900 and 1800 MHz frequency bands were already allocated."
      So the tripleband phones that are to "work in the whole world" actually works worse in the countries with the "other two bands" as they often only can use one of the frequencies.

    34. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Stop throwing the 120million number out there. Thats two different carriers who each own half of. For that number to mean jack, fucking, shit, we would have to assume that both carriers would support the phone as AT&T is (Visual Voicemail for instance). Good, fucking, luck, with that. They are doing what they always do right now, they start with the biggest share they can (while keeping as much control as possible in case issues arise), and once the ball gets rolling and they are damn well ready they roll their hardware to everyone. Once the iPhone is proven with AT&T Apple will then be able to request just about anything they want from the other carriers. Don't want to play ball with Apple? Ok, we'll make a press release about it, and see more of your subscribers jump ship.

      Seriously, stop bitching because you chose any company but AT&T, and suddenly want an iPhone.

    35. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Confuzzled · · Score: 1

      If apple sold the device by itself, it wouldn't have sold very well for two reasons:

      1. At the current AT&T prices, you would've paid over $100 a month for what you get now (unlimited data, rollover minutes, messaging, etc.). the iPhone plans are _way_ better than their regular AT&T plans (unless you have some kind of business account, family plan or really old plan). Figure out the prices for unlimited data, messaging, etc. with other carriers and you'll see it's not cheap.

      2. How many people would actually go through the hassle of going to AT&T and paying for a full account, setting it up themselves, etc.? About the same number of people that secure their windows boxes, run linux, etc. One of the _big_ selling features is how easy it is to set up. You buy the phone, you go home, click a few buttons, done. Including transferring your old number.

    36. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Just one (honest) question, I live in a quite small European country (about the size of Los Angeles, you can find out which one on your own) and you really came out here to test with our national telecom operator? Really? That's surprising. I thought that standards like GSM would assure that there is interoperability on any GSM network. That's what standards are for, right?

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    37. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by king-manic · · Score: 1

      The iPhone costs about $250, so at the original price they were making a respectable 58% margin; At $399, they are making a 37% margin, and the future holds even lower prices.

      do they really? Feature wise it's less them my Motorola Q. hardware wise it's nothing very remarkable that not found in sub $200 retail phones except a large touch screen. PDA's retail for $400 with more features and a touch screen. I think it might be less then $250 but they spend extra on usability R&D.. or they just found a way to port the Reality distorting field.

      An iPhone in general is a piss poor purchase. I'd get one only if I want to get laid by a gold digger.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    38. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Aladrin · · Score: 2, Informative

      I couldn't find any numbers, but I did find some interesting information. GSM is the world-wide standard, with about 3/4 of the mobile phone users being on GSM. CDMA is mostly a US thing apparently.

      Also, Verizon recently chose GSM for their new '4g' stuff.

      http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2007/09/21/verizon-adopts-gsm-standard-for-4g-network-cdma-limelight-fading/
      http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/verizon-dumps-cdma-for-gsm-based-lte-in-4g-networks/

      This is an odd move by any account, and nobody really knows what it means yet, but it doesn't look good for CDMA right now.

      So while you may be correct about the US counts (and that's what the GP was talking about), by worldwide counts, GSM makes more sense for Apple to use.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    39. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      that's 4 times the compatibility testing (minimum).
      Somehow, other companies manage to do it.
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    40. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by pimpimpim · · Score: 1

      And.... what about Japan and Korea and the likes? Do they still use GSM out there? It's probably outdated there :) Isn't Apple losing a lot of Market potential? Or is the iPhone also capable of some better standard we don't have out here yet?

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    41. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      For that number to mean jack, fucking, shit, we would have to assume that both [CDMA] carriers would support the phone as AT&T is (Visual Voicemail for instance). Good, fucking, luck, with that. Well, it'll take more than luck to change the past: Apple did make a proposal to Verizon and they said no. I'm sure they're kicking themselves now.

      Nevertheless, that number (120+ million CDMA customers) stands as evidence that if Apple wants to expand to other US carriers, there's more room to expand in the CDMA realm. Even if Visual Voicemail didn't work -- and AFAIK that's the only feature that needs network support -- people would still buy it.

      Seriously, stop bitching because you chose any company but AT&T, and suddenly want an iPhone. You must not know me very well. My phone has everything I need, including a few things the iPhone is missing (like GPS, MMS, and 3G), and I got it with a contract for $50.

      Personally, I have no interest in getting an iPhone. Maybe if they knocked another $250 off the price, I'd raise an eyebrow, but right now, it's only on my radar because of all the coverage it's gotten on sites like this one.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    42. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nokia would make sure their phone worked with every damn operator. Really? Every phone with every operator? That implies that every model Nokia makes supports all frequencies and all mobile technologies.

      Sounds like you've twisted his statements and your own statements to the point where none of them make sense to anyone other than yourself.

    43. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      It's a possibility that the UK version will ship with a 3G chipset, since O2 (The UK carrier) have been really pushing their 3G infrastructure. The final specs of the UK phone haven't been released as of yet either, the UK iPhone site just mentions exactly the same as the US one. It's possible that there have been no changes, but I reckon it would be an ideal iPhone 2.0 release point.

      However, one of the problems mentioned before is interoperability. I currently have a 3G Nokia, which won't work at all in the US (Not quad-band). Introducing different hardware for different countries will push up the cost of an already expensive product, and having a unified chipset is even more of a PitA.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    44. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Mr2001 · · Score: 2, Informative

      CDMA is mostly a US thing apparently. Indeed, mostly North American, though it gets some use in other countries as well.

      Also, Verizon recently chose GSM for their new '4g' stuff. Well... I wouldn't say that, based on the info in those articles. They chose a technology that's supported by the GSM group, instead of the next revision of CDMA2000, but it's not the same GSM that's in use today by such carriers as AT&T; putting today's GSM chips in a phone won't prepare it to be used on this upcoming 4G network.

      In fact, even UMTS (aka WCDMA, aka GSM's 3G) uses a CDMA-based air interface. The real loser is TDMA, the system for dividing the radio channels into timeslices that's used in GSM (and hardly anything else these days).
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    45. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't selling it for use on any network generate more sales? If X is the number of users on AT&T and Y is the number of users on T-Mobile, then X + Y > X, unless of course, T-Mobile has less than 1 user. Would it be impossible for them to have a phone that works on all GSM networks. Oh, I forgot, they probably got really good kickbacks from AT&T for going exclusive. Yes, it would generate more unit sales for Apple. But that is not the only consideration. There must be something in it for the network provider as well. AT&T had to make substantial investments to prepare for the iPhone, and any other provider would have had to do the same. However, with two providers, the benefits for each one would have been much less. Maybe Apple would have sold 1.4 million iPhones instead of 1 million. But for AT&T, they would only have had the benefit from 700,000 existing customers upgrading, and no customers switching instead of 300,000 switching. Since for AT&T, a switch is much more valuable than an upgrade, the benefit for AT&T would have been halved, for the same investment.

      So I would think that both Verizon and AT&T were extremely interested in an exclusive deal (obviously whoever didn't get the deal would claim that they were not interested at all to save face), but much much less interested in a non-exclusive deal. And on the other hand, Apple could get a much better contract in an exclusive deal than in a non-exclusive deal. And a non-exclusive deal might have never happened.
    46. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by cthellis · · Score: 1

      Ah, I think I see what I was reading now... CDMA still has a slight majority share in North America, but South America leans more to GSM which gave them the slight majority share in "the Americas."

    47. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not going to buy an iPhone while they're locked into AT&T. Get back to me when you start selling an iPhone that comes with an AT-AT and we'll talk.

    48. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Nope. The only thing UMTS and CDMA have in common are that at an air interface level, both use a Code Division Multiple Access multiplexing scheme, and that only applies to UMTS for versions R99 through Rev. 7: Rev 8 is OFDMA based.

      UMTS and CDMA don't even use similar, let alone compatible, implementations of the air interface.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    49. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      You're misunderstanding what I meant (perhaps, again, because that's the only way things can be done in the US, I don't know). I didn't mean for Apple to run 'on top of' the existing networks, I meant for them to leave the decision of which network (in the US case, one of the two GSM carriers) up to the customer.

      Customer buys iPhone from Apple -> Customer gets SIM card from chosen network on preferred contract/PAYG -> Customer puts SIM in iPhone and starts making calls

      As I said, no need for Apple to have any contact whatsoever with carriers.

    50. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by DarkVader · · Score: 1

      That wasn't a suggestion of going MVNO, that was a suggestion that Apple should have sold the phones unlocked, you put your own SIM in.

      That way, Apple is selling a phone, and the carriers don't have to care. It's much like how it works with a land line phone - you go to K-Mart and buy a phone, bring it home, and plug it into the wall. Ma Bell isn't involved in your phone purchase any more.

      Visual voicemail might be cool, but it's no justification for the link to a single carrier, and Apple could have proposed a standard that carriers could have adopted to do visual voicemail.

      Going forward, the real way to fix this problem is to prohibit mobile carriers from selling phones at all.

    51. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Number 1 is completely untrue. I have a Motorola phone with AT&T, and my price with unlimited data, rollover minutes, etc. is EXACTLY what it would be with an iPhone. I believe the iPhone gets a small price break on text messaging.

      And with number 2? You've got to be kidding. The answer to how many people would go through the hassle of setting up an AT&T account is fairly simply answered: How many people had cell phone service with AT&T before the iPhone? As they were ALREADY the largest carrier in the country, it's not a small number.

      And then switching from an old phone to an iPhone would have worked the way GSM is supposed to work: you take the SIM card out of the old phone, and drop it in the iPhone. Congrats, you're done.

      But Apple broke that with this stupid exclusive agreement.

    52. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Name+Anonymous · · Score: 1

      Customer buys iPhone from Apple -> Customer gets SIM card from chosen network on preferred contract/PAYG -> Customer puts SIM in iPhone and starts making calls That actually still leaves the choices as only AT&T or T-Mobile as they're the only 2 GSM carriers in the US.

      So based on Apple's decission to go GSM only (and not really that bad of an idea) AT&T made more sense in the US than T-Mobile as AT&T has better cell coverage in general. However, depending on where you live, AT&T may not be a viable choice for a carrier.
    53. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      I just switched from Verizon when I got my iPhone and I have to say that AT&T is much better. I don't understand all the complaints I hear, I've gotten service in areas where Verizon never even considered working before.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    54. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 2, Informative

      What are you talking about the specs for the UK iPhone haven't been posted yet? Steve himself was asked and answered that its still an EDGE phone, no 3G for Europe at all. Its all over the web man. Engadget, Gizmodo, just google for "UK iPhone Edge"

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    55. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The iPhone aldready comes with Quad-band (850, 900, 1800, 1900MHz) which would make it work on all the GSM carriers.

    56. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by kisrael · · Score: 1

      I have an iPhone.
      Do all GSM phones have that weird effect on computer speakers?
      If so... WTF? How did this get to be an Int'l standard?

      --
      SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
    57. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by rfunches · · Score: 1

      Apple could have proposed a standard that carriers could have adopted to do visual voicemail
      If the carriers can't agree on a single standard (GSM or CDMA?) or even the difference between 2 cents and 0.02 cents, how do you expect them to cooperate on an interoperating visual voicemail standard?

      These guys are out to make a profit at any cost, and with a feature as new and *useful* as visual voicemail, I'm sure AT&T would rather keep the feature for itself (especially if they own the patent) than make sure it plays nice with the other carriers.
    58. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by djh101010 · · Score: 1

      Well, it'll take more than luck to change the past: Apple did make a proposal to Verizon and they said no. I'm sure they're kicking themselves now.

      Wow, I'm glad it worked out that way though. I can't get a decent Verizon signal at my house (rural) or at my desk (large metro area). It doesn't meet my needs. AT&T, I can get 4 bars of signal at both. So if Verizon was the only choice, I might have passed on the iPhone.

      I can't help but think that the vocal anti-AT&T crowd is nothing more than Ford vs. Chevy, VI vs EMACS, and Windows vs. Mac, all over again. Plenty of folks are very happy with AT&T, we just don't go around ranting about how it's not a problem because, well, it just works.


      Personally, I have no interest in getting an iPhone. Maybe if they knocked another $250 off the price, I'd raise an eyebrow, but right now, it's only on my radar because of all the coverage it's gotten on sites like this one.
      Fair enough - I switched from a (Palm) Treo and the workflow is substantially better and, as I say, I had coverage issues with the Treo. Also, the Treo's battery was getting tired and, while I could have sent it off for a third-party or factory replacement, I figured it was time to move to a new phone. Getting a better carrier (AT&T) as part of the deal got me better coverage where I use it and, oh by the way, dropped my bill by 20 bucks a month.
    59. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      O2 unless they're behind the times should be upgrading to 3.5G by now, but that's besides the point. They've separately started an edge network for the iphone (being the only phone I'm aware of that uses that standard over here).. 30% coverage, mostly London & South East apparently (so the likes of us in the north will be limited to GPRS.. how 80's retro...)

      Rumour has it that O2 actually make a loss.. although their iphone plans are utter crap (£35 ($70) a month for 100 minutes and 1GB data is the worst deal on the planet) they give 40% of revenue (not profit) directly to apple, so they're gambling the thing takes off and puts them back on the map in the UK, where they've been trounced by Orange and Vodaphone for ages now.

    60. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      Apple isn't the only manufacturer who made a phone eclusively for GSM. For several years, you couldn't get a RAZR in Canada unless you went GSM. I know one guy who switched his carrier after 15 years just so he could get one of the original RAZRs (paid big bucks for it too). There are some people that "just have" to have the latest toys. Apple is happy to oblige them, and if they want those toys, they'll switch carriers if they have to.

      There are a LOT of phones that are GSM-only models. The business is just too competitive to chase after the also-ran CDMA market.

    61. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by trolltalk.com · · Score: 0

      > or they just found a way to port the Reality distorting field.:

      [X] That's the i R e a l i t y * Distortion Field, you ignorant clod!

      (* iReality Distrotion Field (Copyright) (TM) Apple Corporation 2007. All rights reserved. Do not touch that iDial. We control the iHorizontal. We control the iVertical. All your iBase ...)

    62. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      Its a "feature." Now you can tell when someone's about to call you, even before the phone rings.

      Mine does it all the time. If you're quick enough, you can answer before the first ring, and REALLY freak them out. Of course, then what happens sometimes is that the phone cuts the call because it didn't ring, so it assumes you want to make a call out.

    63. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by LeDopore · · Score: 1

      An incredibly short-sighted error, IMHO. I'm good for five of them (three kids and my SO.)
      Doesn't that make only four incredibly short-sighted errors?
      *ducks*
      --
      Expected time to finish is 1 hour and 60 minutes.
    64. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, no, it's not hyperbole. Like I said, there are over 120 million CDMA customers in the US, and if Apple doesn't release a CDMA iPhone, they probably aren't going to get many of those customers.


      Yes, it is a hyperbole. It's not like releasing softwares for a specific OS or selling a device for a specific configuration of a PC hardware. Wireless customers do come and go. They are free to choose to be a CDMA or a GSM customer, unless you are talking about a specific region that are only covered by a single provider, which means the number is much smaller than 120M. In fact, if you ask non-geeks, they probably won't even know what CDMA and GSM are. To them what matters is the phone brand/model and the brand of the carrier. If they want an iPhone, they get one and sign up with AT&T. It's that simple.
    65. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by tibike77 · · Score: 1

      Yes. Really. Everey freaking GSM phone with every gorram GSM operator. That's the whole fracking point of STANDARDS.

      Of course, across the pond in la-la-land, you would expect problems like that.
      Here, in Europe, you expect ANY GSM phone you pick up from ANY GSM shop to work with ANY GSM carrier.

      The only difference between carriers and phones ?
      You might get it cheaper from the carrier's shop if you get a "locked to their network" one alongside a predetermined duration contract.

      --
      By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
    66. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by jgeeky · · Score: 1

      Maybe X = the number of customers cingular/att currently has, and Y = the number of customers (including business accounts) switching to cingular/att to adopt the iphone. So, X + Y = cingular/att++

      --
      in the immortal words of socrates, "i drank what?"
    67. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ducking doesn't excuse you from being a fucking moron.

    68. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by tm2b · · Score: 1

      By focusing solely on GSM, they're locking themselves out of most of the US cell phone market - over 120 million customers.
      That's a bit silly. While 120 M may be using CDMA right now, I doubt most of them care whether they use CDMA or GSM.

      In fact, the overwhelming majority probably don't care which provider they use beyond the specific deal they get and whether their phone works where they need it to - cell service is seen as largely a commodity and where it isn't a commodity, it should be. Given a good enough reason, most will happily change providers and not look back - and Apple believes that the iPhone is good enough reason.
      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    69. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by thegnu · · Score: 1

      Firs thing is first, that's 4 times the compatibility testing (minimum). That is 4 carries that you have to make Visual Voicemail work on.

      Plus, let's not forget how stingy networks are with internetwork traffic. Really, how much do you think people would have to pay for visual voicemail from a Verizon (ick) iPhone to a Cingular (ack) iPhone? Keeping all the iPhones on a single network is wise in that Apple has control over the agreement their customers sign, which is very important to the Apple mythology.

      I don't particularly LIKE it, but when I recently changed my plan with T-Mobile, and the customer support person told me I had to extend my contract, I said, "For the record, I think the whole contract thing is utter bullshit, but since I have no choice, fine." May be going back to Mexico for a couple months, and I'm wondering if T-Mobile will either freeze my account or cancel it without the fees. Because it's not like I'll start doing business with any of the other networks ANYWAY, if I have the choice.

      Vendor lock-in with a company that gives me pretty bright decent service is alright, I suppose. Once, I talked to a T-mobile customer service dude for 30 minutes about the nature of how SMS messages are routed, and he went and asked one of their tech guys for help. It was like dealing with real people.
      --
      Please stop stalking me, bro.
    70. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      1. At the current AT&T prices, you would've paid over $100 a month for what you get now (unlimited data, rollover minutes, messaging, etc.). the iPhone plans are _way_ better than their regular AT&T plans (unless you have some kind of business account, family plan or really old plan). Figure out the prices for unlimited data, messaging, etc. with other carriers and you'll see it's not cheap.

      FUD. Why compare with the most expensive, i.e. AT&T? I pay less than $30 per month after taxes and hidden taxes for a voice plan with unlimited data with T-Mobile.

      Also, look at Europe. They do have a freedom of providers, and prices are thus way lower than they are here in the US, where products are always locked to services.
    71. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by UnrefinedLayman · · Score: 1, Informative

      from a consumer point of view I would've thought that just selling the phone as a standalone device in the Apple stores and allowing the customer to choose their provider ... would be perfectly acceptable
      Apple doesn't do this for the same reason they don't sell iPods without iTunes and Macs without OS X; they're providing the user with an end-to-end experience. To whit:
      • You walk into an Apple store, buy an iPhone, and go home
      • You connect it to your computer by USB
      • iTunes opens, walks you through the two minute activation process over the web, and links your new phone and AT&T account to your Apple ID
      In addition:
      • Every iPhone has the same available plans (everyone will always have unlimited data)
      • Every iPhone has the same feature set (e.g., visual voicemail, unlimited data gives you unrestricted use of Safari, YouTube and Mail)
      • Every iPhone has the same reception
      If people could use the iPhone with any provider Apple (and the person) would lose the cohesiveness of the activation, there would be discontinuity among the user-base, and there would be a lot of angry people who didn't realize that putting their T-Mobile SIM into their iPhone and opening MySpace on Safari would get them a 10 cent per kilobyte charge for a $4000 bill at the end of the month. The people that would have the technical understanding ahead of time not to fuck this up don't seem to be in the majority (based on my personal experience with the average person).

      By restricting the options available to purchasers of iPhones Apple is containing the user's experience. It allows Apple and the user to have certain expectations and limits confusion and support problems. They do the same thing with Macs and OS X, which was the genesis of "It Just Works." As it is, iPhones "just work."

      Therefore I would counter that allowing people to choose their provider is not perfectly acceptable but instead has a number of problems. There is no perfectly acceptable solution to make everyone happy, and Apple has done what they've always done by trying to make it "just work" for the crowd that wants it to "just work."
    72. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't selling it for use on any network generate more sales?
      Yes, and no.

      The problem is that Apple/Steve had to convince a cell phone company to CHANGE ITS NETWORK to work with the visual voicemail feature. It's the first time I know of that a network has bent to an outside phone maker. How did it/he get AT&T to do that? By offering the five-year exclusive.

      You have to give something to get something. It's called negotiation.

      I don't use Visual Voicemail, because I use my cell phone mostly as a data device (I average 13 minutes a month of talk time used). But from what I hear, people who do use the VV feature a lot (sales people, frequent business travelers, etc...) say it's completely changed their way of communicating. Without it, the iPhone would be just another smartphone to that segment of the market.
      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    73. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by DavidShor · · Score: 1

      Yes, and that is why we need to pass laws, and engage in regulatory actions, so that self interested companies cannot act against the well being of the general economy.

    74. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by DavidShor · · Score: 1

      How stupid do you think people are? People used Internet enabled phones before the iphone, and had a perfect understanding of data plans.

    75. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Apple wants GSM because it's an international standard and they don't want multiple versions of the iPhone for different countries"
                Nope, Apple "wants" GSM because they asked Verizon Wireless (a CDMA provider) to make an iPhone deal first, and Verizon Wireless told Apple to take a hike. Simple as that.

    76. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by DavidShor · · Score: 1
      "Plus, let's not forget how stingy networks are with internetwork traffic. Really, how much do you think people would have to pay for visual voicemail from a Verizon (ick) iPhone to a Cingular (ack) iPhone? Keeping all the iPhones on a single network is wise in that Apple has control over the agreement their customers sign, which is very important to the Apple mythology."

      Why did Apple need any carrier permission to run the visual voicemail system? Every US carrier allows for free call fowarding, they could have fowarded all unanswered calls to a central Apple server, which then plays a pre-recorded message, and then records audio messages. These audio messages are then downloaded to the phone.

      To the end user, this would be indistinguishable from the current visual voicemail system. Maintaining the server would cost money, but not much. As a worst case scenario, they could have bundled it with a .Mac subscription.

    77. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by DavidShor · · Score: 1
      "AT&T had to make substantial investments to prepare for the iPhone"

      Like what?

      "So I would think that both Verizon and AT&T were extremely interested in an exclusive deal (obviously whoever didn't get the deal would claim that they were not interested at all to save face), but much much less interested in a non-exclusive deal. And on the other hand, Apple could get a much better contract in an exclusive deal than in a non-exclusive deal. And a non-exclusive deal might have never happened."

      I don't see why Apple needed to make a deal at all. They could have just released their phone unlocked, allowing any user with a SIM card to connect.

    78. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by DavidShor · · Score: 1
      As I said in a earlier post

      "Why did Apple need any carrier permission to run the visual voicemail system? Every US carrier allows for free call fowarding, they could have fowarded all unanswered calls to a central Apple server, which then plays a pre-recorded message, and then records audio messages. These audio messages are then downloaded to the phone. To the end user, this would be indistinguishable from the current visual voicemail system. Maintaining the server would cost money, but not much. As a worst case scenario, they could have bundled it with a .Mac subscription."

      The only reason why Apple did it is because AT&T paid Apple a large chunk of money in order to keep exclusivity, overtaking any potential revenue from T-mobile customers. Exclusive contracts of any type should be illegal, as it is trivial to show that they are economically suboptimal.

    79. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's in a better position? Those who underestimate the intelligence of the masses, or those who overestimate?

    80. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by DavidShor · · Score: 1

      Considering that there are considerable costs to both mistakes, I can't answer that without more data.

    81. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by zurtle · · Score: 1

      It appears that you've never worked with people....

      Never underestimate the stupidity of humans. Never. Wasn't there a recent story about people not knowing how to switch the phones off properly and running up huge bills on Global Roaming?

      There is nothing idiot-proof. They may as well chop down the number of degrees of freedom (stupidity?) while they're still sane.

      --
      Couldn't stand the weather
    82. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Reaperducer · · Score: 1
      Your solution sounds cumbersome and unreliable. The more links you put in the chain, the more points of failure there are.

      Exclusive contracts of any type should be illegal
      That's just dumb. In your world 50 TV channels should all be able carry the same sporting event at the same time. A worker you hired could work for someone else on a competing project. There would be no patents, no copyrights, no innovation. I don't think you've thought this through. While you might envision more competition on the consumer side, there would be less competition on the producer side.
      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    83. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      While 120 M may be using CDMA right now, I doubt most of them care whether they use CDMA or GSM. Agreed, but they do care which carriers their handset of choice will work with. Those 120 million people have to pay up to $175 to terminate their contracts if they switch carriers, on top of the iPhone's already-hefty price. And if they picked their carrier based on something like customer service, network coverage, or knowing other people who are customers (so they can call them for free), they may not be willing to switch at all.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    84. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      Wireless customers do come and go. They are free to choose to be a CDMA or a GSM customer Yes, but switching carriers can mean paying a $175 termination fee, giving up such features as 7:00 nights or free in-network calling to their friends and family, losing reception at home or work, etc. Even non-geeks care about that kind of stuff.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    85. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by DavidShor · · Score: 1
      "In your world 50 TV channels should all be able carry the same sporting event at the same time."

      Yes, they would. But I still believe in copyright. Broadcasters would have to charge a flat-rate to any channel that would like to broadcast the event. This is how it works for sitcoms, I don't see why live events should be any different.

      "A worker you hired could work for someone else on a competing project."

      So? If a company has an idea, they should patent it. That makes any form of corporate espionage irrelevant.

      "There would be no patents, no copyrights, no innovation. I don't think you've thought this through."

      Seems like a false dichotomy.

      "While you might envision more competition on the consumer side, there would be less competition on the producer side."

      I don't see why. I predict this would cause a rather large increase in productivity and GDP, increasing competition everywhere.

    86. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      Seriously man, who should Apple give a crap about more? The 120million people still on the antiquated CDMA system that exists only in the US, and somewhat in Japan (which are quite different), or the rest of the world who are almost ALL on GSM? I certainly know who I'd care about more from a business standpoint (especially once scorned by a big CDMA carrier). GSM is the way the world has already moved, and companies like: Verizon, Sprint, and Altel (I'm still amazed they are in business) have a deathgrip on their aging systems. Hell, not like it matters anyways, as you stated, Verizon turned Apple down. That FLATTLY killed a CDMA iPhone for the next few years at least even if CDMA can keep the user base it has now in a few years.

      Your right though, I don't know you (great comeback since theres NO FUCKING WAY I know if you piss your bed still or not), but if your phone has everything you need, why are you bitching about the iPhone? Your cheap lil contract phone your bankroll will allow is just what you need. Others? We are happy to spend more for something different that suits us better. Hell, I personally don't even own an iPhone right now. The phone I own isn't even carried by any US cellular carriers (Nokia N95). When the new 3G radios come out that are thinner, require less power, and manage to find their way into the iPhone I may finally chuck my current phone. Till then, my swiss army knife phone works fine for me, just wish it was thinner (side effect of 3G radios size right now).

      As it stands though it looks like the only way you'll have an iPhone is from the 2nd hand market. Apple will likely never bring it down to the bargain basement price you want outside of an inventory flush so they can sell the next gen. Theres just no reason to compete for the mid-low end Walmart crowd's money. Those people have zero brand loyalty which Apple likes to see happen.

      Your not Apple's target demographic, get over it.

    87. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by DiEx-15 · · Score: 1

      Yes that goes for me too... Considering I live in Neolithic Iowa, companies like AT&T and T-Moble are very reluctant to come to an area that chucks rocks with messages for the Iowa version of Instant Messaging. Seriously, I see those Verison ads with "The Network" and the "Can You Hear Me Now?" dude stopping one inch from the Bedrock... err... Iowa state border. Probably because they are afraid that an Instant Message will hit them... So it probably will be 500,000 years before I see a working IPhone here.

      _____
      "Halo 3? Is that what the Bane have or is that something I can add to my Tabula?" - 10/19/07

    88. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      Seriously man, who should Apple give a crap about more? The 120million people still on the antiquated CDMA system that exists only in the US, and somewhat in Japan (which are quite different), or the rest of the world who are almost ALL on GSM? You seem to be misinformed; maybe I can help you out. CDMA was developed after GSM, and the fundamental idea behind it -- the air interface in which all parties broadcast simultaneously on the same frequencies -- was adopted in GSM's 3G system. It's also deployed in dozens of countries.

      Your right though, I don't know you (great comeback since theres NO FUCKING WAY I know if you piss your bed still or not), but if your phone has everything you need, why are you bitching about the iPhone? Hey, thanks for asking that question. It really made me wonder why I'd do such a thing, so I looked back over my posts in this thread, and guess what I found? It turns out I wasn't bitching about the iPhone at all, I was just pointing out some facts about the US cellular market. What a surprise! Again, thanks for asking such an insightful question.

      Your cheap lil contract phone your bankroll will allow is just what you need. Others? We are happy to spend more for something different that suits us better. Awesome, we have something in common! I'm willing to spend more for something that suits me better too. However, I already have a browser, video player, music player, camera, video recorder, GPS navigation, Bluetooth, voice dictation, QWERTY keyboard, removable/expandable memory (and battery), 3G tethering, etc. on my phone. In order for a phone to suit me better than the one I already have, it has to have more of the features I'm interested in, not fewer.

      Till then, my swiss army knife phone works fine for me, just wish it was thinner (side effect of 3G radios size right now). Hmm, that's a shame. My 3G phone is only 8 mm thick when it's open (15 mm closed). I'd send you a link so you could get one for yourself, but you might have a hard time getting it to work wherever you are.

      As it stands though it looks like the only way you'll have an iPhone is from the 2nd hand market. Apple will likely never bring it down to the bargain basement price you want outside of an inventory flush so they can sell the next gen. Let me help you out again. That "bargain basement price" is actually the standard price for phones around here. It's a quaint little custom we have: if we have to sign a 2-year contract in order to buy a phone, we usually expect to get a discount on the phone's price. Pretty crazy, huh? But that's America for you, backwards and antiquated! Anyway, just glad to be of assistance in cluing a fellow Slashdotter in on a bit of trivia.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    89. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Yoozer · · Score: 1

      How stupid do you think people are?
      Stupid enough to buy the exact same piece of music for the same price, twice, the difference being that one version is reduced to 30 seconds of questionable quality?
    90. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by thegnu · · Score: 1

      Why did Apple need any carrier permission to run the visual voicemail system? Every US carrier allows for free call fowarding, they could have fowarded all unanswered calls to a central Apple server, which then plays a pre-recorded message, and then records audio messages. These audio messages are then downloaded to the phone.

      To the end user, this would be indistinguishable from the current visual voicemail system. Maintaining the server would cost money, but not much. As a worst case scenario, they could have bundled it with a .Mac subscription.

      This is a great idea. If you don't have one already (which I'm sure you do), you certainly deserve a job doing something. Because that's freaking brilliant. I'm not even being snide.
      --
      Please stop stalking me, bro.
    91. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by LKM · · Score: 1

      I would encourage you to spend a few hours doing phone support for a telco or a cell phone manufacturer (I did that as a summer job for Sagem a few years ago). Good luck.

    92. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by LKM · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I wonder how many of the million iPhone buyers are new to AT&T... Even if it's only 50%, 500'000 is a hell of a lot of new customers for a company with 64 million customers!

    93. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by LKM · · Score: 1

      Like I said, there are over 120 million CDMA customers in the US, and if Apple doesn't release a CDMA iPhone, they probably aren't going to get many of those customers.

      Why? Are these people CDMA customers because they just love CDMA so much and won't even consider phones using a different technology?

    94. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by LKM · · Score: 1

      I don't think they made it deliberately easy. I think they simply don't care one way or another, just like with the Apple TV.

    95. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by LKM · · Score: 1

      Yeah, all GSM phones do that. I think it's funny when it freaks out Americans. Over here in Europe, we got used to that years ago :-)

    96. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > the majority of the world uses GSM, the US is strangely skewed towards cdma

      The majority of the world is irrelevant when you're marketing a device as expensive as the iPhone. You're going to sell significant numbers of the thing in North America, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Israel, maybe China, _possibly_ South Africa... and a very small handful of other countries. It doesn't matter what kind of cellphone network they use in most of Africa, most of Asia, or Latin America, because US$300+ for a PDA/phone is too much for most cellphone users (already a fairly small percentage of the population) to pay. There are probably more potential iPhone buyers in Dayton Ohio than in all of central Africa between the Sahara and the Kalahari.

      Consequently, North America is a larger percentage of the market for such a device than it would be for most things.

      Yes, there will be people in Rwanda who would want to buy the thing, but not very many people, not enough to drive a decision about what kinds of cell-phone networks the thing should support.

      Frankly, the reason to standardize on GSM for the iPhone can pretty much be summed up in the single word "Europe". American iPhone users on average are _substantially_ more likely than the average American to travel in Europe on business on a regular basis. (Most Americans never visit Europe, or go once in a lifetime for a special vacation. But most Americans don't have $300 to blow on an iPhone.) Otherwise it might've made sense to go with separate versions of the device, a US version if you will and a GSM version. But then the US version wouldn't work in Europe, and for people who can afford to drop $300 on a phone (or, at least, for a significant percentage of them), that could be a very real inconvenience.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    97. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by kisrael · · Score: 1

      Man, that's terrible!
      Is it a side effect of some significant advantage of GSM over other technologies?
      I thought RF interference was considered a bad thing...

      --
      SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
    98. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Dirk+the+Daring · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, most people won't see this as a complete, painless, vertical solution. Let's say I have Sprint. Let's say that my contract isn't going to up until, say, October.

      If I bought an iPhone, I can assure you that the whole experience wouldn't "Just Work", even though the iPhone does. I'd be putting myself in an extremely poor situation.

      I'm not sure there's a solution to this given the current environment. I'd love for this to change.

    99. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      No, my point is just that you can sell more phones by bringing them to the carriers people already use, instead of expecting them to switch carriers to use your phone.

      Those people may have chosen their carrier based on some pricing plan that isn't available from AT&T, like 7:00 nights or the ability to call their friends and relatives on the same network for free. Or because they had customer service or billing issues with another carrier. Or because the carrier they chose gives them the best network reception at home or work. Or they may just not want to pay $175 to terminate their existing contract when they're already going to have to pay full price for the phone.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    100. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by LKM · · Score: 1

      No, my point is just that you can sell more phones by bringing them to the carriers people already use, instead of expecting them to switch carriers to use your phone.

      Ah, fair point. But since Apple has a 5-year exclusive contract with AT&T, that particular train has left the station. Personally, I think Apple would have stood to gain a lot more from releasing an unlocked phone from the beginning, and let people continue using their current contract. Sure, they'd have lost the money from AT&T's contracts, but long term, I think it would have helped Apple.

    101. Re:As long as the only connectivity is AT and T... by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      200 minutes and 200 texts, which is still pretty shabby for £35/mo but could be a lot worse.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
  2. uh ohhhhh by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1, Insightful

    but you still have to be able to afford the monthly bill. Oops I guess Apple forgot that part! Isn't that the #1 thing people shop for and just cross their fingers and hope the phone's either free or cheap? You don't have to be a cell phone expert to know that

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    1. Re:uh ohhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but you still have to be able to afford the monthly bill. Oops I guess Apple forgot that part! " WTF are you talking about? You can get an adequate number of voice minutes and unlimited data out the door for $60/month. At Verizon, T-Mobile, or Sprint you'd be looking to pay at least $80-$100/month for a comparable number of minutes and unlimited data.

    2. Re:uh ohhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AT&T's $60 plan gives you 450 minutes, 200 sms, and unlimited nights and weekends. With T-Mobile, you can get 600 minutes, with unlimited nights and weekends for $40, and unlimited internet (including hotspot access) for $20. So that's 150 more minutes, and if you want SMS, add 400 for $5. Is $5 worth 200 more SMS and 150 minutes? I bet it is for quite a few people. You could also opt for fewer minutes (300), and come in at $50 or $55 with SMS. Either way, your $80-$100 estimate is wrong for T-Mobile.

    3. Re:uh ohhhhh by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No kidding. I'm on Sprint and I dropped the data plan because it was too costly, and if you don't have a plan data is about 7c per kilobyte. Per K! Let alone the fact that Sprint won't let you get a goddamn picture off your own camera phone unless you subscribe to "PCS Vision". Fortunately, I found an outfit selling a USB cable for my phone, and it was compatible with BitPim. It's still limited in what it can do by the firmware (can't dump my own ringtones or pictures into the thing) but it's better than having to pay extra to email pictures to myself! Bloodsucking leeches, all of them.

      Seriously though, cellular companies have a lot of justifying to do. They have a fraction of the infrastructure to maintain vs. a traditional telco, yet their rates are still in the "gouge the customers eyes out with a rusty spoon" category.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    4. Re:uh ohhhhh by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      You know who else also forgot that part? The 500,000[1]+ iPhone users.

      1. With a generous adjustment for people that aren't using it as a cell phone
      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    5. Re:uh ohhhhh by Timmmm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah. If you include the required 18-month contract, the iPhone will cost *at least* £900 in the UK (=$1800). £900!

    6. Re:uh ohhhhh by skeftomai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So hack it and use T-Mobile pay-as-you-go...

    7. Re:uh ohhhhh by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      With T-Mobile, you can get 600 minutes, with unlimited nights and weekends for $40, and unlimited internet (including hotspot access) for $20.

      You have to pay an additional $7/mo for unlimited mobile-to-mobile, and $5/mo for SMS as you said. And no rollover minutes. Six one way, a half dozen the other, honestly. I'm personally probably going to switch my unlocked iPhone to T-Mobile before the 30-day "get out of jail free" on the AT&T contract (and, no, you don't have to return the phone) expires. That way I'll have a working iPhone without visual voicemail and with no contract. It doesn't say on the website, but I spoke to two reps who said that if you bring your own phone, you can go month-to-month.

      -b.

    8. Re:uh ohhhhh by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Yeah. If you include the required 18-month contract, the iPhone will cost *at least* £900 in the UK (=$1800). £900!

      With another phone, you'll still be paying contract unless you're planning to NOT have a cell phone sometime in the next year and 1/2.

      -b.

    9. Re:uh ohhhhh by russellh · · Score: 2, Informative

      Steve didn't say: let's make a phone that we can sell to 120 million people. He said : let's make the best phone we possibly can and I'll be happy if we get 1% of the market.

      --
      must... stay... awake...
    10. Re:uh ohhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
      let's make the best phone we possibly can

      Congratulations for so whole-heartedly buying into Apple's marketing, but he was going for the biggest possible profit, not a desire to make the perfect cell phone. There's easy to imagine improvements, that would have added cost but made the iPhone better - GSM or an unlocked OS are obvious ones. The super-expensive Nokias have a lot of options that the iPhone doesn't.

    11. Re:uh ohhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the iphone is gsm... perhaps you meant UMTS/HDSPA? you lose at apple trolling, try again

    12. Re:uh ohhhhh by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      You can get a top of the line nokia including contract fees for a fraction of that.. the phone is normally free anyway. Not to mention for some reason the iphone tariffs are at least double the cost of normal tariffs to cover the apple 'fees'.

      They got away with it in the US because their prices were high to start with (someone mentioned a similar plan costing $100/mon) - I think they're going to have to do some rapid price adjustment in europe to stay in the game.

    13. Re:uh ohhhhh by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      Its funny how everyone complains about needing software to access their phone, but I used the included cable to plug my v635 into my linux box's usb port and loaded it with dozens of mp3 ring tones, music (go Weird Al!), and video (a season of The Simpsons) without any additional software needed.

      If you can't do it under Windows, instead of looking around for "special software", why not try booting with a linux boot CD/DVD?

    14. Re:uh ohhhhh by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      People complain because cellular companies insist that the phones be crippled so that they can force users to pay extra for some stupid "service". This has nothing to do with the operating system on your PC. It has to do with what the particular version of the firmware in the phone will let you do. In the case of my Sanyo Katana, it's been crippled so that you can only do a few things with bluetooth and a few things with the comm port. Not that the phone itself couldn't do a whole lot more (and I understand that versions sold in other countries do) but they're explicitly limited for the U.S. market.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    15. Re:uh ohhhhh by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      "&gtlThis has nothing to do with the operating system on your PC."

      Windows doesn't come with the ability to recognize my Motorola V635. Rogers wants $$$ for a cd with "tools". Fortunately, I'm not a maid (I don't do Windows!) so it was just a question of plugging it into my linux box and opening up a file browser. Copy ring tones to the phone, music and videos to the microFlash, unplug and go.

      So yes, it is partially a question of what OS you run. Run crippleware, pay extra.

    16. Re:uh ohhhhh by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      That's not really correct, I'm afraid. Probably you have your V635 configured to map itself in as a USB drive (Connections menu, I think.) Now, that's a nice feature, and I wish mine worked that way, but it doesn't. I suspect that Windows would handle your phone just fine: protocol drivers are built-in for that. Same ones any thumb drive would use. Windows has traditionally had a wider range of USB support than Linux anyway, even if it still isn't all that reliable.

      The vast majority of phones, if they can talk to a PC at all, use a proprietary interface protocol of some kind. Mine has an interface port (not USB) but didn't come with a cable so I had to buy a converter cable to plug into my USB port. I use the free, open-source. cross-platform BitPim application to access the few features that Sprint lets me use.

      The only crippleware here is the firmware in the damn phone itself.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    17. Re:uh ohhhhh by russellh · · Score: 1

      Congratulations for so whole-heartedly buying into Apple's marketing, but he was going for the biggest possible profit, not a desire to make the perfect cell phone. There's easy to imagine improvements, that would have added cost but made the iPhone better - GSM or an unlocked OS are obvious ones. The super-expensive Nokias have a lot of options that the iPhone doesn't.
      Best isn't all about features because a product is a balance and a set of trade-offs. I was simply quoting Steve when I said he would be happy with 1% of the market and that he was trying to make the best phone he could. I'm sure the super-expensive Nokias have features the iPhone doesn't but I also have no doubt that the success of the iPhone will spur Apple to add features at the high end and also introduce a less expensive version (which has already been rumored). A $1000 iPhone would certainly be a whole lot less great no matter what features it had.
      --
      must... stay... awake...
    18. Re:uh ohhhhh by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      let's make the best phone we possibly can

      Congratulations for so whole-heartedly buying into Apple's marketing, but he was going for the biggest possible profit, not a desire to make the perfect cell phone.

      So you disagree with all those saying Jobs made a mistake by doing exactly what he did.
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  3. The phone was overpriced, and Apple realized it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they appropriately lowered costs. Had they lowered it $100, then lowered it another $100 in November, would that really make any buying it feel better? Particularly those buying it in September and October? No. If it were raining $100 bills from the sky, there would be some people complaining that they were hard to break and they wished it rained $20 bills instead.

  4. Don't forget by 2.7182 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Crazy Eddie ended up in jail.

    1. Re:Don't forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was not jail, but an asylum for insane robots.

    2. Re:Don't forget by HeavensBlade23 · · Score: 4, Funny

      He's not in jail, he's been on the cover of every Iron Maiden album ever made.

    3. Re:Don't forget by The+Orange+Mage · · Score: 1
    4. Re:Don't forget by kalirion · · Score: 1

      But only because the stupid Motie kept annoying the Masters by trying to stop the Cycles, when everyone knows that's impossible.

    5. Re:Don't forget by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      But only because the stupid Motie kept annoying the Masters by trying to stop the Cycles, when everyone knows that's impossible.

      And by the end of the second book the Moties had expanded beyond their home system so the cycles were finished (or at least delayed) so the Crazy Eddie probe (which initiated contact with humans) was the right thing to do after all.

    6. Re:Don't forget by kalirion · · Score: 1

      I haven't read the second book yet, you insensitive clod!

    7. Re:Don't forget by neonleonb · · Score: 1

      I swear The Mote in God's Eye is the only thing I thought of when I read "Crazy Eddie". In fact, the only reason I read the comments on this story was to see if anyone else was on the same wavelength. But apparently there was another Crazy Eddie. Who knew?!

    8. Re:Don't forget by icebrain · · Score: 1

      I thought that, too. Had never heard of the crazy salesman guy.

      As for Maiden's mascot, of sorts, I think his name is just "Eddie."

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
  5. Re:all the hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, I have one and it is a very good phone.

  6. Gimme A Break!!! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does anybody really think that Apple won't make money on it at $399? For Grid's sake, it's assembled overseas for slave wages. It only has a few parts (if you count the main board and display as one part each). I don't think they will hurt. And if they do -- that is, if they are dumping it on the market for a loss -- then they are prosecutable under antitrust laws.

    Please, let's see some real news, rather than trying to make problems up.

    1. Re:Gimme A Break!!! by bteeter · · Score: 1

      No way Apple is selling at a loss. They wouldn't do that. I think the Margins are probably slimmer than their normal (~10% maybe?) - but they make up for that with a long term share in AT&T Revenue.

      I think the reason for the price cut is as it was said. They want to sell a ton of this at the holiday season.

      Its the same thing that happened to the PS3. Only a select set of early adopters will plunk down a large amount for the latest gadget. But lower the price and now the more mainstream consumer can buy it.

      The submitter of the article compared iPhones to houses and cars. Its a bad comparison. Houses and cars are useful for years, electronics are not. Electronics have a very limited lifespan compared to cars and houses and the markets are very different.

    2. Re:Gimme A Break!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no laws preventing someone to sell a product for less than it cost to manufacture. This would help nobody.

      Antitrust laws are for preventing monopolies. I don't think that Apple has anywhere near a monopoly on the cell phone market.

    3. Re:Gimme A Break!!! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Does anybody really think that Apple won't make money on it at $399? I completely agree.

      if they are dumping it on the market for a loss -- then they are prosecutable under antitrust laws. But now you are off in la-la land. There is nothing preventing a company from selling below cost. It's only when they are doing it to maintain monopoly of a market. And while its arguable that Apple's 90%+ hold of the mp3 player market is a monopoly, they don't have anything even close to a monopoly in the phone market.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:Gimme A Break!!! by Ant+P. · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Isn't the PS3 being sold at a huge loss to inflate sales? Shouldn't that make it illegal too?

    5. Re:Gimme A Break!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, Apple's margins are typically in the 30's...

    6. Re:Gimme A Break!!! by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      The cost to make is certainly below the selling price. Apple is rumored to have revenue sharing, a certain amount per month, though the rumors seem to be almost completely confirmed.

    7. Re:Gimme A Break!!! by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 3, Informative

      Now you're just being silly. No one wants to ban the PS3 on the grounds that it's being sold "too cheaply" to inflate sales. That's ridiculous. The reason that informed, serious activists want the PS3 banned is because it uses too much energy for the benefit it provides, just like incandescent lights.

      Don't try to trivialize the solid case for banning PS3s by associating it with the cranks who want to ban PS3s for being too cheap.

      (Unfortunately, I have to remind people this is sarcastic...)

    8. Re:Gimme A Break!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For Grid's sake


      Who the heck is Grid and what did he do with fuck?!
    9. Re:Gimme A Break!!! by pcgabe · · Score: 1

      For Grid's sake, it's assembled overseas for slave wages.
      From the Flight Of The Conchords' song Think About It:

      They're turning kids into slaves just to make cheaper sneakers.
      But what's the real cost?
      'Cause the sneakers don't seem that much cheaper.
      Why are we still paying so much for sneakers
      When you got them made by little slave kids?
      What are your overheads?
      --
      Don't put advice in your sig.
    10. Re:Gimme A Break!!! by king-manic · · Score: 1

      Don't try to trivialize the solid case for banning PS3s by associating it with the cranks who want to ban PS3s for being too cheap.

      banning PS3? minus well ban SUV first. Solid case? Ban all computers while your at it as most are energy hogs.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    11. Re:Gimme A Break!!! by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      FYI, Apple's margins are typically in the 30's... That's bad news then.... weren't the 30s the time of the great depression?
      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    12. Re:Gimme A Break!!! by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      You, sir, deserve the *whoosh*-of-the-year award.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  7. falling prices are normal by drmerope · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Its funny how much we've been conditioned to think that the price of things should go up not down. Think about it, all other things being equal, as we get smarter, more efficient with our production of goods prices should go down. Prices only go up because inflation is an even more powerful force than innovation in our economy.

    Second, the cost of everything has an fixed component and a quantity component. One reason an F22 fighter is so expensive is that relatively few are built. The same thing happened with the iPhone. At the beginning they weren't sure if they'd sell 1 or 1 million. They had to guess and price accordingly. Now that so many are sold, the fixed costs (like engineering) are paid-in.

    Meanwhile, they are competing with many other kinds of smart phones. Most of which were cheaper already. Doesn't anyone remember all the talk about how the iPhone was outrageously priced above competing smart phones?

    Yeah. So after their profit margin was clearly fat, they cut prices to be competitive and more than just fan-boy enthusiasm. We should be worried? This article is drawing ridiculous connections between the iPhone and the panic over the sub-prime mortgage market.

    1. Re:falling prices are normal by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      In March, 2004 I paid $528.94 for a 40 gig iPod (top of the line at that point). Today, I can buy a 160 gig iPod classic (four times the storage, color, and it'll play videos) for $349, or a 16-gig iTouch (not even comparable) for $399.

      Of course, housing, education, and healthcare costs go up much faster than inflation. Healthcare sees a lot of expensive technological advances, but the others not as much (in fact you could argue the quality has dropped).

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    2. Re:falling prices are normal by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Its funny how much we've been conditioned to think that the price of things should go up not down. Think about it, all other things being equal, as we get smarter, more efficient with our production of goods prices should go down. Prices only go up because inflation is an even more powerful force than innovation in our economy. One can only "innovate" a gallon of milk so much. So, food prices generally rise with inflation. (IIRC, they're actually one of the prime measures of inflation.)

      Land is a fixed good -- the Earth isn't getting any bigger -- so land prices should also generally go up with inflation, plus more for the ever-increasing development. (An empty field has less value than either a working farm or a home.)

      Now, as for "manufactured goods", you've got a point. Except that, for any good that I might purchase, a fair third of them are cheaper than they were ten years ago. (Spatulas, T-shirts, etc.) Others are a wee bit more expensive, due to increased demand for a finite supply of raw materials (printed books, gasoline, blue jeans, real wooden furniture). Still others really are cheaper, no matter how you measure it -- televisions and computers being the best examples of this. ($ per MIPS, inflation-adjusted dollar-per-MIPS, dollars-per-PC, % of income, etc.)

      One thing that jumps up and down and screams that it's getting more expensive each year is automobiles. Except that they aren't -- car prices for comparable-featured cars go down, leading manufacturers to make cars with more and more built in.
    3. Re:falling prices are normal by WindowlessView · · Score: 1

      Think about it, all other things being equal, as we get smarter, more efficient with our production of goods prices should go down.

      The "all other things being equal" portion is not insignificant. The production efficiencies can be easily be dwarfed when the production is overseas and the value of the consuming currency is dropping like a stone.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
    4. Re:falling prices are normal by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Its funny how much we've been conditioned to think that the price of things should go up not down.
      Joking aside, I don't believe I've ever been conditioned to believe that prices should go up. I know that here (in Australia), prices dropping happens a lot 'round here due to our free yet reasonably well regulated market. Not only that, we've always (*gasp*) expected prices to drop for all the reasons you stated. Where were you brought up?
      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    5. Re:falling prices are normal by drmerope · · Score: 1

      One can only "innovate" a gallon of milk so much. So, food prices generally rise with inflation. (IIRC, they're actually one of the prime measures of inflation.)

      You are right, but if only the BLS agreed with you. Most of the inflation numbers people quote are so-called core inflation which excludes food prices. This makes sense if we want to talk about last months inflation, but not so much if want to discuss year over year inflation. I don't know why more careful distinctions aren't drawn by the press when they report this sort of stuff, but that's the breaks.

      Second, inflation is more likely around 6%. See for background: http://www.shadowstats.com/ The gist of which is BLS changed its method of computing CPI at the beginning of the Clinton Administration.

      Shadow stats gives a pretty rigorous assessment. My own analysis of Federal Reserve Annual Reports pegs inflation at roughly 10%, but my work was very rough back-of-the-envelope type stuff based on trends in Fed's SOMA account. So, I am willing to believe 6%. Other analysis: http://www.nowandfutures.com/cpi_lie.html

      If you read the Economist, the last page publishes a commodity price index. The percent change over one year ago is roughly 15-20% per year, consistently every publication week.

    6. Re:falling prices are normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Where were you brought up?

      Velvet Flame Bait, why make this a nationalist thing? You're aware of the concept of inflation, of course. Australia has it, every nation has it. Things getting more expensive over time is just the way of the world.

      On the other hand, electronics always get cheaper, so the grandparent post was probably smoking crack.

    7. Re:falling prices are normal by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      It's not a nationalist thing. It's employing subtle irony to make a point. I'm quite aware that prices falling is normal across most capitalist countries. I'm also aware that the OP is aware of that point (since he made the point himself). My post was meant to make it sound like I'm trying not to be a bigot, when in truth, I know (and it seems comically obvious) that I can assume that the falling prices phenomenon would span to the OP's country (wherever that is).

      OTOH, on another level, I am a little worried that these obvious assumptions may well be wrong (since my international travel experiences aren't really that impressive), so I figured the OP might add some geological context in his answer. But look at me, I'm disassembling my intentions and subtle ironies to an AC (no offence).

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    8. Re:falling prices are normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're going to make "subtle" ironic jokes, perhaps you shouldn't start your post with "joking aside."

    9. Re:falling prices are normal by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      It wasn't meant as a joke, just as plain irony. But fair enough, I guess the phrase "joking aside" could be confusing.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    10. Re:falling prices are normal by grumling · · Score: 1

      Try telling that to Hollywood, the music business, and (the worst of all) sports franchises. Prices do go down on individual units, but not as much as they used to, and certainly not in the same way hard goods do. I wonder why that is? Perhaps because of all the fans, perhaps due to dearth of new producers getting into the distribution pool.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
  8. still overpriced by m2943 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't care how nice a screen it has, at $400 with a 2 year contract, a locked phone with no extensibility and EDGE-only speeds is still far from cheap. The best one can say is that it has gone from an insanely overpriced phone to merely an expensive fashion phone.

    iPhone doesn't start hitting "Crazy Eddie" pricing until it's below $100.

    1. Re:still overpriced by Glytch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. The iPhone should be giveaway phone considering the restrictions, lock-ins and mandatory contracts that AT&T and Apple saddled it with.

    2. Re:still overpriced by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Buy one and SIM-unlock it. It's not that hard -- there are several free software-only unlocks around already.

    3. Re:still overpriced by njfuzzy · · Score: 1

      If you only use it as a phone, it's really not the right device for you. My iPod is a great phone (far more useful for calling than my SLVR L7 was), a great iPod (for barely more than the nearly identical iPod touch), a media viewer (movies and my photo portfolio in my pocket, on a real screen), not to mention a little thing called the Internet (real email, real web browsing, and some handy applets).

      I would have paid $100 for a nice phone. Yes, there are free ones, but not everyone wants the ones that are free.

      I would have paid $300 for an iPod. Yes, they are a popular device, so even if you don't want one, it's valuable.

      I would have paid... Oh wait, where can I get a standards-compliant web browser with a 3.5" screen, and a fully-functional POP/IMAP email client, on a phone again? From a bunch of other devices that cost just as much, or certainly nearly as much.

      I paid $600 for my phone, and I pay a little over $70 a month with taxes for all the calls, texts, and Internet I will ever use. I've had it since it was released, and every day I'm glad I have all of those functions, working elegantly, in one device in my pocket. For $400, it's a steal. Even if you don't want one-- because plenty of people do.

      --
      My Photography - http://ian-x.com
      The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
    4. Re:still overpriced by skeftomai · · Score: 1

      I got one with the price drop, and since think I can see why they charge at least $299. It's a VERY nice and well-designed device. The speakers are good quality, the screen and graphics are very nice, the software and UI top-notch... Apply did a lot of research (or at least hired pros who knew their stuff). They obviously put a lot of time into the testing/feedback/improvement process, too. Customer support also goes in there, too.

      The phone plans ARE overpriced though...(but I'm using T-Mobile).

    5. Re:still overpriced by FyRE666 · · Score: 1

      Looks like someone's OD'd on the coolaid...

      If you only use it as a phone, it's really not the right device for you. My iPod is a great phone (far more useful for calling than my SLVR L7 was), a great iPod (for barely more than the nearly identical iPod touch), a media viewer (movies and my photo portfolio in my pocket, on a real screen), not to mention a little thing called the Internet (real email, real web browsing...
      ...real slow email, real slow web browsing? My Sony Ericcson W850i is a *very* good MP3 player, that can actually have its memory expanded, has 3G, can record and upload video, I can write my own Java apps for it - also if you know where to look, that means hundreds of free games - plus Google Earth of course, email, www, irc, pop, nntp, etc - and it was free with my contract - £25/$50 a month including free calls/texts etc, oh yeah, plus bluetooth stereo headphones! It'll also work as a modem for my laptop if I wish... ... now what point were you making?

    6. Re:still overpriced by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Oh wait, where can I get a standards-compliant web browser with a 3.5" screen, and a fully-functional POP/IMAP email client, on a phone again?

      I can point you in the direction of dozens of phones that will run Opera Mobile, can do POP and IMAP mail, for far less than iPhone prices. Although granted, I do like the 3.5" screen. That being said, my nearly three years old Nokia N90 had a 416x352 pixel screen, so lets not go getting all hyped up by the fact that the iPhone has a screen with 4.8% more pixels 36 months later, it's not overly revolutionary.

    7. Re:still overpriced by njfuzzy · · Score: 1

      Oh, absolutely. My point is mostly that it's a narrow field, and a different kind of device from a "Phone"-- it's one of many things that the iPhone integrates. People saying $400 is too much to pay for a phone, when referring to the iPhone, are being silly. It's not just a phone, it's also a phone. You certainly don't find many devices with the iPhone's feature set in the $0-$100 after contract price range.

      --
      My Photography - http://ian-x.com
      The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
    8. Re:still overpriced by njfuzzy · · Score: 1

      Here's a simpler point for you. I paid $600 for my phone, and after a few months with it, I really like it. It does what I want, how I want to do it. Is it perfect? No. Would I chose another device over it, having used it? No. Is it for everyone? No. It's worth what people will pay for it, and so far, a million people paid $400-$600 bucks for one. So clearly, it's worth $400.

      --
      My Photography - http://ian-x.com
      The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
    9. Re:still overpriced by FyRE666 · · Score: 1


      I see, so despite your original questions, you didn't really want to know where people could get something that did the same (or in my case, a hell of a lot more) than your iphone for the same price (again in my case, a hell of a lot cheaper). You just posted to brag that you bought an iphone back when they were expensive, followed by some sort of online therapy session where you were trying to convince yourself you weren't fooled by "the shiney"...



      It's not that the iphone is really that bad; it's just not that good - and I certainly wouldn't want to pay 400-600 dollars for a feature-poor, locked down device that can't be expanded (though I'm sure Apple will soon start overcharging for games only they can supply via itunes) :-) I guess I just don't like seeing people getting ripped off...



      It's worth what people will pay for it, and so far, a million people paid $400-$600 bucks for one. So clearly, it's worth $400.

      You didn't happen to also buy stock in SCO when it hit $20, did you? After all, it must've been worth that as other people bought it!

    10. Re:still overpriced by prockcore · · Score: 1

      You run the risk of Apple bricking it.

    11. Re:still overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I knew a guy that bragged about being kicked in the nuts by Manson...

      Some people don't need to feel a part of something large (iPhone owner, KKK, PETA, etc.) to be fulfilled. It you want to break away from the herd, it might also help to be over 5 feet high and posess a penis over 4 inches long. Just saying...

    12. Re:still overpriced by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      You run the risk of Apple bricking it.

      Not if you don't update using iTunes. If it's not on ATT's network, how will Apple have access to it? Besides, deliberately bricking devices would be very bad PR for Apple as well as possibly being illegal (since unlocking a phone to operate it on a legal cell network has been ruled to be legal, and you buy the phone without a contract; only getting one during activation).

      -b.

    13. Re:still overpriced by ZombieRoboNinja · · Score: 1

      It now costs $100 more than an iPod Touch with the same features. If you didn't have an iPod or cell phone and wanted both, and if AT&T service was decent in your area, $400 would be a fairly good price.

      Personally, I'm fine with my $20 phone and the Nano that came free with my laptop.

    14. Re:still overpriced by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Not if they brick the DRM functions and from there on its use as a music device. That is something they are entitled to and capable of. There is jackshit you can do about that one legally.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    15. Re:still overpriced by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Not if they brick the DRM functions and from there on its use as a music device. That is something they are entitled to and capable of. There is jackshit you can do about that one legally.

      So someone will come out with an aftermarket player software with a BETTER interface than iPod that'll play straight, un-DRMed MP3s. If they're not bought from iTunes, it's Apple's (and the Industry's) loss, not necessarily the users' loss!

      -b.

    16. Re:still overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why spend so much on a non wi-fi device that has such a little screen?

    17. Re:still overpriced by m2943 · · Score: 1

      Oh wait, where can I get a standards-compliant web browser with a 3.5" screen, and a fully-functional POP/IMAP email client, on a phone again?

      Symbian, Windows Mobile, and Palm phones have full web browsers and POP/IMAP. Many of them also have 3G speeds so that you can actually use them, non-crippled Bluetooth implementations, installable applications, chat support for many more networks, etc.

      With 3G and installable apps, the iPhone would justify its price in terms of its functionality. EDGE-only and locked down, the iPhone is more expensive and has a lot less functionality than plenty of other smartphones.

      The two reasons I can think of for getting one are (1) if you're an OS X user, it's probably the best choice because it's the only smart phone that integrates really well with OS X out of the box, and (2) you like the looks.

    18. Re:still overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No need for wifi if you have 3G. I get amazingly fast speeds with my Q and despite the FUD from iFanbois, the battery life is quite acceptable even for a heavy traveller like myself. For serious work I use a laptop like most normal people.

    19. Re:still overpriced by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      People aren't getting ripped off though. You actually boast about being able to write Java apps for your own phone as if thats supposed to be some major selling point to a regular non-geek person. Same with the expandable memory. Most non-geek folks that I know lose those tiny SD and mini-SD cards. They're a sloppy solution. I mean your phone has a tiny screen, no QWERTY keyboard, no integration with iTunes.....etc.

      Yes it has more features. It also has a worse interface. And yes the iPhone can do IRC and use many other 3rd party app which will only grow with time.

      Face it, for a geek your phone works right for you. For regular folks the iPhone is overwhelmingly superior.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    20. Re:still overpriced by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      Yeah about 3G phones verses the iPhone's EDGE...

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJTdFTIF2No&mode=related&search=

      Thats a comparison of a Treo with 3G versus the iPhone's EDGE. The iPhone actually loads a webpage faster than the Treo. In the second test the Treo wins but not by more than a few seconds.

      Not that impressive for 3G.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    21. Re:still overpriced by hacker · · Score: 1

      "...at $400 with a 2 year contract..."

      You should amend that to state that the $400 does not include that 2 year contract. So you pay:

      1. $400 for the phone from your local Apple store
      2. Log into iTunes and sign up for a 2-year contract through your AT&T provider

      That cost is significantly higher than just $400-out-the-door, and add to that the fact that at the end of the 2 years you own the phone, you'll need to replace that battery twice, at $80+ per replacement.

    22. Re:still overpriced by Wdomburg · · Score: 1

      I would have paid $300 for an iPod.

      But would you have paid $300 for an iPod with only 4GB or 8GB? If you're going to add up the value of the bundled features, a comparable model would be more apt. The flash players are $149 for 4GB or $199 for 8GB.

      Yes, they are a popular device, so even if you don't want one, it's valuable.

      No, really, it's not. The value of something you don't want and don't use is zero. If it was a seperate device you could sell, then it would have discrete value.

      For you, it's a good deal. Great. Enjoy. For many other people it's grossly overpriced. For me a $50 phone which includes music capability, expandable storage, GPS, instant messaging, and EV-DO (up to 2.4 mbit/s compared to 236.8 kbit/s on EDGE).

      Does that mean my choice of phone is "right"? No. It simply suits my needs and preferneces. The iPhone doesn't, especially at that price point.

    23. Re:still overpriced by Wdomburg · · Score: 1

      Looking at a ten second snippet to judge the actual transfer rate on the Treo, it looked to be about 117.6kbit/sec which puts it firmly in the neighborhood of a 1xRTT connection (peak speed 144kbit/sec) and not EV-DO (peak speed 2.4mbit/sec). In other words, they tested in an area with poor Sprint coverage.

    24. Re:still overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you don't. Anyone hacking the iPhone to unlock it knows not to do any updates through Apple until the device is returned to original firmware/software. Within days of any updates by Apple, there are always new hacks to unlock the iPhone posted online at the dozens of sites dedicated to the iPhone.

    25. Re:still overpriced by FyRE666 · · Score: 1


      People aren't getting ripped off though. You actually boast about being able to write Java apps for your own phone as if thats supposed to be some major selling point to a regular non-geek person. Same with the expandable memory. Most non-geek folks that I know lose those tiny SD and mini-SD cards. They're a sloppy solution. I mean your phone has a tiny screen, no QWERTY keyboard, no integration with iTunes.....etc.

      Yes, I can develop for the phone - and so can other non Apple companies, but more importantly, other people with the same phone have a huge amount of software available to them. Believe it or not, I also know non-geeks, and the ability to play games on train journeys, and carry files around, record video etc is important to them. And as for expandability being "bad" because you say "most people lose" their SD cards - that's just Apple fanboi FUD - unless all these "non-geeks" you know are drooling simpletons who like "the shiny" or something - Apple's demographic it seems. The screen on my phone is not "tiny" and if I needed a QWERTY keyboard (though you're stepping all over your own argument here, as I know nobody who wants this) I could easily add an LED lazer projection keyboard. Still, non-geeks are used to texting with nice tactile buttons very quickly. Rubbing your greasy fingers all over your "huge" screen, with no feedback is a lot more fiddly IMO, and the opinion of most reviewers it seems.

      Yes it has more features. It also has a worse interface.

      Define "worse". I find it very fast and intuitive. I'm sure I can text faster than someone picking gently at their screen, and can navigate around just as fast.

      And yes the iPhone can do IRC and use many other 3rd party app which will only grow with time.

      You'll get apps from Apple, or nasty hacks using the iphone's web browser that require a lot more effort than most "non-geeks" are willing to put in - ironic, no?

      Don't you find it strange that the iphone's hardware is ideally suited to run Java apps extremely well, yet Apple have blocked this. The only explanation is to prevent competition in the software market. If microsoft locked down Windows so that only Microsoft could produce apps for it, you and the rest of the fanboys would be the first to chime in, but since it's Apple, that's ok. I just find it funny!

      Face it, for a geek your phone works right for you. For regular folks the iPhone is overwhelmingly superior.

      That statement barely warrants a response. You've just shown your fanboi credentials, so there's little point continuing. If Steve Jobs released the iShit, you'd probably go out and buy it...

    26. Re:still overpriced by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      WHen I said you can get third party apps I meant REAL third party apps. Not just web browser based ones. If you're going to criticize something it would help to know what you are talking about beforehand.

      Again you boast with the geeky replies like "The screen on my phone is not "tiny" and if I needed a QWERTY keyboard (though you're stepping all over your own argument here, as I know nobody who wants this) I could easily add an LED lazer projection keyboard."

      Its not about being an Apple Fanboy. Its about not settling for crappy interfaces and expecting something better. Geeks have a high tolerance for crap settling that the general populace does not share. Hence the general populace using Windows or Mac OS and geeks loving Linux. Just another example.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    27. Re:still overpriced by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      I would have paid... Oh wait, where can I get a standards-compliant web browser with a 3.5" screen, and a fully-functional POP/IMAP email client, on a phone again? From a bunch of other devices that cost just as much, or certainly nearly as much.

      Note that any old dirt cheap phone can browse the web (either via internal web brower or using Opera Mini), and include a POP/IMAP email client. If that's all you need, you don't need a smart phone.

      For the other features, well smart phones have been around for years. I don't understand why people give Apple all the free publicity as if they invented the concept.

    28. Re:still overpriced by FyRE666 · · Score: 1

      Its not about being an Apple Fanboy

      Your posting history proves otherwise, fanboy...

    29. Re:still overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night."

      Mac OS X and Windows XP are "the night": bloated, proprietary, obsolete.

  9. prices drop over time? by ArchieBunker · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sounds almost like a Mr. Obvious sketch. What do you mean technology prices drop over time?

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  10. Re:Apple "rebate". by aembleton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well they decided that it was worth $599 to them when they handed over that money. They should be grateful to get any rebate, let alone $100.

  11. Flation - In or De? by sufijazz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    After the rate cut that the Fed announced, fellow-liberal Jon Stewart asked Greenspan pointed questions of whether America is a free economy given the invisible hand of the Fed that favors "investment over work", these guys have been wondering what kind of "flation" we will have to live with.

    The Fed chose to cut rates to prevent deflation. The Slate article seems to suggest that deflation has only been postponed and companies will be hit in the long term. But the price cuts are held often - think Thanksgiving or Labor day weekend sales. The fact that there is (almost certainly) a chance to get products way cheaper at a certain point in time does not mean that sales at other time will slow down. The iPhone price cut debate is over - atleast on Slashdot. We all agreed that there will always be early adopters who don't mind paying extra to be the first ones to own a cool piece of gadgetry. That is the very definition of early adopters.

    --
    2+2=5 for very large values of 2.
    1. Re:Flation - In or De? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      liberal


      Liberal in the European sense or the American?

      Jon comes off more as a small L libertarian to me.
  12. Don't forget scarcity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prices also go up because materials become rarer or more difficult to obtain.

  13. nature of phones by fermion · · Score: 4, Insightful
    When the iPhone first come out, one of the biggest complaints was that it was impossible to sell a phone in the market where most phones were free or near to free. Of course cell phones are not free, most people pay for them over time, usually paying $1.5k over a two year period. If one buys a phone with an upfont cost, this might add 20-30% to the price.

    Many pundits also complained that the iPhone could not compete with the smart phones. Of course, the iPhone is not competing with the smart phone, but merely assuming that some people might be willing to pay more for a phone upfront if it provided a value. Such a market was made clear by the Razr.

    Now pundits are saying that Apple is desperate and crazy because it lowers prices. It is true that Apple never has a sale, but this is a phone. Phones start expensive and then get cheap. It always happens. I don't have an iPhone. Being an early adopter was not worth the price. I was waiting for this price drop, and a relaxation to contract rules typical to ATT. The price drop is not like the price drop of a Mac or an iPod. With those devices, one is not contracted with a total costs that is at least $2K.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:nature of phones by Junta · · Score: 1

      Of course cell phones are not free, most people pay for them over time, usually paying $1.5k over a two year period. Yes, so on this count, the iPhone is the worst of both worlds. It *requires* a two year plan (at least, to be legitimate within the Apple/AT&T vision and have cell service), *and* costs about the same as the unlocked phones (and before costed significantly more), and that's with requiring more expensive data plans. I wasn't surprised to see the iPhone price, but I was surprised to see them declare that there would be no contract-signing subsidizing of the cost, but you'll have to sign it anyway.

      It would be interesting to know the details of the Apple/AT&T deal, if AT&T pays some flat amount of money for the privilege, or pays at some scale with respect to Apple phone sales, or if somehow Apple figured they needed to partner with one and only one cell service provider to make a successful launch, and it is even financial-wise.
      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    2. Re:nature of phones by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Well, I come from a country where it is not legal to sell phones into a contract, guess what, the price was the same as here (USA) for a locked in monthly contract + 199 (SonyEricsson)-599(Smartphones) for a decent phone.

      I came here to the USA and everybody gets their phone for free. So I baited with Sprint/Nextel for 2 free phones and somewhat, well apparently one phone (the one with Bluetooth and internet) wasn't free. No, only after $250 in REBATES was it free and even then that amount was just divided by 24 and spread out over my bills, still had to pay it up front. And the combined cost to get out of the contract (yes they apparently take your phones into that amount too) is about $700.

      And the phone is locked, I can't sync it with anything over bluetooth, internet or e-mail is extra, horrible and has neither java, flash, xhtml nor a browser, well 2 years ago that sounded like a decent deal and it was one of the better deals out there for multiple lines and coverage in my area. Since then I moved and apparently Sprint has no decent coverage anywhere in the middle of a very large city.

      AT&T & Apple offer decent coverage here (my girlfriend has 5-bars everywhere), I pay 299 (go to the Apple Store for a reduced 4G) or 399 and a fixed fee of 59.99 a month and it has everything I want and more. Just as I can expect from Apple, all costs are upfront and AT&T ... well, they're just another phone company with decent rates and getting out costs me only $150... WHERE DO I SIGN UP?

      Stop complaining because it's not perfect. Read the little letters in your current phone plan and find out that you're bent over even further and ASKING for more

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  14. That's right! by sharkey · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'll club a seal to make a better deal!

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  15. Autos by UserChrisCanter4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The car example cited in this article (Toyota with $850 of incentives per car vs. US car manufacturers with $3K average) is a perfect example of why US automakers are so very, very screwed.

    No matter how much Consumer Reports et al. say the reliability has improved, and no matter how much the US makers craft intriguing and unique new offerings, their cars' value will continue to tank.

    Sure, all cars lose value the minute they're driven off the lot, and it's a substantial number. But go take a look at what happens to a Civic or Camry versus what happens to a Fusion/Taurus or Malibu. Go ahead, check it out. It's awful.

    I bought a new Scion tC last year. I was all primed to buy a used carwith ~35K miles; it makes sense to let someone else take the financial hit. Then I looked at the prices on used Scions, used Civics, etc. $17K cars were selling for $14K after three years. It made absolutely no sense to go buy a three year old car with a nearly-expired warranty and a possibly shady maintenance record when $3K got me a brand new one. On top of that, I was paying cash; the price difference is narrowed even more if you're financing, because the used car will almost certainly have a higher APR.

    Now contrast this with a Ford Focus or Chevy Cobalt or similar. Go look at the similar models, and marvel at how much more has bled off of the value; it's because the $17K Ford, depending on when you catch it, might be only $15K, and might have a 7% or a 0% APR. It's great in the short term, and if I was interested in a Focus I'd be all over it.

    Ultimately, if I was buying this car to drive it into the ground and toss it at 300K miles, it would be smarter to buy the Ford (assuming the reliability was the same, which isn't really the case with the Focus). Most people, myself included, don't do that. They get rid of the car in the 80K to 120K range, when it's starting to show some age but before it might potentially require major repairs. And many people look at how the US automakers have played their "SUPER LOW 72 MONTHS 0%! $3,000 CASH BACK" games and they walk across the street to the guys who might charge a bit more, but won't slash their prices next week. All things being equal, a Camry with the same MSRP as a Malibu or Fusion will resell for more at every step in its life, and it's because Toyota has shown that they're going to hand out approximately the same deal to everyone.

    I want to buy American, or at least be able to widen my prospects when looking at cars. I really do. If I were willing to drive cars into the dirt, I could probably do it, but I'm not comfortable with the risks near the end of the car's life. A $2,000 engine repair does make better financial sense than buying a new car, but not when your car won't start, and you have to get a rental for a week, and you're wondering if it will be okay for another year or will require a new transmission in four months. So, like most people, I sell mine before I think those problems will show. As long as the US automakers are willing to go "Crazy Eddie" and reap the short-term profits, though, they'll continue to lose out on long-term buyers like me. I sincerely hope other industries are willing to look at Ford, GM, and Chrysler's experience when they think that it's a good idea to slash their prices.

    1. Re:Autos by sholden · · Score: 1

      The house example on the other hand is crap. Once you have price rises like: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/113/2109/1600/shillergraph.gif there's only way to go, and once it starts you offload as fast as you can since last out loses most.

    2. Re:Autos by ReadAholic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      http://www.daveramsey.com/

      http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/cms/why_buy_a_used_car_5153.htmlc

      http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/search/?strSearch=car+buying&sa.x=0&sa.y=0&sa=submit

      If you MUST buy a New vehicle, always pay cash.
      Open a savings account or an interest paying checking account, (this is short term so you dont care about interest rates).
      Deposit the money you would have paid for the monthly payment in to this account and then ignore it until you are ready to buy.

      $400 x 12 months = $4800 x 4 years = $19200.
      $450 x 12 months = $5400 x 4 years = $21600.
      $400 x 12 months = $4800 x 5 years = $24000.
      $450 x 12 months = $5400 x 5 years = $27000.

      Buy the new car, then sell the "old" car. Put the money into the car fund and continue.
      Or hand it down to family.
      Anybody who can't "afford" to follow this simple plan can't "afford" a monthly payment on a loan either and should be buying used.

      Cash. Always a great bargaining point.

      Also:
      $400 x 12 months = $4800 x 40 years = $192,000.
      $450 x 12 months = $5400 x 40 years = $216,000.
      $400 x 12 months = $4800 x 50 years = $240,000.
      $450 x 12 months = $5400 x 50 years = $270,000.
      $400 x 12 months = $4800 x 60 years = $288,000.
      $450 x 12 months = $5400 x 60 years = $324,000.

      If you want to see something fun try to figure what that becomes with compound interest instead.

      Math that should be mandatory in all schools and grade levels. Screw calculus and cosines etc.

    3. Re:Autos by UserChrisCanter4 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I agree. I paid cash for mine, and it translates into much higher monthly deposits to a savings account.

      Of course, I spoke about interest rates because the vast majority of people DO finance auto purchases. I sold cars for a summer during college, and I think maybe 10% (probably less) of the sales were cash. Of course, that's localized to the area in which I worked, but still...

      Like I said, the US automakers' use of big incentives and 0% interest at random intervals kills their resale market, and indirectly kills their retail market.

    4. Re:Autos by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      If you MUST buy a New vehicle, always pay cash.

      If you MUST buy new, buy used anyway. You can get something nice and in decent shape for $5000-6000. Try that with a new car!

      -b.

    5. Re:Autos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you MUST buy a New vehicle, always pay cash.

      In our age of "0% financing" incentives, this is just not true. If you have the cash, but the manufacturer offers 0% financing, take it, put your cash into a online savings or a CD and in a few years you'd be a few K$ richer. For example, in just 4 years at 5.5% APY you'll get almost $2400 out of $10000.

      this is short term so you dont care about interest rates

      Oh yes, you do! This days it's easy to find online savings (or even checking) accounts that pay over 5% interest. This quickly adds up!

      Math that should be mandatory in all schools and grade levels. Screw calculus and cosines etc.

      Well, somebody should have paid attention to at least exponential functions (e.g. compound interest).

    6. Re:Autos by zymurgy_cat · · Score: 1

      All things being equal, a Camry with the same MSRP as a Malibu or Fusion will resell for more at every step in its life, and it's because Toyota has shown that they're going to hand out approximately the same deal to everyone.

      Not really. The difference in prices is due to supply and demand, pure and simple. Demand is driven by such things as perceived quality and fuel efficiency. Overall, the imports beat the American cars in these aspects hands down (or at least, that's the perception). Given the way US manufacturers have operated in the past decade or so, they've also done a good job flooding the market. Just look in the paper. You'll find a dozen used GM vehicles for each Toyota.

      Toyota dealers themselves also have a small effect on the used car market. There are many other players (other dealerships with used Toyota trade-ins, used car dealers, private sellers) who will affect price more than Toyota itself after the initial sale.

      --
      -- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
    7. Re:Autos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does that help somebody renting and without a vehicle to drive.

      In 4 years maybe they can have a car to drive to work (hopefully they have a job they are able to walk to/take public transportation to). And in 60 years they can buy a house. All for the low low payments of $800 a month.

    8. Re:Autos by PancakeMan · · Score: 1

      If most people sell their cars in the 80k to 120k range, who's buying them?

    9. Re:Autos by UserChrisCanter4 · · Score: 1

      You're right on the supply and demand side, but I think you've misinterpreted what I mean by the "dealers changing the price." Promotional pricing is itself created by temporary shifts in supply and demand; I didn't say that in my post because it goes without saying.

      Say the Ford Fusion is selling slower than Ford hoped - obviously they'd slow production. In many situations, though, their union deals essentially "force" them to make cars. Ford pays the same labor costs whether or not their cars are rolling off the line, so they might as well crank out another Fusion and make a small profit on the sale plus the potential gains from financing. To sell the cars in the short-term glut, they offer $3K incentives at that moment that effectively change the MSRP from $23K to $20K. The problem with this scenario (besides their lousy profitability) is that the promotional pricing doesn't always exist. Even after they fix the supply problem, the cost of a Fusion is no longer $23K, at least not to any reasonably savvy consumer. This shift in cost trickles down to the used market and hurts prices there.

      Toyota dealerships have a small effect on the used market, yes, but Toyota themselves (and their motor credit division) have a huge effect on the used market for cars with fewer than about 100K miles on them. Unless we're talking about a rare or unusual car such as a Supra, those cars' value is heavily influenced by what it would cost to buy a comparable NEW model. Toyota has a pretty good track record of keeping their pricing and financing essentially consistent; unless we're talking about the model-year changeover, I'm not worried that I'll pay $23K for my Camry while the next month I could pay $20K. Things don't work the same way over at Ford. Unfortunately, that means that when someone gets ready to sell their $23K-at-purchase Fusion, they could be trying to sell it in a market where the new Fusion goes for $23K or $20K and might have an APR that's 6% or 7% below the rate for a used car.

      There is no shortage of Camrys (pl?); it's the best selling car in America. There are always plenty of them on the used market, and their price is very much affected by Toyota's decisions after the sale. If Toyota decided today to cut the price of new Camrys by $1,500 and make up the difference in volume, the entire sub-100K mile used Camry market would instantly shift about $1,500 down in price. Auto magazines and groups like Consumer reports have been consistently saying for the last five or so years that American cars have caught up in reliability; as for fuel economy, I think most Americans have generally shown that they love bitching about gas prices but genuinely don't care about fuel economy as a criteria in buying cars. Even if they have caught up, and even if the public opinion does shift to recognize that, people still won't buy domestics because promotional pricing (brought on by temporary gluts in supply) could radically change the value of their car. That's to say nothing of the fact that radical, random shifts in pricing produce a "wait-and-see" mentality for the new car buyer.

      You're right in that supply and demand does ultimately dictate the cost - that's elementary economics. The issue is the way that the US automakers have chosen to deal with potential shifts. Retail products shouldn't drastically and unpredictably change in price from one month to the next, but rather than try to address the scenarios where their supply continues to press on even when it isn't desired, US automakers change the effective price of a $23K car by $8,000 from one month to the next (incentives plus financing charges). In the end, the used car seller isn't just competing against other used cars, he's competing against new ones too, and if he bought at a time when his car was at the top of that $8,000 difference, then he's royally screwed. "Firesale" prices, driven by uncontrollable supply, kill the resale value of American cars such that even if they were better in every respect than Japanese cars, they'd still be a terrible deal.

    10. Re:Autos by UserChrisCanter4 · · Score: 1

      By most people I mean most potential customers for the automakers, since this post was about why promo pricing was killing their profitability. People who are buying $3,000 - $6,000 cars are not in anyone's target market other than maybe Kia.

    11. Re:Autos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compounding monthly for 40 years at 7%(low-risk stocks/bonds portfolio) - final value:
      4,800/yr = 1,056,049.92
      5,400/yr = 1,188,056.16

      Compounding monthly for 40 years at 3.5% (approx. CD rates) - final value:
      4,800/yr = 419,085.53
      5,400/yr = 471,471.22

      Compounding annually for 40 years at 12% (good mid-risk stocks) - final value:
      4,800/yr = 4,123,883.48
      5,400/yr = 4,639,368.91

    12. Re:Autos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In our age of "0% financing" incentives, this is just not true. If you have the cash, but the manufacturer offers 0% financing, take it, put your cash into a online savings or a CD and in a few years you'd be a few K$ richer. For example, in just 4 years at 5.5% APY you'll get almost $2400 out of $10000.

      In the car example the ones with "0% financing" incentives are left with much lower resale value's. So I guess it all depends on how long you keep the car and how much you get for it. With the current low-value dollar it might pay off to buy a foreign car now before the prices on them go up.

    13. Re:Autos by arivanov · · Score: 1

      The problem is that you get reported to Homeland Security for that. There have been precedents before (search old slashdot).

      If you do not have debts you are automatically considered a criminal nowdays. If you do it the credit agency will mark you as a high risk suspect on credit reports. This means that you can no longer find a job in at least some sectors.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    14. Re:Autos by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      When I bought my Mazda in 2005 I was looking for a one year old used one. They were MORE expensive than the brand new ones.

    15. Re:Autos by echucker · · Score: 1

      One other piece of math you need to address.... If the buyer already has a car that isn't fully paid for, how do you pay for it, as well as put aside the money for the new one? Your plan is all well and good if you can afford to effectively make two car payments a month. Not everyone can do that.

    16. Re:Autos by Chapter80 · · Score: 2, Informative
      While paying cash often ends up being to your advantage, I disagree with the statement "Always pay cash" (for a new vehicle). The correct statement should read "Do the math, and choose the best alternative."

      Here are several scenarios where I, personally, have found it better to NOT Pay cash:

      • The car dealership actually took a credit card. I negotiated my best deal, and then pulled out my credit card, which pays me 1% back. I "charged" a $25K car (using two cash-back cards), and got $250 back from the credit card companies, and had 30 days to pay it off, interest free.
      • The dealership had a "special" financing deal which was well below market rates. I took the 2% financing, and did better by putting my money into a CD.
      • I once evaluated my alternative uses for the cash, and found an investment that paid a higher rate than my credit union's new car loan rate. Yes, there was a little risk involved, but it ended up being well worth it.
      • Once I decided that I wanted to maintain a little liquidity due to some outstanding business transactions, so decided not to tie up $30K of cash in a vehicle, and instead paid the interest for a couple of months until there was more certainty in the other transactions. (I wanted to be sure to "make payroll" in my business, and I needed the van as part of the business. Finance the van, make payroll, collect the outstanding receivables, pay off the van.)
      You don't do anyone any favors by making blanket statements like "always pay cash". The right answer is for people to think for themselves.
    17. Re:Autos by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

      If you want to see something fun try to figure what that becomes with compound interest instead.
      I like the "Millionaire's Estimation". With compounding, when the rate times the number of payments = 72, you end up with a 50% gain on your money. Aim for saving a nice round $720K, and the 50% gain puts you over a million.

      Set aside $80K per year for 9 years at 8%, and you're a millionaire. Or 90K/yr for 8 years at 9%.
      Even more realistic: 30K/yr for 16 years at 9%. Or 8K/year for 24 years at 12%.

      Use time and aggressive investments to your advantage! It's not that hard.

    18. Re:Autos by maeka · · Score: 2, Informative

      Cash. Always a great bargaining point.

      No, cash is a horrible bargaining point when buying from an auto dealer. They make money on the financing, and assume people will be financing through them (or at least allowing them to arrange the loans - where the bank gives them cash kickbacks or points.)
      You always want to finalize the price before you start talking financing (or lack-there-of) or trade-in. It is only when done in this order you will have a chance at working with unpadded numbers.
    19. Re:Autos by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      That is a very comprehensive response you created, but you forgot one MAJOR factor in your analysis. Most of us buy the car we like or want and could care less about resale value. People who buy cars for resale value have no souls.

    20. Re:Autos by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      The low-life auto broker, who turns around and sells them to people with lowcredit/nocredit...which fortunately, isn't most people. The rest go into scrap yards.

    21. Re:Autos by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      You don't do anyone any favors by making blanket statements like "always pay cash". The right answer is for people to think for themselves.
      The guy is citing Dave Ramsay so he already has indicated that thinking for yourself for your own unique situation is not an option.

      What you could have said was Dave Ramsay isn't doing anyone any favors by hocking his psuedo-economics-disguised-as-religious-indoctrination books and speaking events that border on religious cultism.

    22. Re:Autos by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Wow. So not true. I've paid cash in excess of $20k for several items in the past 10 years, and I have zero debt, other than my mortgage. My credit is just fine. If you spend large amounts in CASH, you actually tend to look BETTER to creditors, so they'd be willing to loan you money easier. If you go from $300,000 in dept to suddenly paying cash for cars, then yeah, that's a red flag, because you probably found a new drug supplier, or are selling some pretty sweet secrets to nations that could use it.

    23. Re:Autos by UserChrisCanter4 · · Score: 1

      Your car should never be financed at more than 60 months, 72 if you were absolutely insane and incapable of doing math (since the payment on a 72 month note is never much less than a 60 month).

      Anyway, 5 years worth of driving should put your car between 60,000 and 75,000 miles (assuming 12K to 15K miles per year). Your car is now paid off, but if it's at all reliable, it will still work. Assuming you drive the average 12,000 miles a year, you can now spend almost four more years saving before your car even hits 100K. Four years of saving just the car payment every month - plus the resale value of the car - should get you a pretty nice ride.

      On top of that, 100K isn't really a lot of miles for a car. I like to unload mine about that time because a lot of wearable parts are coming due - the 100K mile tune-up is usually a major cost, the car is probably about to have its second or third set of tires replaced, depending on what kind of tires it uses, the brakes (pads definitely, rotors possibly) will need replacing soon. The struts probably need replacing, too. On top of that, I always seem to replace clutches around 120K to 140K, although I've never before owned a brand-new car, so it may just be bad luck with prior owners. So like I said, I replace mine because there's about to be a ~$2,000 retail cost in the year or so after the car hits 100K miles, but it's not as though that's a huge amount of miles for a car nowadays. Just keep driving it and putting the money into savings, and don't get a new one until you've examined the whole situation and think that it makes sense to ditch your current car.

    24. Re:Autos by UserChrisCanter4 · · Score: 1

      Yep, you'll occasionally run into weird situations like that. The best example I've ever seen was the 1996 Chevrolet Impala SS. Chevy took the Caprice body (the old full-sized Chevy that was often used as a police car) and crammed the Camaro Z28 (or was it the Corvette?) engine in it. It was a 300 hp, rear wheel drive, full-sized sedan. People loved them, and they held their value ridiculously well.

      A guy I worked with bought one in 1996, brand new, for $25K. He sold it in 2002, with 102,000 miles on it, for $22K.

    25. Re:Autos by UserChrisCanter4 · · Score: 1

      You're right, people do buy the car they want. I certainly did. However, I don't think most people have A SINGLE CAR that they want when they're looking; usually, they can narrow it down to a few models, and anyone who is reasonably intelligent does allow resale value to become a fact for consideration in that category.

      In my case, for example, I wanted a two door, four cylinder coupe that was closer to the sporty side than the fuel economy one.

      I looked at the Civic, but didn't particularly care for the dash or the seats; the Civic Si was selling for sticker when I was looking, and I don't pay sticker.

      I looked at the VW Rabbit/Golf, but couldn't bring myself to risk the repair problems (The current 2.5L engine is AWFUL).

      I ruled out the domestics and Korean models because of the resale issues and reliability problems on certain models.

      Mitsubishi - reliability problems.

      Nissan, Mazda, Subaru, Toyota - don't sell a two door coupe like what I was looking for.

      So, essentially my choices were Civic, Scion, and VW. The VW would've needed an extended warranty purchased before I'd feel comfortable with it, so that deal was killed. Between the Civic and the Scion, the resale issue was moot, but I liked that the Scion had a much torque-ier engine than the Civic and ultimately settled on the Scion.

      I didn't look at the Domestics here because on those particular models (Focus, Cobalt/Cavalier) the reliability ratings are not as good as I'd want them. If they were, though, resale value would've been an easy tie breaker.

    26. Re:Autos by UserChrisCanter4 · · Score: 1

      Stewbacca is right; this guy is quoting Dave Ramsey, and Dave Ramsey is great for people who have two financed cars and revolving credit card debt. Those people have already proved that they don't think in terms of math. We can only hope that whenever they finally get to the point where they CAN pay cash for the car, that Dave's other messages about investments click and they learn the meaning of the word "leverage."

      To paraphrase the old maxim: "Absolutes are never right."

    27. Re:Autos by CmdrPorno · · Score: 1

      Have you driven a Chrysler lately? It's not an issue of consumer perception--the interior plastic is cheap, and there are missing convenience and safety features. I rented a base model Charger which had XM radio but no other options. It was powered by a 2.7-liter, 190-horsepower V6 and struggled to get up hills. It had more cupholders than airbags, and the ABS and skid control which used to be standard on all Chargers is no longer standard, and mine wasn't fitted with it. It was missing many of the things that make a modern car easier to live with, like covered/lighted vanity mirrors.

      The lease on my current car is up in December, 2008, and I know from this experience that I need not bother considering Chrysler, Dodge, or Jeep vehicles to replace it.

      --
      Sent from my iPhone
    28. Re:Autos by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      and anyone who is reasonably intelligent does allow resale value to become a fact for consideration in that category.
      I couldn't disagree more. Intelligence has nothing to do with this. I bought (and still drive) a 1999 Ford Contour SVT. 8 years on, it's time for a new car and I could care less what my SVT is worth. If the V6 Honda Accord I was looking at at the same time is worth $5000 more, so what? $5000 more now would not be worth 1 cent as compared to how great my car has been, and how soulless and boring my Honda would have been. (Hence my resale value = soulless comment).

      Now if Honda offered a car that was damn near identical to my Contour SVT, something like a speciality team Honda with speciality factory tuning or something, I would have considered the resale between the two. But for those with niche interests like myself, resale value plays no role in our purchasing habits. Nor does that make us any less intelligent.

      And of course, the one HUGE thing people neglect when talking about resale value....a Honda Accord may have thousands of dollars more resale in it, but it also COST thousands of dollars more when it was new.

      If I owned a business that needed cars, this whole conversation would go out the window, and we'd all be driving Corollas and Civics, but alas, this is MY money and MY life, so I'm gonna get a little soul!

    29. Re:Autos by UserChrisCanter4 · · Score: 1

      I haven't driven the charger, but it's not tremendously fair to judge cars based on rentals. Manufacturers often have special trim models that they produce for "Fleet" cars like your rental.

      I don't know if the newest revision Camry has a "CE" model, but as recently as the '02 and '03 models, you could actually buy a Camry without Air conditioning. The "CE" model was missing some other features as well, and it was reasonably common for dealers to order it and install Toyota's aftermarket AC at the dealership in order to offer cheaper models. CEs were intended as fleet vehicles, and I have no doubt that they ended up in many a rental line-up.

      Of course, you're right about not buying a Chrysler; Daimler-Benz's completely ludicrous "merger" with Chrysler produced negative effects for both parties. It's a sad time indeed when Mercedes are readily recognized as having worse reliability than American vehicles.

    30. Re:Autos by tm2b · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, what should really be mandatory in all schools are the concepts of opportunity cost and return on investment. If you can get a better return on your money than a loan costs - the stock market tends to average around 10% per year over time and a decently privately owned business should give you between 10 and 20% ROI - you should take the loan and use the cash to make more money.

      Understanding that key point is the difference between the rich and the poor.

      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    31. Re:Autos by UserChrisCanter4 · · Score: 1

      Ah, but the Accord isn't remotely comparable to the SVT Contour. You're confusing my saying resale value is the only criteria (ridiculous) with using it as a tie-breaker when looking at different classes of cars ("a fact for consideration in that category.")

      In 1999, there wasn't a whole lot out there like the SVT Contour. If I remember correctly Mazda was producing some tweaked version of the Protegé at the time, although I don't think it was the turbocharged Mazdaspeed model yet. There were a scant few 4-dour Integra GSRs produced, so that could have been a possibility. The closest thing might well have been the '99 Maxima SE, which was available with a nice, stiff suspension and manual transmission, but it was much larger and a bit more expensive than the SVT Contour. 1999 was a sad year for people who wanted performance with more than two doors.

      Assuming we could flash forward to, say, 2002, you'd be presented with the same argument. Would you still buy the SVT Contour given that the Impreza WRX, the MazdaSpeed Protegé, and the Sentra SE-R V-Spec were available? You said so in your post: If there was a specialty model available with factory tuning that would hold its value better, you would definitely have considered the resale value.

      And so we're back at square one - soul or no, the resale value is a definite point for consideration in a given category.

    32. Re:Autos by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Aaa.. You have not commited the fundamental crime of repaying your mortgage. I see... That makes you are an oddball, but not a suspect. If you repay it to become truly debt-free you are automatically a suspect and can kiss the idea of having a banking job bye-bye (at least in the UK).

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    33. Re:Autos by maeka · · Score: 1

      Why would someone want to pay off their mortgage?
      That 6.5% interest rate on a mortgage is only effectively ~4% because I can write off my mortgage interest payments against my tax bill - effectively getting a third of it back.
      So every dollar I don't spend paying off my mortgage faster can be directed into the stock market which has, historically, a much higher rate of return than the cost (4%).

    34. Re:Autos by toddestan · · Score: 1

      In our age of "0% financing" incentives, this is just not true.

      Actually, if you pay attention to the ads, it's usually something along the lines of "Get $3000 cash back or 0% APR!" - note the word "or". It's really just a gimmick - if you go for the 0% you don't get the rebate, so you pay more for the car - which is the same as how it's always worked with cash versus financing. Of course, it still may make more sense to get the loan, but as always pay attention to the fine print.

    35. Re:Autos by Wdomburg · · Score: 1

      I look at it another way - brand perception lagging as it does behind reality, used American cars can be a hell of a bargain. Our last vehicle was a Chevrolet Malibu - less than two years old, less than 30k on the odometer, GM certified $1200 under blue blook, $8875 under original MSRP, gave us over three years of service requiring no maintenance or repair aside from oil/filter changes and tire rotation.

      Depending on the type of car, going for a fleet vehicle can be a good bet. When it comes to family-oriented vehicles clockwork regular maintenance and cleanings far outweigh any concerns. When it comes to a 'sporty' vehicle, eh ... I'd have to consider it.

      Warranty is certainly a consideration. Certified vehicles cover at least the powertrain, though (think Ford has the shortest coverage at 6 years/75k miles). General warranties can be extended (on our newest vehicle - a 2006 Mazda5 - it cost only $680 to have it extended to 5 year / 60k miles, which far exceeds the 3 year / 36k mile warranty that would have come with a brand new one).

      I agree that the current pricing does a disservice to the American auto industry though and should act as a cautionary tale, though. It doesn't matter how good a product you put out, selling your product at massive discounts damages the perceived value of the product.

    36. Re:Autos by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Not in the UK. Probably one of the very few countries in the world. This is one of the presents we have from Blair and Co - the removal of the mortgage tax relief. You cannot write off the tax any of the installments. From there on you are effectively overpaying by a third. As a result the effective interest rate here is 10%. As a result it is cost effective to pay this off as early as possible. Unfortunately, it gets you in trouble as far as your credit rating is concerned.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    37. Re:Autos by stewbacca · · Score: 1
      Oh man, nice response! I never thought I'd see the day where a fellow slashdotter actually knew anything about cars! At the time (1999) there were no GSR's. I was told by the dealer that they skipped 1999, but that may not be true in hindsight. That was my first choice. Yes, I still would have bought the SVT in the face of the WRX, Protege and SE-R, but barely (mostly on a stylistic appeal). But I wouldn't have been unhappy with the Protege, for sure. The WRX is a bit too youthful for my tastes, even back then. Now, however, I have too many choices! It doesn't hurt that I'm 8 years on and make career wages now (as opposed to my Army salary back in the day). I think I'm set on the Lexus IS 350!

      I can see it now....5,234 sweaty nerds are simultaneously modding me down for "off-topic"

    38. Re:Autos by Alomex · · Score: 1

      Scrapyards and/or exported to third world countries.

    39. Re:Autos by Alomex · · Score: 1

      No matter how much Consumer Reports et al. say the reliability has improved, and no matter how much the US makers craft intriguing and unique new offerings, their cars' value will continue to tank.

      Reliability has improved but the overall car experience still sucks: underpowered, weak brakes, cheap interiors, cabin noise, improper positioning of beams and other view obstructing surfaces, etc.

      I rent cars every so often and almost never have rented an American car that I wanted to buy. In contrast often I'd like to keep some of the Japanese rentals I've got (the new Civic is slick).

  16. Re:Apple "rebate". by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

    That was sarcasm, ya idiots. I was slyly rubbing it in.

  17. Re:Apple "rebate". by Kadin2048 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Where's the other $100 that they were gyped out of? In Steve Jobs' metaphorical pocket, as he laughs all the way to the bank while fondly recalling certain P.T. Barnum quotes.

    That's the price you pay for being an early adopter. (Or, as I like to call it, "stupid.")

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  18. Enough about the iPhone already by BlueParrot · · Score: 0, Troll

    Really, come on, I think the article informing customers they may want to opt-out of the Verizon upgrade, or maybe the new alpha ATI driver could have used this space. Is there anybody on here who is NOT sick of iPhone articles yet?

  19. 10 million phones in a year? by MacDork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now pundits are saying that Apple is desperate and crazy because it lowers prices

    No... pundits are saying that Apple is desperate and crazy because they aren't even close to making their target of 10 million phones in the first year. If Apple gave us an unlocked phone with an SDK, they could easily make or exceed that goal. It's simple really: Apple decided to focus on a great profit instead of a great product, and ended up with neither.

    1. Re:10 million phones in a year? by bnenning · · Score: 1

      they aren't even close to making their target of 10 million phones in the first year.

      Erm, their goal is to sell 10 million phones in 2008. It's technically true that they "aren't even close" to that, inasmuch as they have currently sold 0 phones in 2008.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
  20. Interference ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    what I want to know is, should I decide to buy an iPhone, will the well-documented Steve Jobs reality-distortion field affect my reception? What about my wireless access point and cordless phones at home?

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    1. Re:Interference ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      That was a joke you dumbass moderators.

      Geez. Lighten up.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  21. "Slow" housing market by Hao+Wu · · Score: 1

    So the "slow" sale of homes is partly a scam to make us think it's a good time to buy...

    --
    I suggest you read Slashdot
    1. Re:"Slow" housing market by KrackHouse · · Score: 0

      You know, there were people on CNBC saying that it was a great time to buy after the NASDAQ had "corrected" 10%. You can argue that homes aren't stocks but I'd argue that when a home triples in value in 5 years for no reason (as it has in much of California) then it faces the same risks as stocks.

      If you buy a home before 2010 you're in for a world of hurt, regardless of what your realtor tells you.

      --
      What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
      http://houndwire.com
    2. Re:"Slow" housing market by ksheff · · Score: 1

      what happens in 2010?

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    3. Re:"Slow" housing market by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      what happens in 2010? We get to find out what happened to HAL 9000, and there's more weird business with those monoliths.
      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  22. Makes sense, but the iPhone's a bad example by jht · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The iPhone's price cut was surprising (way earlier than I expected), but that's the nature of the cellphone/personal electronics business. Always has been. A device comes out at a premium price, and then over the 6-12 months of the device's lifecycle the price drops drastically. By the time the new hotness replaces it not only has the price collapsed, but it's not even a lust object anymore. But we've been going through those cycles ever since the Walkman.

    What's masked it a little here in the US has been the subsidies that cellphone carriers pay to get lock-ins. And they increase the subsidies as the life of the gadget progresses (at least on paper), to reduce the perceived cost more. Remember, once upon a time the Motorola RAZR was the hottest phone on the market. And it cost around $400-$500, even with a contract. And that was just a phone! Now, of course, they're free with contracts, and have been for quite a while.

    Anyhow, I'd say the dependency of the domestic auto market on rebates is a much better bellwether for the state of the "Crazy Eddie Economy" (and I grew up in New York, so I remember those ads), along with the use of incentives in the housing market. Heck, supermarket coupons are part of it, too. When discounts are the norm without any real reason to do so (real costs are always dropping in the electronics business), prices have no real floor, and consumers have no incentive to pay the "real" price, because they know that it's going down. A lot.

    --
    -- Josh Turiel
    "2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
    1. Re:Makes sense, but the iPhone's a bad example by ypps · · Score: 1

      Perhaps Apple realized that the current iPhone is more of an entertainment gadget than a professional device. If it's not considered to be a "professional phone", it will probably not sell enough units at $599.

  23. Problems when Israel asks U.S. foreign aid in Euro by MarkWatson · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Priceless: Israel asks U.S. foreign aid be paid in EUROS, and Secreatry Rice says "We need to place our Israeli obligations at the top of our national priority list. Israel should not suffer any inconvenience due to currency fluctuations":

    http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/3689

    Our economy is screwed - the longer we hyper-accelerate the virtual money printing presses, the worse it will be in the long run.

    I have to ask: how did we get in this financial position?

    From the linked article:

    (Israeli) "Foreign Minister Levni cited the rapidly declining dollar
    and it's disfavor as a world currency as reasons for the request."

  24. It's just profit maximisation by ebcdic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Apple knew there were a bunch of fanboys who would pay almost anything to get an iPhone early, so they gouged them for as much as they would pay. Once they'd all bought iPhones, it made sense to cut prices to attract a different market. It turned out that the fanboys were annoyed enough that Apple decided it was worth giving them partial refunds.

    So nothing surprising, just Apple doing whatever seemed likely to maximise profits. You don't like it? Tough luck. Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.

    1. Re:It's just profit maximisation by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      so they gouged them for as much as they would pay.
      I would have paid more.
    2. Re:It's just profit maximisation by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      It's more than that... these were also Final round Beta Testers in a real world environment (or several hundred thousand of them if you think about it). So by pricing it high they were able to keep the number of users they needed to support down to relatively small number, ramp up both the patch release to fix bugs and manufacturing... and support the smaller number of users more effectively.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  25. it's not that apple won't make money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's that Apple had a good idea, an ok product, an expensive final product and a closed developer and network model which really isn't hitting the numbers that you'd expect if someone like LG had put out a similar styled phone.

    The fact is, if you don't own the intellectual property, being first to market usually sucks.

    With such a restricted sales model Apple will never see but a fraction of the sales potential of the iPhone. Perhaps they will learn with their next release, but thats still probably billions in lost sales. Unfortunately they seem to be slipping back into their old ways and favoring models that lock out free market competition.

    I also don't see any long term use for the iTunes Store since for one, Apple is not really in the business of media distribution, they are just leveraging their advantage as a computer company and platform, which while giving them a short term advantage won't pay off unless they quickly master media distribution. Looking at their recent public insult of NBC, it seems they have a bit to learn. Secondly, I think most news services will eventually go the route of distributing their own media, it's not that expensive or difficult to do and few media companies want to be at the mercy of other media distributors.

    Wouldn't it make vastly more sense for a company who's market focus was media distribution to handle media distribution or handle it in house. Letting your PC maker distribute media for you is just stupid because they have a vested interest in keeping you on their platform. Apple will, if they have to, use that as leverage against competition, so empowering them as a media distribution model is just bad all around, bad for the OS and bad for media distribution.

    Why not have Netflix or blockbuster hosting such a service since they already handle such content and keep the OS makers out of media distribution. If you like the Apple OS you should realize Apple becoming a media distributor is a bad idea because they will leverage their OS against other models and try to lock Apple users in as much as possible or shove Apple technology down everyones throats.

    Netflix, Blockbuster, or YouTube don't have vested interests in your OS choice and already specialize in video distribution. A torrent powered video site, by far, makes the most sense and would do a lot to save the limited US bandwidth. When you want media distribution, you contract a media distributor, not an OS maker. You may as well trust your media distribution to Microsoft.

  26. Deflation by michaelmalak · · Score: 4, Informative
    Is it too much to ask to name the phenomenon rather than describe it?

    And margin-shredding behavior tends to spawn more margin-shredding behavior
    That's called deflation. Deflation is 100x worse the inflation because during deflation the economy stops: nobody's working, nobody's buying, nobody's selling, and everybody's hoarding what little they can -- i.e., a Great Depression.
    1. Re:Deflation by JonathanR · · Score: 1

      I suggest you read up a little on what happened during the Great Depression. Some of the economic policies were absurd. Many millions worth of agri products were destroyed in an effort to keep the prices up hence keep the farmers 'wealthy'. Now there's some sound policy. Destroy production to make the nation wealthy. Hmm... ...it's almost as good as inflating house prices to make the nation wealthy.

    2. Re:Deflation by grumling · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the events leading up to the destruction of that grain... There was a huge run-up on wheat, which caused farmers in the Oklahoma panhandle to over farm the land, since wheat was worth more than gold. When the price of wheat crashed, the farms went bust. Add to that a "drought" and junk science (rain follows the plow) and the whole agribusiness went to hell. And most of it was just rotting next to silos anyway. The few people who know how to work the land turned out OK, but only because the suckers left.

      http://www.reviewsofbooks.com/worst_hard_time/

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    3. Re:Deflation by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 1

      I really doubt deflation is happening. Gas prices are going up and so are food prices. Healthcare prices are still going up. Rents are going up. The value of the dollar against other currencies is plummeting.

      What really happened in Apple is that they had some very rosy preditcions about iphone demand that turned out to be flat out wrong. So mindfull of what happened with the Apple Lisa, they decided to slash prices and move inventory.

  27. Investment = Work by mosb1000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The fed doesn't favor investment over work. What does that even mean? When a company invests in a new technology, that means more work. When a city invests in new infrastructure, it means more work. When farmers plant more crops, it means more work. Investment facilitates work. Without it, people wouldn't have jobs, and nothing would get done. The fed does not "favor investment over work", they favor investment because it leads to work.

    The fed works to mediate the economy so that people with money will continue to invest it. If new investment stops, people lose their jobs. If no one is working, no one is building new houses, no one is growing food. That is a really bad thing.

    1. Re:Investment = Work by WindowlessView · · Score: 1

      The fed doesn't favor investment over work. What does that even mean?

      I think he meant investment over savings. That is, low banking interest rates drive money into more speculative investment markets.

      I don't think either is really true. The Fed tries to balance employment with low inflation. Employment keeps the masses buying crap and low inflation keeps the bond market, where the majority of wealth is parked, stable.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
    2. Re:Investment = Work by mstone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Call it "investment over hoarding", and use "buying gold" as your basis for comparison.

      When people buy gold, they basically stick it under their mattress. They don't use it themselves, and no one else gets any benefit from it either. For all intents and purposes, that gold has been removed from the economy. It doesn't build new factories, buy new machines, or pay anyone's wages. It doesn't even do anything for the person who bought it. It just sits there while the owner waits for the price to go up so they can make a profit selling it to someone else. And then the new buyer will stick it under another mattress.

      Investment, OTOH, creates wealth. The money I invest in a company's stock allows the company to buy factories and machines, pay wages, and make products. And the ratchet of a competitive market means that products tend to provide more value for less money over time. That means every dollar I have gains more buying power, making me wealthier even if I don't have more money per se.

      Case in point: about ten years ago, I bought a 1GB hard drive for $700. These days, a gig of drive costs between 50 and 75 cents. My dollar today buys a thousand times as much drive as it did ten years ago, even though I don't have a thousand times as much money.

      So yeah.. the Fed (and the IRS.. 'expenses' aka: 'investments' are deductible) prefers to see investment over hoarding.

    3. Re:Investment = Work by sufijazz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You do have a valid argument. Investment does lead to more work.

      Jon Stewart's argument was about 2 types of people: those who have regular jobs and "work" and those who are on Wall Street (their work is investment).

      For people who already have work, their savings are in banks. When the Fed cuts interest rates, the return that people who "work" get on their savings goes down. But the stock market goes up (as it did when the rate cut was announced). So the rate cut is good for guys on Wall St and even for people who live on borrowed money (mortgage, credit card debt). But for people who practice fiscal prudence, keep a job and save their hard-earned money in banks, the rate of return on savings goes down. At the same time, the dollar depreciates and there is inflation. So the real worth of savings goes down even further.

      Your point is well taken: If everyone saves and no one invests, that situation is also bad for the economy. In its infinite wisdom, the Fed controls the money supply in the economy. In this instance, they decided to lower rates. But all this, of course, means that interest rates are not determined only by the free market. So to that extent, it is not a free market economy.

      --
      2+2=5 for very large values of 2.
    4. Re:Investment = Work by pthor1231 · · Score: 1

      Keeping all your savings in a bank's savings account doesn't really smack of fiscal prudence to me.

    5. Re:Investment = Work by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      You're right in your assertion that lowering the discount rate devalues currency and savings, but I don't think that really hurts people who practice fiscal prudence. Most people have short term savings in the bank, but their retirement plans and their children's college funds are invested in stocks and bonds. And equity in you house is generally unaffected as well. So for the most part, lowering the rate will have positive effect on everyone concerned.

      It's probably best that the money supply is not totally a "free market". The US economy could not be nearly so large and complex if investors had to contend with unstable money supply and economic conditions. Investors with a lot riding on the market are just too easily spooked by market re-valuations, and the fed basically provides them a kind of insurance against unpredictable market behavior (though not so much that they feel free to invest recklessly without threat of negative repercussions).

      I'd say that any criticism of the FED should be taken with an extra large size grain of salt. This is one branch of the government that has done an excellent job of making everyone's lives better.

    6. Re:Investment = Work by king-manic · · Score: 1


      You do have a valid argument. Investment does lead to more work.

      Jon Stewart's argument was about 2 types of people: those who have regular jobs and "work" and those who are on Wall Street (their work is investment).

      For people who already have work, their savings are in banks. When the Fed cuts interest rates, the return that people who "work" get on their savings goes down. But the stock market goes up (as it did when the rate cut was announced). So the rate cut is good for guys on Wall St and even for people who live on borrowed money (mortgage, credit card debt). But for people who practice fiscal prudence, keep a job and save their hard-earned money in banks, the rate of return on savings goes down. At the same time, the dollar depreciates and there is inflation. So the real worth of savings goes down even further.
      Your point is well taken: If everyone saves and no one invests, that situation is also bad for the economy. In its infinite wisdom, the Fed controls the money supply in the economy. In this instance, they decided to lower rates. But all this, of course, means that interest rates are not determined only by the free market. So to that extent, it is not a free market economy.


      I thought they were making everyone pay for the mistakes of the greedy and inept. After all the lowering of the rate was to prevent the collapse of portions of the mortgage industry. Thus indirectly taxing the people who are financially prudent for those who went for a quick buck and are rapidly seeing it collapse on them.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    7. Re:Investment = Work by JonathanR · · Score: 1

      Case in point: about ten years ago, I bought a 35 sq house $250,000. These days, a 40 sq house between $500,000 and $750,000. Even though I earn 10% more money, my dollar today buys a thousand times as much... um... er... ahhh, scratch that...

      Case in point...

    8. Re:Investment = Work by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      "Buying gold" is not the same as saving in a bank account, however. When you save in a bank account, the bank can use your money to invest (which indeed it does); so in a way, you're indirectly investing.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    9. Re:Investment = Work by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      That means every dollar I have gains more buying power, making me wealthier even if I don't have more money per se.
      You buy the stock or the gold to get the dollar OUT of your hand. Capitalism breeds deflation as wealth is created. If you put 5 dollars in a drawer in 1920 (when it could buy you a suit and breakfast) and 5 dollars of gold and a 5 dollar stock (that exists today), you know that the gold is going to be worth a couple hundred dollars, the stock could be damn near worthless to a couple thou and the 5 dollars is enough to get you breakfast. The dollar (or unit de-jour) loses purchasing power with investment or work. Even in the pure commodity market we see this, so I'm not sure where you're getting your premise. The trick that Greenspan did was keeping the domestic have-nots in a state where they can survive and feeling like they are climbing the economic ladder when most pure economic pressures hinder it. Obviously, IANAE
      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    10. Re:Investment = Work by WindowlessView · · Score: 1

      Investment, OTOH, creates wealth.

      Except that nothing in economics is really so cut and dried, right?

      The gold analogy sounds good as far as it goes. But precious metals are used for various manufacturing purposes in addition to being a value store. Sitting on a natural resource can be viewed as a perfectly good investment e.g. buying marginal oil properties on the cheap and waiting until price the of oil goes up enough to make it worthwhile to extract.

      Stock purchases don't always produce much in the way of societal economic gains despite their common status as investments. Buying shares in a tech company that went public 10 years ago and still isn't producing a dividend is just sitting on a piece of paper waiting for it to gain value. Not terribly different from gold. The company got the money when they issued the stock but subsequent price fluctuations have only incidental bearing on the company (e.g. its valuation helps it borrow money) until it either buys some stock back or reissues more. The vast flow of "investment" money in and out of stock on any given day has only indirect and usually small consequences on the company, jobs, etc.

      And bank savings, as someone noted, don't disappear into a black hole. The bank needs to get the interest it pays from somewhere so they invest the money and pocket the difference between what they make and what they pay.

      Arguably the best investment an American could have made in the last six years is to buy some other currency. They would have made over 50% by buying Euros, a better return than the average 401k has gotten.

      My point is that it is an incredibly complicated world. Really smart and experienced people lose lots of money all the time. Maybe we should be a little less judgmental about people who make very safe investments like bank accounts or CDs. It's entirely possible that is the most rational investment for them.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
    11. Re:Investment = Work by mrlibertarian · · Score: 1

      Investment, OTOH, creates wealth.

      I'm sorry, I don't see much difference between your gold and dollar scenario. When you receive income, there are three things you can do with that income: Spend it on consumption, spend it on investment, or hold it. Think of it like an election with only two candidates: Consumption and Investment. If you don't vote for either candidate, that just means the election will be decided by everyone else's votes. Choosing not to vote doesn't hurt anyone.

      Let's say that you want to buy a stock that is priced in euros. You have been holding on to some form of money for one month, but now you are going to convert that form of money into euros and buy that stock. During that one month, however, holding that money was not "useless", because it provided you with something very valuable: Protection against uncertainty. But, after one month, you decided to "vote" for investment.

      Notice that it doesn't matter if the form of money in the above example is gold or dollars. That's the point I'm trying to make. The consumption-investment ratio and the demand for money are not related. If people increase their demand for money (because they want to 'hoard' it), that will lower prices across the board, since an increased demand for money means people are willing to trade more goods for a single dollar. But the mere fact that people demand more money tells us nothing about how the money that is not held will be spent. Society could easily choose to keep the same consumption-investment ratio. So, "hoarding" money, whether that money is gold or dollars, is never a problem.

  28. No la-la by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    It is not just illegal to "maintain a monopoly". It is also illegal to attempt to corner the market by dumping. Both are "monopolistic practices".

    1. Re:No la-la by jmauro · · Score: 1

      I believe the legal definition of "dumping" covers goods made by overseas companies sold in the United States in order to force domestic companies out of the market. It's perfectly legal for a company to make a product internally and sell it below cost to corner the market, it's not dumping just dumb. I don't know how if it still applies when a US company contracting a foreign one for the work, as in the case of Apple, since the dumping laws were written to protect Southern Textile manufacturers in the 1830s.

    2. Re:No la-la by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I am not so sure that is legal, though I have asked the poster to clarify whether that is what he is asking.

      It is illegal for companies to engage in "monopolistic" or "unfair" business practices in order to corner a market, even domestically. Look into the antitrust laws. That is a form of "market leverage" that can decrease or eliminate competition, which brings Antitrust into play. Of course, if one is only 1 of 100 companies in the market, it probably would not make much difference and the laws likely would not be applicable. But if there are only, say, 4 companies that are in the market in a big way, you would probably be prosecutable.

      For example, Microsoft has been convicted of "monopolistic" business practices, for bundling utilities in Windows and thereby ruining the market in those utilities for third parties. Bundling those products with the OS is a form of "dumping" on the market. Others could not compete because it was considered to be practically "free" when it came with the OS. So the same idea still applies.

  29. Clarification by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    One does not have to be accused of trying to maintain a monopoly. "Dumping" at a loss is ILLEGAL because it is a "monopolistic practice". There are lots of examples. For just one, not many years back we saw certain computer memory manufacturers who were charged with "dumping"... even though none of those companies had a corner on the market. They WERE trying, though... which is the point.

    1. Re:Clarification by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are lots of examples. For just one, not many years back we saw certain computer memory manufacturers who were charged with "dumping"... even though none of those companies had a corner on the market. They WERE trying, though... which is the point. If there are lots of examples, then you need to find another one. The memory dumping issue was NOT about monopoly, it was about unfair trade practices for imported goods. Micron, the only large-scale US memory manufacturer accused the koreans of dumping and the us state department supported Micron as a form of protectionism.

      Come up with a real example of a domestic case of a 'dumping' conviction that did not involve leveraging or maintaining a monopoly market and I'll gladly accede.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  30. Oh please! Stop trying to rationalize the obvious by MacDork · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    The same thing happened with the iPhone. At the beginning they weren't sure if they'd sell 1 or 1 million. They had to guess and price accordingly.

    Uh, no... actually they were banking on selling 10 million. They aren't even close, so the iPhone becomes more like an F22. By your rationale, the price should go up. It's a nice textbook theory, but in the real world where real businesses exist, there are contracts. The price went down, because Apple is desperate to sell the phones it has contracted to buy from asian manufacturers. If they can't, they are hung with a pile of phones and a huge loss.

    Doesn't anyone remember all the talk about how the iPhone was outrageously priced above competing smart phones?

    No, actually, I remember buying a more expensive phone a month before the iPhone was released because the iPhone was locked and guaranteed to never have any third party apps, ever. I saw it coming months ago, made plenty of noise and was told I was wrong. I was told repeatedly by fucktards here on Slashdot that I was not in Apple's target market.

    So ladies, how would you like your crow cooked? You were obviously waaaaay off the mark, and I was right. 100% correct. I told you the iPhone would fail. It did fail. Miserably. Think Cube. And Apple will continue to fail as long as they ship locked phones with no native SDK.

  31. Re:Problems when Israel asks U.S. foreign aid in E by MarkWatson · · Score: 0

    OK, I read the article *after* reading the articles. Mod me down my brothers, mod me down.

    "But Bro, don't taser me"

    Seriously, I assumed the article was about the general USA economy, and copied an email I had mostly just written to my family and friends. Oh well...

    Sorry for the off topic post.

  32. Re:Problems when Israel asks U.S. foreign aid in E by MarkWatson · · Score: 0

    I meant "OK, I read the article *after* writing my post."

  33. And this is Slashdot material why? by LanceUppercut · · Score: 0, Troll

    I can tell you why. Since recent time Slashdot become a target for paid posters who work in an attempt to influence stock prices: so called "pumpers" and "bashers". There's been a chain of anti-Apple articles here recently, which were very obviously work of paid bashers. Articles like that are normally very easy to recognize (as is the case with this one and with the recent ones posted here), which brings the question of why these articles were allowed to make their way to the front page of Slashdot, especially if one takes into account the fact that none of them were even close to being typical Slashdot material. Is someone high in the Slashdot's "chain of command" getting paid for it? Or is the basher's mob responsible for this?

  34. Re:all the hype by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2, Informative
    for all it does its not that good of a PHONE.

    It sounds better than the other two phones I've had -- Siemens SK65 and Nokia 3120. It's a pretty good phone, though it could do with voice dialing if you drive a lot and need to dial whilst driving. Me, I don't drive much, so it's fine.

    -b.

  35. Re:Oh please! Stop trying to rationalize the obvio by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
    And Apple will continue to fail as long as they ship locked phones with no native SDK.

    Locking or not, SDK or not, there are already plenty of 3rd-party applications out for it, and it's only been out for about two months. Installation has become pretty much a point-and-click affair: search for AppTapp Installer. Pick up a 4GB iPhone for $300 or a used one on EBay for $250 or so. Play with it -- you'll like it. It's a lovely piece of hardware with a great UI, and Apple will be forced to open it to third-party developers once everyone realizes what they can do with it!

    -b.

  36. maddox says it best.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i do believe he has summed up my feelings on the matter..
    http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=iphone

  37. Most of those phones by LM741N · · Score: 1

    are being bought in China for eventual use on the Moon.

  38. Re:Oh please! Stop trying to rationalize the obvio by MacDork · · Score: 1

    Apple will be forced to open it to third-party developers once everyone realizes what they can do with it!

    Actually, Apple can/will just flash your firmware via iTunes and you'll be right back to no third party apps after the update. Feel free to participate in the arms race against your device maker. Every commercial developer took a rain check to the little install-a-hack party. Their clients expect supported applications. Without real apps and solutions, an iPhone is useless to me. I'll keep my $300 thank you. I worked too hard to waste it on a pretty paperweight.

  39. Re:Problems when Israel asks U.S. foreign aid in E by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    An off-topic with a double-self-reply ...

    I'd criticize that, but the link depressed me too much.

    I don't think it's the falling dollar per se that bothers me, but the fact that usurers like me aren't getting compensated with higher interest rates :-(

  40. Re:Oh please! Stop trying to rationalize the obvio by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
    Actually, Apple can/will just flash your firmware via iTunes and you'll be right back to no third party apps after the update.

    You have to give permission for flashing. Besides, there'll soon be applications that'll allow loading calendar/contacts/music directly from a network share. This will obviate the need for iTunes bloatware entirely.

    -b.

  41. Federated by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    Anyone old enough to remember those Federated Electronic store commercials? Reminds me of Crazy Eddie.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHNIRik7bUA

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  42. Re:Oh please! Stop trying to rationalize the obvio by confused+one · · Score: 1

    They said they would like to sell 10 million in the first year and a half. I don't think they were actually "banking" on it. They've hit 1 million in less than 3 months and they are pretty happy with that.

    Let's not forget that they are only just now starting to release the product in Europe. They haven't released it in Asia yet.

    I don't think they dropped the price because they weren't moving fast enough. I think the truth is closer to what Apple said, they have an opportunity to push a larger number during the Christmas season if they set the price point lower. They're probably getting some improvements in pricing if they ramp up production. They might still hit the 10 million mark... in North America alone.

  43. Simplest decision Apple probably ever made by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You guys can't possibly be this simple minded about basic economics. Apple was either going to launch the iPod Touch before or after Christmas. If it were going to be after Christmas the iPhone's price would have stayed the same. Once they decided to sell it before Christmas, for whatever reason the iPhone price had to come down. The iPod Touch 8GB had to sell for $299, it was the right price point and the 16GB for $399. Since the 8GB Touch is an iPhone ONLY without the phone part there could only be a $100 difference between the two. A $300 difference people would buy the Touch and keep their free phone. But for only $100 people will pay that in a hart beat. Too only have to carry around one device and also have the best cell phone interface (aka usable) on the planet. This was the simplest decision Apple probably ever made. The decision was already made for them the minute they decided to ship the iPod Touch.

    Econ 101.

    1. Re:Simplest decision Apple probably ever made by dagamer34 · · Score: 1

      Yep. Simplest answer is always best. I don't see why people would have thought that the 8GB iPhone would have sold when the 16GB iPod Touch does just about all the important features the phone has. People would be wondering why they are spending $300 to be locked into a contract! The price HAD to drop as soon as we new the 16GB iPod Touch was going to be sold for $399. It would have made no sense otherwise. Now, if people REALLY want to be mad, it should be that Apple KNEW they were going to drop the price before they launched the iPhone. Maybe it wasn't right at MacWord 07, but they knew long before the Sept 5th event, otherwise that's just bad business.

    2. Re:Simplest decision Apple probably ever made by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you make what the debate should be about. What did Apple know and when did they know it. If they knew all along the Touch was going to ship when it did it was a bad business move. There have been lots of rumors that Apple didn't know if they were going to be able to get enough of the materials to produce both the iPhone and Touch before Christmas. The decision was to launch the Touch after Christmas or late November at the earliest. It was only when they new that the suppliers were able to meet the demand they pushed up the release date. I don't know if any of this is true or not and I don't know if we ever will but it would explain a lot.

  44. Re:Apple "rebate". by Almahtar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Common sense is expensive. I'd say $100 is pretty cheap a price to pay for a lesson, really.

  45. Pricing is nearly 100% made up though by gelfling · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure that's a comfort or not but in either case it shows a huge gap between costs and prices. When Apple or anyone can happily give huge discounts and rebates and coupons then the price of the product has no relation to what it took to made.

    It's like when you buy a used car. You've all been sold the old story that your new car loses 30% of its value blah blah blah. Well I just looked at a 2005 Camry with 51K miles and it cost more than my NEW 2004 Camry, same model. In fact the dealer seemed to be quite proud of the fact that it was only $1800 less than the sticker price of a NEW 2007 Camry. I bet the guy who sold him his 2 year old car got about $10,000 for it if it was in 'excellent' near new condition.

    1. Re:Pricing is nearly 100% made up though by N3Bruce · · Score: 1

      The only way to really make out on a used car transaction is to find buyers before they trade in their car, and offer them a little more than what the dealer will give them. A private deal carries substantial inconveniences and risks, mostly because of the lack of recourse if you find hidden problems, and because you usually have to come up with a substantial amount of cash, and the seller has to maintain tags and insurance on a vehicle that might not immediately sell. This results in a substantial proportion of the potential deals being locked up within the closed world of the car dealerships, where the motto buy low, sell high prevails.

      Another problem is that the "real deals" are rarely prominently advertised. A search of completed Ebay listings for most categories of cars and motorcycles shows that fewer than one in 3 auctions are successful, either the starting bid or reserve price is set so high, that either they attract no bids, or fail to meet the reserve price. Similar trolling goes on on Craigslist, where vehicles are repeatedly listed for well over their real worth. Dealer ads in the papers are much the same. All the time I see 5 year old Accords with 100,000 miles on them being offered for $12,900, while you can buy a brand new one for about $18,000.

      The real deals rarely stay around for long, so you need to be prepared to act when they do. I've picked up a couple good deals on used vehicles through either word of mouth or very local ads.

  46. Visual Voicemail Works On Any Phone... with GC by meehawl · · Score: 1

    That is 4 carries that you have to make Visual Voicemail work on.

    Visual voicemail works fine on any phone with a web browser through Google/Grand Central. I get a voicemail on that system, I can choose to get a call and/or a text, or all the voicemails are listed, visually, on m.grandcentral.com. Doesn't seem too difficult.

    --

    Da Blog
    1. Re:Visual Voicemail Works On Any Phone... with GC by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't seem that difficult for a geek you mean.

      This is exactly what so many of Apple's competitiors don't get. Ease of use is king here. Having to use your web browser to get your freaking voicemail is just insane. The iPhone downloads your voicemails to your phone so you don't even have to go thru the usual song and dance of calling a number and entering your password to hear them.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    2. Re:Visual Voicemail Works On Any Phone... with GC by DavidShor · · Score: 1

      Yes, but Apple could have reprogrammed visual voice mail so that it did not require a specific carrier, and still kept it just as user-friendly.

  47. 800x400 by meehawl · · Score: 1

    lets not go getting all hyped up by the fact that the iPhone has a screen with 4.8% more pixels 36 months later, it's not overly revolutionary.

    Agreed. Toshiba's G900 WM6 phone packs in 800x400 pixels into the same size screen as the iphone. Also, some of the (Korean-only) Samsung touchscreen models have haptic feedback for the touch UI. For $600, sorry, $400, I'd expect a little more.

    --

    Da Blog
  48. Deflation Indeed by meehawl · · Score: 2, Informative

    You certainly don't find many devices with the iPhone's feature set in the $0-$100 after contract price range.

    Really? No GPS, no tethering, no mem card, no IRda, no real bluetooth PAN, no MMS, no OTA pda syncing, no useful push email, no IM, no tactile feedback. I'm having trouble finding some features, can you point them out?

    --

    Da Blog
    1. Re:Deflation Indeed by ConanG · · Score: 1

      Well... for one, an 8GB flash drive. Also, 802.11b/g. Umm, oh yeah, 3.5-inch widescreen multi-touch display.

      Find me a phone with that feature set for $100. A lot of people don't care about pda syncing, irda, tactile feedback, and push email in a phone. Remember, it's a fashion accessory not a business device. IM and a mem card would be nice though.

  49. Re:Apple "rebate". by Bjarke+Roune · · Score: 1

    Well, there is the issue of conspicuous consumption - i.e. carrying around an iPhone shows that you have 600$ to spend on a phone, which sends a signal that you have a lot of money, or you would not be wasting it like that. Now that the iPhone is significantly less expensive, it has lost some of the signal value it used to have, so the people who bought it for the signal are not happy.

    I would agree, though, that one should not expect any kind of expensive electronics to hold its value for very long.

  50. Re:Problems when Israel asks U.S. foreign aid in E by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

    It no longer surprises me that the internet is full of gullible fools who can't tell truth from bullshit. Before you immediately believe anything you read, check the sources. When there are none (per this article) you should check the facts. Hell, just check the comments where the authour says it's BS, in between the paranoid anti-zionist rantings. Quote: "Submitted in the spirit of Greg Bacon's classic Israeli PM vows to "Wipe Iran off the Map"", which of course is another bullshit anti-zionist rant piece under the guise of satire.

  51. $600 to Free by simpl3x · · Score: 1

    Remember the $600 dollar price tag of the Moto Razr when it was first launched? What does one go for now? Free perhaps...

    I don't understand the fuss. Prices drop as production ramps, and development costs are recouped.

    1. Re:$600 to Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Anybody who paid $600 for a frikkin scooter is nuts!

  52. What the heck is going on today? by polyex · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Another non-news worthy story. What exactly is the point of this, companies lower the price on product because they think they are not selling enough and are not meeting sales goals? Wow, please fill is in on some other great insight, oh great and wise masters of the economically obvious. What other revelations will be allowed to discover today for your great book of technology industry insight? That you can use Eclipse to develop Java applications on the Mac? Wow, I had no idea that it was possible and the news is so timely, its only been going on for years. Perhaps we should have a "news" article that Visual Studio makes C# development easy on Windows, or that Linux is an operating system that is PC compatible and could run on your own PC?

  53. I'd still buy iPhone @ $599 if I had it to do over by KH2002 · · Score: 1

    I get $100 back, so the cost for buying early is $100. In return, I got 10 weeks additional use of my iPhone. That's about one coffee per day. Using the iPhone has been worth at least that to me over that time period. Eg all the times I've been able to amuse myself surfing, when I needed to wait... Watching "Meet the Press" free while on the Stairmaster... Google maps that have saved me from getting lost several times... Plus the amusement of having the most famous gadget in the world.

    It was well worth it, and I'd buy it again...

  54. Houses by edcheevy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    If you've been following the real estate market lately (we're patiently waiting it out for a reasonably priced first home), the sales of new homes were ALREADY being significantly discounted in many markets. But they didn't appear that way because developers were including fancy schmancy upgrades as opposed to price drops. So the price of the house/condo stays the same, but the new owner gets upwards of tens of thousands of dollars in extras. Yes, a 25% drop in price will impact the neighborhood values, but I would suspect that the areas where they discounted at 25% are due for a major dose of reality anyway. It's just a difference of keeping the price the same and adding extras vs. dropping the price and (I'm guessing) not offering extras.

    Upset neighbors who bought a month ago? A lot of people buying right now need to buy for some reason or another, so while they're probably upset, they didn't have much of a choice. Anyone who can help it (in the declining markets) is waiting it out.

    In short, in some markets a 25% "fire-sale" might only be a correction to the market value of the home! Yep, we'll keep sitting it out. Note to the vast majority of people: don't count on real estate investments to pay for retirement! Historically, long term gains in the stock market are far better than real estate! Plus it only costs $10 or so to dump a loser and you don't have to deal with a real estate agent! :)

  55. Re:Apple "rebate". by Firehed · · Score: 1

    That's my stand on it, and I paid the $599. It's a lot to spend and I was irritated that the price dropped so much so quickly, but for me it was still worth the original price to have one device that does everything well, rather than two devices that between them have fewer features and one of them is totally worthless (ie, my old Nano plus the piece of shit phone I'd been formerly using).

    --
    How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
  56. Not so easy to unlock the phone by Whuffo · · Score: 1
    There's two competing ideas going around these days. One is the realization that AT&T is kicking back a percentage of the cell service charges to Apple - the other is that it seems to be easy to unlock the IPhone and use it on another carrier.

    There's a little problem with the situation - if you use some tool to unlock a new IPhone and sign it up on T-Mobile or some other GSM carrier then Apple doesn't get that kickback payment each month. You can be sure that the folks at Apple are very aware of this issue and are watching the situation carefully.

    As long as unlocking is a fringe activity then it's probably cheaper to let those few go rather than spend some development dollars working up a "fix". But if IPhone unlocking becomes a mainstream easy-to-buy thing then Apple will shut it down. There's some serious money involved here and Apple isn't going to just let it slip away.

    The wise person should assume that in the near future Apple or AT&T will move to stop the revenue leak. It might be fun to speculate about how they'll do it, but do it they will.

    If you're buying an IPhone with the plan of unlocking it and using it on another carrier - don't be surprised if it stops working; current unlocks are not a long-term solution.

    1. Re:Not so easy to unlock the phone by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      They'll probably use the same system they use on the ipod touch on the next iphone update. That's turning out to be a nightmare to crack... sounds like they've learned the lesson from the first firmware.

  57. Slave wages? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    If $1 will buy everything you need for a day in China, and it takes $50 in the USA, who's getting ripped off?

    You need to think about the nature of money a bit.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Slave wages? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      No, I don't. You do.

      "Everything you need" is relative. If I live in a rundown shack in an unsanitary, overpopulated city, with fresh water only available down the street, and eating beet greens for dinner, for $1, then maybe I am getting "everything I need". But arguably, it is possible to live in similar conditions, in some parts of the U.S. for not much more.

      I have spoken to Chinese immigrants about exactly that. Have you?

  58. Re:Oh please! Stop trying to rationalize the obvio by ksheff · · Score: 1

    It's not even close to the end of 2008 yet either, so why don't we wait a year and see how it pans out before we declare it a failure?

    --
    the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  59. Re:Apple "rebate". by ksheff · · Score: 1

    that's the early adopter fee. I've read that Canadians are paying well over $1000 for unlocked iPhones while people in the US bitch about getting only a $100 rebate.

    --
    the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  60. Re:I'd still buy iPhone @ $599 if I had it to do o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's something inherently cute but also very disturbing about someone who gets ripped off, and then decides to hide the shame by defending the ripp-off, and proclaiming he likes to be ripped off again, any day.

  61. Re:Oh please! Stop trying to rationalize the obvio by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

    Uh, no... actually they were banking on selling 10 million. You are missing some context. Apple's goal is to sell 10 million iPhones world wide by the end of their financial year 2008, that would be end of September 2008. So far they sold one million iPhones in the USA only in 74 days, apparently with a huge increase due to the price drop. At that rate, they would sell at least 6 million in the USA, plus whatever happens in the European and other markets. I'd say that is well within their target.
  62. So this is what all the fuss is about... by pkbarbiedoll · · Score: 1

    Crazy Eddie a la Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/v/4yYGoO5imyY

  63. Cash payment is always cheaper than financing by Amitz+Sekali · · Score: 1

    I can't speak for other countries but in Indonesia, for almost every big transaction (buying car, house, etc), buying in cash is always way cheaper than financing it. 10% discount for cash, compared to 1 year financing, is pretty common.

    --
    If you delay pleasure infinitely, the pleasure will be infinite. (YM)
  64. Well... it IS... by denzacar · · Score: 0

    You give away wads of money and in return you get a "HA-HA! Silly fan boy, we knew we could count on you!" pat on the back and a coupon for three packs of iPod socks. http://www.amazon.com/Apple-M9720G-iPod-Sock-Socks/dp/B0006JMX14

    I wont even go into ramifications of buying 30$ socks for an inanimate music player.

    I dare not think what would happen should MicroSoft or Sony venture such a customer-buggering move.
    Thousands of turds shaped like Zunes mailed in for replacement as defective to MS? (If you are reading this and thinking "Oh, jolly good. Now I'm going to make a brown MS product joke!" - You are too late. MS and I both have beat you to it.)
    PS3s boxes filled with tarantulas and/or roaches shipped to Sony?
    Sony's HQ stoned (bricked?) with bricks with buttons and screen drawn on them with chalk?

    But when Apple does that? Oh noooouuuuu...
    Then it is hailed by fan-boys (fan-bots?) as "Brilliant Marketing Strategy" or "Quality Customer Relations".

    Damn!
    And I just got my karma back to Bad from the last time I spoke my mind about Apple and its cult.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  65. Re:Problems when Israel asks U.S. foreign aid in E by MarkWatson · · Score: 1

    It turns out that the article I linked was a satire. Oh well, still a little interesting :-)

  66. What fire sale prices? by argent · · Score: 1

    The iPhone has a huge margin with or without the price drop. Only taking 30% margin instead of 50% (or whatever the figures are, they're around that order of magnitude) isn't "fire sale" pricing.

  67. Don't forget time. by Eevee · · Score: 1

    $400 x 12 months = $4800 x 4 years = $19200.

    While the math works, it doesn't reflect real life. $400 five years from now isn't the same as $400 right now. Let's say you can get a 5%/year return on your cash. So the first car payment you make, one month from now, isn't really $400 in present value, it's only $398.67. But your final payment of $400, due 48 months from now, is only worth $340.95 in present value. So, when adjusted for present value, you're actualy paying the same as $17,715.53 right now. (Ignoring such things as inflation, taxes, the difference in returns available for short term savings versus longer term, and the such.)

    For period t, we calculate PV = C(t)/(1 + annual rate/(periods per year))^t).

    1. Re:Don't forget time. by grumling · · Score: 1

      That's why 0% financing is such a good deal. If you make the assumption that you will get about a 2-3% increase in your income over the course of the loan, that loan will be cheaper over time.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
  68. Although I agree with you by jflo · · Score: 1

    I agree with you 100 percent on this, however, I don't believe you should have posted this under an iPhone heading, I mean seriously. You must under estimate yoruself, because what you just said deserves to be ont he main page. Just a thought.

    --
    WWPD - What Would Picard Do?
  69. Visual voicemail by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

    I'm kinda wondering what the big deal about visual voicemail is.

    I mean, I get that the feature is great, and I'd love to have it myself. But it seems to me that it'd be pretty easy for any network to offer it to almost ANY phone, or at least a pretty close facsimile to a large majority.

    Phones that can receive audio-video MMS messages have been around for many years. So why not just MMS the recorded voice file directly to the phone, when it's convenient? They already SMS you the notification, why not just send the voice too? Then you can see all your voicemail messages listed individually on your phone, and listen to them at will.

    Technically it's better for the network, as the bandwidth cost is lower than playing the message over a voice call, and they can do it at less-than-realtime data rates too. They can still charge for the service however they like, and many customers would pay for the convenience. They could send extra info in the MMS, maybe even a basic speech-to-text summary (for a fee). They could also email it anywhere, as many VoIP providers do now.

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  70. This author needs to buy a clue by reneg8 · · Score: 1

    The author conflates several very different phenomenon and then tries to draw a conclusion tying it all to his existing bias. It doesn't wash. The iPhone price drop was planned from the beginning, I guarantee you Jobs planned this out late last year before it was ever announced. $399 was a high price for a cell phone, his brilliant answer, make the price even higher! Then when you drop the price back to the what it needed to be in the first place it suddenly looks like a bargain. AND you get a TON of free publicity for the product again. The guy is a frigging marketing genius, and/or has a number of them working for them. The 'deal of the century' on houses is another thing altogether. That is a company doing something very smart; getting their money back out of houses they have already built, trading away any potential profit for guaranteed not being in the hole. Why? Because the bottom is about to drop out of those markets. Markets like FL aren't anywhere near the bottom yet.

  71. Difficulty Is Relative by meehawl · · Score: 1

    Doesn't seem that difficult for a geek you mean.

    If by "difficult", you mean bookmarking "http://m.grandcentral.com" and simply opening a single page to see all your voicemails immediately, or alternatively by reading your SMS message list where each voicemail generates a simple text message with the caller ID details and a single click will play each message then, yes, that seems quite difficult... if you're retarded.

    I mean, it takes fully *two* clicks to initialise and play any single text message. My god, when will the horrors of obscure UIs end? Tell me again how many hand waves it takes to send an email to a specific person under Apple's implementation of a touch UI on the iphone?

    --

    Da Blog
  72. Freaking Insane by meehawl · · Score: 1

    Having to use your web browser to get your freaking voicemail is just insane.

    Almost as insane as claiming that the browser should constitute the entirety of a handheld's "SDK" and implement all of its applications?

    I was thinking about how many clicks it took for me to get voicemail, and I realised that 2 was one too many. So I quickly recorded a voice tag ("Visual!"), assigned it to a button and made it open m.grandcentral.com. So now I just push the assigned button to activate my phone's voice interface, say "Visual", and away it goes. Get back to me when Apple implements a voice interface. If you're ever going to use your handheld properly in multiple environments, you're going to need to have a variety of interfaces available. When you are driving, you most certainly do not want to be futzing around with an exclusively visual screen that takes many wipes to accomplish anything. Likewise, if you are in a meeting, you may want to be surreptitious about using your device and so sight-unseen button pushing is key here. But like you, when I can use my screen, I like being able to do everything with just the touch interface, even though it often takes longer to accomplish many tasks than a more goal-directed, macro approach.

    --

    Da Blog
  73. Internet iPhone scolds by KH2002 · · Score: 1
    There's something disturbing about someone who thinks that just because *they* would feel "ripped off," everyone else should feel the same way.

    $10/week extra for all the utility & fun I got from having the iPhone in the first 10 weeks was well worth it -- *to me*. But this tends to upset the Internet scolds who are invested in the "early iPhone buyers got ripped off" meme.

  74. RDF alert by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    You really drank the iKoolaid!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:RDF alert by russellh · · Score: 1

      You really drank the iKoolaid!
      Did anyone suggest that the iPhone would be anything but a high-end, high-priced gadget? Has Apple ever sold to the lowest common denominator? have they ever competed on price?
      --
      must... stay... awake...
  75. bogus comparison by m2943 · · Score: 1

    That's a bogus comparison. First of all, 3G coverage may be poor where they are. Second, Palm's Blazer browser on PalmOS is 5 year old technology and dog slow; it doesn't get higher speed than that even over WiFi. Third, the Palm is $100 cheaper than the iPhone. Overall, I'd still rather have the 3G Palm than the iPhone (but neither is really great).

    I have both an EDGE and a 3G phone... trust me, it's a world of difference. Once Apple ships a 3G iPhone, you Apple fanboys will make fun of everybody who doesn't have 3G.

  76. Clarify, please by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    You are right that it was about import goods, but you are wrong about it not being "about monopoly". As you mentioned yourself, there was only one U.S. memory manufacturer.

    Now, if you want to argue that the law ONLY pertains to imported goods, rather than domestic "monopolistic/unfair business practices", that is another matter. Please say so. Then we might be debating something meaningful.

    1. Re:Clarify, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right that it was about import goods, but you are wrong about it not being "about monopoly". As you mentioned yourself, there was only one U.S. memory manufacturer. WTF? Micron does not have a monopoly in memory chips nor were they even trying to corner one or even conducting "monopolistic practices" they were the aggrieved party. You are totally incoherent.
    2. Re:Clarify, please by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Your misunderstanding of my statements does not make me incoherent.

      Would you give a "monopoly" (or more precisely, oligopoly) to Pacific Island memory makers? And leave the U.S. out of it entirely? Or keep us in the competition, despite unfair practices?

      One need not be a "monopoly" in order to engage in "monopolistic" business practices. Microsoft has been convicted of that very thing (several times, actually), even though they are not a "monopoly" in the conventional sense.

      But that was not my main point anyway. What are we arguing about here? Whether "dumping" applies ONLY to imports? Or whether it is a "monopolistic" practice? You have not addressed that question.

  77. Hold you ears, mod me down... by MacDork · · Score: 1

    ... and put your heads in the sand. As a true Apple fan, I don't hesitate to point out when they F' it up big time.

    I don't think they were actually "banking" on it.

    You don't think? You must not have read much about it then. To anyone who has, they were clearly banking on it. A month into it they were renegotiating contracts attempting to cut production in half. A month after that, they dropped the price 33%. The "revolutionary new product" has been a dud.

    Let's not forget that they are only just now starting to release the product in Europe. They haven't released it in Asia yet.

    No shit!?! Maybe they could sell more phones if they could somehow sell their iPhones directly to customers instead of pairing it with service plans from various vendors. Maybe if the iPhone were somehow unbound from that relationship, unlocked if you will... Man!!! Confused one, that is an AWESOME idea!!! You should tell Apple about that!

    ...

    Friday's close of 144.15 is just off AAPL's all time high. AAPL crashed hard on their last high profile failure. I'm not expecting a repeat performance, but it isn't going to be pretty. We'll see who's flamebait in another month, won't we?

  78. 8GB Locked Out by meehawl · · Score: 1

    an 8GB flash drive

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but apple's phone without serious hacking doesn't support USB Mass Storage and doesn't allow owners to access that 8GB as storage, right? So, what good it is to me? By comparison, my Mogul (HTC Hermes) cost around $120 after activation rebates, has WiFi b/g, bluetooth, mem slot with support for *multiple* 8GB cards, wide touchscreen, slide out tactile kb, widescreen, 3/1 Mbps up/down, browser with flash and streaming video, IMs, Java, IRda, voice interface, and push email. Also, I can run, as an option, a "touch" interface that is pretty, and looks cool, but basically is less efficient for complex tasks than a multi-modal, goal/macro interface.

    I'm still not entirely sure why you are dead set on comparing the iphone, a $600/$400 phone, with a $100 phone. If anything, you are making the iphone seem overpriced for what you get, or the $100 phones underpriced. You should compare the iphone with high-end phones such as the LG Prada, the Tosh G900, the HTC Kaiser or Athena, or the Nokia N95. Against those, it's a little anemic and aggressively hostile to owner customisation.

    --

    Da Blog
    1. Re:8GB Locked Out by ConanG · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'm not exactly defending the iPhone. I don't have one, nor do I plan to own one. You just asked a question and I was answering it. You asked what features it has that a sub-$100 phone doesn't have. I listed a few, that's all. I don't think any sub-$100 phones have any of those features, but as you pointed out it's a stupid comparison anyway.

  79. Back it up. by MacDork · · Score: 1

    Erm, their goal is to sell 10 million phones in 2008.

    Erm, got any links to back that up? The very first sentence in the article I linked to reads:

    Apple isn't concerned that sticker shock will take a bite out of the 10 million iPhones the company expects to sell in the device's first year

    That sounds an awful lot like one year from launch date to me. I want Apple to do well, but they have to drop their boneheaded position on a native SDK and carrier locked phones. Otherwise, it's doomed to fail. It is failing, I'm telling you why it's failing, and you're still in denial. Being in denial brings no change in policy, ensuring complete and total failure.

    You must want Apple to fail. That's all I can conclude. Do you think no SDK, and therefore no apps, is a good thing? Do you think crippled phones are better than fully functional phones? Do you really think anyone is going to happily buy a ringtone when they already own the exact same song on their iPhone? Only if they're a fucking crackhead. These are EXTREMELY retarded positions for Apple to take. Most people aren't stupid. Want to sell phones to most people? Stop treating them like they're stupid.

    You want to defend Apple? Fine. Defend Apple. Why should I pay extra for a ringtone on the iPhone when a free RAZR can use any MP3 as a ringtone? Why are there are no games for the iPhone while there are thousands of java games for every other phone on the market? Why can't I send MMS messages on an iPhone? Why can't I capture video on an iPhone? Why can't I share my Vcard via bluetooth on an iPhone? Go ahead. I'm all ears.

    1. Re:Back it up. by Shenkerian · · Score: 1

      "Erm," how about reading the headline of the article you're quoting? "Apple's 10 million iPhone sales target by end of 2008 would surpass most other smart phone sales"

      Still don't believe me? Why not go straight to the horse's mouth: "1% market share in 2008, 10 million units and we'll go from there."

      Here's a pretty diagram for you even.

      --
      You tell me how "whilst" differs from "while," and I'll stop calling you a pretentious jackass.
  80. I decided not to get one until it has GPS and 3G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw Job's introduction in the UK, he stated the 3G chip set consumed too
    much power. Already, that iPhone power limitations are frustrating my
    friends who already has it.

    I also really want GPS... which is still talked about in the blogs,
    but (sigh) doesn't seem to be in the immediate future.

    Oh well - I'm willing to wait a while longer, but keeping that
    iPhone fed is going to be my biggest problem...

  81. You really need more data by bgspence · · Score: 1

    No one outside of a small circle in Apple and ATT know what the real deal is. Apple is getting something for the phone and something each month for the service. ATT signed up using a spreadsheet with one set of assumptions. Some suggest Apple gets $200 per phone plus a bit of the monthly service charge. ATT's calculations could never guess Apple would change the equation this big so soon. It's not Apple's normal thing to slash prices. ATT will sell more services, but Apple probably gets a huge iPhone subsidy. I bet Apple took ATT to the cleaners with the deal.

  82. They got past the blockade? by Iowan41 · · Score: 1

    Uhoh, Crazy Eddie is on the loose? Humanity is doomed.

  83. Price Cut did not lead to 1 millionth iPhone! by LKM · · Score: 1

    "The tactic often works in the short term. The hype over insanely low prices functions as a form of free advertising, and the lower prices tend to attract buyers. Apple announced on Sept. 10 that it had sold its 1 millionth iPhone."

    Okay, that is the stupidest thing I've read all week. Including last week, since it's monday. Apple announced that it had sold its millionth iPhone two days after the price cut. How in the world could anyone possibly think that they sold the millionth iPhone because of the price cut?

  84. I don't want more features,I want working features by LKM · · Score: 1

    However, I already have a browser, video player, music player, camera, video recorder, GPS navigation, Bluetooth, voice dictation, QWERTY keyboard, removable/expandable memory (and battery), 3G tethering, etc. on my phone. In order for a phone to suit me better than the one I already have, it has to have more of the features I'm interested in, not fewer.

    That's an interesting way to put it, and I've never seen anyone saying it quite as open as this. You don't want a better phone; you just want one with more features. That's why the iPhone is not for you and will never be. I, however, will gladly trade some of my P990i's features for a bit more stability and usability.

    Which is why I'll switch to an iPhone. I don't want more features (unless you count usability and reliability as a feature). I want the ones I have to work, and work well.

  85. Which Raises the Interesting Question... by ronadams · · Score: 1

    Is there a good possibility of iPhones for other US GSM networks in the very near future?

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
  86. Stop saying conditioned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If one more of you idiots makes these half-assed "conditioning" statements again, I will go completely fucking nuts. Jesus Christ, fire sales? Products that keep getting new features so the price stays up? At least you didn't make some kind of police-state, or privacy reference.
    It's, that's neat and all that you've recognized a trend, but it's not conditioning in that context unless you can prove someone is deliberately trying to train or accustom us. Stop using the word because you think the concept sounds cool.

    Also, what the FUCK does the F22 have to do with anything? Aircraft development & production & sales are TOTALY different than CE.

  87. Re:I don't want more features,I want working featu by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

    That's an interesting way to put it, and I've never seen anyone saying it quite as open as this. You don't want a better phone; you just want one with more features. That's why the iPhone is not for you and will never be. I, however, will gladly trade some of my P990i's features for a bit more stability and usability. Well, I count being "better" as a feature in itself. ;)

    I just don't see how the iPhone actually is better. It's shinier, yes, but my SCH-U740 is stable and usable already. I suppose it could stand to take one less button press to find a contact, but that's what voice dialing is for. The music player is ugly and makes poor use of screen space, but I already have an iPod, and I'm not about to replace it with a phone that can only hold 1/3 of my music. Other than that, all the glitz in the iPhone's interface just seems like fixing what isn't broken.
    --
    Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
  88. Fair Dinkum by meehawl · · Score: 1

    I listed a few

    That's fair enough. I do think that crowing, today, about the iphone having 8GB of memory is a little silly, when next year 8GB of flash will probably cost around $40 and people with current phones *and* memory slots can ust buy a card and pop it in.

    Memory cards really extend the useful life of a handheld. I have an old Archos Ondio, a 2002-era flash player that is useful because it runhs the OSS Rockbox and is great for recording. Anyway, when it was released it came with a whopping 128MB of RAM. It now happily supports 4GB via its built-in memory slot and I still get useful work out of it. I can't remember if Apple had Nanos out then, but with their lack of a slot, people are basically stuck with whatever they get and, to upgrade, they need to junk their current and re-buy. Which is, of course, exactly what Apple wants.

    --

    Da Blog
  89. iPhone: The billion dollar bust. by MacDork · · Score: 1

    If you want to be a rules Nazi, Apple's '08 starts in about a week. Besides, I've been over this until I'm blue in the face. I'm not typing it again. This is established fact. They are averaging about 10K a day @ $400. They were shooting for about 27K a day @ $600 a pop. That's a difference in revenue of $4 Million vs $16 Million... They're coming up $12 Million short per day. That's one billion dollars this quarter. Let's put that into perspective... last year's Q4 revenues were 4.84 Billion. They've dumped all their advertising, effort, and energy into the iPhone and its going to be a billion dollar bust. Why? Because it's locked, with no SDK. That's why. [And don't even start with the sales will pick up on the long end of the year BS. Why do you think they dropped the price and cut production? Sales were not and are not brisk. Period. It's another cube because of their boneheaded position on locking and SDKs.]

    Now, since you decided to jump into the fray, care to answer my questions?? Just pretend you're an Apple store employee selling one to someone who might actually want to buy it... I'll copy and paste 'em for ya: Why do I have to pay extra for a ringtone on the iPhone when a free RAZR can use any MP3 as a ringtone? Why are there are no games for the iPhone while there are thousands of java games for every other phone on the market? Why can't I send MMS messages on an iPhone? Why can't I capture video on an iPhone? Why can't I share my Vcard via bluetooth on an iPhone?

    1. Re:iPhone: The billion dollar bust. by Shenkerian · · Score: 1

      Calm down. I said nothing about Apple's business model, only that your citation of the article directly contradicted its headline. That's not being "a rules Nazi" - it's being literate. It's okay to admit a mistake.

      --
      You tell me how "whilst" differs from "while," and I'll stop calling you a pretentious jackass.
  90. Re:I don't want more features,I want working featu by LKM · · Score: 1

    That's an interesting way to put it, and I've never seen anyone saying it quite as open as this. You don't want a better phone; you just want one with more features. That's why the iPhone is not for you and will never be. I, however, will gladly trade some of my P990i's features for a bit more stability and usability. Well, I count being "better" as a feature in itself. ;)

    Yeah, me too :-)

    I just don't see how the iPhone actually is better. It's shinier, yes, but my SCH-U740 is stable and usable already. I suppose it could stand to take one less button press to find a contact, but that's what voice dialing is for. The music player is ugly and makes poor use of screen space, but I already have an iPod, and I'm not about to replace it with a phone that can only hold 1/3 of my music. Other than that, all the glitz in the iPhone's interface just seems like fixing what isn't broken.

    Well, it's broken for me. What I want from a phone is:

    • Good SMS capabilities
    • An easy way to enter appointments
    • A way to read html pages
    • A big screen

    That's not a lot, but all the phones that seem to provide this and that I own (I've owned or currently own a P800, a Treo 650 and a P990i) are crap. The Treo is a pretty nice and usable phone, but it does no multithreading. So if I read something in the browser and then reply to an SMS, the browser forgets where on the page I was. The Symbian phones have multithreading, but they crash. A lot. And when they do, they insult me by telling me that "the phone had to be restarted to improve performance," as if I was too stupid to figure out that it crashed. Furthermore, entering a new appointment takes 14 steps on my P990i. Did anyone actually try using these things? Finally, the P990i is fat. If I put it in my trousers' pocket, it looks like... well, I don't want to go into details.

    What Apple does really, really well is:

    • Good form factor. The iPhone is thin, so I can put it in my pocket without looking like a freak.
    • Usability. The people at Apple obviously put a lot of thought into what features to present when, and how to access the different parts of the phone.

    I have no idea about stability, but so far, I haven't heard any complaints other than Safari crashing from time to time.

    Also, it has the neat threaded display of SMS messages, which is a huge plus for how I use SMS.

    So I think Apple really nailed what I want from a cell phone.

  91. Legitimate Comparison by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

    I have a Treo 700P. Its really that slow in a good area. Its thr browser, Blazer sucks. In any case lack of 3G is a non-event. I'm keeping my first gen iPhone until 2010 at the least.

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  92. doesnt matter by TT076678+Priya · · Score: 1

    The price aint an issue here but its how good the Iphone is. If it aint good enough, the productivity aint going to be good as what people expect. No matter how much the price shoots up, there are gona be people who buys it without knowing the flaw in it.